drawing cards should it be changed?

+

drawing cards should it be changed?

  • Yes. Flip it!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes. Something like your second option.

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • Yes. Another idea!

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • No. It is perfect the way it is.

    Votes: 13 81.3%

  • Total voters
    16
drawing cards should it be changed?

Although I have not actually played in the beta yet I believe this part should be re-examined. I have watched some game play through different outlets such as twitch, and youtube. I think it would be beneficial to the game to change how or when cards are drawn. Currently the third round seems essentially mandatory, and not like "overtime". I rarely see games only last two rounds unless one person is just plain out-matched. One way or another I really believe it would increase the overall and long term enjoyability of the game if this were re-examined.

One way I think you could improve it is instead of 2 cards after the first round, and one after the second round flip those around so you get 1 after the first and 2 after the second if it makes it that far. I believe this could lower the average number of rounds that the games last making it more likely that a person wins in two rounds instead of three.

Another way that could be very interesting is to change the conditions that cards are drawn. There are an unlimited number of ways a person could go with this, but one I was thinking about was something like if you win the round you draw 1 or 2 cards, and if you lose the round you draw 0 or 1 card respectively, and if you draw in a given round then you can both draw 1 or 2 or something like that. The principal being that typically it seems that people just throw rounds away especially in the first round people will implement a strategy where they just play one card etc. It will put more emphasis, and give incentive to winning within the first two rounds, and not make plays have to fear losing card number as much, and possibly make for more bluffs. This could also result in decreasing the average number of rounds per game.

Feel free to post any other feasible options you guys can think of!
 
It's fine as it is. I like to pass my first round usually so I can get the two extra cards and then go all out in the 2nd round with the maximum number of cards. It works well.
 
I don't think the devs want the game to be over in the first two rounds. I don't even think people playing right now want that. I don't think people watching future tournaments would want to see 2-0 blow outs all the time either. The third round is special because it is you and your opponent playing their trump cards. These are the cards that they have held onto the entire match for the opportune time. I just got beat two games in a row because my opponent had +1 in card advantage (although I did lose the coin toss to start round 1..) and waited until the end to drop Dimeritium bomb on me. I would rather keep this the way it is, mostly. I feel like the third round is what the first two rounds are building up to.

​That being said, I sometimes feel that the third round draw can heavily impact the game. I also feel the third round draw is massively in favor of the skillege deck and even the NR deck since they can thin their deck so much in rounds 1 and 2. This is not on my highest priority list of issues though.



 
Exentryk;n6902360 said:
It's fine as it is. I like to pass my first round usually so I can get the two extra cards and then go all out in the 2nd round with the maximum number of cards. It works well.

So like I said at that point basically you are just giving them the first round? So why not just start with two more cards in the first round and not draw? Would you play differently then? most likely not, because there does not seems to be any emphasis on winning it for you or many other players.

Yourfacetm;n6902370 said:
I don't think the devs want the game to be over in the first two rounds. I don't even think people playing right now want that. I don't think people watching future tournaments would want to see 2-0 blow outs all the time either. The third round is special because it is you and your opponent playing their trump cards. These are the cards that they have held onto the entire match for the opportune time. I just got beat two games in a row because my opponent had +1 in card advantage (although I did lose the coin toss to start round 1..) and waited until the end to drop Dimeritium bomb on me. I would rather keep this the way it is, mostly. I feel like the third round is what the first two rounds are building up to.

​That being said, I sometimes feel that the third round draw can heavily impact the game. I also feel the third round draw is massively in favor of the skillege deck and even the NR deck since they can thin their deck so much in rounds 1 and 2. This is not on my highest priority list of issues though.

So then in a tournament it basically sounds like you would want the first round to be null? Why play it then? I would bet making any changes the third round would still be pretty common, but would also improve the level of action in the first two rounds. Meaning instead of essentially EVERYONE waiting till the third round to play their "trump" cards maybe it will draw out some trump cards earlier and add more strategy and depth overall to the game.

 
Last edited:
I don't have an issue with the current draw, but wouldn't be massively opposed to the devs trying something new there. But, the thing to keep in mind is that Gwent, as I'm understanding it, isn't a 2 round game with an "over-time." It's a 3 round game. I wouldn't say that any of the rounds are throw aways, but rather than they all have strategic purposes, depending on your and your opponent's deck/Faction. Winning/Losing the first round has both advantages and disadvantages, and part of the trick is always keeping that 3rd round in mind. Passing and having the card advantage in the first round is only one possible advantage. I like to play Scoia, and none of the rounds are do-nothing pass rounds, since my goal is to ambush and destroy (hello archers) as many of my opponent's cards as possible and disrupt any strategy of theirs, and I need the time to harass my opponent, including in the first round, so that by round 3 (if it all worked out), they have nothing left. I am not going into the 3rd round with either of us having more than 1/3 of the hand if I can help it. The other 3 Factions, I could go either way strategy-wise, draw it out or rush the 2 rounds, depending on the drawing--Do I need more cards or do I have a crushing force in hand already?
 
lvvl;n6902410 said:
So why not just start with two more cards in the first round and not draw?

Drawing more cards in the 2nd and 3rd round has that excitement factor to it. Even if devs increased the first round amount of cards, I'd still want them to let us draw some cards in the 2nd round, and then we'd be back at the same place.

I have to sometimes commit to the first round however (against NR), and that can sometimes end the game in 2 rounds.
 
lvvl;n6902410 said:
So like I said at that point basically you are just giving them the first round?
If you're playing reinforced trebuchet strategy then it makes sense to give up the first round because you need longer round in general to get a better kick from trebuchets. And more cards means that you play longer therefore trebuchets shoot more times.

--- Updated 07-11-16, 05:25 ---

Regarding the change in the draw. I'm for the change in the draw to make it less random. I had many games where it was decided by what one card you have got in the last round and it was the only one card in hand for both players therefore the winner is decided more or less randomly. One got Adrenaline Rush and another one some unit... I don't like that. It should be less random.
 
Last edited:
Exentryk;n6902440 said:
Drawing more cards in the 2nd and 3rd round has that excitement factor to it. Even if devs increased the first round amount of cards, I'd still want them to let us draw some cards in the 2nd round, and then we'd be back at the same place.

I have to sometimes commit to the first round however (against NR), and that can sometimes end the game in 2 rounds.


You completely missed the point of what I just said. The way you are currently playing the game it would be no different if you started with two more cards, and they made it only 2 rounds with you drawing a card going into the second round. Making the first round at the current state a waste of time and too linear with the way you want to play. This should be changed.

SolarasMind;n6902430 said:
I don't have an issue with the current draw, but wouldn't be massively opposed to the devs trying something new there. But, the thing to keep in mind is that Gwent, as I'm understanding it, isn't a 2 round game with an "over-time." It's a 3 round game. I wouldn't say that any of the rounds are throw aways, but rather than they all have strategic purposes, depending on your and your opponent's deck/Faction. Winning/Losing the first round has both advantages and disadvantages, and part of the trick is always keeping that 3rd round in mind. Passing and having the card advantage in the first round is only one possible advantage. I like to play Scoia, and none of the rounds are do-nothing pass rounds, since my goal is to ambush and destroy (hello archers) as many of my opponent's cards as possible and disrupt any strategy of theirs, and I need the time to harass my opponent, including in the first round, so that by round 3 (if it all worked out), they have nothing left. I am not going into the 3rd round with either of us having more than 1/3 of the hand if I can help it. The other 3 Factions, I could go either way strategy-wise, draw it out or rush the 2 rounds, depending on the drawing--Do I need more cards or do I have a crushing force in hand already?

The reason I called it overtime is because in most sports or games when a game goes past the standard or required etc number of periods it is considered "overtime". In gwent the objective of the game is outscore your opponent in two rounds to win the game. Thus the fewest number of rounds you can possibly win the game (with exception of the other player leaving/disconnecting) is of course two, but in the current state it does not appear to me that many players actually try to win in only two rounds. Like I said above the way the game is currently being played by most players can be accomplished just as easily as making the game only two rounds.

I'd like to see more fireworks in the first and second round and have it go to a third round/overtime if it has to.

Yourfacetm;n6902370 said:
I don't think people watching future tournaments would want to see 2-0 blow outs all the time either.

Also in regards to this do you really want to see the first round be so linear essentially every game where it's essentially just given up? By the third round you are already going to have seen their "trump" card for two rounds. You already know whats going to happen at that point making it very linear and not as dynamic or exciting. I don't necessarily think its nearly as exciting in a tournament scenario like you are speaking of to have the game be so linear and just have both players to just hold on to all their best cards till the end after one or two dummy rounds. At that point the same thing can be achieved with less rounds. If thats what you want to see, why not just make it one round?
 
Last edited:
lvvl;n6902650 said:
Also in regards to this do you really want to see the first round be so linear essentially every game where it's essentially just given up? By the third round you are already going to have seen their "trump" card for two rounds. You already know whats going to happen at that point making it very linear and not as dynamic or exciting. I don't necessarily think its nearly as exciting in a tournament scenario like you are speaking of to have the game be so linear and just have both players to just hold on to all their best cards till the end after one or two dummy rounds. At that point the same thing can be achieved with less rounds.
I'm having a hard time understanding why this game is linear. To me this game is anything but linear. There are multiple ways rounds can be played and decided strictly based off how cards are played. Overall strategies may seem linear but when player interaction starts to happen then people have to adapt and play their cards accordingly.

​An issue I do have with what is being said is the idea that the first round is unimportant which is a massive misunderstanding of the power that winning round 1 gives. I almost always try to take round 1, especially if the opponent isn't trying to take it. I do have one deck that I m fairly ok losing round one with but that is an exception.

I'd say about half the time after winning round 1, Ill start to play round 2 with the idea of "can I win this round if I go all in?" I've won a lot of matches me winning the first two rounds, I don't think there needs to be anything done to make this game even more reliant on the first 2 rounds.


I never suggested that its always the right play to hold on to your best cards. I will use really good cards at any round if I feel like it will gain me card advantage or win the round with little effort.

I'm having difficulty understanding the issues you are having that cause you to want these changes. Do you have specific examples of things that have disappointed you?
 
lvvl;n6902650 said:
You completely missed the point of what I just said. The way you are currently playing the game it would be no different if you started with two more cards, and they made it only 2 rounds with you drawing a card going into the second round. Making the first round at the current state a waste of time and too linear with the way you want to play. This should be changed.

No, three rounds have a purpose. You can use one of the rounds to bait the opponent into wasting his cards. So cleverly throwing the round is an active skill in the game, and is part of the overall strategy. Changing it to 2 rounds would lose some of that.
 
I disagree with the op voted to keep it the way it is its better to have more cards on round 2 than three. As others have said throwing the first round is a good strat at times.
 
lvvl;n6902650 said:
I'd like to see more fireworks in the first and second round and have it go to a third round/overtime if it has to.

And you can if you build your chosen deck for that purpose. I feel like I've done my best on those occasions when I felt in control of the course of the game (and this is all stuff I'm figuring out for myself here).
If you want to have a bigger bang in that first round, consider that in your strategy, and I've played plenty of matches thus far where the 1st round was played down to the last few cards (a couple down to the very last card with it all coming down to what the new draw dished out). As you are watching and playing, think about what you can do to make the opposition play those first two rounds in the way you want. Sometimes you'll be successful and sometimes you won't, but that's part of the fun.

Regardless of the draw count of the cards, though, there's always going to be players with the opposing strategy to play big in the 3rd round after, hopefully, having made you spend more cards than you want. So, again, for your strategy, think about what you can do to prevent that.

Yourfacetm;n6902720 said:
I almost always try to take round 1, especially if the opponent isn't trying to take it.

And ditto to that. I love winning the first round, so I don't have to win the second because it is a 3 round game. My goal for round two is to not let my opponent have it, but rather force them to play cards (that maybe they wanted in round 3), and then pass (or win if their cards aren't holding up) when I feel like I've done enough damage and can easily take the 3rd round. That freedom is the power of taking Round 1.
 
Last edited:
I've preferred the way it was in the original qwent no additional draws after the initial. CDR's argument for adding subsequent draws was to counteract RNG and getting a bad hand at the beginning.

First off I don't think drawing additional cards does much to fix that problem you can still run into bad rng on those additional draws as well. I suppose the smaller your deck is, since you've already drawn some cards the chances of those follow up draws being your "good cards" is slightly increased since its pulling from a smaller pool, but the difference between that and drawing all 13 cards at the beginning I would argue is negligible.

I think the benefit of drawing all your cards at the beginning whether it be 13 cards or only 10 is at least then you see everything that you'll have to work with and aren't left with the dilemma "well if I get this card next round then I can do this, but if I get something else then I'm screwed"
 
Top Bottom