GG or NOT GG...!!? [Rework GG System]

+
GG is kinda 1-sided (Winner side) thing for me right now, I always GG (even when i lose) but i only receive GG when i lose. I mean common!!! a POOR MAN'S GWENT need free mats, i know it's not that much but hey material is material.

So, i think RED should rework GG system to something like: either BOTH players send out GG or non will get the mats.

Only then player will send more GG, or else nobody get free mats, no harm done :D.

Rework or Not, i'll always send out GG, i have faith in you guy, be the better player. GG..!!!
 
Last edited:
GG is kinda 1-sided (Winner side) thing for me right now, I always GG (even when i lose) but i only receive GG when i lose. I mean common!!! a POOR MAN'S GWENT need free mats, i know it's not that much but hey material is material.

So, i think RED should rework GG system to something like: either BOTH players send out GG or non will get the mats.

Only then player will send more GG, or else nobody get free mats, no harm done :D.

Rework or Not, i'll always send out GG, i have faith in you guy, be the better player. GG..!!!
There is similar topic already. Started as me being mad at "GG spammers", developed into a suggestion thread. And there's a suggestion there for turning GG button into a toast one, with more rewards if both players toast. But when this idea was posted into the TWIG AMA thread, it got no interest form Pawel Burza (or other people, apparently).
As for the GG situation itself... Played 4 games today. For the 60 neutrals quest, so I was using my neutrals deck (no faction cards) and played unranked. My opponents were SK (BoG), MO (Carapace), SK (Patricide), MO (Nature's Force). The last opponent forfeited after playing a single card to answer my Shupe. Don't know their reason, but it was fast, allowed me to get last 2 neutrals played, so I've sent a GG. The other MO player was playing some sort of Vampires deck, but they were pretty good (and the deck seemed different from the boring cloned variant), so I've sent a GG as well (after I won). With SK I won one game and lost another. No GG in both cases. Because for me GG is not a "won/lost" thing, more like "had fun/was bored to death", and losing to a good opponent beats winning against a boring one who played an overused cloned deck. Being poor or new in Gwent doesn't justify being lazy, imho.
 
Last edited:
I’ve said this before, but in a different context. To me, sending a GG is simple sportsmanship; simple courtesy. Complaining that it is “spammed” is like like complaining about spammed kindness.

As for me, I will almost always send a GG, win or lose — unless my opponent has shown atrocious sportsmanship.
 
I’ve said this before, but in a different context. To me, sending a GG is simple sportsmanship; simple courtesy. Complaining that it is “spammed” is like like complaining about spammed kindness.
Yes, kindness can be spammed. When it's either hypocritical or just has no meaning for the person being "kind", an automatic response. And it can be even more atrocious than foul play.
 
either BOTH players send out GG or non will get the mats.
No, I do not think this would be a good idea.

(All of the text below is covered by a blanket "in my opinion".)

The GG system is, and this cannot be underlined enough, an optional way to reward/thank opponents. And that's exactly what it should remain.

There is nothing wrong with never sending GG. There is nothing wrong with only sending GG under some circumstances, whatever they may be. There is nothing wrong with always sending GG.
People who choose not to send GG should not be punished by denying rewards opponents would give them, when it's 100% the opponents' decision to hit the button.


How such a simple and completely harmless -- if anything, it's purely beneficial -- system causes so much grief and anger and whatnot is beyond me. Especially when the rewards are nothing significant (which is as it should be).
And it's been the same from the beginning, 2016.

GG however and whenever you want, and let others do the same. There isn't anything complicated about it.
 
Yes, I would rework the GG system. You should actually get resources anyways, just for playing instead of needing GGs.
GG should work like : every X GGs you receive/give you get something in return.
 
Personally, I can understand some players' frustration with the system, and the desire to reward good sportsmanship, or to reward both players in mutual agreement, rather than merely one side.

I've not commented on this for some while, but I'll take a moment to do so now: For myself, I generally offer a GG to my opponent, whether I get one back myself or not, either for an entertaining match; for showing me a strategy I mayn't have encountered before; if the final score was remarkably close; or if there was an honestly clever play, no matter if I won or lost. I try to appreciate the art of the game for what it is, although, on rare occasions, if I feel an opponent won far too easily, or if my deck wasn't capable of competing, I simply won't return a GG. As time has worn on, these latter cases have become rarer for me. I try not to let my personal frustration interfere with being a gracious sportsman, even in defeat, and I hope to see the same in others. (But, I'll not lie, I've lost plenty of times.)

Is the current GG system perfect? Likely not, especially considering the various complaints and criticisms it has drawn over the years.

So, let's consider what it's supposed to be: Ideally, GGs are voluntary tokens of appreciation, exchanged between players, thanking one another for a game they -- hopefully, both -- enjoyed. Sometimes, the enjoyment is, indeed, one-sided. Ay, Gwent can be quite frustrating, and there're often times when we mayn't feel like rewarding our opponents -- especially after a chain of defeats, facing very similar (or identical) decks. In such cases, a GG isn't compulsory. It's up the players' consciences to decide whether their foes merit thanks or not.

Does the GG system do more harm than good, though? Does it spoil the fun of the game, and foster hostility, rather than kindness? I'd say no, but for some players, the answer, apparently, is yes. While, for others, it's merely an optional means of thanking folk, and sending a wee reward.

With respect for the frustration, or dissatisfaction, with the system, I could see some possible benefit in adding a special bonus reward, in the event that both players send GGs, rather than only one. For example, an additional +2 could be added to each player's reward, if both opponents opt for a GG. This could offer an incentive to thank one another more often, or, at least, make mutually enjoyed matches feel a bit more positive.

However, I don't think that GG tokens should be denied altogether, if but one player thanks the other. That seems rather counter-productive, to my mind.
 
Does the GG system do more harm than good, though? Does it spoil the fun of the game, and foster hostility, rather than kindness? I'd say no, but for some players, the answer, apparently, is yes. While, for others, it's merely an optional means of thanking folk, and sending a wee reward.

I think the problem is that way too many folks have developed an expectation of receiving that "wee reward" since it builds up to a significant amount of resources over the course of time. I also believe that GG's have lost their relevance as they're mostly awarded automatically or withheld as a punitive response to their opponent's style of play / deck. There's nothing sportsmanlike about either of those behaviours.

My suggestion in the previous thread on this topic was to automatically award the current GG resources while remaking GG's into a limited quantity per day that you can send to double your opponents resource award or possibly add 5-10 powder to it. This has three benefits:

1.) The people who feel entitled to their resource awards for playing a complete game will always get them.
2.) Keeping GG's limited to three (as an example) per day means no one will develop an expectation of receiving a GG and will appreciate it when they do get one.
3.) The people who only hand them out when they feel they're deserved for unique or challenging play will still be able to do exactly that. Maybe this might even encourage some players to try something new instead of just mimicking the metadeck of the month.

However, this would necessitate implementing a minimum number of cards / rounds played before awarding resources to prevent people from forfeit-farming them.
 
Last edited:
My suggestion in the previous thread on this topic was to automatically award the current GG resources while remaking GG's into a limited quantity per day that you can send to double your opponents resource award.
Interesting. So, basically, reward players for completing matches (without forfeiting, I suppose), win or lose, and reserve GGs as a special, discretionary bonus? I suppose something of the kind could work, though it might need some adjustment.
Beating the same old undead horse, I see.
Hmm. That reminds me. . .
1618418496977.png
 
Interesting. So, basically, reward players for completing matches (without forfeiting, I suppose), win or lose, and reserve GGs as a special, discretionary bonus? I suppose something of the kind could work, though it might need some adjustment.
Since daily quests exist (however outdated and unbalanced they are), there is already a reward for just playing. More idle resource farming?
 
I try not to let my personal frustration interfere with being a gracious sportsman, even in defeat, and I hope to see the same in others. (But, I'll not lie, I've lost plenty of times.)
Perfectly formulated, indeed.
Post automatically merged:

... to prevent people from forfeit-farming them.
You're sure people do that? I insta-forfeited few times. In Casual only and, for example, in case I wanted to try some new build and realized my fatal error in the initial draw. Or wanted to try some meme and queued into some unplayable deck.

Anyways, although I'm pretty happy with the current GG system, I must admit to see interesting points in your proposal.
 
Last edited:
there is already a reward for just playing. More idle resource farming?
As I said, it likely would need some adjustment, if the idea were considered. In any case, I rather doubt many newcomers would object to gaining resources from completing matches; however, I see your concern.
 
Just add the BG/thumbs down button right next to GG and award players the same amount of resources regardless of which one they decide to use. This way:
- the chance that either side refuses to hit any button is very slim
- both get some resources
- each player gets an immediate feedback, whether their play deserved his opponent's appreciation or not

GG/BG could be represented by some small disdtinctive graphic in the popup that currently shows up upon receiving GG.
Negative feedback is still a valuable feedback, and a sign, that your play was not appreciated. Then it's solely up to the player to decide whether he wants to do something with it or not. Right now, there's no good way to let your opponent know your true evaluation of his play, which just intensifies frustration, leads to Alt+F4 actions, etc.
 
Yeah no. It would do nothing positive; people would just be upset, and rightly so. Not to mention some people would use BG just out of spite.
This overwhelming protectionism. 'Let's not let them know their play was boring/repetitive/disruptive, because they are so sensitive and might get upset'. Really? Come on.
Out of spite they Alt+F4 now. Do you think this is better than a BG button?
 
Although I can appreciate the idea of offering constructive criticism to our fellow players, I fear that a thumbs-down button would, indeed, most likely generate more aggravation and antagonism than positive improvements in sportsmanship.
 
Do you think this is better than a BG button?
I don't think so, I know so.

People would abuse it, it would do nothing beneficial, it would cause even more upset than there already is, and I'm sure you would regret the suggestion if, for some inexplicable reason, it was added and you received BGs yourself.

That's the last I'll say about it.
 
Just add the BG/thumbs down button right next to GG and award players the same amount of resources regardless of which one they decide to use. This way:
- the chance that either side refuses to hit any button is very slim
- both get some resources
- each player gets an immediate feedback, whether their play deserved his opponent's appreciation or not

GG/BG could be represented by some small disdtinctive graphic in the popup that currently shows up upon receiving GG.
Negative feedback is still a valuable feedback, and a sign, that your play was not appreciated. Then it's solely up to the player to decide whether he wants to do something with it or not. Right now, there's no good way to let your opponent know your true evaluation of his play, which just intensifies frustration, leads to Alt+F4 actions, etc.
No, that's a terrible idea. Yes, sometimes after a game I'd love to repeatedly hit my opponent's head with a heavy rock. But thanks to the internet I can simply ignore such games (by not giving them GG, for example). Hurray for impersonal interaction and anger management. But if there would be a "dislike" button... You don't see enough toxic trolls on the web, so you want them in Gwent? Legions of people will just abuse this button hoping to get to those who for some reason care for a random opponent's opinion. That's just cruel. And there's too much drek in the world already.
 
Top Bottom