Balancing the Coin Flip

[overcold_ice]

"A player that went second on the first round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one."

Fixes a major coin-flip issue and makes the first player's pass a possible advantage. If that rule is extended to round 2 (and the loser becomes the second player), it will fix some carry-over issues.

 

[Esmer]

"A player that went second on the first round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one."

This generally fixes an issue when the second player wins on equal cards (unless he is ahead so much that he can afford to play a CA spy as his last turn and then pass).

He can still bleed the 1st player in round 2 (and use the spy to get back 1 CA if he didn't use the spy round 1). In this case he still goes second in the 3rd round on equal cards (unless the 1st player had some carry over or a wardancer to win R2 without playing cards and the 2nd player didn't have a spy).

So while this solution makes going 1st slightly less frustrating, this is far from being fair.

 

[overcold_ice]

This generally fixes an issue when the second player wins on equal cards (unless he is ahead so much that he can afford to play a CA spy as his last turn and then pass).

He can still bleed the 1st player in round 2 (and use the spy to get back 1 CA if he didn't use the spy round 1). In this case he still goes second in the 3rd round on equal cards (unless the 1st player had some carry over or a wardancer to win R2 without playing cards and the 2nd player didn't have a spy).

So while this solution makes going 1st slightly less frustrating, this is far from being fair.

CA spies cause problems on their own, so they just need to be removed from the game. Then they should be replaced with game-mechanics that would solve carry-over/coin-flip problems.

I'm sure R3 with equal cards is fair enough, unless what you meant by far-from-being-fair is either CA spies, or carry-overs (+wardancers), or both. Which there's a further solution to those that I've came up with. (Link)

 

[TrompeLaMort]

"A player that went second on the first round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one."

Fixes a major coin-flip issue and makes the first player's pass a possible advantage. If that rule is extended to round 2 (and the loser becomes the second player), it will fix some carry-over issues.

This doesn't fix spy abuse, unless you also propose second player can't pass first. You play something, I play spy. If you pass, okay, I can't pass right now, but I don't want to anyway. If you don't pass, I can just pass and lose 2 cards up;

 

[overcold_ice]

This doesn't fix spy abuse, unless you also propose second player can't pass first. You play something, I play spy. If you pass, okay, I can't pass right now, but I don't want to anyway. If you don't pass, I can just pass and lose 2 cards up;

I'm sure the thread is about coin-flip, so I gave a solution for that only. Disregarding the existence of CA spies because they're not a direct part of coin-flip, but rather, cards that worsen the coin-flip problems. If you want to see a possible solution for most CA problems we're having, go here. But anyway, removing them from the game is the best solution available for CA spies.

 

[TrompeLaMort]

I'm sure the thread is about coin-flip, so I gave a solution for that only. Disregarding the existence of CA spies because they're not a direct part of coin-flip, but rather, cards that worsen the coin-flip problems. If you want to see a possible solution for most CA problems we're having, go here. But anyway, removing them from the game is the best solution available for CA spies.

OK, that is fair. I disagreed because I think that CA spies' problem is fundamentally a coin-flip problem. And a true fix for the coin-flip should fix the CA spy problem as well.

 

[time_drainer]

Hi guys,
Coin-flip seriously pissed me off recently so I did some research and went through this and some other topics on the issue.

I have to say that out of all suggestions I've seen so far I like these most:

Second Player Rule:
"A player that went second on a round can't declare a pass just after the other player declared one."

1. Coin-flip solution: Yield! If you go first, you get a Yield card/token. It states: Draw a card and lose the round. Banish self at the end of first round.

Personally I would apply overcold_ice's solution only for first round, but if I got it right second round application was meant to solve other issues than coin-flip so doesn't really belong to this topic.
I am also only speaking about the quoted ideas from each "package", as I favor the other ideas there less for various reasons (again they're not strictly about coin-flip so won't go into details).

I have a slight preference for TrompeLaMort's solution, although if you think about it they're pretty much the same, only while first solution would force second player to commit another card to fight CA, second one would rather let first player to draw a new card. But to be honest I would be completely happy if either one of these would be implemented.

First I was conflicted about these suggestion as they pretty much make win -1CA outcome automatic making the stakes in first round lower. I like the idea of earning CA if you manage to overwhelm your opponent (so win on equal, or lose with +2CA), but I realized that since this possibility is only open for second player, it's only fair to deny it completely.

What I like about both ideas is that they put players on equal ground regarding first round control as they're both able to resign on the same condition, i.e. having one more card than the opponent - which option was always available for second player.

Regarding CA Spies I'm in favor of removing them completely as I think they make more harm than good to the game. I do realize that a lot of people like them cause they need some strategic thinking to use properly but they are simply too OP and too easy to abuse. (Everything I wrote above assumes they're removed when one of the above solutions is applied.)

 

[overcold_ice]

Glad to see more people see the light.

Yeah the second round application of my rule is related to carry-over problems, not coin-flip.

 

[SentienceLOL]

More mullgans doesn't really work if you run more of a risk of drawing a card like roach

 

[LethoClean]

Coinflip suggestion?

If you go first in the 3rd round draw a extra card. Does this sound fair? If your down a card.

 

[kotpeter]

Yet another coinflip solution proposal

EDITED: Ok, so I made a bit more analysis on the coinflip and CA situation and came up with the following solution:

"Allow the player to draw an additional card at the start of the next round if he won the previous round 2 or more cards down. Also, if it happens give his opponent an additional mulligan attempt".

The logic behind it is quite simple: in the first round the player can safely win the round 2 cards down and not lose CA. In the second round, the player is only 1 card down against his opponent, the opponent has 1 extra mulligan attempt. The mulligan attempt has the same effect in terms of deck consistency as draw (both give you 1 new card from your deck, therefore consistency effect is roughly the same).

There are some other implications of this rule worth mentioning:

1) The winning player can spend 1 extra card after his opponent passes in order to have 1 extra cycle through his deck; however, it gives his opponent additional mulligan attempt (a bit worse than 1 extra cycle through deck, so can be considered a winner's slight advantage);

2) In the second round the winning player (if he lost the first round) can sacrifice CA for 1 extra cycle through his deck if looking for a deadly combo;

3) CA spies remain as is and provide extra deck cycling at the cost of value. They do not provide significant CA though, as it's nullified during 1nd and 2nd round by the described rule; in the 3rd round they might be used to gain last turn or CA but it's not critical and unbalanced due to their high power IMO.

4) Carryover will have more interesting implications (i.e. you can play it as the last card during round 1 and carry it over to the round 2 without losing card in hand). I don't sense anything unbalanced though.

The main negative side of this rule is that it makes CA mechanic (n its current state) very rare to occur and impact on the match. Personally I won't be missing it that much since losing on cards is more common among newer and less experienced players; and right now 90% of 1st rounds are merely races of tempo plays which is not fun at all.

Also, this rule globally impacts deck consistency, which may be another drawback from game design perspective. All design decisions would need to take this rule into account then.

 

[Widerschein]

First time visitor and poster to this forum. Basically felt compelled to come here after reaching 4250mmr then having a 7 blue coin run of where I only won once due to my opponent bricking his hand. It's the first time I really soured on the game because, as anyone playing that close, or above, 4300mmr knows, your chances of winning are greatly diminished when you lose the coin-flip. I consider myself a very good player but I feel, at this level, you are playing a coinflip simulator occasionally influenced by unlucky draws. This is real problem and I'm heartened to see so many people here calling it out. We all want Gwent to succeed but why would I want to keep playing a game where a simulator decides that 50% of the time I will be more than 35% more likely to lose? For reference, my winrate is around 55% but I only win 20% of my blue coin matches.

A thought I've had (apologies if this has been included elsewhere in this giant thread) for fixing the issue revolves around 2 points:

1) Make it so the red coin player does not get any round 1 mulligans. Playing 2nd remains powerful that you should never drypass round 1 but it would be counter-balanced by not being able to mulligan for your most effective hand.

2) Have the game track when you play 1st or 2nd, and make sure you are matched to play the opposite next match, regardless of a win/loss. For example, if you play first in a game, you are automatically guaranteed to play 2nd in a match against a player (of similar mmr) that played 2nd their last game who will be guaranteed to play 1st against you; in either case, the win/loss outcome does not influence this matching.

The first suggestion is the one that will make the biggest impact, the second one is more of a 'quality of life' that counters that fatigue that sets in from having those '7 blue coins in a row' run.

Anyway, just adding my perspective to the discussion. Again, apologies if this has unknowingly echoed what's already been said. I just hope a solution is found or else I don't see myself sticking with the game.

 

[Metales1949]

Why don't have a limit to start without coin flip?

In my last 20 games I played first in 14x... wtf?

Bonus: 8 games in a row without coin flip. =/

Bad lucky?

Bug?

:huh:

 

[devivre]

Metales1949 not entirely sure what it is that you are suggesting, but coinflip discussions and suggestions seem better off here in this thread.

 

[Metales1949]

Metales1949 not entirely sure what it is that you are suggesting, but coinflip discussions and suggestions seem better off here in this thread.

You only give me one more reason to never play this game again and come back to HS.

 

[liezldiezldee]

The Coin Flip is actually a Non issue for 90% of the ladder, it's in tournaments and very high skill matches that the Flip matters, my suggestion aint a 4th Mully it may look that way but im saying you choose a card to go back into your deck and then you have your 3 mullies but the card you choose to go back cant come back out during Mulligan.

Not an issue?

Henslet basically always dry passes turn 1

Axemen always dry passes turn 1

Brouver going second basically always wins the game


They keep the tempo/card advantage even if you could cherry pick your hand going first. You HAVE to play spies or you cant win.

 

[veritasprime]

Coinflip Balance Suggestion - Blue receives additional choose card

What if Blue Coin received an additional card, that had to be played after another card is played (so always in conjunction with a card, and always after that first card), which gave the player 3 options:

1. Boost by 6 - targetted
2. Damage by 6 (cannot damage card below 1 power, so it cannot be used for removal on its own) - targetted
3. Spawn an immune, doomed 3 power token with resilience (susceptible to removal by hazards or RNG damage) - spawns on the row you placed your last unit (from hand, from deck, or from spawn/create mechanics as long as it was placed on the board by the player)

Thoughts? Does the token spawn punish proactive decks? And is 3 power too strong? Is 6 points (half a bronze avg value) enough to address card disadvantage?

 

[Jeydra]

Going first doesn't mean there's card disadvantage. It can be one of the results, but it's not card disadvantage.

Also here's a random idea I thought of to address spies and coin flip simultaneously. The person going first gets an extra, non-mulliganable card that spawns his or her faction spy. This ensures the first player is never vulnerable to spy abuse from the second player. I am not sure how to make this mesh with normal spies & deckbuilding though - maybe make it so it also makes your spy, if you have one, becomes a loyal unit that doesn't draw a card.

 

[Khreygond]

They could just make it so that the red player cannot play a card advantage spy until his opponent has played his or until after the first round. Seems simple enough.

 

[Jeydra]

That would undoubtedly help! However I'm also thinking of the situation where the person who loses round 1 (a real option is drypassing on the blue coin) not having spy in round 2 while the opponent does, which is a truly miserable situation. There's also going first against a deck like consume, in which case you really want the spy so you can shoot for winning on equal cards.