RNG ruins the game.

[Guest 4305932]

I think numbers in beta were dropping because nothing was happening. Homecoming as a new game should have boosted the numbers.
.

Numbers in beta were dropping far before Midwinter and HC announcement and mainly because of the staleness of the gameplay thanks to the hyper consistency.

Right now there is quite a large RNG factor. That RNG factor currently decides most of the time who of those equally skilled players will win, instead of small differences between these players in intuition, choices and strategic plays. Even simpler: if you are not so skilled but you draw all your good cards at the right time and in the right combinations, you will win against a pro player who doesn't. Luck beats skill.

But this is not something that can happen in Gwent when you don't draw between turn. Gwent is probably the only CCG without the top deck luck.

 

[Archan6el]

But this is not something that can happen in Gwent when you don't draw between turn. Gwent is probably the only CCG without the top deck luck.

Why not? You draw a perfect combination of synergistic and/or counter cards at the beginning of a round. Then there is the luck every turn in the round if your opponent plays a card that you have a proper answer for. Luck still works for you.

 

[Guest 4305932]

Why not? You draw a perfect combination of synergistic and/or counter cards at the beginning of a round.

Exactly because you draw at the start of the round. It shift from "next turn i could draw an answer" to "ok, i know what i have now i need to manage this entire hand". In Gwent you start with 10 draw and 3 redraw. If you don't have enough resources in this hand then it's mainly a deckbuilding problem.

Then there is the luck every turn in the round if your opponent plays a card that you have a proper answer for. Luck still works for you.

No, saying that there is luck every turn is, like you said in another post, an "extreme being used as an argument". Gwent is a game about managing of you hand and guessing of your opponent hand. If you return or go to the direction where you have the answer every time game became not only boring but exacerbate the rock /paper/scissor aspect of certain matchup

 

[BornBoring]

That chart doesn't take everything into account. In beta, number were already dropping. Furthermore, it's rare to see a game gaining more users past its initial momentum, unless it's a really popular game. This means that if Homecoming never had happened, the user base still wouldn't be as high as the peak, during beta. I would even dare to say the number might actually be lower than it is today.

https://sullygnome.com/game/Gwent_The_Witcher_Card_Game/longtermstats

The numbers were already much lower one month after the HC release than during the great content drought. Should be a clear indicator that something went wrong.

Lastly, I want to mention that the further Gwent moved away from the original game in the Witcher, the better it actually got because it stripped away the imbalanced parts. Then, during Midwinter, the devs might have gone a bit too far.

You know if you disagree with your own argument only one sentence later, it can't be a very good one. Yes, it got more balanced till MW and therefore it seemed to be the better game, but their reductive game design approach was a ticking bomb. Taking the easiest solution isn't always the best one and the way they tried to fix certain issues wasn't optimal.

However, that also thought them a valuable lesson and it was probably the trigger (or an important one) for the upcoming switch to Homecoming.

Wrong lesson learned apparently. That's how we got here. Or all their focus was on thronebreaker and the mobile version, I don't know.

 

[Guest 4305932]

https://sullygnome.com/game/Gwent_The_Witcher_Card_Game/longtermstats

The numbers were already much lower one month after the HC release than during the great content drought. Should be a clear indicator that something went wrong.

Viewers are a pretty flawed way to show game popularity and a really flawed way to tell something about a game quality. Artifact launch was 1 month after HC . It's obvious that numbers were lowere than during the drought

 

[Archan6el]

If you don't have enough resources in this hand then it's mainly a deckbuilding problem.

Or simply bad luck in the card draws.

No, saying that there is luck every turn is, like you said in another post, an "extreme being used as an argument". Gwent is a game about managing of you hand and guessing of your opponent hand. If you return or go to the direction where you have the answer every time game became not only boring but exacerbate the rock /paper/scissor aspect of certain matchup

Eh, no. While I'm only saying that there should be less RNG and a bit more tutoring, the extremes are the responses suggesting that it will be going back to OB, thinning to zero and having no RNG. Just like you writing here "have the answer EVERY time". It's like some people can only think binary, 0 or 1.

 

[Rammyp]

I'm getting tired of seeing this extreme being used as an argument/question all the time. Better access to cards in your deck through mulligan blacklisting and a bit more bronze tutoring does not mean thinning to zero or getting rid of RNG completely. Even if you would thin to zero, there would still be a lot of RNG through timing of specific card draws and opponent play. I already explained this above.

Agreed, especially about the tutoring bronzes part. However i'm still not that bothered by the RNG element as it is today. As i recall in beta there was only one mulligan phase in the begining of the match while now we have 2 cards before each round (thats 6/7 cards total) that along with a deck that thins properly keeps the RNG element at a lvl that doesn't ruin the game for me, but that feeling can change from player to player naturally.

 

[Guest 4305932]

Or simply bad luck in the card draws.

Eh, no. While I'm only saying that there should be less RNG and a bit more tutoring, the extremes are the responses suggesting that it will be going back to OB, thinning to zero and having no RNG. Just like you writing here "have the answer EVERY time". It's like some people can only think binary, 0 or 1.

No? I don't see any difference between "have the answer EVERY time" (which is an exaggeration, i know) and "you need luck EVERY turn". Both are on the same level.

 

[4RM3D]

What do you mean? Again, on the Gwent website: "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". Do you think that's true for current Gwent? I don't.

Considering you've mentioned this twice and want to continue to do so, let me put it simple... The above sentence is 100% accurate. Why? Because skill is, indeed, your greatest weapon. Those at the top aren't more lucky than the rest. No, they are more skilled.

There are two scenarios where skill might not be enough. The first being when you queue into the wrong side of a rock-paper-scissors match. You might still be able to win by playing smart, depending on the skill and cards of the opponent. The second scenario being when you draw poorly or your opponent draws perfectly. Even then, skill can still be the deciding factor. However, when both players have equal skill, then luck might be decisive after all. Though, I would like to stress that this luck-factor only makes up about 10% to 20% of the games, which still means you can climb the ranks with a steady win-rate.

On a side note, don't forget that Gwent is still one of the most consistent CCG out there.

And on another side note, you are to hung up on the marketing page and that one sentence. I understand, but you have to look at the whole page too.

Fact? Proven how, by whom? I think numbers in beta were dropping because nothing was happening. Homecoming as a new game should have boosted the numbers.

Already explained that in my previous post.

If beta would have been further developed and optimized with HC features, I think the user base would have been much higher now.

[...] it has introduced quite a lot of things that are not so good. Overall, that has apparently resulted in a drop in numbers.

You make it sound easy, just slap the best of beta and Homecoming together and, voila, you got the best card game ever. Now we are going into the speculative domain of what could have been and how it would have effected the player base. My opinion is that the beta version would not have lasted as long, similarly to how Artifact went downhill. So, CDPR decided to do a 180 and throw a Hail Mary.

 

[Archan6el]

No? I don't see any difference between "have the answer EVERY time" (which is an exaggeration, i know) and "you need luck EVERY turn". Both are on the same level.

Lol. Nice try. "You need luck EVERY turn" is not what I wrote. There is some luck every turn when your opponent plays something that you anticipated and/or have a good follow-up play for.

 

[Guest 4305932]

Lol. Nice try. "You need luck EVERY turn" is not what I wrote. There is some luck every turn when your opponent plays something that you anticipated and/or have a good follow-up play for.

Right, you wrote "there is luck every turn" but the point still stands. There is no luck if the opponent plays something that you anticipated, it's your skill in reading his hand and managing your resources

 

[4RM3D]

The numbers were already much lower one month after the HC release than during the great content drought. Should be a clear indicator that something went wrong.

Those numbers don't show what would have happened without Homecoming; it could have been even worse.

Taking the easiest solution isn't always the best one and the way they tried to fix certain issues wasn't optimal.

Discarding beta and starting over isn't the easiest solution and it takes guts. Furthermore, like I have mentioned a few times before, the original Gwent game was inherently flawed and not suited to be a competitive CCG. Trying to make an actual competitive CCG out of that isn't easy.

Wrong lesson learned apparently. That's how we got here. Or all their focus was on thronebreaker and the mobile version, I don't know.

Thronebreaker was originally made with the three row system and mobile wasn't in the picture yet. With the shift to HC, Thronebreaker needed to be revamped too.

 

[Archan6el]

Considering you've mentioned this twice and want to continue to do so, let me put it simple... The above sentence is 100% accurate. Why? Because skill is, indeed, your greatest weapon. Those at the top aren't more lucky than the rest. No, they are more skilled.

There are two scenarios where skill might not be enough. The first being when you queue into the wrong side of a rock-paper-scissors match. You might still be able to win by playing smart, depending on the skill and cards of the opponent. The second scenario being when you draw poorly or your opponent draws perfectly. Even then, skill can still be the deciding factor. However, when both players have equal skill, then luck might be decisive after all. Though, I would like to stress that this luck-factor only makes up about 10% to 20% of the games, which still means you can climb the ranks with a steady win-rate.

Yes, they are more skilled. And they grind, playing loads of games with the best decks to even out the RNG. Especially at their level, a little variance in luck and skill should decide who wins. The variance in luck due to RNG is currently too much in my opinion, certainly for a game that is supposed to be strategic. How do you know about this luck-factor percentage?

And on another side note, you are to hung up on the marketing page and that one sentence. I understand, but you have to look at the whole page too.

You mentioned the main selling point. That one sentence is the main selling point for me.

You make it sound easy, just slap the best of beta and Homecoming together and, voila, you got the best card game ever. Now we are going into the speculative domain of what could have been and how it would have effected the player base. My opinion is that the beta version would not have lasted as long, similarly to how Artifact went downhill. So, CDPR decided to do a 180 and throw a Hail Mary.

Numbers don't lie, neither do the posts and discussions on this forum. But fair enough, it is still a lot of speculation.

 

[BornBoring]

Thronebreaker was originally made with the three row system and mobile wasn't in the picture yet. With the shift to HC, Thronebreaker needed to be revamped too.

So you were part of the development process, huh? Mobile wasn't in the picture yet? How do you know that? And maybe their decision to revamp the game was also influenced by the desire to create a more fitting UI for Thronebreaker. Actually, looking at it, it's actually quite obvious that the UI design was heavily influenced by Thronebreaker. Like I don't if these things really played a huge role in the early decision process, but neither do you.

Those numbers don't show what would have happened without Homecoming; it could have been even worse.

Do you get paid for this? 6 months with no updates while the game was in a pretty bad state and still the bigger drop off was after HC. Naturally, that doesn't mean HC was bad. In fact it has been brilliant, but only a small group of people is smart enough to see it . I don't even think that HC was unecessary, In fact I was in favor of it. The problem is just that I expected a improved version of closed beta/early open beta Gwent as the name suggested. Or you can just use it as a catchy marketing name and create a new game. What could go wrong....

Discarding beta and starting over isn't the easiest solution and it takes guts.

I'm talking about the changes they've made since the beginning at the start of open beta till end of OB.
Row locked units --> just make all agile
Gold immunity --> just completely remove it
faction passives --> remove it (ok, I liked that)
carryover --> just remove 95% of it

Only thing they didn't 'fix' was the coinflip problem. Removing stuff is easier than adding anything positive I guess.

Furthermore, like I have mentioned a few times before, the original Gwent game was inherently flawed and not suited to be a competitive CCG. Trying to make an actual competitive CCG out of that isn't easy.

And the reception was still quite positive during CB. Sure, you can talk yourself into the idea that all CDPR did was correct, but the game was just fundamentaly flawed and Burza actually said it here on these forums. There were a lot of design mistakes they've made during OB though, which lead to the great discontent after the midwinter update.

My opinion is that the beta version would not have lasted as long, similarly to how Artifact went downhill.

As long as what? HC? I don't understand the comparison with Artifact. That game died within just a few weeks after release.

 

[Guest 4305932]

Actually, looking at it, it's actually quite obvious that the UI design was heavily influenced by Thronebreaker. Like I don't if it's true, but neither do you know it isn't.

Not really. TB was initially designed with beta UI as you can see in these screens. They changed both UI during the HC project.

https://www.gamerspack.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/GWENT_Thronebreaker_06_gamescom2017.jpg

source: https://www.gamerspack.com/2017/08/22/gwent-thronebreaker/

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Why do people keep quoting where skill and not RNG determine the outcome. That doesn't mean there is zero RNG.
Let me take it to the extreme with poker. Would you say RNG determines the outcome there? How is it possible for there to be professional players and have people consistently winning.

Gwent is certainly a game with a ton of information. Do you count how many provisions your opponent has left. Do you monitor what cards they play and in which round. Do you track and see which card they played (left or right side of their hand).
There's a lot you can do in Gwent ... But to say RNG is way too heavy is just wrong. Beta Gwent which was based on witcher 3 which was designed as a single player game.

I'm not sure what people are expecting. Gwent isn't chess where you have perfect information. Even in beta.
Every game you draw 16 guaranteed cards and 8 mulligans more less. This means you go through your cards almost every game. You can't play the same thing every time, but you can adapt and make it work. However there are cards that allow you to draw and thin your deck too at a certain provision cost. You need to balance this with points. For me this is a smart design.

Are you asking to play a game where you can do the same thing every time with your deck?

 

[4RM3D]

6 months with no updates while the game was in a pretty bad state and still the bigger drop off was after HC. Naturally, that doesn't mean HC was bad. In fact it has been brilliant, but only a small group of people is smart enough to see it.

The "drop-off" meant that (some) beta players were hoping for something else. That doesn't automatically mean HC was a mistake. I still believe that HC changed for the better, but not without some sacrifice. Anyhow, we each have our own opinion. Just be careful with using numbers. There may be more going on behind the scenes that we are aware of.

Row locked units --> just make all agile
Gold immunity --> just completely remove it
faction passives --> remove it (ok, I liked that)
carryover --> just remove 95% of it

- Row locked units wasn't a good concept to begin with, as I have explained in another thread.
- Gold immunity was broken (not to mention Henselt Promote), especially now when there isn't a gold cap anymore.
- Faction passives limited the design space.
- Well, the dwarven carry-over deck was a bit too much.

And the reception was still quite positive during CB. Sure, you can talk yourself into the idea that all CDPR did was correct, but the game was just fundamentaly flawed and Burza actually said it here on these forums. There were a lot of design mistakes they've made during OB though, which lead to the great discontent after the midwinter update.

You acknowledge that beta was in a bad state and needed to change and change is what we got. I understand that not everyone is happy with it, but at least CDPR tried to salvage the game instead of letting it die out. The end result is that some players do like it and others don't.

As long as what? HC? I don't understand the comparison with Artifact. That game died within just a few weeks after release.

Artifact was in closed beta where the studio didn't listen to the feedback of the community and released the game as is, while addressing the problems with the game too late (or not at all). Gwent beta followed the same pattern, but less extreme.

 

[BornBoring]

- Row locked units wasn't a good concept to begin with, as I have explained in another thread.
- Gold immunity was broken (not to mention Henselt Promote), especially now when there isn't a gold cap anymore.
- Faction passives limited the design space.
- Well, the dwarven carry-over deck was a bit too much.

"Taking the easiest solution isn't always the best one and the way they tried to fix certain issues wasn't optimal. "



Again, it's not about changing something, but about what changes are done. Removing something is the easiest solution.

- I don't want do discuss what's the best solution regarding rows now, but CDPR admitted that there has to be some way to give them meaning. I'm fine with idea behind the current system, but its implementation looks a bit half assed in my eyes.

- We have never seen them test anything regarding gold immunity.
What could have worked pretty well if implemented properly would have been that only the last gold card played could get immunity and if you play another one the other previous one loses immunity. That way cheesy spam golds and scorch everything while your opponent can't interact with you tactics wouldn't be possible.
It would have worked quite well with the provision system, because not all gold cards ideally need to have the same power level as during beta. There could be gold and silver cards again. Some cards could be available in both versions, but with different provision costs.

- Design space is an overused word, but yeah it was next to weather the main balance issue.

- Carryover is important to give rounds more meaning and its removal played its role in the increasing number of round 1 drypasses during beta. Two things are important: There has to be to some degree of equal distribution between factions, not an entire archetype build around it as old dwarves. Direct carryover (resilience, morkvarg, olgierd, wardancer etc.) were that great, because your opponent couldn't drypass in round two then. That made carryover too powerful. So, there are two solutions: Either you are forced to play at least one card the next round to 'activate' your carryover or it works like Ronvid at the end. Either way some visual indication would be needed how many points carry over. Talking about carryover: indirect carryover in terms of graveyard strengthening doesn't exist anymore, because another interesting mechanic in strengthening/weakening is gone (which again had its own (fixable!) issues)

Artifact was in closed beta where the studio didn't listen to the feedback of the community and released the game as is, while addressing the problems with the game too late (or not at all). Gwent beta followed the same pattern, but less extreme.

Artifact didn't have a closed beta like Gwent. The closed beta started about two weeks before launch. Before only streamers, pro players etc. were testing the game. Gwent was doing fine for about one year. Artifact didn't never have a real community. You shouldn't drive away your existing community trying to appeal a different one. That rarely works out.

 

[Archan6el]

Why do people keep quoting where skill and not RNG determine the outcome. That doesn't mean there is zero RNG.
Let me take it to the extreme with poker. Would you say RNG determines the outcome there? How is it possible for there to be professional players and have people consistently winning.

Poker is a very different game, where you play many rounds to determine the outcome of a single game. That evens out the RNG within one game. On top of that you can fold a round, increase the stakes and bluff. There is simply no comparison.

This means you go through your cards almost every game. You can't play the same thing every time, but you can adapt and make it work. ... Are you asking to play a game where you can do the same thing every time with your deck?

Here we go again... back where we started. Even if you would go through your entire deck (which is not what is proposed), that doesn't mean you play the same thing every time. More details in previous posts.

Just be careful with using numbers. There may be more going on behind the scenes that we are aware of.

Where does your luck-factor percentage number come from?

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Poker is a very different game, where you play many rounds to determine the outcome of a single game. That evens out the RNG within one game. On top of that you can fold a round, increase the stakes and bluff. There is simply no comparison.

Firstly, I did not say it was one to one, I said the opposite -- "let me take it to the extreme" (implying the closer games like MTG also successfully play with randomness). There is a lot of comparison to poker though: Random draws, reading your opponent, playing optimally.

You don't need to fold/raise etc however, in this game, the best players rise to the top. How can certain players in Gwent consistently play near the top of the leaderboard? It's not random, even those with hundreds of games do not just appear at the top of prorank. I watched BeardyBog's stream last season when he climbed and held #1 -- there was a lot of thought going into it. How much skill was involved for LordBushwook to win the tournament (forgot the name now) twice in a row?

You're not going to win each individual game, but in the long run, you will win most, this is fine in a ladder system where you are playing hundreds of games. By the law of large numbers, you'll sort yourself out to your correct MMR. This is valid.

What about in a tournament setting? In the round robin setting you play 6 or more games. In the elimination bracket, you play a series best of 5 at minimum.

Let's look at best of 5.
If a player has a 5% advantage (in terms of likelihood of winning over his opponent), he will win the series 59% of the time
10% advantage -> 68%
15% advantage --> 76%

What about if a complete new player faces a veteran (say the veteran has a 95% chance to win, in the very small chance that his opponent outdraws him and win 5% of times). In a best of 5 series, the veteran will win 99.9% of the time.

Note that if we change to best of 7 series, each advantage is much more impactful (.61, .71, .80, and 1.00 respectively)

This holds true RNG or not, and I get that the post is about each individual game itself, but my point here illustrates that the better player DOES win more often in the long run (which is also true for any game).
However I've already explained before how each individual match does not rely heavily on randomness.
As a personal anecdote: I've never lost a single game vs a new player in Gwent. I in fact always feel bad that they are matched up with me, since I can see every mistake they make, and can often finish the game with massive card and/or point advantages. This is not the mark of a game where randomness rules.


You're free to have your own opinion that beta gwent was superior of course, but I just haven't seen any compelling evidence or argument to convince me that the current version of Gwent isn't a much healthier game with a better design space for future iterations.