RNG ruins the game.

+
Ok...Yeah I know its a card game, but Im kinda sick of RNG in modern games. Mostly I dont play games with this psuedo-lottery crap and I think I wont do an exception for this one. Everybody who ever played with c/cpp knows that there is no true 'randomness' in computer science, its just some complicated equation based on things like time and your user id etc, so its only pseudo-random and it can be reversed and its sucks if you just think about it.

So this is the main thing wrong with the RNG, second is that players stops trusting devs when they lose a lot by it, its like 'oh okay again this guy has perfect hand everytime and my draw is only getting worse, I guess he has paid a lot more real money in this game so I have to lose'.

In my opinion, all cards with RNG involved are instant game-breakers and should be gone, and the last but not least there is simply too much cards in a deck, I dont know maybe Im too old, but its not fun for me when I can play my best combos only in 1/5 games, so 4/5 are simply wasting time for me. Cant tell is it 1 card or 5 cards too much causing this, but its bad and I dont like it, I cant even click a 'gg' when I lose without even seeing my best cards cause its a way too far from a gg.

So Its my opinion, you can have yours and I wont argue on it cause I dont have so much time, I simply respect different point of view on it. Best regards.
 
Last edited:
Randomness is part of the world. While you may want a completely strategic game , a card game by nature is not that (at least this one isn't).
RNG should be played to your favour. Set it up to maximize success.
Look up something called law of large numbers. A very nice, but also very intuitive mathematical law .
I agree with armed. Not all RNG is bad.
I personally think cards like Shupe and marauder are healthy for the game . RNG forces you to adapt .
Yes you'll get screwed sometimes, or high roll others , but in the end smart play will determine your win rate in the long run.
 
I think there's a lot of people that feel the same way. That's why there are so many that prefer the game how it was in Beta. There was no ridiculous RNG cards. Also you got to get your combos off because decks were much more consistant back then. Way more fun overall.
 
This has been discussed many times over, so I am just going to give the TL;DR:

There is bad RNG and there is good RNG.
Yes.
And that's all there is to it.
No. A lot of players feel that there is too much bad RNG (and variance) in this supposed-to-be-strategic game. As long as nothing is done about it, or worse: more RNG and variance is introduced, it's only fair that people (can) keep bringing this up.
 
I'm surprised by the amount of people that share my concern.

A concerned citizen.
 
Yes you'll get screwed sometimes, or high roll others , but in the end smart play will determine your win rate in the long run.
Don't you see where this is going? Sure, let's play hundreds of games to even out the RNG a bit and perhaps get a 60% win rate playing the same tier 1 deck over and over. The RNG in card draws is already bad, game-deciding. Then add the RNG in cards' abilities. It's much more a game of luck than strategy.
 
Last edited:
A lot of players feel that there is too much bad RNG (and variance) in this supposed-to-be-strategic game.

I never said anything about the amount of bad RNG, just a general statement that there is both bad and good RNG in the game.
 
I feel some cards have worse RNG than others. The Elf Assassination card usually kills the target I want, but I just tried Syndicate-only in Arena and I had the ability "give a random unit bleeding for 2 turns upon boost" trigger 6 times in a row on the same 2-power enemy card. It happened in two separate games, too. So I won't be touching that card again
 
I never said anything about the amount of bad RNG, just a general statement that there is both bad and good RNG in the game.
But that's not all there is to it. You agree that there is bad RNG, so let's address it and get it fixed before we get even more of this crap.

I just played a game where the new "Wheel of Fortune" was used against me, rolling 9 damage from a range of 1 - 10 for 5p. That card really has some of the worst kind of RNG. I was very annoyed and anticipated I would lose the game because of this. The opponent's last card was Shupe and had to get 10 points to win, but fortunately for me, Shupe: Knight did not find the boost or damage option. Both cards have ridiculous RNG. This kind of stuff does not belong in a "strategic" game, it's simply gambling. Gambling can be addictive because of the highs and lows stimulating the brain. I hope that is not the purpose.

On another topic on giving GG, I really don't feel like giving GG when you lose badly to RNG. The other player did not play smarter than you. You simply got screwed by bad RNG (bad luck for you and/or good luck for your opponent). Losing badly to RNG is simply not a GG for a game that is supposed to be strategic. And yes, as the TO mentioned, that is actually truly ruining the game a bit.
 
Last edited:
I just played a game where the new "Wheel of Fortune" was used against me, rolling 9 damage from a range of 1 - 10 for 5p. That card really has some of the worst kind of RNG.

nuff said - very good point
same with the self boost card that northern realms runs (0 - 11 when played). The fact that this has synergy with NRs to the point where its a good card to include even on lower rolls makes it so much worse in this case.

Lets not have cards on that level of RNG which are good in serious decks.
 
Ok...Yeah I know its a card game, but Im kinda sick of RNG in modern games. Mostly I dont play games with this psuedo-lottery crap and I think I wont do an exception for this one. Everybody who ever played with c/cpp knows that there is no true 'randomness' in computer science, its just some complicated equation based on things like time and your user id etc, so its only pseudo-random and it can be reversed and its sucks if you just think about it.

So this is the main thing wrong with the RNG, second is that players stops trusting devs when they lose a lot by it, its like 'oh okay again this guy has perfect hand everytime and my draw is only getting worse, I guess he has paid a lot more real money in this game so I have to lose'.

In my opinion, all cards with RNG involved are instant game-breakers and should be gone, and the last but not least there is simply too much cards in a deck, I dont know maybe Im too old, but its not fun for me when I can play my best combos only in 1/5 games, so 4/5 are simply wasting time for me. Cant tell is it 1 card or 5 cards too much causing this, but its bad and I dont like it, I cant even click a 'gg' when I lose without even seeing my best cards cause its a way too far from a gg.

So Its my opinion, you can have yours and I wont argue on it cause I dont have so much time, I simply respect different point of view on it. Best regards.

The game had less RNG in beta. Alas, if only we could go back in time 2 years.
 
i agree, as long as these kind of toxic rng card keep getting designed vomited into the cardpool, poeple have to speak up about it.
there is no reason for this kind of rng, since I dont think gwent attracts the audiance that are happy about a 1/10 ragnaros shot to the face (to speak in terms of the rng jesus master game)
 
The game had less RNG in beta. Alas, if only we could go back in time 2 years.
Very true. Much more games in HC are lost simply because of bad card draws. How on earth can that be called strategic? Let decks fight each other with their full force to see who wins, instead of winning by being a bit more lucky in card draws. Bring back mulligan blacklisting and more tutoring.
 
Very true. Much more games in HC are lost simply because of bad card draws. How on earth can that be called strategic? Let decks fight each other with their full force to see who wins, instead of winning by being a bit more lucky in card draws. Bring back mulligan blacklisting and more tutoring.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Without enough RNG everyone will literally play one deck that will defeat all others.
 
I don't necessarily agree with this. Without enough RNG everyone will literally play one deck that will defeat all others.
Bringing back mulligan blacklisting and more tutoring would make decks more consistent, but there would still be enough RNG through card draws (not drawing the cards you want, in the round you want them or in combination with the cards that the opponent plays (that round)). That is enough RNG for me. Losing a game because your four best gold cards are still in your deck in R3 while your opponent did find his/her gold cards really makes it feel like you just lost a gambling game, also because of the large amount of very weak bronze (deck filler) cards. I know the bronze cards may get a boost soon which will certainly help. Still, mulligan blacklisting and a bit more tutoring will make the game more fun and strategic.
 
The game was in a worse state overall in late beta/release.

i stopped playing because i could consistently draw my entire deck at no cost(as could the opponent) and every game was exactly the same. RNG was there just the same if you drew multiple of your thinning cards (which was fairly common due to the number of thinners people ran in every deck).

Currently there are still some powerful thinners in the game but because of the "recruitment cost" or whatever its called. Thinning isnt just something you add automatically to every deck because its always optimal.

A bit off topic: In addition there was no real comeback for 20+ point crones openers and shit like that - drawing 3 is much better since it allows you to at least play the game for a a few turns rather than instantly getting card disadvantage.
All the numbers were way too inflated. You had to specifically stop the same combo every game or lose automatically. Everything else you did never mattered. Point swings were way too huge.
 
The game was in a worse state overall in late beta/release.

i stopped playing because i could consistently draw my entire deck at no cost(as could the opponent) and every game was exactly the same. RNG was there just the same if you drew multiple of your thinning cards (which was fairly common due to the number of thinners people ran in every deck).

Currently there are still some powerful thinners in the game but because of the "recruitment cost" or whatever its called. Thinning isnt just something you add automatically to every deck because its always optimal.
Why such a black-or-white argument and assumption? Is there a request stated above to go back to the exact same situation as beta? There is a large area in between. I was almost forgetting that we also lost the third bronze copy. Having only two bronze copies brings a lot more inconsistency as well. It's very obvious that currently most matches are decided by card draws. This can and should be significantly reduced. A competitive strategic game should not have such a large gambling aspect.
 
Why such a black-or-white argument and assumption? Is there a request stated above to go back to the exact same situation as beta? There is a large area in between. I was almost forgetting that we also lost the third bronze copy. Having only two bronze copies brings a lot more inconsistency as well. It's very obvious that currently most matches are decided by card draws. This can and should be significantly reduced. A competitive strategic game should not have such a large gambling aspect.

This is quite a gross exaggeration. You have to admit that.

There is enough consistency that you will go through most of your good cards every game. You are not able to play the same thing every single time and still have to adapt. That's a good thing.

Being forced to have triples of each card would make decks more boring. This is one big drawback to MTG. Each deck has 4 copies of most cards. I much rather prefer the variety. Copies of 2 allows you to push a certain strategy without feeling like you're just playing the same cards over and over again.

You're playing a card game where you draw cards... Of course there will be inconsistency, but it is not just so random that you are just wildly playing different cards every game.

Let's be fair to the devs and stop pointing out problems where none exist.

People don't understand RNG so it becomes the scapegoat people blame when they lose games. It's a competitive game, you will lose as much as you win more or less. This isn't witcher 3 single player. What if decks were so consistent that you could play any card at any moment? You'd still only win half the time but then the game would divulge into a state of repetitive boredom.
 
Being forced to have triples of each card would make decks more boring.

Don't you have this backwards? In beta you could have single, double, triple bronze.. whatever you wanted. Homecoming forces you to have only 2 bronze and limit your deck's synergy. Its huge reason why so many decks feel incomplete.
 
Top Bottom