Deck polarization

[quintivarium]

Here, I want to discuss the idea of deck polarization: what it is, why it occurs, why I think it is bad for the game of Gwent, and what can be done about it.

The idea of deck polarization is fairly simple. Only 16 of 25 cards in a deck are typically played (barring extra draws). If you have only 4 provision cards amongst the nine cards not played, you will have more provisions you actually play. Comprising decks of as many extremely high provision cards as possible, then filling it with four provision bronzes allows you to use mulligans to leave low provision cards dominating the set of unplayed cards in the deck. While exact probability calculations for the effectiveness of this are tedious and lengthy, I estimate that, on the average, a highly polarized deck will play about 8 more provisions than a completely non-polarized deck. This makes polarizing decks highly advantageous.

I believe the polarization of decks hurts game play in at least three ways:
1. It reduces deck variety by making mid-provision (6-8 provision) cards less valued and hence less used. Even highly polarized decks MAY use some of these mid provision cards, but they MUST use low and high provision cards. Fewer options in the design of decks results in less variety.
2. It significantly increases the role of luck in a match. Unfortunately, while polarization increases the average total of provisions played, it even more dramatically increases the variability of provisions played — not drawing high provision gold cards is disastrous. From my observation of tournaments and streamers, well over half the matches between competent opponents are decided by draws rather than quality of play.
3. It leads to tutor abuse. Because not drawing gold cards is so decisively bad, tutors are added — not to focus an archetype or to provide access to a tech card one might not want in hand, but solely to insure that desirable, high provision cards are not left unplayed in the deck. This, in turn, eliminates the need of players to adapt to what they have drawn by making anything desired potentially available at all times. And this reduces innovative thinking, creating repetitive, standard sequencing of cards.

I can think of three ways to address polarization, making it less attractive.
1. This may be difficult, but introducing mechanics that punish polarization could help. To some degree, clog (which fills an opposing deck with copies of the worst card played and decreases chances of drawing high provision cards would do this). Cards with abilities like, “opponent discards the highest provision card in hand and draws a card to replace it” would also punish polarization strategies. Unfortunately, I think most of these mechanics come with their own, negative consequences which may be worse than polarization.
2. Buff mid-provision cards to make them slightly more desirable than their provision cost suggests — i.e. if low and high provision cards typically play for 1.5 times their provision cost, let mid provision cards play for 1.75 times their provision cost. Right now, suggesting a deck consisting entirely of 6 and 7 provision cards is laughable — and this should not be the case.
3. Heavily nerf the top provision cards. If they are less desirable, making sacrifices to include them becomes less desirable. This has the advantage of also reducing the penalty for not drawing well. Of course, it would require developers to adjust their mentality that “big swings” without corresponding good play are exciting.

 

[EduFerraz]

Well, what you missed here its the "non polorization deck" has lower problably to take those 2 or 3 cards with 4 provision than the "polarization deck" take one of the 5 or 6 card with 4 provision.

So while the non polarization will play more consistent with better cards in overall, the polarization will play really good gold cards but also some trash.

Of course the polarization deck could have luck and use the 16 gold cards, but it can also have bad luck and need to use six 4 provision cards.

But thats all RNG

 

[DRK3]

I agree that deck polarization is a real issue in Gwent, but unlike most of the other issues Gwent has for years, i am unsure of a good solution for it, or even if it really is something that must be fixed.

Personally, my deckbuilding style is the opposite - a lot of my favourite cards are those mid-provision cards, and i strive to make them deliver more value than of the popular expensive cards. I can mention quite a few examples (most are associated with swarm decks, which i love): Voymir, vissegerd, Morvudd, Axel-3 eyes, corrupted flaminica, isengrim, "tony" shaelmaar, sir skewertooth, etc.

I dont think the expensive cards (10-15 provisions) provide necessarily more points, i think they just tend to be more midrangey, instant value no setups required, that's what makes them more competitive.

On a related subject, the influence of the official tournaments getting broadcasted can also be negative. These are open decklist matches, which justifies some of the deck choices the pro players make, whoever the playerbase copies these decks like they are the best - they are not, they're the best for the format, since they cant use surprise value cards, but the result is a lot of good cards for ranked play arent used at all in the meta just because they arent seen in the pro tournaments (which gravitate for deck polarization for sure).

 

[yeahalright]

These are open decklist matches,

Yeah, I never understood exactly why either. Makes Tourney's very boring and predictable, and everything comes down to card draw quality. *yawns*

 

[nedders]

Some suggestions/observations:
- When there was a limit before Homecoming of Gold & Silver cards (4 x Gold, 6 x Silver), those restrictions ensured a greater variety of cards were seen. There was also clear focus on the mid-tier cards (Silver) needing to be thought through and creativity was reasonable. I think if they instantly brought back that dynamic, it would have a massively positive impact on the way games are set up.
- If the quality of the deal was equal for both players, I think it would make things much more about the quality of your play. So both players' decks should be "ordered" the same, based on the prov cost of each card. That way if your opponent gets their best 10 cards in their first hand, so do you. Then you're playing based on your knowledge of the deck, of other strategies and would ensure more variety in plays so as to be less predicatble.
- Echo and Oneiromancy simply should not exist, but if they do then the devs should significantly increase the provisions of these kinds of cards (20 prov for Oneironmancy, 15 for Invocation/Heatwave, 18 for Ball, etc.) - be bold and make cards harder to throw into a deck together, make players make difficult choices. Should I be able to comfortable run Masquerade Ball with Invocation, Heatwave, Usurper, and still be able to fill with lock/poison units? Absolutely not.

Not sure if this was entirely on topic, but in a nutshell polarization can be reduced by 1) limiting selection, 2) even the deal, 3) huge prov increase for hefty cards, 4) remove so much tutoring.

 

[yeahalright]

- If the quality of the deal was equal for both players, I think it would make things much more about the quality of your play. So both players' decks should be "ordered" the same, based on the prov cost of each card. That way if your opponent gets their best 10 cards in their first hand, so do you. Then you're playing based on your knowledge of the deck, of other strategies and would ensure more variety in plays so as to be less predicatble.

Wow! I've also had the same idea for years too. I wish CDPRO RED would at least try this idea in a seasonal mode, and see if the players like a less lucky game.

The opening draws are random, but equally random for both players... player 1 draws a 5 prov card, then player 2 draws one of his 5 prov cards at random as well, or, the next lowest provision card. So in other words, the "dealer" (the AI) deals out a X value prov card to both players at the same time during the opening hands of each round.

If a player plays a card draw unit of his own, then his draws are exclusive to him of course.

I think it would make for some GREAT games.

 

[EduFerraz]

Wow! I've also had the same idea for years too. I wish CDPRO RED would at least try this idea in a seasonal mode, and see if the players like a less lucky game.

The opening draws are random, but equally random for both players... player 1 draws a 5 prov card, then player 2 draws one of his 5 prov cards at random as well, or, the next lowest provision card. So in other words, the "dealer" (the AI) deals out a X value prov card to both players at the same time during the opening hands of each round.

If a player plays a card draw unit of his own, then his draws are exclusive to him of course.

I think it would make for some GREAT games.

the problem of it - problably you will know the opponents card based on your cards.

So my opponent leader its inspired zeal - you have a good feeling that your opponent is playing foltes/commandos/siege. Your start hand has one 11 provision card and a 9 provision card, you problably know your opponent has foltest and defender in hand..

And so on.

Playing against monster, you have oneiromanci in your hand, your opponent or has oneiromanci too or has SWK.

Unless other changes are implement to force players have more deck variability, this change alone (give cards with the same provision) can kill the game

 

[nedders]

the problem of it - problably you will know the opponents card based on your cards.

So my opponent leader its inspired zeal - you have a good feeling that your opponent is playing foltes/commandos/siege. Your start hand has one 11 provision card and a 9 provision card, you problably know your opponent has foltest and defender in hand..

And so on.

Playing against monster, you have oneiromanci in your hand, your opponent or has oneiromanci too or has SWK.

Unless other changes are implement to force players have more deck variability, this change alone (give cards with the same provision) can kill the game

Fundamentally disagree. As it stands, most seasoned players already know what cards are coming depending on leader ability - the guesswork is then "did they get a good deal, or did I get a bad deal". You find out in R1 how good/bad your deal was. If you're going first and have a bad deal, you're going to lose, there's nothing you can do about it. If you go first knowing you have a similar strength of hand, you always have a chance. Always. Besides which, you don't know what provs the opponent has used, there's still an element of surprise. What if it's a Ciri:Nova deck? They're all under 9 provs, so their "best" card is lower than your best card, but you don't know which one because they likely have 5 or 6 at 9 provs. What if it's not Foltest, but it's Viraxas? The point is, if your opponent draws all the Stripes, Foltest, Defender, Renew, in R1, why should you be left with all your 4/5 prov bronzes? You've auto-lost.

I've had this argument for years, people saying that's not a card game - but Gwent isn't just a card game, i.e. Poker, with billions of permutations, it's a video game designed to maximise combos reliant on certain things being played in order. I know the purists will call me out saying I'm talking rubbish, but that's my opinion - we are all playing a video game and as a result it needs to be balanced. They seem utterly incapable of balancing the cards, so balance the gameplay.

 

[yeahalright]

Unless other changes are implement to force players have more deck variability, this change alone (give cards with the same provision) can kill the game

Why would removing some luck kill the game? I'm quite skeptical of that claim. I personally love the part of Gwent that isn't luck, that instead encourages tutor usage so that consistency rises. Pretty much every pro deck near maxes out consistency to remove luck, because it is the best way to win. It doesn't matter if my deck is weaker than my opponents if I can reliably draw my golds and his are buried at the bottom.

If card draw luck was removed, then it would mean people could play more cards besides the same old tutors, draw cards, and deck thinners. Luck is the bane of Gwent and without tutors I doubt many people would play this game (I can speak for myself on this, especially, if all I want is luck I can go to Magic The Gathering, which has an absurd amount of luck but is still fun because shit gets so crazy).

When I want to play a card game that is more like a chess game, I load up Gwent. I think the non-luck factors in Gwent are what makes this game stand out for the rest. I mean, for God's sake, the game is advertised on their home page as "Win by skill not luck!" or some words to that degree. Therefore, why not keep getting rid of the luck?

Would it really kill Gwent just to try this kind of mode in a seasonal setting? For just one week? Let the players try it out and decide!

 

[nedders]

Why would removing some luck kill the game? I'm quite skeptical of that claim. I personally love the part of Gwent that isn't luck, that instead encourages tutor usage so that consistency rises. Pretty much every pro deck near maxes out consistency to remove luck, because it is the best way to win. It doesn't matter if my deck is weaker than my opponents if I can reliably draw my golds and his are buried at the bottom.

If card draw luck was removed, then it would mean people could play more cards besides the same old tutors, draw cards, and deck thinners. Luck is the bane of Gwent and without tutors I doubt many people would play this game (I can speak for myself on this, especially, if all I want is luck I can go to Magic The Gathering, which has an absurd amount of luck but is still fun because shit gets so crazy).

When I want to play a card game that is more like a chess game, I load up Gwent. I think the non-luck factors in Gwent are what makes this game stand out for the rest. I mean, for God's sake, the game is advertised on their home page as "Win by skill not luck!" or some words to that degree. Therefore, why not keep getting rid of the luck?

Would it really kill Gwent just to try this kind of mode in a seasonal setting? For just one week? Let the players try it out and decide!

Indeed - I mean, the dev team have consistently created cards that rely on limiting your deck, so then the only thing that stops you playing a certain way or being competitive is the "luck" and draw. We've all been there, in a matchup with an identical leader only to get either a good draw and win, or a trash draw and lose - but to the same cards we wish we could've drawn. How many times have we been in a match watching the oppo play Oneiro R1, yet we don't draw it through the entire game - now how is that about "skill" or how is that "fair"?

For me, it should be the standard mode in Gwent and they should proudly market themselves as a game that relies on little/no RNG. I think Cantarella or VW should NOT be completely random, there should be an element of thinking about your draw. Instead at the moment they're just thrown down and can potentially ruin your game, which is simply not right.

Gwent is EITHER a random, varied game of chance OR it's a skill-based card game relying on your knowledge of cards and how to play them. We're sitting somewhere in the middle which means it's almost 100% down to who goes first and the deal.

EDIT: sorry, appreciate I went off topic moaning about Cantarella/VW. That's a different issue, but I just can't stand NG manipulating my deck so had a quick moan....

 

[Guest 4375874]

Why would removing some luck kill the game? I'm quite skeptical of that claim. I personally love the part of Gwent that isn't luck, that instead encourages tutor usage so that consistency rises. Pretty much every pro deck near maxes out consistency to remove luck, because it is the best way to win. It doesn't matter if my deck is weaker than my opponents if I can reliably draw my golds and his are buried at the bottom.

If card draw luck was removed, then it would mean people could play more cards besides the same old tutors, draw cards, and deck thinners. Luck is the bane of Gwent and without tutors I doubt many people would play this game (I can speak for myself on this, especially, if all I want is luck I can go to Magic The Gathering, which has an absurd amount of luck but is still fun because shit gets so crazy).

When I want to play a card game that is more like a chess game, I load up Gwent. I think the non-luck factors in Gwent are what makes this game stand out for the rest. I mean, for God's sake, the game is advertised on their home page as "Win by skill not luck!" or some words to that degree. Therefore, why not keep getting rid of the luck?

Would it really kill Gwent just to try this kind of mode in a seasonal setting? For just one week? Let the players try it out and decide!

LOL chess? Don't insult chess. Maybe you aren't playing chess correctly but I don't recall the part where everyone starts out with different pieces. A knight is a Knight, mine doesn't give me an advantage over yours. It's skill that determines the winner and that's just not the case in Gwent.

This game is NOW solitaire not chess.

You spoke about removing luck but ignored the obvious fact that these factions are not equal in strength. There are countless Netdecks in the ladder piloted by newbies who just copied it somewhere and they can win because their faction is just stronger and they can play whatever whenever. True skill would be strategizing with the cards that you have drawn.

Luck meant that there was some chance you won't get steam rolled by something like LP. So now since LP is stronger than every deck by virtue of being able to steam roll everything and they can easily draw those cards what's the point in even playing them? I haven't played SK or SY in months, I just auto forfeit because it's a waste of time. They are clearly a cut above the other decks in power, control and consistency. I don't play as much anymore, if at all but when I do I don't want to waste my time. This is frankly the worst the game has been.

 

[yeahalright]

LOL chess? Don't insult chess. Maybe you aren't playing chess correctly but I don't recall the part where everyone starts out with different pieces. A knight is a Knight, mine doesn't give me an advantage over yours. It's skill that determines the winner and that's just not the case in Gwent.

This game is NOW solitaire not chess.

You spoke about removing luck but ignored the obvious fact that these factions are not equal in strength. There are countless Netdecks in the ladder piloted by newbies who just copied it somewhere and they can win because their faction is just stronger and they can play whatever whenever. True skill would be strategizing with the cards that you have drawn.

Luck meant that there was some chance you won't get steam rolled by something like LP. So now since LP is stronger than every deck by virtue of being able to steam roll everything and they can easily draw those cards what's the point in even playing them? I haven't played SK or SY in months, I just auto forfeit because it's a waste of time. They are clearly a cut above the other decks in power, control and consistency. I don't play as much anymore, if at all but when I do I don't want to waste my time. This is frankly the worst the game has been.

You fail to realize that many of the top meta decks are meta because they have super consistent plays and synergies between their cards. It is BECAUSE there is so much luck in this game, that deck diversity suffers and everyone is forced to play around the same consistency plays. If a faction has weak consistency, it usually loses. Pro players avoid luck like the plague, which is why there is such a stiff meta at the top. Only a few decks can muster the value and consistency that SY, MO, and ST have. It's why NR mages are garbage. It's also why some leader abilities, like mobilization, will never get used no matter how much they are buffed due to massive inconsistency in draws.

If decks had equal draws, the game would become 10x more interesting overnight. Think about it: your opponent draws a 13-point Oniermancy, and your deck draws a 13-point scenario. Suddenly the consistent deck is no longer automatically better.

 

[Pacifixer]

Deck polarization and draw dependancy, the biggest problem of Gwent. Some time ago i had an idea what to do about it, but i didn't make time to write it down, so lets do that now

This issue has been discussed over and over since Homecoming. The biggest problem is that you can get totally screwed over by RNG - missing your big cards and drawing the mulligan fodder, it can happen to any deck regardless of how well it's build. All skill can be removed from the game by RNG. While it's not that big of a deal in other CCGs, in Gwent this issue got somewhat inflated - every card matters and fixing a bad hand is often not possible.
Because of how important it is to get your high-end cards, or to at least have as good a hand as your opponent, deck polarization leads to tutor overuse. So one problem leads to another - Deck polarization forces you to overuse tutors, or thin excessively, or build inconsistent decks; tutor overuse and excessive thining makes decks overly consistent, thus removing big chunk of skill from the game - you will almost always get what you need, so you don't have to adapt your game plan and winner can often be decided by matchup; and inconsistent decks rely more on RNG, thus again reducing the skill requirements.
While current state of the game is not that bad that it would require immediate action, this problem should be adressed by the dev team sooner or later.

Most suggestions i have seen throughout the years are something along the lines: "Make high-end cards weaker and low-end cards stronger." It's not a terrible idea, but it could remove the "wow factor" of playing a big, impactful card, it's restricting design space and it's heavily dependant on proper balance.
I like Nedders' idea - give booth players equaly valuable opening hand. It's not perfect and it does not completly remove the problem of not drawing what you need, but it is certainly better than nothing.


My idea is a bit different. I like the "wow-effect", so i don't want to undermine it by making the high-end cards weaker, and i also don't want decks to be more consistent, that leads to repetitiveness and boredom. I would like to encourage playing big payoff cards, while lowering consistency and repetitiveness.
Step 1 - Silver cards: Reintroduce Silver cards and change most golds into silvers. Only the "big guns" stay gold - Scenarios, Echo cards, Evolving cards, Gord, Kolgrim, Vernosiel, Foltest, Melusine and so on.....
I still don't understand why they removed them in the first place, even with no gameplay difference between golds and silvers, they could have left them in the game for balancing purposes or Promotion mechanic.
Step 2 - Gold limit: You can play only 3 gold cards per game.
Golds are used to win rounds, so teoretically you only need 2. Limits also force you to choose a strategy and commit to it, instead of playing everything that's good for face value.
Step 3 - Flexibility: Every gold card in your deck beyond 3 gives you extra provisions (or costs less) - 2 prov for golds with cost 9 or less and 3 prov for golds with cost 10 or more.
You can't play more than 3 golds so it would make no sense to have more than 3, but at reduced cost it could be ok to run 4 or 5 for the extra options and thining. Extra golds give you the ability to adapt your gameplan.
Step 4 - Conditional gold value: Every gold card should require some set up or synergy. The "difficulties" you have to overcome to play a gold card for a good value should be proportionate to its point output.
Golds should give you big payoff, not unconditional face value. This is what you strive for, what is going to win you the game - play specials for Gord, clog for Kolgrim, spawn Deadeyes for Vernosiel, save Aristocrats for Ball.... This step would unfortunately require lot of reworks and rebalancing.
Step 5 - Gold accessibility: Separate the hand into 2 - Normal hand and Gold hand or Hand and Sleeve.... At the start of the game, you will draw all the gold cards into your Sleeve and than 10 more cards into your Hand. 3 times per game you can put a gold card from your Sleeve into your Hand and than banish a card from your Hand.
Extra consistency where you need it. Guaranteed access to your big cards reduces need for thining and tutoring, and the influence of RNG.
Step 6 - Deck size: Increase the minimum deck size by 10. Increase the provision bonuses of leader abilities.
Every gold thins your deck, so it is necessary to increase the deck size, preferably by more than maximum reasonable amount of golds in a deck. While you are guaranteed to get your golds, the consistency of your deck goes down - you have to make do with what you were dealt. This would of course mean that every gold card must have sufficient amount of various synergies, and not just 1 combo.

To sum it up: You will always have access to cards that you cannot afford to miss, but these cards rely on the rest of your deck. Your deck is less consistent, so you're forced to adapt your strategy to the situation.
This idea is obviously not some fix-it-all final solution, it has its flaws, but i belive it could successfuly shift the core problem of deck polarization, draw dependancy and RNG to something more managable - balance and individual card design, while leaving the "wow-factor" intact. Unreliability of draws and partial flexibility of gold finishers should also increase the skill ceiling.


Unfortunately i'm afraid the deck polarization problem will never be fixed - it is a design flaw, deeply rooted in the core gameplay mechanics, and from what i've seen so far, devs seem reluctant to touch those and no amount of simple balancing and reworks can ever truly fix it.

 

[yeahalright]

Why is Gwent a game of luck, and not skill? Watch the tourneys anyone? Card draw or luck mechanics (like NG's alchemist) determined most of the games, nothing to do with skill. Just grown men rolling dice *yawns*

Shoutout to BushyR for sitting through some very boring games and fast forwarding to the parts where luck determined everything.

Talking about this vid:

 

[EduFerraz]

Why is Gwent a game of luck, and not skill? Watch the tourneys anyone? Card draw or luck mechanics (like NG's alchemist) determined most of the games, nothing to do with skill. Just grown men rolling dice *yawns*

Shoutout to BushyR for sitting through some very boring games and fast forwarding to the parts where luck determined everything.

Talking about this vid:

luck?

only one game where alchemisto was a thing, in the others game the skill of the players were determined.

the last game, if granmazorca played his drill first, problably the result of the match was different (as bush analyze it).

the same goes to granmazorca agoinst bigkukuruzina, wich if big banished rebuke and not madoc, he would win.

so, unless you are calling opponents mistake as luck, there is not only luck on those matches.

 

[yeahalright]

It's luck that they draw or don't draw, which is what happens at 21:45... Happens to everyone all the time. it's why I could never take this game too seriously, deck draws are too important and will crush even the best of players. It's silly and RNG really detracts from gwent.

 

[Guest 4375874]

You fail to realize that many of the top meta decks are meta because they have super consistent plays and synergies between their cards. It is BECAUSE there is so much luck in this game, that deck diversity suffers and everyone is forced to play around the same consistency plays. If a faction has weak consistency, it usually loses. Pro players avoid luck like the plague, which is why there is such a stiff meta at the top. Only a few decks can muster the value and consistency that SY, MO, and ST have. It's why NR mages are garbage. It's also why some leader abilities, like mobilization, will never get used no matter how much they are buffed due to massive inconsistency in draws.

If decks had equal draws, the game would become 10x more interesting overnight. Think about it: your opponent draws a 13-point Oniermancy, and your deck draws a 13-point scenario. Suddenly the consistent deck is no longer automatically better.

did you just say luck is why some factions are more consistency and synergy than others? LOL If you can't see that you are contradicting yourself I'm not sure there's much point to the discussion. Consistency and synergy is the opposite of luck in these games, it's because they aren't dependent on luck that makes them more consistent.

Oneiromancy is an auto include in almost every deck yet you are actually arguing luck is the problem. Also drawing a scenario isn't in any way the same as drawing Oneiromancy. That's not how probability works, your odds of drawing the scenario WITH Oneiromancy in your deck is higher than drawing it WITHOUT Oneiromancy in your deck. So yes a deck with Oneiromancy, is statistically more consistent and automatically BETTER.

The question that remains is whether the game is better with less RNG and that's a matter of perspective. I don't think it is because it means 1 or 2 factions will ALWAYS be dominant and we already see that happening since echo tutors were introduced. What will happen now is the devs will constantly try to rotate factions at the top to cover the obvious blunder. That will be the cycle, next patch another faction will get some broken cards and move to the top and players will have to obtain these new cards because the old cards became irrelevant. Fortunately I don't spend money on the game anymore because I don't support that model, it feels almost deceptive.

 

[nedders]

Deck polarization and draw dependancy, the biggest problem of Gwent. Some time ago i had an idea what to do about it, but i didn't make time to write it down, so lets do that now

This issue has been discussed over and over since Homecoming. The biggest problem is that you can get totally screwed over by RNG - missing your big cards and drawing the mulligan fodder, it can happen to any deck regardless of how well it's build. All skill can be removed from the game by RNG. While it's not that big of a deal in other CCGs, in Gwent this issue got somewhat inflated - every card matters and fixing a bad hand is often not possible.
Because of how important it is to get your high-end cards, or to at least have as good a hand as your opponent, deck polarization leads to tutor overuse. So one problem leads to another - Deck polarization forces you to overuse tutors, or thin excessively, or build inconsistent decks; tutor overuse and excessive thining makes decks overly consistent, thus removing big chunk of skill from the game - you will almost always get what you need, so you don't have to adapt your game plan and winner can often be decided by matchup; and inconsistent decks rely more on RNG, thus again reducing the skill requirements.
While current state of the game is not that bad that it would require immediate action, this problem should be adressed by the dev team sooner or later.

Most suggestions i have seen throughout the years are something along the lines: "Make high-end cards weaker and low-end cards stronger." It's not a terrible idea, but it could remove the "wow factor" of playing a big, impactful card, it's restricting design space and it's heavily dependant on proper balance.
I like Nedders' idea - give booth players equaly valuable opening hand. It's not perfect and it does not completly remove the problem of not drawing what you need, but it is certainly better than nothing.


My idea is a bit different. I like the "wow-effect", so i don't want to undermine it by making the high-end cards weaker, and i also don't want decks to be more consistent, that leads to repetitiveness and boredom. I would like to encourage playing big payoff cards, while lowering consistency and repetitiveness.
Step 1 - Silver cards: Reintroduce Silver cards and change most golds into silvers. Only the "big guns" stay gold - Scenarios, Echo cards, Evolving cards, Gord, Kolgrim, Vernosiel, Foltest, Melusine and so on.....
I still don't understand why they removed them in the first place, even with no gameplay difference between golds and silvers, they could have left them in the game for balancing purposes or Promotion mechanic.
Step 2 - Gold limit: You can play only 3 gold cards per game.
Golds are used to win rounds, so teoretically you only need 2. Limits also force you to choose a strategy and commit to it, instead of playing everything that's good for face value.
Step 3 - Flexibility: Every gold card in your deck beyond 3 gives you extra provisions (or costs less) - 2 prov for golds with cost 9 or less and 3 prov for golds with cost 10 or more.
You can't play more than 3 golds so it would make no sense to have more than 3, but at reduced cost it could be ok to run 4 or 5 for the extra options and thining. Extra golds give you the ability to adapt your gameplan.
Step 4 - Conditional gold value: Every gold card should require some set up or synergy. The "difficulties" you have to overcome to play a gold card for a good value should be proportionate to its point output.
Golds should give you big payoff, not unconditional face value. This is what you strive for, what is going to win you the game - play specials for Gord, clog for Kolgrim, spawn Deadeyes for Vernosiel, save Aristocrats for Ball.... This step would unfortunately require lot of reworks and rebalancing.
Step 5 - Gold accessibility: Separate the hand into 2 - Normal hand and Gold hand or Hand and Sleeve.... At the start of the game, you will draw all the gold cards into your Sleeve and than 10 more cards into your Hand. 3 times per game you can put a gold card from your Sleeve into your Hand and than banish a card from your Hand.
Extra consistency where you need it. Guaranteed access to your big cards reduces need for thining and tutoring, and the influence of RNG.
Step 6 - Deck size: Increase the minimum deck size by 10. Increase the provision bonuses of leader abilities.
Every gold thins your deck, so it is necessary to increase the deck size, preferably by more than maximum reasonable amount of golds in a deck. While you are guaranteed to get your golds, the consistency of your deck goes down - you have to make do with what you were dealt. This would of course mean that every gold card must have sufficient amount of various synergies, and not just 1 combo.

To sum it up: You will always have access to cards that you cannot afford to miss, but these cards rely on the rest of your deck. Your deck is less consistent, so you're forced to adapt your strategy to the situation.
This idea is obviously not some fix-it-all final solution, it has its flaws, but i belive it could successfuly shift the core problem of deck polarization, draw dependancy and RNG to something more managable - balance and individual card design, while leaving the "wow-factor" intact. Unreliability of draws and partial flexibility of gold finishers should also increase the skill ceiling.


Unfortunately i'm afraid the deck polarization problem will never be fixed - it is a design flaw, deeply rooted in the core gameplay mechanics, and from what i've seen so far, devs seem reluctant to touch those and no amount of simple balancing and reworks can ever truly fix it.

Deeply considered and very viable overall post, nicely done. Of course, this is about fundamental gamechange and CDPR just won't ever do this. However, some things that should absolutely happen are the following:

- Reintroduce Silver cards, and as per the suggestion have a handful of really heavy cards - Echo, Scenario, huge swings like Gezyras, Venossiel, Foltest, etc - as a limited number of "Golds" you can have (as per the suggestion, 3 based on 3 rounds). That would be about reclassifying what are woefully cheap cards currently into game-changing Golds (Gord, Tunnel Drill, Freakshow) and allowing overpriced/underused cards (the likes of Villantrentenameth) to be in the Silver class.
- Silvers then you need min. 6, but can add more if you want to then sacrifice your provs which are purely used on bronze cards. So you start with a number of provs to be spent on bronze/silver. You get 6 silver "free" but adding a silver takes 8 provs from your bronze limit. So the balance is more silvers, or better bronze spread.
- Golds are exempt from the hand and can be played once per round. Words like Echo would have to disappear, but that's a VERY good thing because double tutoring (Assault, Oneiro) is an absolutely horrendous dynamic.
- Increase the hand size to 12 again which in itself will ensure the access to cards for a more balanced playstyle which will be dictated as well by your intention with a Gold card.
- So you still need a min. 25 cards, PLUS 3 golds, meaning now 28 cards are in a deck.
- Level the draw from the beginning so both players go into the game on an equal footing.

The last point is the only thing I can see actually happening, but I'd like to think between the ideas on this thread a far superior version of Gwent exists, based truly on deckbuilding skill, offering far greater variety due to Gold restrictions and evens up the game overall.

From there, it's about spending a lot of time and effort rebalancing the bronzes, classifying the golds into two piles and for CDPR to move away from the bloody awful notion of deliberate synergies which forces the META's.

 

[yeahalright]

did you just say luck is why some factions are more consistency and synergy than others?

No, I said the opposite: there is so much luck, that all factions are forced to rely on certain consistency plays, such as pinko into novigradian justice, or oneiromancy, or [insert tutor package here]. Also deck thinning is huge because thinning is winning. It is because luck is outrageous, there is little deck diversity. The consistent cards are always going to be #1, which forces out 90% of the game's golds and bronzes.

I see the same cards nearly every game, once in awhile I see a new tech card. I really only play for daily quests, the game is so stagnant it puts me to sleep.

 

[nedders]

Here's a snapshot. Having a few goes with variations on this double SW deck. That means I have LoTF, Oneiro, Rience in my deck plus a few cards that draw cards. R1, I have none of my high prov cards, all still in the deck. First card the opponent plays is Oneiro. Where's the sense, where's the fairness? It's almost predetermined whether you win or lose, such is the polarity in the cards today. And THAT is a very unhealthy state of the game.