A systematic approach to coin flip
First, let me state that the main problem of the coin-flip is not the win-rate. Most people get salty when they lose with blue coin, and complain about that. And then CDPR says the win-rate difference is not that high, and that it exists in other games as well. Which is right, but it is completely besides the point. The main problem with the coin-flip is that is stifles design and meta diversity.
An example (which is also kind of a suggestion): I always thought that Gwent should take more advantage of one of its unique features: having multiple turns. So I was thinking of how cool and strategic it would be to have cards, for example, that create boons or hazards, but do so next turns. But then it hit me: those cards would open up a lot of strategic space and different game-play, but as it is they are completely unplayable and hard to design. Because while they would potentially be very strong if you have red coin, they would be game-losing in the blue side. The fact is that the game will never be able to have these kind of low-tempo designs be playable while the coin-flip is not solved. (Nor really high tempo plays, like Henselt, that last season I played about 10 games at around 4200, and I literally had 100% win-rate in red side, and 0% win-rate in blue side.)
So the point of this thread is to find a solution to the coin-flip. But as a mathematician, I want to do it systematically. So first I will propose some properties we would like for a coin-flip solution to have, and then we can brain storm a solution that fits those properties. (And/or propose other properties, or remove some of mine.) To do so, I will talk about cases, in-game situations. In those, players going second will be called R (for Red coin), and players going first B (for Blue coin).
Thaler case: B plays a unit. R plays Thaler. B has no spy: he can either: play another unit, R passes, and he wins round with -2 cards; or he can pass, and with Dun banner (and often without), R can just reach him with one card, winning the round -0 cards.
Property 1 (Thaler case): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which B has the option to win round -1 cards, or lose it +1 cards.
Tempo case: This case has two parts. 1) B plays a 7 strength unit. R plays a 20 strength unit. B plays a 7 strength unit. R can then pass and lose round +2 cards. 2) B plays a 20 points unit. R plays a 5 strength unit. If B passes, R can probably beat him with one card and win -1. If he plays another card, R can pass and lose +1 card.
Property 2 (Tempo): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which the results of part 1 and part 2 would be (more) similar.
Dry pass case: B passes. R plays a card and wins -1 card, or doesn't and tie +0 cards.
Property 3 (Dry pass): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which R can win -1 card. (And perhaps we would like R to be able to choose to draw as well.) Note: while the current case already satisfies this property, I made sure to include it because for many of the proposed solutions (and a lot of those I considered myself), we would actually lose this.
Note that most of current proposals that involve some kind of point compensation don't seem to help much. They certainly don't satisfy property 1, but they do alleviate property 2 by giving B tempo, so that he can do low tempo plays and remain ahead. The moment this tempo is lost, however, we are back to square one. And while you could probably always find a magical number that would equalize (average) win-rate between B and R, as I said in the beginning, that is not the real problem!
Solution proposal: B gets a token: if you win first round, you can draw a card. (It is very simple to understand, and elegant.) Let's see how it fits Properties 1-3.
Property 1: B plays a unit. R plays Thaler. B has no spy: he can either: play another unit, R passes, B draws a card, and wins -1 card; or he can pass, R wins +0 cards. (Seems much less broken than now.)
Property 2: 1) B plays a 7 strength unit. R plays a 20 strength unit. B plays a 7 strength unit. If R passes, B draws a card, and wins -1 card. If he doesn't pass and B pass, R wins +0 cards. 2) B plays a 20 points unit. R plays a 5 strength unit. If B passes, R can win -1 card. If B doesn't pass and R passes, B wins +0 cards. (Seems much more balanced.)
Property 3: This one is easy. Either R wins or draws. Either way, B doesn't draw a card.
So what do you guys think of this? I am afraid that it makes R1 very important; but honestly, it already is. And adding cards that affect other turns, the fact that people don't want to pass early allows you to create a lot of value for the future, so you compensate the round loss if you have low tempo deck.
First, let me state that the main problem of the coin-flip is not the win-rate. Most people get salty when they lose with blue coin, and complain about that. And then CDPR says the win-rate difference is not that high, and that it exists in other games as well. Which is right, but it is completely besides the point. The main problem with the coin-flip is that is stifles design and meta diversity.
An example (which is also kind of a suggestion): I always thought that Gwent should take more advantage of one of its unique features: having multiple turns. So I was thinking of how cool and strategic it would be to have cards, for example, that create boons or hazards, but do so next turns. But then it hit me: those cards would open up a lot of strategic space and different game-play, but as it is they are completely unplayable and hard to design. Because while they would potentially be very strong if you have red coin, they would be game-losing in the blue side. The fact is that the game will never be able to have these kind of low-tempo designs be playable while the coin-flip is not solved. (Nor really high tempo plays, like Henselt, that last season I played about 10 games at around 4200, and I literally had 100% win-rate in red side, and 0% win-rate in blue side.)
So the point of this thread is to find a solution to the coin-flip. But as a mathematician, I want to do it systematically. So first I will propose some properties we would like for a coin-flip solution to have, and then we can brain storm a solution that fits those properties. (And/or propose other properties, or remove some of mine.) To do so, I will talk about cases, in-game situations. In those, players going second will be called R (for Red coin), and players going first B (for Blue coin).
Thaler case: B plays a unit. R plays Thaler. B has no spy: he can either: play another unit, R passes, and he wins round with -2 cards; or he can pass, and with Dun banner (and often without), R can just reach him with one card, winning the round -0 cards.
Property 1 (Thaler case): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which B has the option to win round -1 cards, or lose it +1 cards.
Tempo case: This case has two parts. 1) B plays a 7 strength unit. R plays a 20 strength unit. B plays a 7 strength unit. R can then pass and lose round +2 cards. 2) B plays a 20 points unit. R plays a 5 strength unit. If B passes, R can probably beat him with one card and win -1. If he plays another card, R can pass and lose +1 card.
Property 2 (Tempo): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which the results of part 1 and part 2 would be (more) similar.
Dry pass case: B passes. R plays a card and wins -1 card, or doesn't and tie +0 cards.
Property 3 (Dry pass): We would want a solution to coin-flip in which R can win -1 card. (And perhaps we would like R to be able to choose to draw as well.) Note: while the current case already satisfies this property, I made sure to include it because for many of the proposed solutions (and a lot of those I considered myself), we would actually lose this.
Note that most of current proposals that involve some kind of point compensation don't seem to help much. They certainly don't satisfy property 1, but they do alleviate property 2 by giving B tempo, so that he can do low tempo plays and remain ahead. The moment this tempo is lost, however, we are back to square one. And while you could probably always find a magical number that would equalize (average) win-rate between B and R, as I said in the beginning, that is not the real problem!
Solution proposal: B gets a token: if you win first round, you can draw a card. (It is very simple to understand, and elegant.) Let's see how it fits Properties 1-3.
Property 1: B plays a unit. R plays Thaler. B has no spy: he can either: play another unit, R passes, B draws a card, and wins -1 card; or he can pass, R wins +0 cards. (Seems much less broken than now.)
Property 2: 1) B plays a 7 strength unit. R plays a 20 strength unit. B plays a 7 strength unit. If R passes, B draws a card, and wins -1 card. If he doesn't pass and B pass, R wins +0 cards. 2) B plays a 20 points unit. R plays a 5 strength unit. If B passes, R can win -1 card. If B doesn't pass and R passes, B wins +0 cards. (Seems much more balanced.)
Property 3: This one is easy. Either R wins or draws. Either way, B doesn't draw a card.
So what do you guys think of this? I am afraid that it makes R1 very important; but honestly, it already is. And adding cards that affect other turns, the fact that people don't want to pass early allows you to create a lot of value for the future, so you compensate the round loss if you have low tempo deck.
Last edited:
