Hello CDPR, I write this post so you can please look into what I have to say and tell me what you can do about it. I also look forward to what the community has to say.
So, I played a ranked game in which I lost round 1. Then, on round 2, both players went all-in for the win, but somehow we ended up drawing the round. Then, to my surprise, the match was ended, and a victory was awarded to my counterpart.
I see some issues with the outcome of this match, basically regarding the match winning conditions stated for the game (at its current state).
First, I see that this match outcome is inconsistent with the claims you make regarding the match winning condition for the game being a "best-out-of-three-rounds" condition, as per below:
https://www.playgwent.com/en/media#/video (the "How To Play" one, 0:37)
https://www.playgwent.com/en/news/30766/introducing-gwent-guide (0:27)
Given this match winning condition, if a player wins round 1 and then draws round 2, he has not yet won in the match. This, because his counterpart can still beat him in round 3, in which case the match would end in a draw. That is, if a draw is a valid match outcome in this game. And a draw match outcome is necessary for a game in which rounds can end up in draws and that has this match winning condition. Core example: a match in which player 1 wins round 1, player 2 wins round 2, and then they somehow end up drawing round 3, necessarily has to end in a draw (this, because the match winning condition forces an allowance of maximum of 3 rounds per match). Then, the same underlying principles apply to the case I present, given that the best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition is still in place. Therefore, the match outcome in the case I present, is inconsistent with the claimed match winning condition.
Second, there is a faulty mechanic in place, I refer obviously to the "1/2-crown-awarded-per-round-victory/draw-1-crown-match-winning-condition" mechanic. In the case I present, it's because of this mechanic that the match outcome is fast-tracked to a defeat for me after the second round (instead of allowing the match to go to a third round). The problem with this mechanic (at its current state), is that it inherently conflicts with a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition. In part because this match winning condition introduces strategies for a third round win (that evidently require it to take place) and in part, because of the nature of this mechanic. These strategies are nullified by the chronological nature of the 1/2-crown-awarded-per-round-victory/draw-1-crown-match-winning-condition mechanic. Even more so, this mechanic effectively overrides the best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition, replacing it for a "first-player-to-obtain-1-full-crown-wins" or similar match winning condition. Therefore, this mentioned crown mechanic is faulty in a game trying to establish a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition.
In the case I present, from my player perspective, why would this be a valid match progress and outcome: R1=L, R2=W, R3=D => M=D, but not his one: R1=L, R2=D, R3=W => M=D? The round results are the same, the only difference between these two match progresses and outcomes is the chronological order of these round results. Worse still, how is it logical, in a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition game, in which the first round ends in a draw, that then the winner of the next round takes the match? There are no added or weighted points for chronological order of round wins in a game with a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition. And finally, it's obvious that in order to obtain a match win in a game with a match winning condition of best-out-of-three-rounds, you need to win two rounds. Then, if after three rounds, no player has achieved two wins, the match ends in a draw! (logically in a game where rounds can be drawn, which is the case).
Even more, in my opinion, this mechanic, once and if properly stated, would then change the whole dynamic and general feel of the game, turning into more like "a race to get there first" rather than a "strategical battle that can be dragged for up to three rounds", so to speak.
Third, and most importantly for me, this fault or inconsistency becomes even more relevant when playing ranked games, since loosing has evident and relevant different outcomes in rank advancement compared to drawing (which I don't think I need to detail here). What I mean by this, is that trying to draw a match in which you have lost round 1 and drawn round 2 (by winning round 3), is still a worthy end result to strive for, when playing for ranks at least. Obviously, in the case I present, the counterpart does not perceive the same overall reward for the match nor the same incentive for the last round (hence the existence of the mentioned faulty crown mechanic, perhaps?). But, in this case, the overall reward for the counterpart for his performance on the match so far, or his incentive for playing the last round, would be that he can no longer loose the match (with the according consequences in rank advancement) and can still very much go home with the win. More importantly though, lets not forget that, in this case, before round 3, the counterpart had not yet won the match in accordance to a best-out-three-rounds match winning condition, therefore had not yet earned the rank advancement reward. Likewise, in this case, I had not yet lost the match in accordance to a best-out-three-rounds match winning condition, therefore I had not yet earned the rank advancement penalty.
I hope I could be as clear as posible, so that CDPR can have their say on the issue, and hopefully, remediate the winning conditions of the game at its current state.
I'm also interested in seeing some debate around this issue among the community.
Cheers
So, I played a ranked game in which I lost round 1. Then, on round 2, both players went all-in for the win, but somehow we ended up drawing the round. Then, to my surprise, the match was ended, and a victory was awarded to my counterpart.
I see some issues with the outcome of this match, basically regarding the match winning conditions stated for the game (at its current state).
First, I see that this match outcome is inconsistent with the claims you make regarding the match winning condition for the game being a "best-out-of-three-rounds" condition, as per below:
https://www.playgwent.com/en/media#/video (the "How To Play" one, 0:37)
https://www.playgwent.com/en/news/30766/introducing-gwent-guide (0:27)
Given this match winning condition, if a player wins round 1 and then draws round 2, he has not yet won in the match. This, because his counterpart can still beat him in round 3, in which case the match would end in a draw. That is, if a draw is a valid match outcome in this game. And a draw match outcome is necessary for a game in which rounds can end up in draws and that has this match winning condition. Core example: a match in which player 1 wins round 1, player 2 wins round 2, and then they somehow end up drawing round 3, necessarily has to end in a draw (this, because the match winning condition forces an allowance of maximum of 3 rounds per match). Then, the same underlying principles apply to the case I present, given that the best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition is still in place. Therefore, the match outcome in the case I present, is inconsistent with the claimed match winning condition.
Second, there is a faulty mechanic in place, I refer obviously to the "1/2-crown-awarded-per-round-victory/draw-1-crown-match-winning-condition" mechanic. In the case I present, it's because of this mechanic that the match outcome is fast-tracked to a defeat for me after the second round (instead of allowing the match to go to a third round). The problem with this mechanic (at its current state), is that it inherently conflicts with a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition. In part because this match winning condition introduces strategies for a third round win (that evidently require it to take place) and in part, because of the nature of this mechanic. These strategies are nullified by the chronological nature of the 1/2-crown-awarded-per-round-victory/draw-1-crown-match-winning-condition mechanic. Even more so, this mechanic effectively overrides the best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition, replacing it for a "first-player-to-obtain-1-full-crown-wins" or similar match winning condition. Therefore, this mentioned crown mechanic is faulty in a game trying to establish a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition.
In the case I present, from my player perspective, why would this be a valid match progress and outcome: R1=L, R2=W, R3=D => M=D, but not his one: R1=L, R2=D, R3=W => M=D? The round results are the same, the only difference between these two match progresses and outcomes is the chronological order of these round results. Worse still, how is it logical, in a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition game, in which the first round ends in a draw, that then the winner of the next round takes the match? There are no added or weighted points for chronological order of round wins in a game with a best-out-of-three-rounds match winning condition. And finally, it's obvious that in order to obtain a match win in a game with a match winning condition of best-out-of-three-rounds, you need to win two rounds. Then, if after three rounds, no player has achieved two wins, the match ends in a draw! (logically in a game where rounds can be drawn, which is the case).
Even more, in my opinion, this mechanic, once and if properly stated, would then change the whole dynamic and general feel of the game, turning into more like "a race to get there first" rather than a "strategical battle that can be dragged for up to three rounds", so to speak.
Third, and most importantly for me, this fault or inconsistency becomes even more relevant when playing ranked games, since loosing has evident and relevant different outcomes in rank advancement compared to drawing (which I don't think I need to detail here). What I mean by this, is that trying to draw a match in which you have lost round 1 and drawn round 2 (by winning round 3), is still a worthy end result to strive for, when playing for ranks at least. Obviously, in the case I present, the counterpart does not perceive the same overall reward for the match nor the same incentive for the last round (hence the existence of the mentioned faulty crown mechanic, perhaps?). But, in this case, the overall reward for the counterpart for his performance on the match so far, or his incentive for playing the last round, would be that he can no longer loose the match (with the according consequences in rank advancement) and can still very much go home with the win. More importantly though, lets not forget that, in this case, before round 3, the counterpart had not yet won the match in accordance to a best-out-three-rounds match winning condition, therefore had not yet earned the rank advancement reward. Likewise, in this case, I had not yet lost the match in accordance to a best-out-three-rounds match winning condition, therefore I had not yet earned the rank advancement penalty.
I hope I could be as clear as posible, so that CDPR can have their say on the issue, and hopefully, remediate the winning conditions of the game at its current state.
I'm also interested in seeing some debate around this issue among the community.
Cheers
Last edited:
