A toast to less variance and RNG

+
Thank you devs. This change of Golden Froth is excellent. 6 provisions for boosting 3 adjacent units by 2. Simple, effective, great for boost decks and, most importantly, with variance significantly reduced.

Please do the same with all other high variance/RNG cards and Gwent will be a much better and more strategic game. Na zdrowie!
 
Thank you devs. This change of Golden Froth is excellent. 6 provisions for boosting 3 adjacent units by 2. Simple, effective, great for boost decks and, most importantly, with variance significantly reduced.

Please do the same with all other high variance/RNG cards and Gwent will be a much better and more strategic game. Na zdrowie!

I'm kinda lost. You took a card that was good before homecoming (boost a random unit on the row by 2,) which also happened to remove weather and other row effects. You then make it into a reverse lacerate (a great way to counter Nevelian, not sure about the spelling.) Now it doesn't counter much of anything, nor will it see much use in the top ranks. I get you not liking big point swings, but don't you favor counters to DD and whole row lacerate?
 
I'm kinda lost. You took a card that was good before homecoming (boost a random unit on the row by 2,) which also happened to remove weather and other row effects. You then make it into a reverse lacerate (a great way to counter Nevelian, not sure about the spelling.) Now it doesn't counter much of anything, nor will it see much use in the top ranks. I get you not liking big point swings, but don't you favor counters to DD and whole row lacerate?
It was actually a row effect that boosted two cards on a row by one each turn.
 
I'm kinda lost. You took a card that was good before homecoming (boost a random unit on the row by 2,) which also happened to remove weather and other row effects. You then make it into a reverse lacerate (a great way to counter Nevelian, not sure about the spelling.) Now it doesn't counter much of anything, nor will it see much use in the top ranks. I get you not liking big point swings, but don't you favor counters to DD and whole row lacerate?
Big point swings are fine, as long as they are not achieved by one card with a huge variance (for example Dragon's Dream).
Dragon's Dream and Lacerate are high variance cards. These should be adjusted similar to Golden Froth.

I like the Golden Froth from beta Gwent best as well.

Gimpy Gerwin is another one with huge variance, able to destroy whole archetypes (monster swarm and Kaedweni Revenants). Ridiculous design. To reduce variance and better balance, he should be limited to damage a maximum of 3 copies.
 
Big point swings are fine, as long as they are not achieved by one card with a huge variance. Dragon's Dream and Lacerate are high variance cards. These should be adjusted similar to Golden Froth. Gimpy Gerwin is another one with huge variance [...] Ridiculous design.

Not all high variance cards are inherently bad. There are basically three types:
1. Finishers (paper)
2. Tech (scissors)
3. Value (rock)

Finishers
Hubert, for example, is such a high variance card, but requires some setup to get the full value, unless you use Adda. Dragon's Dream falls into the same category. The card is somewhat risky because it requires Nivellen and a semi-long round with plenty units. A lot can go wrong in between. Value-wise, I don't think DD is an issue. It's just that you cannot always predict the card because it can fit in various decks. The high variance is not the problem here, but limiting it could be a solution, which still ignores the core issue.

Tech
Gimpy is different because it's a tech card that rarely gets insane values, unless you face NR or AQ. Similarly, Geralt: Yrden is a tech card that get get good value against Monsters, but can be struggling to find value against control decks. You could still make a case against Gimpy, but the card isn't problematic. One-trick-pony decks, like Draug and AQ should be susceptible to tech, otherwise they spiral out of control. Every deck has an Achilles' Heel. Draug can also be AoE locked by Auckes and AQ can be counter by herself in the mirror (ironically), but also wiped by Yen or Forktail. Both cards having a high variance, but also means to build your deck around.

Value
Value or value potential, in the case of high variance cards, are cards that need a condition to gain above average value. If the condition can be met easily enough, such cards could be included, like Lacerate. They are usually the most boring and value plays will always stick around in Midrange decks. They are usually not too problematic.

Closing Note
High variance cards is a bit like RNG, it's not inherent bad, but it does need to be implemented properly. Some cards are bad, some are not. Ironically, it's usually not the high variance itself that's the problem, but the condition therein, to unlock the cards full potential. In the end, we still need swing cards because that makes the game more exciting. Pulling off a Glustyworp should be rewarded and if Vran Warrior and She-Troll sticks around too, well, R.I.P. opponent. Wait, did (s)he just played Yrden? Damn.

This post turned out longer than intended.
 
High variance cards is a bit like RNG, it's not inherent bad, but it does need to be implemented properly. Some cards are bad, some are not. Ironically, it's usually not the high variance itself that's the problem, but the condition therein, to unlock the cards full potential. In the end, we still need swing cards because that makes the game more exciting. Pulling off a Glustyworp should be rewarded and if Vran Warrior and She-Troll sticks around too, well, R.I.P. opponent. Wait, did (s)he just played Yrden? Damn.
Amen to that. And with proper implementation, I think about a proper value : provision ratio. I don't see a problem with engines or Glustyworp, Hubert or Commander's Horn and Scorch for that matter. These cards require setup, have a proper value : provision ratio and counters in the case of boosts - resets.

Lacerate and Dragon's Dream are too easy and strong (value : provision ratio too high) with movement, especially Nivellen. Reducing their variance (limit their effect to 5 cards like Commander's Horn) would fix this.

The way I see it is that Gimpy is normally fine, except against swarm archetypes. Then he is becoming like a row-independent Dragon's Dream and his value : provision ratio becomes too high. Easy fix by reducing his variance by limiting to 3 copies. Why? Because a major and proper setup with Draug or Arachas Queen should be rewarded and not punished with one "lazy-play" card. When you see Draug or Drones coming, start playing to reduce their potential value. Gimpy can still kill 3, use other cards to kill/prevent more. That is much more interesting and tactical than ignoring everything and slamming Gimpy on the board in the end.
 
Bump. I just lost two games due to not drawing 5 of my most important gold cards. Not fun at all to lose a game like that, and simply ridiculous if this is supposed to be a strategy game. According to the playgwent website, "skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". This is simply untrue. It's clear that card draws and other RNG determine for the most part if you win or lose, making luck your greatest weapon, or your greatest enemy. More deck consistency would create a more strategic game, but with Homecoming, a lot of effort has been made to reduce deck consistency: Tutoring was significantly reduced and mulligan blacklisting was removed. Bronze cards now have a maximum of two copies in deck versus maximum three copies in beta-Gwent. In addition, most bronze cards are much weaker in Homecoming than in beta-Gwent, making "getting lucky" with your card draws even more important for getting your good cards. These changes with Homecoming have made Gwent in my opinion too much a game of luck instead of strategy. And that is a real shame, especially if Gwent is supposed to be(come) a serious e-sport.
 
Last edited:
Bump. I just lost two games due to not drawing 5 of my most important gold cards. Not fun at all to lose a game like that, and simply ridiculous if this is supposed to be a strategy game. According to the playgwent website, "skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". This is simply untrue. It's clear that card draws and other RNG determine for the most part if you win or lose, making luck your greatest weapon, or your greatest enemy. More deck consistency would create a much more strategic game, but with HC, tutoring was significantly reduced and blacklisting was removed. With HC, Gwent has become much more a game of luck. And that is a real shame in my opinion, especially if this is supposed to be(come) a serious e-sport.

To be fair, if you have 25 cards in deck, you start with 10, you draw 6 more, and get 4-5 more mulligans. So you're going through let's say >80% of your deck.
Add some deck thinning/tutoring, and you can be sure to always set up your combo. I think this is a good balance, since this way you can't just play the same thing every game, and adapt to what your deck has in it.

Also I wouldn't say that the RNG in this game brings in too much variance. It's all about playing to the expected value of the cards, since that is the "true" value that you will get out of the card/deck as you play a large volume of games.

Even cards like Shupe which is the biggest "Hearthstone" card this game has currently. If you want 1 specific effect, you'll get it 60% of the time. Which is already good odds.
But Shupe is good enough that perhaps you can settle for a secondary effect too. that is 1 of 2 effects from a specific shupe, then your chances of drawing this are 90%.
If you set yourself up that you can settle for 1 of 3 effects, then this is 100%.

To me this game's variance is acceptable. Even with cards like "play a bronze from opponent's faction", you may brick sometimes, but it's extremely rare that there's not a single card you can use.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, if you have 25 cards in deck, you start with 10, you draw 6 more, and get 4-5 more mulligans. So you're going through let's say >80% of your deck.
Add some deck thinning/tutoring, and you can be sure to always set up your combo. I think this is a good balance, since this way you can't just play the same thing every game, and adapt to what your deck has in it.
Sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work like that in reality. You can draw the same crappy bronze filler cards over and over, as there is no mulligan blacklisting, so it's very well possible that your 5 most important golds are still in the deck in R3. Tutoring and thinning have been made more rare and expensive, but are needed for deck consistency and are therefore limiting the variety in viable competitive decks.
Also I wouldn't say that the RNG in this game brings in too much variance. It's all about playing to the expected value of the cards, since that is the "true" value that you will get out of the card/deck as you play a large volume of games.
RNG in card draws certainly does, as shown by having 5 gold cards left in the deck in R3. Regarding variance, I'm talking about variance in card abilities. Cards like Lacerate and Dragon's Dream are (too) high variance cards. This is not poker where you play a large volume of games to gain a profit overall. In this "strategy" game, "skill, not luck" should win you a single game most of the time with a good deck. It's telling that there is only a very small amount of really good decks and that all these decks (MO, SK) have extensive thinning and/or extensive synergies in common, significantly reducing the luck factor.
uhh I never see golden froth used at all.
I don't see it that often either, yet it is a good card for boost decks. Earlier we never saw Shilard either, now we see him much more. Meta stuff I guess.
 
I'm not saying it's impossible to have your best 5 gold cards never drawn. But I am saying it is HIGHLY unlikely to have it happen 2 games in a row. It sounds like one of those "I had a flush, and opponent sucked out on the river with full house" -- most times, it doesn't happen, thus in the long run, is an anomaly. With the amount of mulligans you have, you're almost guaranteed to draw most of your golds -- while not ALL of them, at least most of them.

You're saying it's a game of skill, implying it should be like chess, which is your opinion. Suppose we remove draws altogether, and everyone can see their whole deck from the start, and can play any card they want from it. Would that be a better game than the current system where you have a hand of cards drawn from a pool? Maybe? Like I said, I'm ok with the draws in this game.
 
I'm not saying it's impossible to have your best 5 gold cards never drawn. But I am saying it is HIGHLY unlikely to have it happen 2 games in a row. It sounds like one of those "I had a flush, and opponent sucked out on the river with full house" -- most times, it doesn't happen, thus in the long run, is an anomaly. With the amount of mulligans you have, you're almost guaranteed to draw most of your golds -- while not ALL of them, at least most of them.
I'm not saying you said it's impossible. "In the long run" applies to games like poker but as I wrote before, Gwent is not supposed to be a game like poker. Gwent is supposed to be a strategy game and an e-sport at that. That means that individual games should mostly be decided by skill in play and deck-building, not RNG in card draws. Weak bronze cards and absence of mulligan blacklisting aggravate this issue. In addition, it is also important to draw cards at the right time and in the right combination, so to just "draw most of your golds" doesn't mean much by itself. It's about the need for more deck consistency, for more decks than just the few in top tier.
You're saying it's a game of skill, implying it should be like chess, which is your opinion. Suppose we remove draws altogether, and everyone can see their whole deck from the start, and can play any card they want from it. Would that be a better game than the current system where you have a hand of cards drawn from a pool? Maybe? Like I said, I'm ok with the draws in this game.
I'm saying it should be a game of skill because it is advertised as a game of skill. I'm not implying it should be like chess. I'm saying that for a strategy game, there is too much RNG and there should be less, not none like in chess. More tutoring, mulligan blacklisting and making bronzes better cards will make decks more consistent, but will certainly not make Gwent like chess. With the chess comparison, you try the "black-or-white" argumentation tactic. It's very clear that my argument is more sophisticated than that.
 
That means that individual games should mostly be decided by skill in play and deck-building, not RNG in card draws
HS is a e-sport and it has no blacklist. Blacklist is needed only fo people, who don't like RNG at all, who wants to play all cards they like, like in chess. But u must understand, that there is RNG in cards and mulligan does not guarantee u anything. Noone must build deck full of useless fillers and 5 important and expesive golds. U just want to take too much value then other people who build their decks understanding that thay cannot get all cards they need. So they spread value between all cards.
I agree only with that, that bronzes are more useless now and almost have no synergy.
May be, the OBT deckbuilding was better than the current provision dependent one which leads to adding 80% fillers and than suffering with no luck. May be it's just personal irresponsibility in deckbuilding. U can always add a card which draws a needed card, so chances grow twise. U can add deck scrolling cards like 3 witchers or Roach or scroll your deck somehow else.
 
Last edited:
1) The skill lies in deck building as well as playing. If you rely on having your 5 best gold cards in R3 your deck is not really balanced.
2) Good players should achieve a better win ratio out of 100 games than an average player. It´s about making the best of a bad hand so it´s a little bit like poker.
 
Yes! Poker - is a card game and it is a very big e-sport. Somehow there are a best players with such a big game RNG. May be because of bluff and bet management. May be Gwent can add some bluff elements somehow too. It would be nice for a card game.
 
With the 3 rounds and the passing mechanic Gwent already has some elements of poker. It used to be even stronger in Beta but it is still there.

You can try to trick your opponent in thinking that you have a strong combo in hand even if you don´t. Make your opponent thinks that you have Kayran in hand when you play dettlaff higher vampire in Round 1 or 2. Maybe he falls for your bluff and passes.
 
With the 3 rounds and the passing mechanic Gwent already has some elements of poker. It used to be even stronger in Beta but it is still there.
You can try to trick your opponent in thinking that you have a strong combo in hand even if you don´t. Make your opponent thinks that you have Kayran in hand when you play dettlaff higher vampire in Round 1 or 2. Maybe he falls for your bluff and passes.
Yes, of course there are many possibilities for bluff, I think. For example u can damage enemy units for Scorch or Regis, but do not have it. May be almost noone do this, cause it requers resources. But still it can be done))
 
It's about the need for more deck consistency, for more decks than just the few in top tier.

Skellige has the highest consistancy and the lowest variance. Before the Coral nerf every SK player played a discard deck now it is self wounding. When I face Svalblod or Eist at the moment I could also forfeit directly. I know which cards are played but still don´t stand a chance.
 
To fix Archan6el's problem, I think that two things can be done:

1. Bronzes must have good synergies to make them valuable and may be they must be 3 pieces, or even 4 pieces, but not 2. Bronzes are the commons, the are soldiers, a people. Their power is in synergy with each other, not in quality of one card by itself. Cause common people are the same: one common man means nothing, but when u have a bunch of common men, a trained soldiers, they are power, more power than u just connect them one by one. U made some of this synergies with 4p vampires in Monsters and 4p maidens in NR, who acts better when together.
Golden cards in a contrast are the personalities, that's why they are the only ones. Their power is in their personal abilities and originality. Goldens are nobility, bronzes are the common people. Everyone must be respected in it's own way.
For example, there must not be just a 2hp wolf hitting by 2. Wolves are the power when together. So they must have some wolfpack synergy: for example, the power of their hits must grow bigger with any additional wolf on the board. In this way bronzes will never be just a useless fillers. They can win u a game!


2. I think, an additional mulligan can be added to compensate blacklist absence. This can make better choices to find as some golden card, as another bronze needed for synergy.

Finding bronze's synergies is not less, but may be even more interesting then finding golden cards. I remember those times when I searched for possibilities to pull out my bronze stripes or cavalry of NR. It was so lovely feeling when they came out of the deck together! So, deffenetly, bronzes must be in bigger numbers then 2 and must play a much better role in the game thanks to their synergy.
 
Last edited:

DRK3

Forum veteran
So, i was playing Skellige, facing another skellige.

I was trying to get 2 damaged enemy units, to trigger Donar's bloodthirst.

Enemy had 5 units, one of them a damaged ship and the others undamaged. I had 2 Harald's skulls to do RNG damage...

Yup, you guessed it - they both hit the damaged ship, so instead of getting Bloodthirst 2, i got Bloodthirst 0... That was a 4% chance, if Gwent had true randomness.
 
Top Bottom