What if the player on blue coin just always gets to draw three cards round 2 if he lost R1 instead of having to "yield"? It seems much simpler to me.
TheNotoriousThree;n10582102 said:
It is simpler, but very abusable. The easiest example is that the first player can just dry-pass and go two cards up.
TrompeLaMort;n10584042 said:
He doesn't. He only draws an additional card if he loses R1. So it's the same mechanic you proposed but without the "yield" card or token, you just pass if you are down in points and lose the round, thus "yielding".
Or am I missing something?
TheNotoriousThree;n10585442 said:
I have ten cards, you have ten cards. I go first; I pass. You play a card and go to nine. You win the round, which means I lose and draw a card. So I go to 11, while you have 9: 2 CA.
TrompeLaMort
Oh yeah, I see now. No idea how I could possibly not think of that. Thanks.
Oh yeah, I see now. No idea how I could possibly not think of that. Thanks.
Other games make their games look weird just to balance their first-player advantage issues.Esmer;n1056629 said:
We have Yield which gives a fix with a weird-feel (like, 1 playable card, or a button/artifact on the side)
And we have Second Player Rule which gives a little complexity to the pass (some visual indicators can show this, but will need an explanation in tutorials)
Or we can just play the same Gwent (which is not complicated because we already know how everything works), and eventually got bored of complaining and switch to other games instead.
People want fixes to the game's issues, but when actual possible fixes came up, they either struggle to understand, don't care, complain, or just choose to wait for the impossible (like a fix to coin-flip way simpler than what simplest solutions we can come up with).
How about you try to think about a possible rewording of yield-effect. Or even, think about another possible fix to coin-flip issues that can actually fix them. And I have NOT yet asked you to find a fix to carry-over issues.
Yes, those are valid points. On complexity I'm with overcold_ice, I don't think there's gonna be a fair solution that doesn't involve some kind of increase in complexity. These two are actually relatively simple solutions.Esmer;n10581732 said:
As for the other points, they're also true and I actually cannot think of a better way to address them, than what we started to do here:
- publish a suggested solution
- everybody can pin and prod it, try to find problems or balance issues
- if nobody can find any concrete, significant issue, it can maybe suggested to CDPR (strong community support could help)
- of course playtesting is required as well to identify any issues we couldn't think of while theorizing, but it's only possible if CDPR picks up a solution
Of course we could just wait and see if CDPR comes up with a solution of their own. Problem is while coinflip may be the biggest game mechanics issue right now in Gwent, it may not be the most important thing they're facing overall. Maybe they have their hands full with other stuff and not have enough resources to work on a coinflip solution. Besides it seemed to me so far, that they're open to community suggestions in other matters.
overcold_ice;n10590372 said:
I see you are a nice person! So yes, I proposed a simple solution which also fixes carry over. It's not ideal, but it's easier and it makes going first less disadvantageous.
When you go first and lose R1, your carryover actually works unless your opponent has a spy or more carry over points. If you go first and win, your opponent's carry over doesn't work because you make him go first R2.
We also discussed some other solutions like points auction in that thread.
Last edited: