[Feedback/Idea] How to make Gwent less luck dependent

[Guest 4404014]

Almost everyone I talked to about Gwent more or less agrees with this line of thought: none of Gwent cards are really overpowered because MOST OF THEM ARE OVERPOWERED. The game allows for stunning possibilities to gain insurmountable advantage over your opponent as long as you've hit your draw and they have not. This leads to an obvious conclusion: the Gwent marketing slogan "Skill Beats Luck" is a major overstatement. Another slogan advertising "Back-And-Forth Gameplay" is also quite disconnected from reality. In most cases there is only a "forth" and there is no way in hell for a "back" unless - of course - you hit your draw.

This forces quite a sad comparison. Gwent is an amazing game in many aspects. But when it comes to the win-lose factor, it pretty much boils down to a more sophisticated version of a card game called "War." You drew your higher and the guy drew his lower - you take it. There is some skill involved, naturally, but that's limited to neutral draws. By the end of the day, cards in Gwent are so powerful and offer so much crushing synergies that if you didn't draw, no skill will help you. Not even if your opponent played open handed.

I hope devs are reading this because the solution - in principle at least but surely not in execution - is quite simple. Lower the cost and increase the availability of tutor cards. Royal Decree for example is 10 provision which is more or less at the same level as some of the most powerful golds. Why is it so? If it was cheaper and available in different versions (say 8 for Decree and other similar tutors but with different flavors in each faction), the chance of you not being able to use what you packed would not be so high.

I am aware that every change can affect or even ruin the cohesion of the system so I am not proposing this lightheartedly. But it is certainly something to think about. The frustration of constantly losing because you just couldn't draw what you needed is real. Gwent cards are just too powerful for the current level of how luck can influence the game.

Thanks for reading. All comments welcome.

 

[Pacifixer]

I can't agree with this. I never noticed any major incosistences when playing meta decks. Yes, sometimes you just get screwed over and miss all your win conditions, but it's rare, very rare, less than 1/20 games. And yes, meme decks tend to be inconsistent, but that is different issue. Normaly you can work with what you've got without any problems. Compared to for example MTG, Gwent is almost 100% consistent.

 

[Guest 4404014]

Gwent is almost 100% consistent.

I'm not saying it's inconsistent. I'm saying it's luck dependent. Luck evens out so in a way it is consistent. But what influences your win-lose in a particular case of a particular game is mostly how you drew vs how your opponent drew not how you play vs how your opponent plays (unless it's neutral draw or natural advantage of some decks against others).

sometimes you just get screwed over and miss all your win conditions

No, you get screwed when you miss one win condition more than your opponent. Like missing Vissererd or Draug in NG Draug. You do that and your opponent gets all the pieces of his puzzle = you lose. Unless it's a poison deck or sth that struggles with swarms, etc. And vice versa. You pull everything out on Draug and the opponent misses their row punish = they can't possibly win.

 

[Qzman]

Card games in general are not for people looking for the degree of certainty you wish for... Gwent is quite benevolent in this regard.

 

[quintivarium]

Part of the strategy of a game like Gwent is designing consistent decks that minimize luck of the draw. Perfect tutors (like Royal decree that always draws the card of your choice) not only eliminate a challenging aspect to deck design, they reduce the challenge of improvising with what you have as well as reducing the variety of strategies used since now all players can not only always have the exact same cards but can always play them in exactly the same order too.

If the game depends too much upon lucky draws allowing you to win simply because you drew your 6 best cards when your opponent drew only 5 top cards, a far better solution is to even out the difference between cards so drawing suboptimal cards is not disastrous.

 

[Guest 4404014]

Card games in general are not for people looking for the degree of certainty you wish for...

It's not that I wish for certainty per se. I wish for a game where your decisions are based on MORE ON anticipation, strategy and knowledge of the game AND LESS ON hoping that I draw and he do not. Because if he drew and I did not, he is very often unbeatable to me.

Part of the strategy of a game like Gwent is designing consistent decks that minimize luck of the draw

Or you could paraphrase that eloquent sentence into: use tutors/creates. Decree is for 10, the new Oneiromancy is 12, Matta is for 9, Triss: TK is for 11. These are huge costs imo. If you cripple your deck too much you might not win even with a perfect draw.

I'm not saying they should be 4 so that you could lay back and play any card at any moment. Let's not trivialize my feedback by turning it into exaggeration. I just think they are too pricey at the moment, and some minor adjustment to that might result in reinforcing the "Skill Beats Luck" slogan. Or might not. I'd welcome more insight into that.

 

[4RM3D]

What you're describing already happened in beta, the tutor nightmare, and almost everyone, devs included, hated it. I understand your reasoning behind the suggestion, but I disagree that tutors are the answer. And if you still want to go down that path, then make the tutors conditional, at least.

 

[Guest 4404014]

What you're describing already happened in beta, the tutor nightmare, and almost everyone, devs included, hated it. I understand your reasoning behind the suggestion, but I disagree that tutors are the answer.

Thank you for the reply. I joined recently and I have no idea about beta. But beta was before Ofir and other exps that introduced new stuff and increased the power and synergy of plays. I can only surmise but it's a different game now, isn't it?

I totally agree that overdoing what I proposed would be disastrous. But I think it should be at least considered to make some small steps in that direction.

And if you still want to go down that path, then make the tutors conditional, at least.

That might be it depending on design of those conditions. But logically it makes little sense to introduce another layer of rng in order to counter luck dependency.

 

[DRK3]

The game already has enough tutors, specially compared to early HC where witcher trio was an auto-include for thinning.

If its so important for your deck to get your golds, you need to spend more provisions on tutors and thinning, you lose a few points but increase the odds tremendously to get your most important cards.

Its quite the paradox - on one side, making the game more consistent makes it less 'luck of the draw', however if its too consistent, then all matches will play the same and it requires no strategy or talent to adapt to different situations.

 

[4RM3D]

But logically it makes little sense to introduce another layer of rng in order to counter luck dependency.

It's not RNG when the parameters can be controlled. All my suggestions in the linked thread, while outdated, do not contain RNG.

 

[Six-Sided-Prism]

If the game depends too much upon lucky draws allowing you to win simply because you drew your 6 best cards when your opponent drew only 5 top cards, a far better solution is to even out the difference between cards so drawing suboptimal cards is not disastrous.

This is clearly the true answer to ya1's complaints about Gwent. Trying to make many of the overpowered cards less broken seems far more logical than trying to ensure that every player's hand contains nothing but broken cards.

 

[RichardIgnanz]

Luck is an essential component of a card game otherwise we could also play for example chess.
Lesser luck would also mean even more predictable games.
I totally disagree.

 

[Guest 4404014]

Lesser luck would also mean even more predictable games.

I'm not talking about zero luck, man. I'm talking about JUST A LITTLE BIT LESS.

Trying to make many of the overpowered cards less broken seems far more logical than trying to ensure that every player's hand contains nothing but broken cards.

That's also true.

It's not RNG when the parameters can be controlled. All my suggestions in the linked thread, while outdated, do not contain RNG.

Yes, sorry, I didn't look at them carefully. Those are some great ideas. However, no parameters can be fully controlled when there are two opposing parties exerting control (not that I think everything should be controlled fully, just saying).

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Increase number of mulligans. Done. Problem solved. It's easy, simple and effective solution to the draw-RNG issue. Mothly patches, where the number of mulligans is adjusted based on overall opinion within the community.

I might be an idiot as I can't for the life of me grasp my head around the argument that all games will play the same. If there is this case that 'games are already consistent' and in essence already play the same, then decreasing draw-RNG will not make any difference.

It is easier to balance Gwent when there is more consistency in RNG draws. Developers wont have to account for RNG when balancing certain combos or synergies. In current environment, synergies either achieve value above provision cost, or below provision cost if not drawn, leaving people to opt in for more consistent plays. Reducing RNG in combination with effective balancing will increase variety. Thus despite 'all games will play the same' we would actually see more deck variations.

Finally, the game might encourage players to find creative solutions to compete. If balancing is done right, (provided that consistency increases) we might see some decks that play deceptive. Luring the opponent into a long round or pretending to be an OP combo deck, so that the opponent bleeds round 2 and goes a card down. Or making the opponent keep a useless tech option in his hand. Creative plays cannot be a thing when there is inconsistency, as you cannot properly excecute your strategy, when you dont draw the required cards. Playing with what you have, is arguably more braindead than 'all games will play the same'.

Consistency is way down the gutter in round 1 and 2. Despite having an idea of what the right play is, you often can't excecute the game plan.
Running with bricks in your deck ? Well, that's too bad that you only can use 1 mulligan while there are 5 golds in your deck.

 

[Guest 4404014]

I can't agree with this. I never noticed any major incosistences when playing meta decks. Yes, sometimes you just get screwed over and miss all your win conditions, but it's rare, very rare, less than 1/20 games. And yes, meme decks tend to be inconsistent, but that is different issue. Normaly you can work with what you've got without any problems. Compared to for example MTG, Gwent is almost 100% consistent.

I don't know, man. You got more experience, and I respect your opinion but again I'm coming back from a game that could not have been won no matter what. I knew his deck. I knew his cards. He was playing them one after another, and I knew exactly what he would play almost at any given time. He could have been playing open handed. And there was still nothing I could have done with my draw against his. And it was not due to the rock-paper-scissors advantage.

I record games with OCB to learn my misplays. There are PLENTY games where no matter how I play there is LITERALLY zero chance for me to win. And the difference is often just that one synergy/answer card that he drew and I didn't. One more gold. If there is zero possibility to win even if you could see your opponent's hand - then imo there is a problem with the card game.

Conversely, I see many games where I win just because he didn't play what I knew he had in the deck but didn't draw. I roll the dice and I win. There is too much luck involved in Gwent in proportion to how strong cards are against one another.

 

[quintivarium]

If you have a problem with RNG in Gwent, which in my experience is far less luck dependent than any other ccg, I suggest you look at your deck design. If your round one strategy depends upon a particular card, or even one of two cards, it is poorly conceived. If your round 3 depends upon 5 or 6 cards that you dare not play or mulligan, it is poorly conceived.

We could conceivably eliminate all draw randomness by simply making the deck be the hand, with no draws. In my estimation, that would get stale very quickly, and everything would depend upon owning the meta cards.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

If your round one strategy depends upon a particular card, or even one of two cards, it is poorly conceived. If your round 3 depends upon 5 or 6 cards that you dare not play or mulligan, it is poorly conceived.

We could conceivably eliminate all draw randomness by simply making the deck be the hand, with no draws. In my estimation, that would get stale very quickly, and everything would depend upon owning the meta cards.

Regarding the first statement.
It pretty much follows that you are constricted in your deck building. When you are constricted to build your deck in a certain way, then no wonder there is this mentality that 'we see no variety, and every game will play the same'.
If you have freedom in your deck building that isn't punnished by RNG-draws, then you can build strategies. And if these strategies are balanced correctly, which is easier to do with less RNG, then we will see more variety, not less. Surprise factor is still a big thing in Gwent, which especialy is relevant in a stale meta. Surprise factor needs less RNG to function.

Regarding the second statement.
This actually sounds like a very interesting concept. Although the current format of Gwent, where you only can hold 10 cards, has more depth.
If you are in control of your hand, then you can adapt to first round based on the opponents leader and how well you read the meta. And again, by having balanced cards, surprise factor is detrimental.
You still have the option to pass 3 cards down, to withold information, luring the opponent into either a push or round 3 punish. These choices have meaning. Choices based on what you draw, do not. If you read the opponent correctly, you should be rewarded for your insight, if you instead are punished by bad draws then it isn't only fair but unstrategic. Your choices basically have less meaning.

 

[Guest 4404014]

If you have a problem with RNG in Gwent, which in my experience is far less luck dependent than any other ccg, I suggest you look at your deck design.

Any argument against any system can be refuted ad hominem by saying that whoever made that argument is unable to adapt to that system. As in "the game is fine, you're just a bad player."

My decks are fine. They pretty much 95% meta with 5% personal adjustments. Those adjustments do not include removing tutors. Maybe I'm misplaying too much but as I said, I looked at some of my games, and in a worrying number of cases there was no way to win no matter how I'd play. Purely because he drew and I didn't.

If your round one strategy depends upon a particular card, or even one of two cards, it is poorly conceived. If your round 3 depends upon 5 or 6 cards that you dare not play or mulligan, it is poorly conceived.

What do you mean poorly conceived?

If NG soldier ball drew perfectly for R3 then you need that purify+artifact removal. No matter how HARD you conceive that, if you didn't get it in R1, R2, R3, then you can only take one last sad look at the remains of your deck with them Pellar, Heaver and Decree at the bottom and hope he also misdrew. You auto-lose if he didn't. So decks that do not pack double purify and double artifact removal are poorly conceived?

Or Greatswords. You didn't draw your 5p removals or movement or enough locks vs. Gremist for those ships in R1, and he drew a lot of them, you lose round control and you lose the game because you are very unlikely to beat SK last say. Unless you draw perfectly ofc, and he somehow didn't hit his Wild Boar, Morkvarg, Decree, etc. More rng - not because the deck is poorly conceived. Because you didn't draw what you have conceived.

I could give an example from every meta deck. Those decks are so strong when they draw perfectly that you don't stand much chance if you didn't draw perfectly yourself.

Post automatically merged: Jun 13, 2020

Increase number of mulligans. Done. Problem solved.

Yeah, that would work, too. +1

 

[Balgar-bard-slayer]

I would like to make an adjustment to the tutors though. Royal Decree would be wonderful if you could draw any unit, then play a card.

Or change Matta to when you play it, it auto plays your largest card, and auto plays your opponents lowest card, but you have to discard a card.

Matta already has a 6 body, so why does it cost less than Royal Decree, when it allows you to carry over your best card for a later round whilst still giving you tempo?

The most frustrating thing when playing a Witcher deck is having Royal Decree, but having Auckes in hand, when you really want to be holding Serrit, and vice-versa. Witcher decks are generally not viable at the best of times, so this would be a massive improvement.

Personally I think giving Royal decree more control by making it draw any unit, play a card, would make it a much more interesting strategic card.

The above also should apply to cards like Thousand Fables.

 

[Guest 4404014]

So, another game, another RNG loss. Mirror SK Greatswords (but the guy used Patricide for some reason). It all came down to a Greatsword behind a defender. He drew his Gremist and Decree, I didn't. He could Morkvarg my Greatsword, I couldn't his. Could not have been won. And the guy made a few misplays like Decreeing a unit he didn't need. Plus he used a leader with less synergy. No advantage has any meaning if you don't draw what you need.

Another layer of RNG is how important for many decks it is to win R1 (and not commit too much) where you only got about 50% chance to draw the card you need. Losing last say in R3 where you have no stategem or any other advantage except one more mulligan is disastrous for too many decks. And losing round control for decks that got no good short R3 is also disastrous.

So, after some consideration, I agree with @Alexander_Volgin. In order not to break the game implementing some new and untested mechanics, increasing the number of mulligans to 4 on blue and 3 on red is a safe solution that would lessen the impact of RNG.

A fun addition to that would be an option to banish or graveyard one card during each mulligan in order to get rid of tech you know you don't need (or think you don't need and then get surprised - another layer of fun decision making).