CDPR, just make these 5 changes and all your problems will be solved...

[TrompeLaMort]

CDPR, just make these 5 changes and all your problems will be solved...

...or your money back, guaranteed

I know CDPR developers are quite good at what they do, and I am a random internet guy, but I might just be Takashi Tokita (you can't know for sure). So please try these 5 changes (5 simple changes!) in internal testing, and you will see that all the problems with the game will be solved. I will ask for no compensation.

Instead of making several threads to discuss each suggestion, I put them all together because they are meant to work together.

1. Coin-flip solution: Yield! If you go first, you get a Yield card/token. It states: Draw a card and lose the round. Banish self at the end of first round.

So imagine you are the sad lad that goes first. You play greatswords, your opponent Brouver + Barclays + Cleaver. Now you are 16 points behind. You look around your hand, and you only have longships, greatswords, wild boars... nothing really 19 points or more. Today, you would press ESC and try your APM reaching for the concede button. But not anymore! Just yield the round and go to the next 1 card up.

OK, so now I don't have to bite my nails every time I get blue coin. But it doesn't make both sides that even, and it doesn't solve spy abuse. Let's continue...

2. Removing dry-pass. I already created a topic only for this a couple of weeks ago, but dry-passing goes against everything the game is about. It gives a huge benefit (1 CA) for a way too little effort (pressing space), and it creates hundreds of different issues, the deepest of them being, of course, carry-over. (Which is the second most broken mechanic in the game.)

So now, who wins 1 card down has to work for the CA back! Suddenly surrendering the first round is not so bad as it used to be. Maybe people won't even mind going first anymore.

Anyway, speaking of the second most broken mechanic in the game...

3. CA spies. If there is one thing this year of beta taught us, is that CA is the single strongest thing in this game. It is so strong it is even hard to translate it into points: and that is why unconditional CA can't exist in Gwent. I was always a defender of CA spies, because they are part of what defines Gwent, and I still don't want to completely remove them, as more and more people are asking for. But they need to become conditional. I think the best design for them is something like: "13 points spy. If you are ahead on points or tied (this could be a keyword), draw a card. (NOTE: I mean tier or ahead on points after the spy is played.) If you are behind, draw a unit, boost it by 10 and play it. (This effect might vary by faction, and it is obviously not the important part of the card.)"

4. The game has a tough dichotomy: either you make cards all too even in power, and then CA becomes oppressive. (Imagine if all cards varied from 12 bronzes to 16 point golds. Then even with perfect draw against worst draw, if you had less than 4 cards and 1 CA less, you were doomed.) But if you let some combos and synergies hit really high power, then everyone leaves them to play last, to lower the chance of counterplay. (How many times do you see people playing Nova before last play?) And Gwent is unique in this aspect, because it is the only card game that has a last play.

Therefore, CDPR needs to introduce a new mechanic: (say) backup n. Backup n means that the deploy effect triggers only if you have n or more cards in hand. To see it in work, let's "redesign" Ciri Nova.

Ciri: Nova:
1 strength. Backup 2: Strengthen to 25 if your starting deck etc.

That means that now you can only play Ciri: Nova if you have at least 2 other cards in hand. No more Ciri nova being the last play like we are used to see every other game in the ladder, and read people raging about it every other thread on Reddit. No more last say defining who wins the game! (And so, no need to "nerf" it to 22.) All cards/combos that provide huge swings (and the game needs more of them!) should have backup. Let's try that again:

Kambi
1 strength. Spying. Backup 3: Create a 15 strength Hemdall on the other side of the board.

Now Kambi is playable again! With a cow, you can go even after using Kambi. You can use it to clear the board, which is a possibility all card games offer, and Gwent really could use it. And now we don't have to worry about degenerate CA auto-win plays.

5. Well, actually there are only four main proposals. But now that coin-flip, carry-over, and finishers are fixed, CDPR could unwind a lot of the band-aids they put in the game to deal with those. No need to keep Ciri unplayable anymore, no need to really hinder resilient units, or to gut almost every single combo in this game. Bring back Kambi! (As above.) Bring back Hag! Make Adrenaline potion viable again! All these interesting cards that made the game fun and were removed because of the underlying problems in the game design, they can come back to the game. And much more!

 

[4RM3D]

5 simple changes

"simple"

2. Removing dry-pass.

Still not a fan of this idea and the consequences are far bigger than you will ever be able to predict.

3. CA spies.

That one is actually easy. Indeed, just remove them altogether.

4. CDPR needs to introduce a new mechanic: (say) backup n.

Interesting idea. I wouldn't say it solves things, per se, but it can be used to balance certain cards, nonetheless.

1. Coin-flip solution: Yield! If you go first, you get a Yield card/token. It states: Draw a card and lose the round. Banish self at the end of first round.

No coin flip solution is going to be simple because you have to think about every possible scenario. Anyhow, just to clarify, when you said "yield", it basically means giving up, even if you had more strength than the opponent?

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Simple was a bit sarcastic haha. But although the post was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I stand by what I said: try out these changes, and things will be more fun.

No coin flip solution is going to be simple because you have to think about every possible scenario. Anyhow, just to clarify, when you said "yield", it basically means giving up, even if you had more strength than the opponent?

Yes, yielding ends the round immediately, and you lost. It can be like a token in the first player's hand (exactly like coin in HS), but "hand-locked". (It can't be swapped, discarded, etc.) But this solution is simple. It is elegant. It has no drawbacks. (You don't have to worry about blue side becoming too strong, not even in lower ranks.) It doesn't make both sides exactly even in win-rates, etc., but I start to wonder if it is not expecting too much of a coin-flip solution.

This solution would eliminate all the bad feeling about coin-flip, that is to feel "trapped in the round". (Which is something you never feel playing second.) Now you have a get out of jail card. You don't have to dry-pass round 1 anymore because otherwise you might never be able to pass 1 up again.

That means you "could" abuse spies going first (spy, card, yield), but that makes it exactly symmetric to going second. And it allows one to nerf CA spies (as I say, make them conditional!) and have it be balanced between coin-sides.

As a amateur game designer, I took the last few weeks as a kind of "homework" to design solutions for the coin-flip. And this one I really feel makes the game fun to play again. No more biting nails concerned whether you will survive round 1 going first. No more losing the game in the first turn. No more having to dry-pass round 1, otherwise you are basically accepting card disadvantage. (And then the opponent dry-passes back, and suddenly a 3 round Gwent became a 1 round boring card game.)

 

[4RM3D]

TrompeLaMort

Out of all the coin flip solutions on the forums, this is definitely one of the better ones. Not sure, if it's the answer, but at least, it significantly closes the gap between blue and red.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

I like this coinflip suggestion. I think it is worth trying it out.

 

[overcold_ice]

The only time dry-pass is stupid is when the second-player won the first round with equal cards. Dry-pass isn't and will never be the problem for that reason. The problem lies in coin-flip, because the idea for standard round 1 and 2 is win each round by losing 1 card, leading to round 3 with equal cards. And by the way, dry-pass never makes any carry-over problems now. It's the reverse that's true, carry-overs make a safe-pass (which is usually a dry-pass) too hard to do that a silver spy is needed to make this fair, which if counting the nerf on silver spies you proposed, will never be doable anymore. Then even if dry-pass is removed, playing a CA spy, then pass next turn is viable, which yields the same result as a dry-pass. It's still doable if silver spies' condition that you mentioned requires tied-points, which is 0-0.

Then about last-say, I'm sure it's: "If you want the last-say, then fight for it! Or cheat it!". It's fine the way it is, that new keyword will just complicate the game.

But now that coin-flip, carry-over, and finishers are fixed ...

Coin-flip, check. Carry-over, problems become worse because silver spies no longer can fix them. Finishers, no longer a thing?
New problem: The first player will always play Yield on their first turn, if not just pass, then he loses with +1 CA. Because the winner of the first round will be forced to play a card (because there's no dry-pass), the loser can just out-tempo the winner to keep that +1 CA for round 3. Silver spies will even more be mandatory because the winner will 99% need that card to gain that CA back, and it will be important for the loser too because it will counter the winner's spy. That silver spies' small change doesn't fix this at all. The scariest thing is, this will happen 100% of the time when players know that losing the first round is too good of an advantage.

I made a simpler solution for CA problems that actually fix them, with only a small side-effect (which actually demotes dry-passing). But I guess CDPR doesn't want to do it (now or never). It's just about adding in 2 game-rules and removing all silver spies. And of course, no one is interested, as always.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Well, I'm glad people like my coin-flip solution. It is the one I'm most proud, and I think it is the easiest and safest for CDPR to implement.

Let's take the feedback on the rest:

• Removing dry-pass makes winning R1 actually bad.
• Nerfing CA spies makes carry-over even stronger.

Yet we still need something to incentivize 3 round play, and to deal with carry-over. Maybe the solution is the (often proposed here) rule change to make round winners play second? I was always against this idea, because it meant if you lost the round on even cards you were simply monstrously screwed. But with the coin-flip solved, such that no one will ever go to round 2 two cards down (unless a major punt) or be forced to lose on even cards, we could consider that again.

Then if I use my yield and go down 1 CA up, the opponent can always get that CA back, even if I have carry-over. (Because I play first.) Which is good, because the yield could be strong otherwise. And the opponent has the chance to dry me while still keeping the CA. On the other hand, I get last say. So perhaps this would work better?

About spies, I think an interesting effect of my proposed change is that spies no longer counter spies! So if you are playing a low tempo deck, there is no point running spies. So it is not a must use silver anymore. And keeping it in the game gives some payoff to playing high tempo, now that we removed coin-flip abuse.

 

[DannyGuy]

Coin Flip
The coin flip suggestion is definitely the most elegant attempt at fixing the problem so far, but it does open up the problem with Spies and going 2 cards up, but that can be prevented by passing or playing your own spy, so it'd only be an effective tactic against noobs. Plus, you do lose the round this way, even if you go 2 cards up, so I think it's fair. It is definitely a suggestion worth being proud of! I'd love to have the chance to at least try it out.

Spies
I really like Spies in the game. I don't know if I'd like the game (coming from the Witcher 3 Gwent) if spies weren't a thing. I think they should be kept simple. Maybe spies could be like Leader cards - always available no matter what deck you're playing. That way, both players would be on even terms, but it might make spies less interesting.

Dry-Pass
I'd like to see how gameplay changes if dry-pass is removed. There are many unforeseen consequences, but the game is in its testing stage so I don't see why this should be a problem. Another big gameplay changer I thought of was adding a new gameplay mode - best of 5 (instead of best of 3) - in which you'd have to win 3 rounds, but that's a topic for another time.

Last play and Finishers
I don't like last play finishers either, but only when they don't require any setup. I'm fine with Ciri: Dash, for example. Your suggestion wouldn't change the fact that some cards just don't require any setup. However, it'd make the cards useless if you'd accidentally draw into the card in a short round - that could be fixed by raising the floor of Ciri: Nova from 1 to 10, for example, but I just don't like the idea in general.
I remember when Ciri: Dash was first revealed... I had a feeling in my gut that the card would end up being disappointing...

 

[Mancoon1980]

Would be interesting to see it tested on a test server to see how things play out. At least the coin flip fix. As far as card advantage spies just remove them completely for the test to see how it goes. For finishers overall many cards need reworked with interesting play and set up. I still like finishers if done right.

 

[GenLiu]

...or your money back, guaranteed

I know CDPR developers are quite good at what they do, and I am a random internet guy, but I might just be Takashi Tokita (you can't know for sure). So please try these 5 changes (5 simple changes!) in internal testing, and you will see that all the problems with the game will be solved. I will ask for no compensation.

[...]

5. Well, actually there are only four main proposals. But now that coin-flip, carry-over, and finishers are fixed, CDPR could unwind a lot of the band-aids they put in the game to deal with those. No need to keep Ciri unplayable anymore, no need to really hinder resilient units, or to gut almost every single combo in this game. Bring back Kambi! (As above.) Bring back Hag! Make Adrenaline potion viable again! All these interesting cards that made the game fun and were removed because of the underlying problems in the game design, they can come back to the game. And much more!

Some ideas are interesting. I like what you propose about Silver spies (probably because you had exactly the same idea as I did lol) and I like the concept of implementing the card advantage as something that determine the effect of some cards in general.

I'm not so pump about other things though, no dry-pass would be a disaster for example. I don't think they need to fix that mainly because the problem of the dry-pass is basically a CA problem (fix the coinflip/silver spies and you solve the dry-pass issue at the same time).

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Some ideas are interesting. I like what you propose about Silver spies (probably because you had exactly the same idea as I did lol) and I like the concept of implementing the card advantage as something that determine the effect of some cards in general.

I'm not so pump about other things though, no dry-pass would be a disaster for example. I don't think they need to fix that mainly because the problem of the dry-pass is basically a CA problem (fix the coinflip/silver spies and you solve the dry-pass issue at the same time).

That is fair. The problem is that even if we fix the coin-flip (say, with the yield card), but don't do anything related to dry-pass, I fear a tempo deck like elves could just yield or dry-pass first round, "play" a wardancer and keep the tempo for an unavoidable R3 CA.

At least something must be done about carryover. Maybe the solution is to completely remove it (by making it appear end of turn), but I think more elegant is to change the entire round system. At first I thought it could be done by removing dry-pass, but now I tend to think that making round winners move second is actually better. (If you fix the coin-flip, of course, that is.)

 

[overcold_ice]

Finally, someone else that understands how fixing things works!

Yet we still need something to incentivize 3 round play, and to deal with carry-over. Maybe the solution is the (often proposed here) rule change to make round winners play second? ... On the other hand, I get last say. So perhaps this would work better? ...

I've gone through the exact same process as yours. But let's start with your statements first. That solution is correct, but it will cause another problem, which is something that can't be avoided (as far as I can see). I rather disagree with the loser gets last-say on third round, kind-of make players who can abuse that, get that easily. I think it's always the winner of first round that gets round 3's last-say. Interestingly, what solution I ended up with, makes each game always need to be played 3 rounds unless a tie happens.

This was my process of finally reaching my overall solution:
- R1: Fixing coin-flip (your way, and my way, both have the same result)

- R2: Fixing some carry-over problems
If the first-round-winner goes first, give that player a "yield-effect" (I did my "yield" as a mechanic, not a card, so if it's using yours, then give that player a yield card). Or make the loser goes first in the second round instead. Either way, both give the same results - some carry-over problems get fixed. BUT, both do create a problem, the first-round winner can bleed the other player with zero risk. It's as if the winner have played a silver spy (hence it's safe to bleed), but with no body on board (no 13-power on the opposite side). However, I've not yet found any other solution to fix carry-over problems other than this (or removing them). And to just make things clearer for everyone, this is usually about Wardancers and Bran. After they lose, they still have points on board, which you (as the first-round-winner) can't do much but to lose without gaining back CA, which is quite a problem. And one of those solutions above will fix this issue.

- R2: Fixing the problem of carry-over fix above, and actually fixing more carry-over problems
There's no actual fix for that problem, but there's a solution to limit the bleed. And this solution will fix another part of carry-over problems, mostly this is about Bran. It's when they win, then the second round they still have a chance to win round 2 with the help of their carry-overs, which in my view should just rarely happen and Gwent should be a 3-rounds game most of the time. The solution is, to make the first-round-loser gets a bonus starting points (around 13-15 points, this number really needs to be tested). If the number is too low, bleeding would be less limited and carry-overs have easier time to win against that bonus. But if it's too high (like, absurd), then it'd look weird (like it's really unwinnable), limit bleeding even more, and seal carry-overs capability of winning the game 2-0 (which should still exist, but in lesser extent than what we have right now). This number can manifest in many ways, I made a 'reinforcement' keyword for this. Go take a look if you're interested.

- R3: Decide who goes first here (I chose to not change who-goes-first in each round, so the first-round-winner has the last say on round 3 for my overall solution)

I think silver spies can exist if their ability that provide CA is only available on the final round. Therefore what they do is to gain last-say, which is very fair in my opinion. A keyword that makes effects only happen on the final round is needed for this. Truce exists, so why not this new keyword.

 

[GenLiu]

That is fair. The problem is that even if we fix the coin-flip (say, with the yield card), but don't do anything related to dry-pass, I fear a tempo deck like elves could just yield or dry-pass first round, "play" a wardancer and keep the tempo for an unavoidable R3 CA.

At least something must be done about carryover. Maybe the solution is to completely remove it (by making it appear end of turn), but I think more elegant is to change the entire round system. At first I thought it could be done by removing dry-pass, but now I tend to think that making round winners move second is actually better. (If you fix the coin-flip, of course, that is.)

This is why I'm not 1OO% sold for the Yield idea either but don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the idea is bad or anything but the coinflip is pretty much impossible to fix without testing. We, as simple Gwent players, don't have the "power" to find the right fix for this mechanic. It's basically in CDPR's hand right now, we can merely make some suggestions to help them.

About the carry-over problem, I think you just found your answer without even knowing.
You said that they should make a specific mechanic that triggers based on the CA state (when you were talking about Silver spy), just apply it to carry over units as well.
If you're down on cards, everythiung happens the way it should, otherwise delay their trigger by one turn (for example, discarding Wardancer when you have the CA or have equal cards in hand would make her return into your deck and come out after your opponent played his/her first card).

 

[MrInk5000]

if someone dry passes in R1 and I'm playing second. i do the same, making R2 an all in round. It can go either way, but it catches them off guard

 

[Flying_Donkey]

Spies
I really like Spies in the game. I don't know if I'd like the game (coming from the Witcher 3 Gwent) if spies weren't a thing. I think they should be kept simple. Maybe spies could be like Leader cards - always available no matter what deck you're playing. That way, both players would be on even terms, but it might make spies less interesting.

Personnally, I don't think spies are such a big problem, but this is the best solution I've read, by far. It's simple and efficient.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Personnally, I don't think spies are such a big problem, but this is the best solution I've read, by far. It's simple and efficient.

I think that is definitely something they should try, but I'm afraid it will end up being exactly the same as removing them from the game. Spies only have any effect on the game if you play one and your opponent doesn't or vice-versa. (Or if you have a special way of gaining points when playing your spy, like Brouver, Hym and Skjall, or Cantarella + that card that steal power from revealed units.)

Making everyone have them as a leader would mean people would just play the spy, the opponent responds 9 times out of 10 with their own, and nothing really happened.

 

[Flying_Donkey]

Agreed, but I wouldn't mind. Right now it comes off as "who got lucky enough to draw his spy while being (lucky) second". Not fun, not smart.

I think overall the issue here is more the coinflip than the spy itself. The coinflip is a huge problem and the spy "only" makes it worse.

Idk where the other players stands, but I don't think I'm a special case or anything and my winrate (~103 games) is around 58% being first... and around 80% being second.

I think a temporary solution to the coinflip problem should be reducing variance : a guy on reddit posted a picture of his gwentup record with something like 12 coinflip lost... it's possible but it's like 0.02% chance!

Reducing variance should be tecnically very easy to do it :
1. If you started first during you last game, you'll start second.
2. If the opponent also started first, go random.
3. Next game, go back to step 1.

 

[overcold_ice]

I think a temporary solution to the coinflip problem should be reducing variance : a guy on reddit posted a picture of his gwentup record with something like 12 coinflip lost... it's possible but it's like 0.02% chance!

TrompeLaMort (and me) already have working solutions to a major coin-flip issue. There's no need to change its variance.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Agreed, but I wouldn't mind. Right now it comes off as "who got lucky enough to draw his spy while being (lucky) second". Not fun, not smart.

I think overall the issue here is more the coinflip than the spy itself. The coinflip is a huge problem and the spy "only" makes it worse.

That is why I proposed to change spies so they only give CA if you stay ahead when playing them. I feel it might make the card a little bit more complicated and hard to understand, which is a disadvantage, but the advantages of this design largely outweigh the negative. And they are:

1. You don't have to worry about spies being played, unless you are 13+ points behind.
2. There is no feels bad or "luck of drawing spy" factor, which you state as the worst problem of spies, as by definition a spy is unanswerable. If I play a spy for CA, that means I am ahead, and your spy won't give you CA back.
3. You can still punish low tempo, transforming that in CA, but only that.
4. Spies wouldn't be (almost) must have like now. In fact, only decks with high tempo would have any use for them.
5. Spies would make high tempo strategies viable, in a game state where they can't abuse coin-flip anymore. (Because of yield.)

 

[SentienceLOL]

ciri - nova needs a slight nerf not a points buff