Deck consistency and RNG in Card-Draw.

+
To prevent the topic from fading, it's this time of the year to restart the discussion.
Thankfully with all the shiny new faces on the forums, we would hopefully get a nuanced debate with regards to how the RNG feels in the current format, and hopefully come up with a few ideas that could improve the mechanics of card-draw in Gwent.

Just to summarize a few facts. Consistency tools such as 'Royal Decree' has been included in every meta-deck (post buff down from 12 provisions, due to players screaming for more consistency and 'Nerf Birna' outcries because of SK being the most consistent faction at the begining of Homecoming. The recent meta-snapshot shows just that https://teamleviathangaming.com/meta/ .

Fact number two: Ive seen a lot of streamers/meme deck builders complaining about quality of their draws when playing less consistent and combo-intensive decks, that required atleast 3-4 cards to propperly setup, so that a combo would work.
I feel their pain. It feels crap being stuck with a bad hand, and god forbid I ever will sink that low to play a meme deck with no consistency. The frustration will never be worth it. But what if we could diminish this frustration by reducing this randomness, in order to allow players to pull of the combos in every game. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Solution.
Since there are disagreements with what good and bad RNG is, and that RNG somehow is beneficial. That this is a card game and RNG should be part of it. That RNG allows players to win, seemingly at random. That RNG creates variety in terms of how a deck plays, as you are not getting the cards you want, but have to design your sequencing based on assumptions of your opponent. Etc etc.

I propose a graduate implementation of improvements. Lets start with bronzes which are or atleast shold be a 'core' of your deck.
Lets say that when you mulligan a bronze, you wont draw a copy of it later on. Now having 8-10 different bronzes in your deck, this idea doesent sound too good. But what if we get 5 mulligans at the begining of a round, this starts to feel like an improvement. Number of mulligans can be adjusted based on consensus within the community.
 
This topic has been around quite some time and the opinions on that differ more than I expected. The most important thing you pointed out is, that Gwent is a card game and I think that's the way it should be treated. It is not like chess or Starcraft where your initial situation is always the same. To me a good card player is someone who acts best with the given resources. To compare one player with another you should check, who wins more games with the same deck when 100 games are played.

A good comparison to me is poker. You don't alwas get a full house so the challenge is to make the best of your hand. In digital card games like Gwent or Magic you can take influence on draws through deckbuilding and mulligans. In Gwent you can build very small decks consisting of 25 cards and you get 6 - 7 mulligans what is a lot and consistancy is already pretty high. My experience is, that if you play against SY they almost always are able to play Madame Luiza into Savolla in round 3. Even a more sophisticated combo where you play the NG Scenario round 1 then Assire into Matta Huuri to play the scenarion again can be pulled of most of the times. As I player I would be really annoyed if these combos could be pulled of 100%. It is obvious that players want consistent decks but it would be bad for the game. You don't have to be a good player to play Luiza into Savolla if you have the combo in hand. You are a good player when you manage to win the game when you didn't draw that combo.

Controversy incoming: If anything I would like to see the minimum deck size increased to 30 so less consistancy :cool:.
 

4RM3D

Ex-moderator
Why this is even a discussion is because of the background of users. I just assume that most players complaining about RNG came from the Witcher and/or haven't played any other CCG like MtG or HS. The fact is that Gwent is already one of the most consistent card games out there with the least amount of RNG. It seems that not many people realize what this means. Not only does this make the game far more difficult to balance it also makes the game less diverse because all matches play out similarly.

The game doesn't need less RNG, it needs more RNG. This may sound odd, but that's only because players see RNG as only a necessary evil. However, not all RNG is inherently bad. Before continuing I do need to separate RNG into two categories: draw RNG and card RNG (i.e. it's ability).

Draw RNG is already pretty minimal in Gwent. Reducing it even more and there won't be any RNG at all. This also impacts how you build your decks. Especially in traditional card games this is important because you have to think about the curve and the number of copies. However Gwent has neither and this is the core of problem with regards to draw RNG. There is no deckbuilding consideration, except for putting in more tutors, which isn't really a consideration at all. During beta (Mid-winter update) and the tutor fiasco, we saw how stale the game became. So, now tutors have been reduced, but there is no tactical aspect to it. Most tutors are straightforward and boring and Call of the Forest has been butchered too. In short, Gwent has no interesting way to deal with draw RNG. That's the problem, not the RNG itself.

Lastly about the card ability's RNG (i.e. Bribery). When you make RNG cards meme level, that's no fun. Then again, if you make them competitive, that's going to be an issue too. The solution is a mechanic that can reduce RNG based factors you can control. A good example is Double Cross, where you decide when to play it to reduce the RNG, but, at the same time, the opponent can also try to minimize the value of your Double Cross. There is room for RNG in competitive play, as long as it's not a single point of failure when you don't high roll your win-con (and vice verse).
 
If you want to have more card-draw RNG, do you want this game to revert back to pre mulligan-update, where all players essentially fished after their gold cards. And why has the 'Royal decree' and 'call of the forest' been buffed, if draw-RNG are bad for this game? This shift indicates that the community actually prefers more consistency over less. What I want is to investigate whether we should have more mulligans, blacklisting, or any combination thereof, that the majority of the player base finds as an improvement compared to the current situation.

With regards to tutors from beta-gwent, I could ask if they by any way resemble what we would get if RNG was reduced further. If turtors are removed and consistency can be achieved through less RNG, you still have to play 16 cards without emptying your deck, as opposite of beta-gwent.

Games already play pretty much the same. Some decks are build around 1 or 2 win conditions like harmony (with boar and Malena) consume/deathwish. Ball soldiers. Scythe NR. And Lets not forget Syndicate which dominated this patch, and was one of the most consistent factions. The question becomes whether reducing draw-RNG would benefit these decks by a larger degree, compared to decks that rely heavily on numerous combos, but struggle with consistency.

I beleive that having more randomness in card-draws makes combo decks even less viable to the point they wont see any play. This would imply that number of viable decks decreases and hence the variety we see on ladder. The side effect is that meta decks might be less consistent, and that the cards you play during a round would differ considerably. However this type of 'variety' is nothing more than a false impression, as the decks wouldn't change in any aspect.

With regards to balancing. It is easier to make a decision when you only have to take calculable aspects into account. RNG makes this much harder. Thus reducing RNG in card-draws will help developers balancing easier, as you only have to take the face/combo value of card(s) into account, without applying complex statistical models to figure out the impact of RNG.
 
Last edited:
If you want to have more card-draw RNG, do you want this game to revert back to pre mulligan-update

Actually, no. The mulligan update improved the game a lot because leaders with only 1 mulligan were far to risky to play.

Next point: Please don't speak for the community or the majority of it because you can't really know what all of the players want. I'm also part of this community and I obviously disagree with you.

I love synergies in decks and my decks always run several combos that I consider win conditions. I usually don't relly on drawing a specific combo but to draw any or a couple of these. Here is an example from last season. I played a ST guerilla tactics deck that has several strong combos: Dol Blathana Sentry + dryad matrons, (sentry +) trent boar + Malena, Etriel + Muirlega, Fauve into water of brok (harmony) and of course the great Oak as finisher. My point is, if you rely on one combo or even to have that one combo in round 3 to win, your deck is just bad and you should rethink it instead of calling for more consistency.

To me, a lot of the actual meta decks are meme decks that shouldn't be consistent or competitive at all. Some examples:
- double masquerade ball
- Lippy decks
- 3 copies of kikimore queen
- Shupe decks

These decks should be played for fun and be super strong in case they work but that shouldn't be the case very often. Right now it is very easy to play them and reach high ranks with them because they are so consistent, mainly because of cards like Royal decree and Matta Huuri. They are even played by pros in tournaments which is ridiculous. I think it would be better if we had more synergies between cards or stronger archtypes so you wouldn't have to rely on drawing certain cards. Increasing consistency will lead to even more meme decks (one-trick-ponies, if you like) being played because it is so easy to pull them off.
 
Next point: Please don't speak for the community or the majority of it because you can't really know what all of the players want. I'm also part of this community and I obviously disagree with you.

So you are fine with number of mulligans, but dont like the cheap provisioned 'Royal decree' or 'Matta' ? Where is your exact stance on this issue. I wouldn't mind 30 card deck myself, if there was less RNG invoved in actually drawing what I did put in my deck. But I think you are better off at explaining how the 30 card deck idea is implemented with regards to provisions, draw-RNG, strategies and archetypes.

Tbh, I am better off with blacklisting of bronze copies (it is stupid to mulligan a bronze, and the receiving another copy of the same card, it is counter intuitive of what a mulligan should be) along with 1 additional mulligan, at the cost of a small nerf in provisions to tutors.

If you dont like certain combo's why should it be balanced through RNG? It is easier to reduce RNG and balance the combo. A good example was Pincer Maneuver- Scorch, where a change in scorch solved this 'opressive' combo.

You like archetypes more than one trick penies. Thats fine, but why can't one-trick ponies co-exist with archetypes ? People should be free to chooce whatever they like to play. But why is it so that i'm restricted to play one-trick ponies, because of your preference of archetypes. Less RNG should alow us to play whatever we want. If a certain combo is undesired, then change the combo. Why should every meme combo be punished through inconsistency just because a few are too oppressive and 'unhealthy' for the game?
 
Last edited:
Just to summarize a few facts. Consistency tools such as 'Royal Decree' has been included in every meta-deck (post buff down from 12 provisions, due to players screaming for more consistency and 'Nerf Birna' outcries because of SK being the most consistent faction at the begining of

If there is one thing which is working very well in this game, it might just be the balance between RNG and consistency. It can be argued for small adjustments both ways.

I think Matta Hu'uri was too much personally and seems like they added it together with Scenario to guarantee scenario during the match, which is pretty bad.
 
You like archetypes more than one trick penies. Thats fine, but why can't one-trick ponies co-exist with archetypes ? People should be free to chooce whatever they like to play. But why is it so that i'm restricted to play one-trick ponies, because of your preference of archetypes. Less RNG should alow us to play whatever we want. If a certain combo is undesired, then change the combo.

Like I said before, they should exist because they can be fun to play. But they shouldn't be competitive on pro ladder. There was a time after homecoming when Shupe was played in many decks and also in tournaments. To me, this is wrong because it is a meme card. Right now these so called one-trick-ponies (i.e. double masquerade ball, Lippy, kikimore cloning decks) are super strong and were run by many players at the latest Gwent partner tournament.

tldr; Meme decks should exist but not be too consistent.
Post automatically merged:

I think Matta Hu'uri was too much personally and seems like they added it together with Scenario to guarantee scenario during the match, which is pretty bad.

I think you are absolutely right on this one and I think the card would be better if it had a slight RNG-aspect. Something like "Draw one of your 3 strongest (highest provision) cards". Or "draw a card with 10 or more provision".
 
Last edited:
Randomness that promotes strategic variety enriches the game; randomness that determines the result regardless of play quality ruins the game. Gwent has done a pretty good job of avoiding the latter; not such a good job with the former — which has resulted in a boringly small meta.

I think some of the issue is in the dramatic difference in quality between cards. If all cards could potentially matter in a round, we would lose the excitement of big point swings, but we would gain many more strategic and tactical opportunities.

A wise player already has plenty of opportunities to reduce randomness through hand thinning, tutors, and choosing cards with interacting synergies rather than specific necessary combos. I have no problem if a player wants to base an entire strategy around one card (or even more risky, around a multi-card combo) — as long as that player is willing to risk the 20% or so chance of losing when the key card(s) are not drawn.

However, I do find objectionable those players who forfeit when they don’t like their draw. In ranked play, the loss is a fair enough consequence; but in unranked, this mentality damages the game.

I think further reducing randomness of draw goes too far to eliminate probabilistic reasoning, to the detriment of the game as a whole.
 
If we have a multi card combo and the chance of you loosing is 20%, the other 40% (provided that the cards are well balanced) is the chance of you loosing when you draw your cards. Hence you loose 60% of all matches you play. The obvious conclusion is that we wont see too many of those decks, atleast not in competitive play. The personal gain in playing those decks is subjective, but no player with the sole intention of winning will want to play those decks.

Funny enough, there were some complaints of Lippy being too strong. Now taking into account the probabilistic reasoning, Lippy has 5 bricks in the deck. This above all makes it difficult to balance, as there will be too much subjectiveness regarding the power play of Lippy, due to RNG involved. Balancing can be done through analysing the win rate of decks that include 'Lippy'. However this approach is too tiresome, as with each expansion the card pool is getting larger. Balancing will become a time consuming process, not profitable enough for developers to engage in. The meta may become even more stagnant than it is.

It wont hurt anybody if we let the 'consistency' be a variable which we can adjust with each update in order to find the perfect sweetspot we all can be happy about.
 
To prevent the topic from fading, it's this time of the year to restart the discussion.
Thankfully with all the shiny new faces on the forums, we would hopefully get a nuanced debate with regards to how the RNG feels in the current format, and hopefully come up with a few ideas that could improve the mechanics of card-draw in Gwent.

Just to summarize a few facts. Consistency tools such as 'Royal Decree' has been included in every meta-deck (post buff down from 12 provisions, due to players screaming for more consistency and 'Nerf Birna' outcries because of SK being the most consistent faction at the begining of Homecoming. The recent meta-snapshot shows just that https://teamleviathangaming.com/meta/ .

Fact number two: Ive seen a lot of streamers/meme deck builders complaining about quality of their draws when playing less consistent and combo-intensive decks, that required atleast 3-4 cards to propperly setup, so that a combo would work.
I feel their pain. It feels crap being stuck with a bad hand, and god forbid I ever will sink that low to play a meme deck with no consistency. The frustration will never be worth it. But what if we could diminish this frustration by reducing this randomness, in order to allow players to pull of the combos in every game. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Solution.
Since there are disagreements with what good and bad RNG is, and that RNG somehow is beneficial. That this is a card game and RNG should be part of it. That RNG allows players to win, seemingly at random. That RNG creates variety in terms of how a deck plays, as you are not getting the cards you want, but have to design your sequencing based on assumptions of your opponent. Etc etc.

I propose a graduate implementation of improvements. Lets start with bronzes which are or atleast shold be a 'core' of your deck.
Lets say that when you mulligan a bronze, you wont draw a copy of it later on. Now having 8-10 different bronzes in your deck, this idea doesent sound too good. But what if we get 5 mulligans at the begining of a round, this starts to feel like an improvement. Number of mulligans can be adjusted based on consensus within the community.
RNG is much less in Gwent than other card games, that is not really an issue in Gwent, and when you want to do a Combo, you have to build a thinned deck, Just by adding the Right amount of Deck thinning you'll always have your Essential cards.
 
I have to agree with most of the people in this thread. Having played more card games than probably everyone else here, RNG and deck consistency are not problems that Gwent has. The only problem I have with Gwent is the card balance; in my opinion, it needs a complete overhaul, with many cards being nerfed, many cards being buffed, and quite a few cards being redesigned, hopefully creating some more diverse effects in the process. Really, almost every other aspect of the game is fantastic.

To point out what shouldn't change, I love the customizable progression using Reward Points and most importantly, the fact that they actually add enough new trees each year to keep it functional. I love the Level/Prestige System, which really makes gaining experience exciting. I love that there are Faction-specific kegs in addition to the ones for each expansion, and even better, they all cost the same amount of gold. I love the spirit of the GG button, which encourages people to be considerate of others and also has the potential to punish people who use cheap or unpopular tactics. Last, but certainly not least, I love the overall structure of the card game. The provision system has so much potential, and it's a nice change of pace to revolve a card game around building up value instead of just attacking opponents or other cards. Plus, it's easy to create a fairly consistent deck.

I hope this wasn't too long. In conclusion, the developers should definitely balance the individual cards better, but everything else should really stay the same (although maybe with less bugs/glitches).
 
Top Bottom