Something to solve dry pass?

[jotunheim92]

Something to solve dry pass?

To start, let's see the standard match:
- FIRST ROUND: "fair" round with 2 players with the same number of cards. End with the winner with 1 less card than the opponent;
- SECOND ROUND: "unfair" round because previous winner has 1 less card. This prompt to dry pass. Previous loser puts 1 card on the board to win;
- THIRD ROUND: "fair" round, end of the match.

What if every time a player wins a round draw an extra card? With this, every round could be "fair". The standard match will be:
- FIRST ROUND: "fair" round. Winner plays 1 more card than the opponent.
- SECOND ROUND: "fair" round. Previous winner draw an extra card. Previous loser win the 2nd round using 1 more card.
- THIRD ROUND: "fair" round, end of the match.

Anyway dry pass is still an option if your deck or te situation need it. For ex. if u ran a weather deck u are more interested in longer rounds. In reverse if u play a deck with high value for every card u will be more interested in shorter rounds.
Win 2-0 is a more viable and possible situation and at the same time this do not change the CA of the player since both have to win a round to reach the 3rd. This could also solve the carryover "issue" of the wardancer and similar cards (I wrote "issue" because I dont think that carryover is a so much big problem, just my opinion)

Thoughts? Doubts?

 

[4RM3D]

What if every time a player wins a round draw an extra card? With this, every round could be "fair".

This doesn't solve anything. Actually, quite the opposite, it only makes the problem worse. For example, now you can win a round going two cards down. Furthermore, the emphasis on winning the first round (and going 2-0) is too big, which is made worse by the coin flip. And all this just to solve the dry pass? No, no.

 

[jotunheim92]

the emphasis on winning the first round (and going 2-0) is too big

cant agree withi this. Right now if near impossible win 2-0, or better, if u can win 2-0 u can win 99% win more easly 2-1

which is made worse by the coin flip

agree with this, good point. In case the second player wins with the same amount of cards of the first player, the second round will be (a lot)"unfair".
But we have to consider that this problem will be solved in the near (hopefully) future. Is not a point, but i'm sure that coin flip should be solved as soon as possible.

 

[Void_Singer]

being a card down is more than fair... that player already has the advantage in that the other player is forced to play out the round pretty much to the end if the R1 winner chooses... meanwhile the R1 winner doesn't actually need to win. if you want truly fair the the round 1 LOSER should get to draw a card.

 

[partci]

Sure... interesting interactions with Ciri there.

This will not solve any problems, if anything, the CF abuse will become way more problematic.

 

[Kegtron9000]

Dry pass is tricky to solve especially when you consider cards that have resilience (Mahakam Defender) or cards that resurrect themselves on turn start (Morkvarg). I think when approaching the dry pass conundrum you have to look at these tactics too because say you opponent has CA and Dry Passes if you have a resilient card or a card that brings itself back to life next round the Dry Pass is less effective. Not offering solutions just trying to fuel the fire of the conversation.
:hmm:

 

[WildFeo]

being a card down is more than fair... that player already has the advantage in that the other player is forced to play out the round pretty much to the end if the R1 winner chooses... meanwhile the R1 winner doesn't actually need to win. if you want truly fair the the round 1 LOSER should get to draw a card.

How is that fair? Let's say I won R1 1 card down, and my opponent draws another card? So now I am 2 cards down?

 

[Void_Singer]

Yes.
and if you lose R2 it doesn't matter, and you'll get a card in R3. YW

 

[jotunheim92]

Yes. and if you lose R2 it doesn't matter, and you'll get a card in R3. YW

not exactly the point of my thread xD my intent is to have all 3 rounds with the same amount of cards

 

[Batholon]

Keep in mind, with the current setup of card draws at end of rounds, you winning first round means you will draw 3 cards in the second round. Making your chances to draw crucial cards higher than your opponent.

Have you ever got into a position where your opponent had the same number of cards as you and won round 1? If they have the correct cards, they will definitely 2-0 you.

In other cases, if your deck is combo oriented, they could draw out the round until you play a combo piece and then passing the round. In that case, you would've been in a better spot if they just dry passed.

In addition, there are cards already which can help in this like resurrection cards as mentioned above and Wardancer.

 

[Guest 4226291]

cant agree withi this. Right now if near impossible win 2-0, or better, if u can win 2-0 u can win 99% win more easly 2-1


agree with this, good point. In case the second player wins with the same amount of cards of the first player, the second round will be (a lot)"unfair".
But we have to consider that this problem will be solved in the near (hopefully) future. Is not a point, but i'm sure that coin flip should be solved as soon as possible.

Actually 2-0ing is easier than ever. I frequently 2-0 my opponent even when one card down, making it so I draw an extra card makes it even easier. The problem isn’t dry pass it’s the coin flip

 

[jotunheim92]

The problem isn’t dry pass it’s the coin flip

agree man!! dry pass is just annoying, not a problem

 

[Void_Singer]

not exactly the point of my thread xD my intent is to have all 3 rounds with the same amount of cards

My point was that there is more to fairness and balance than just the card count. Drawing an extra card is an advantage, having a win already is an advantage.

 

[Mickoman91]

CDPR is thinking of removing CA spies just because they give card advantage and you want a round winner to get 1 extra card, the winner of round 1 would easily demolish the loser in round 2 too, especially if he favours the longer round.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

I agree with the sentiment of the thread in that I believe dry-passing is something that shouldn't exist in Gwent. It is simply too good and too free, and it creates all sorts of problems with carry-over and spies. The probably most skill-intensive part of the game is knowing when to pass, and yet allowing dry-pass removes that entirely. (Since it is never really that bad to dry-pass, and quite often the best move.)

But I don't think what you propose is the best way to deal with it. (In fact, it is not clear it helps the issue at all.) I think they should just remove dry-pass entirely and try it out. I've heard people say that it would make people not want to win round 1, but when playing against Bran nowadays (which always wins carry-over), you certainly don't see everyone (not even most people) going: play unit, opp Brans, pass to lose the round. Winning the round is so powerful, that you don't need dry-passing to make it even stronger.

And if eventually some people will prefer not to win round 1, to try to maintain CA round 2, that is a perfectly legit and interesting game strategy. It is a gambit, you are conceding control of the game to the opponent, and if they can't take advantage of that, you get a reward.

 

[Jeydra]

I agree with the sentiment of the thread in that I believe dry-passing is something that shouldn't exist in Gwent. It is simply too good and too free, and it creates all sorts of problems with carry-over and spies. The probably most skill-intensive part of the game is knowing when to pass, and yet allowing dry-pass removes that entirely. (Since it is never really that bad to dry-pass, and quite often the best move.)

But I don't think what you propose is the best way to deal with it. (In fact, it is not clear it helps the issue at all.) I think they should just remove dry-pass entirely and try it out. I've heard people say that it would make people not want to win round 1, but when playing against Bran nowadays (which always wins carry-over), you certainly don't see everyone (not even most people) going: play unit, opp Brans, pass to lose the round. Winning the round is so powerful, that you don't need dry-passing to make it even stronger.

And if eventually some people will prefer not to win round 1, to try to maintain CA round 2, that is a perfectly legit and interesting game strategy. It is a gambit, you are conceding control of the game to the opponent, and if they can't take advantage of that, you get a reward.

What's wrong with dry-passing?

"Too good" - you give up the round. This has serious consequences. Drypassing round 1 lets the opponent bleed you in round 2. Being able to control the length of round 2 is the reward for winning round 1.
"Too free" - you can only do this once per match, so it's not exactly free.
"Creates all sorts of problems with carryover and spies" - problems such as? If anything spies are a problem because they let you create CA without having to drypass.
"Most skill intensive part is knowing when to pass" - does this mean "I know that the best time to pass is turn 0" doesn't take skill?

Further you seem to contradict yourself with the Bran example. Carryover effectively stops drypassing (unless one is willing to give up CA). If you win round 1 against Bran, something you described as "so powerful", you can no longer drypass, so how does drypassing make winning round 1 even better? If you lose round 1 against Bran and opponent drypasses, you still get to win the round with a card. I don't understand how this indicates drypassing is a problem.

tl; dr: not convinced dry-passing is a problem, which means it's not clear what this suggestion is trying to solve. Furthermore, it simply makes winning round 1 too important: you can now go for the 2-0 in round with both players on equal cards.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

Before we start, although dry-passing R1 is a thing sometimes (and even further against what Gwent was meant to be), I think the typical example of dry-passing is R2.

What's wrong with dry-passing?

"Too good" - you give up the round. This has serious consequences. Drypassing round 1 lets the opponent bleed you in round 2. Being able to control the length of round 2 is the reward for winning round 1.
"Too free" - you can only do this once per match, so it's not exactly free.

See, let's say I win R1, with a normal deck that is not bad in long rounds. (In some matchups it might be different, but they are exceptions, not the rule.) What is the best I can hope for in R2? To get the CA back. And how can I do that? Just press space. Exactly! No need to spend resources, or even brain cells! Just press space.

"Creates all sorts of problems with carryover and spies" - problems such as? If anything spies are a problem because they let you create CA without having to drypass.

Carry-over is a broken mechanic, because it is too binary. Why is Warcancer a design problem (and not simply balance problem)? In other words, why can't they fix the card just making it 2 power, or 1 power? Because the sole purpose people run carry-over in current Gwent (except fringe cases) is to prevent dry-passing, and then it doesn't matter at all if it is 15 power or 1 power.

Spies, you are right, they are a problem in themselves, and will probably be removed/reworked anyway.

"Most skill intensive part is knowing when to pass" - does this mean "I know that the best time to pass is turn 0" doesn't take skill?

Oh yeah, so much skill to listen to Swim saying, "Always double dry-pass in Arena" and doing that every single time. And the worst? Dry-passing is so powerful, that even though they are playing like bots, they are rarely punished. In fact, unless you are a quite good player, "always dry-pass" is potentially a better advice then "dry-pass when you think it is right", win-rate-wise.

Further you seem to contradict yourself with the Bran example. Carryover effectively stops drypassing (unless one is willing to give up CA). If you win round 1 against Bran, something you described as "so powerful", you can no longer drypass, so how does drypassing make winning round 1 even better? If you lose round 1 against Bran and opponent drypasses, you still get to win the round with a card. I don't understand how this indicates drypassing is a problem.

Being able to dry-pass unequivocally makes winning R1 better, because it gives you options. My argument is that some people say that removing dry-pass would make winning R1 bad; that no one would want to win R1 if they weren't allowed a free CA R2. I used the Bran case as a proof that this is not the case.

 

[Jeydra]

See, let's say I win R1, with a normal deck that is not bad in long rounds. (In some matchups it might be different, but they are exceptions, not the rule.) What is the best I can hope for in R2? To get the CA back. And how can I do that? Just press space. Exactly! No need to spend resources, or even brain cells! Just press space.

Not quite. If you win round 1 with a normal deck, you cannot simply press space because you will lose round 3 against any deck with a better long round. The only decks that can press space without thinking in round 2 are those that are optimized for long rounds - e.g. Axemen.

Even against another normal deck, you cannot just press space because the best case isn't "to get CA back". The best case is to get CA back and get the opponent to use their best cards while yours remain in your hand. Extreme example: you're in a 5-card round 2 against consume having won round 1. You should play at least one card because 1) consume cannot put out a lot of points on an empty board, which means that you will regain CA as long as you pass early enough and 2) they only have a limited number of ways to pull a Nekker on an empty board. So a sequence like this is ideal:

1. I play Half-elf Hunter. They play Brewess: Ritual.
2. I pass. They play something to win the round.
3. In round 3, Mandrake your Nekker.

Carry-over is a broken mechanic, because it is too binary. Why is Warcancer a design problem (and not simply balance problem)? In other words, why can't they fix the card just making it 2 power, or 1 power? Because the sole purpose people run carry-over in current Gwent (except fringe cases) is to prevent dry-passing, and then it doesn't matter at all if it is 15 power or 1 power.

Spies, you are right, they are a problem in themselves, and will probably be removed/reworked anyway.

Wardancer is a design problem because it's a "carryover" card that can be played in round 1. This accentuates the disadvantage that comes with getting the blue coin. I also don't believe that the sole reason people run carryover in current Gwent is to prevent drypasses. Bran decks run Morkvarg and Olgierd to resurrect Cerys. Preventing drypasses as well as carrying a bit of strength into round 3 are auxiliary benefits. Substantial auxiliary benefits yes, but still auxiliary.

Oh yeah, so much skill to listen to Swim saying, "Always double dry-pass in Arena" and doing that every single time. And the worst? Dry-passing is so powerful, that even though they are playing like bots, they are rarely punished. In fact, unless you are a quite good player, "always dry-pass" is potentially a better advice then "dry-pass when you think it is right", win-rate-wise.

People drypass in Arena not because it's so powerful, they do it to minimize the disadvantage of the blue coin. If you get the red coin and the opponent plays, you should NOT drypass. If they pass, you should drypass round 2 because in round 2, you are on the blue coin.

I'm still unconvinced that drypassing is a problem.

 

[BornBoring]

The main problem is that playing reactiv is much easier than playing proactive, so drypassing is usually safer. You basically can't play any engine cards without using some extra bodies like Dandelion Poet, because there is so much removal+body (viper witchers, silver mages+thunder,....) and often you're already in a bad position after one turn except you're playing some rather dull point slam cards. Balancing cards like An Craite Longship by adding two damage doesn't make things better (well, since nearly nobody plays them it doesn't actually matter). There used to be a bit less drypassing during closed beta because of CA cards like old ciaran (unhealthy card imo) or Ciri (used to be OP for the most of the time, since removal of immunity more or less unplayable ). Anyway, finding a better balance between proactive and reactive plays is one thing CDPR should be looking at for their homecoming project.

 

[rrc]

The solution is very simple. Hear me out

Who goes first in any round is determined by who has more cards. Simple. If both of the have the same number of cards, then the one who hasn't gone first till now should start. If both of them have same number of cards and went first same number of times, then coin flip determines who goes first.

First round: Both have the same number of cards and same number of times they went first. So, coin flip.
-- If the player drypasses, the other player plays a card and wins the round. In second round the one who drypassed plays first. Why? the first person took risk and used a card to win the round. One should only pass if they are sure to win or sure to lose a round.
-- Lets say the round proceeds:
---- One has a card up and is winning. He/she passes and now the opponent has to decide if going a two cards down is worth the risk to win the round (based on the number of cards left the decision can be taken).
---- One has a card down and is winning. He/she passes and now the opponent has to think and decide if he/she can catch up with one or two cards.

Even if a player has lost the first round and has to go first in the second round due to having more cards, it is not going to hurt as he/she can/will always have an extra card at the end and can either pass or use it to win the next round. (CA spies will ruin this, I agree).

This will kind of force the player to play R1 and also gives flexibility to pass in the mid game based on the situation. The real skill and strategy will be to decide when to pass. What do you guys thing?