Cut down Rounds to 2

[Fimbulthrym]

After cut down 3 rows to 2, 3 copies to 2, 3 Card-Values (bronze/ilver/gold) to 2 you missed the step and remain with 3 rounds per game.
At first, this isnt meant for complain but a serious suggestion.
The first round dry-pass is eliminated by hand-cards limit, but i realy never saw a played second round in PTR. Whoever wins first round drypass second. So the second is only for replenishment of handcards. Just cut this round completely, so if you lost 1. round, you can only achieve a draw in 2. one, which will lead to a harder fight about round 1. I mean now the win/losses in first two rounds are always divided evenly, so only the third one matters anyway.
And as far i can tell, there is no deck-type, that profits of 3 round, so there wont be a loss either.

So make Gwent finally a game of duality and drop the trinity aspect.

 

[4RM3D]

 

[Fimbulthrym]

As i stated earlier i am serious about it. Its true that i am a bit sarcastic too, but the question still remain truthfully. All aspects were cut down to 2 choices, only the rounds remain.

 

[Fimbulthrym]

Just a reminder: I really think Gwent right now doesnt need 3 rounds. One round is mostly skipped. (otherwise pls post a example, why not)

 

[_Kili_]

Great idea!
We got a real visionary here: You can't lose to cancer decks if you can't lose at all!
Gwent the way Marx would have designed it: only Draws, no wins, no losses

 

[Pruny]

gwent is dead, TB online is second coming...

 

[Vaishar]

With 3 rounds right now it's easier for beginners to win a round faster. With 2 rounds might be a problem.

Second. With 2 rounds there will be a new problem that appear. Like most of the time the one that looses the first round has the last say in the last round. So going first and winning actually gives the opponent card advantage. And this will lead to dry pass in the first round most of the time.

 

[jgolden234]

With 3 rounds right now it's easier for beginners to win a round faster. With 2 rounds might be a problem.

Second. With 2 rounds there will be a new problem that appear. Like most of the time the one that looses the first round has the last say in the last round. So going first and winning actually gives the opponent card advantage. And this will lead to dry pass in the first round most of the time.

This.

And sometimes I do play into round 2 and it is the reason I win. It is a key way to beat control decks.

 

[Vaerynn]

It would make sense with the cut from 3 down to 2, as you've correctly pointed out the 'trinity'-centric focus of the game is now all but void. There is no reason for it to be 3 rounds.

I'd also say cut the witcher trio, make mulligan 4 for round 1 and 2 for round 2 (Or at least that would be the hope with a stable leader).

I think your argumentation is compelling all things considered. Great idea.

 

[1990BW]

There are at least 2 decks that benefit from a r2:

1 NG witchers
2 M witchers

Both include Ciri & Ciri Dash to gain card advantage in r3.
If your opponent plays lots of artifects and cards such as Wolfsbane it's also worthy to bleed your opponent in r2.

Although I understand your viewpoint of 2 rounds it actually requires to overhaul a large part of the game.
I'm not sure if thats a good idea when Gwent is in such a poor state..........

 

[Vaerynn]

Both include Ciri & Ciri Dash to gain card advantage in r3.
If your opponent plays lots of artifects and cards such as Wolfsbane it's also worthy to bleed your opponent in r2.

- Ciri would be useful in one less round - the card advantage would be available in Round 2 if you lost Round 1. That isn't really an insurmountable position, you either gain advantage in Round 2 if you lose, or you do not.

- Ciri Dash is effected even less by 2 Rounds - Of course it depends on how many cards are committed to Round 1 if you are relying on her effect for Round 2.

- You would simply bleed your opponents deck in Round 1. Not a big issue for you. If they cannot win Round 1 against you they would not be able to win against you at all.

Although I understand your viewpoint of 2 rounds it actually requires to overhaul a large part of the game.

I do not agree. Minor changes. I'd make the game consistent around a dual complacent value system. I do not believe this is much different than the current value system in play. 3 to 2. Eh.

 

[Que-Hegan]

[...] the second [...] Just cut this round completly [...] which will lead to a harder fight about round 1 [...]

Why only made round 1 harder when you can made it become the hardest round, let cut both round 2 and 3 so every game become a win or lose just in 1 shot, save some time aye . Let's say: Each player start with 4 provision and 3 cards, gain 5 provision and draw 1 card each turn, sound familiar....

P/s: y'all know i'm just kidding, right!

 

[Shabman]

Wait, wait! I think RNG should decide whether a particular game would have 1, 2 or 3 rounds.

How cool is that? Every match would feel totally different, as you wouldn't know what to expect. Like, you don't even know if there's gonna be a round after the one you're playing! Sure would keep players on their toes.

 

[partci]

Nice maths, dude.

 

[nedders]

I think he's on to something, but it shouldn't even be 2 rounds. It should be ONE. And you should have all of your cards (cutting total hand size down to around 15-20).

No tutor, no reveal, no more RNG. Just one long, challenging round to determine the winner, based on your strategy. Now that's a game I'd wanna play.

 

[idomyownstunts]

Err. What.

 

[Draconifors]

This would only increase the number of ties by a HUGE amount. Now that tie = both players "lose" instead of the earlier tie = both players "win", it's a definite "no thank you" from me.

Would be super discouraging; lose round one and the best you can get is a tie -- meaning zero rounds won for you. (Unless I'm misremembering and a tie does give the round to both players. Obviously cannot check right now since the game is down.)

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Best out of 5.

Oh and great idea

Let's say: Each player start with 4 provision and 3 cards, gain 5 provision and draw 1 card each turn

Drawing a card each turn would greatly improve consistency and remove this boring mechanics of "passing".

 

[_Kili_]

How about we play no rounds at all, the coinflip decides who wins? more RNG isn't possible

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

That would save me some time compleating daily 18 rounds, excellent idea, keep it coming.