RNG ruins the game.

+
I just want to mention that Gwent is still one of the least RNGfest CCG out there. There is actually a CCG without any RNG, but it never became popular (I also forgot the name).
 
I just want to mention that Gwent is still one of the least RNGfest CCG out there. There is actually a CCG without any RNG, but it never became popular (I also forgot the name).

Try out V:TES/vampire/jyhad. Very little RNG, outside of what you draw. And building a deck that isn't so reliant on the right draw is part of the fun.

I like gwent a lot more than mtg or hearthstone so far. Both of those had me quitting relatively quickly.
 
Too much consistency can be bad. It's what makes hyperthin so strong, it's what makes Calanthe and Cleaver unhealthy leaders (I mean unhealthy by making other leaders pale in comparison in efficinecy). There has to be certain RNG in a card game to simulate shuffling, otherwise it's not really a card game.
Too much consistency is bad, I agree, but I don't believe that reintroducing mulligan blacklisting and reducing RNG in card abilities will give too much consistency, as explained in multiple posts above.
Anyway, Archan6el, I would really recommend that you try playing Prismata, I have a feeling you might like it.
Thanks, it looks very interesting and fun. I'll definitely give it a try.
 
I don’t know how you calculated the probabilities but assuming you are right it only shows how bad Bribery is.

I'm curious to see the working, because I can't see a way to get 77%, unless the mechanics are very strange. If bribery can target 15 units and there's an equal chance of pulling each, then the chance of a particular card is 20%. If your deck only has 4 units in it, then the chance of a particular card is 75%.
 
A 77% chance to get my defender on the first bribery play is absurd.
The more I think about it the numbers aren’t right. The calculation depends on how many unique unit cards are in your deck, which only you can know and it’s most probably more than 4.
 
I'm curious to see the working, because I can't see a way to get 77%, unless the mechanics are very strange. If bribery can target 15 units and there's an equal chance of pulling each, then the chance of a particular card is 20%. If your deck only has 4 units in it, then the chance of a particular card is 75%.
The more I think about it the numbers aren’t right. The calculation depends on how many unique unit cards are in your deck, which only you can know and it’s most probably more than 4.

The exact percentage depends on the number of unique units in one's deck.
The worst odds are in a Shupe unit deck: 12%
The best odds are in a special heavy deck: 66% (and 44% for both tries)

The 77% was actually an incorrect calculation. It should have been 66%.
 
The exact percentage depends on the number of unique units in one's deck.
The worst odds are in a Shupe unit deck: 12%
The best odds are in a special heavy deck: 66% (and 44% for both tries)

The 77% was actually an incorrect calculation. It should have been 66%.

I am shocked at any number higher than 50%. Bribery is a ridiculous card.
 
The exact percentage depends on the number of unique units in one's deck.
The worst odds are in a Shupe unit deck: 12%
The best odds are in a special heavy deck: 66% (and 44% for both tries)

Can you explain your working and/or the mechanics? For the odds of bribery pulling a given card to be 66%, the odds of other cards in the deck being pulled must be lower. Does it prioritise gold/higher provision/higher power units?

12% makes sense. If a deck has 24 unique units, I'd expect bribery to pull a particular unit 3 out of 24, 12.5%. But a special-heavy deck still has 16 units, even if it's 7 pairs + 2 gold units, that's 9 unique ones, and bribery should miss that desired card 67% of the time, only pull that card 3 out of 9, 33.3%. It'll pull one of the 2 gold cards 58% of the time in that situation, 34% chance of pulling one of the 2 golds on both attempts, if the mechanics work in the obvious way, with all unique units an equal chance.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain your working and/or the mechanics?

Your calculations are correct, if Bribery is truly random. Maybe it is, I am not really sure. My personal experience tells a different tale. That is, I have almost always gotten a good gold card and often a defender. Similarly, when the opponent used Bribery he got the same result. Regardless, the odds seems to be a little too good.
 
Can you explain your working and/or the mechanics? For the odds of bribery pulling a given card to be 66%, the odds of other cards in the deck being pulled must be lower. Does it prioritise gold/higher provision/higher power units?

12% makes sense. If a deck has 24 unique units, I'd expect bribery to pull a particular unit 3 out of 24, 12.5%. But a special-heavy deck still has 16 units, even if it's 7 pairs + 2 gold units, that's 9 unique ones, and bribery should miss that desired card 67% of the time, only pull that card 3 out of 9, 33.3%. It'll pull one of the 2 gold cards 58% of the time in that situation, 34% chance of pulling one of the 2 golds on both attempts, if the mechanics work in the obvious way, with all unique units an equal chance.
This looks reasonable. I haven’t done probabilities of random draws for a long time but I refreshed my memory and assuming only 9 unique units the probability is 1/9+1/8+1/7 = 38% on a single Bribery and 0.38x0.38=14% drawing the same card on two consecutive Briberies. With 16 unique units it’s 20% and 4% respectively.

@4RM3D feel free to challenge me on this one.

Bottom line: Bribery, if truly random, is way too much of a gamble yet an auto-include in top tier competitive decks. It must be fairly consistently a high performing play given its provision cost. It either isn’t truly random or it’s too cheap. In any case it’s an exemplary bad RNG in the game.
 
Last edited:
This looks reasonable. I haven’t done probabilities of random draws for a long time but I refreshed my memory and assuming only 9 unique units the probability is 1/9+1/8+1/7 = 38% on a single Bribery and 0.38x0.38=14% drawing the same card on two consecutive Briberies. With 16 unique units it’s 20% and 4% respectively.

Now do that with 4 cards, 1/4 + 1/3 + 1/2, and you get a 108% chance of getting each of the 4 cards. ;)

It's actually 1 - (8/9 x 7/8 x 6/7) = 1/3 or 33%. And 1 - (15/16 x 14/15 x 13/14) = 3/16 or 19%

My personal experience tells a different tale. That is, I have almost always gotten a good gold card and often a defender. Similarly, when the opponent used Bribery he got the same result. Regardless, the odds seems to be a little too good.

I'm open to the idea it isn't random, I haven't played enough myself to have an opinion. I was just curious to know how you were getting your numbers.

Seems like it'd be worth doing an experiment, if you have a few people able to jump on discord and play games against each other. Generate some actual stats over a bunch of games.
 
I am fed up with bribery and anyone who defends it either had an agenda or doesn't know what they are talking about. Bribery has FAR too good odds to pull game winning golds and its obvious when you see it done over and over and over again. I just got out of a game were the guy pulled Jutta for 12 points and then Geralt Axii for something like 20 points. This is not an exception it happens constantly and the only thing different about his game was the guy didn't pull the same gold both plays which is what I am usually looking at. Maybe the devs will do something about all of the broken BS in this game next patch. Fingers crossed.
 
That's a very bad argument. Gwent is not every card game and I don't think anyone wants Gwent to be like other card games.

There's simply too much RNG in Gwent to state that skill is your greatest weapon. Sure, if you play hundreds of games, the RNG is evened out and you can say the overall result is based on skill. But that's not what it says. We're talking individual games here. Like tournaments. Like the examples I gave.

For each individual game, the outcome is mostly based on luck if both players know how to play. For a truly skill-based strategy game, it is important to reduce RNG and luck. If mulligan blacklisting is not a big factor then why not reintroduce it? Nobody wants to get a copy of a card that was just mulliganed. It would make the game feel much better.

So, I play an Imperial Formation NG deck, where the only Create mechanic is in my Dazbog (sp?) Runestone, which I always mulligan - I'm actually thinking of replacing it with a 5 point unit and call it a day. Does that mean that in my games, "GWENT is card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon." applies perfectly?
 
I am fed up with bribery and anyone who defends it either had an agenda or doesn't know what they are talking about. Bribery has FAR too good odds to pull game winning golds and its obvious when you see it done over and over and over again. I just got out of a game were the guy pulled Jutta for 12 points and then Geralt Axii for something like 20 points. This is not an exception it happens constantly and the only thing different about his game was the guy didn't pull the same gold both plays which is what I am usually looking at. Maybe the devs will do something about all of the broken BS in this game next patch. Fingers crossed.
I think the "RNG" is not random at all. I just had a game with 6 units on a row, one of them was a Damien with Order. Opponent plays Hemdall and hits Damien 4 times in row and then 2 other units, with a ship-ping killing my Damien off. Hemdall hitting Damien like that has a 0.077% chance. I don't believe for a moment that this RNG crap is random as it happens way too often.
So, I play an Imperial Formation NG deck, where the only Create mechanic is in my Dazbog (sp?) Runestone, which I always mulligan - I'm actually thinking of replacing it with a 5 point unit and call it a day. Does that mean that in my games, "GWENT is card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon." applies perfectly?
Unfortunately not as it depends on your opponent as well, card draws, card combinations you get, timing, etc. Still too much RNG in those things for my liking.
 
Unfortunately not as it depends on your opponent as well, card draws, card combinations you get, timing, etc.

Okay, so let's say I'm not playing against Enslave Nilfgaard. I'm playing against NR, Monster bleed or some dwarven invasion deck... would the quoted sentence be proper then?

Also card draws, card combinations and timing will all remain, even if Bribery and in general the Create and Seize mechanics get nerfed to the ground, so that shouldn't be counted against Gwent.
 
Last edited:
This makes me sad. The ONLY Randomness that should exist in the game is the drawing of the cards. Everything past that should be set in stone. This is supposed to be a game of skill not luck and having played in BETA, stopped, and come back to what ever all this is has been a huge dissapointment.

The more I read, the less I want to bother getting back in to it. :(
 
Top Bottom