[Feedback/Idea] How to make Gwent less luck dependent

[Philido]

So, another game, another RNG loss. Mirror SK Greatswords (but the guy used Patricide for some reason). It all came down to a Greatsword behind a defender. He drew his Gremist and Decree, I didn't. He could Morkvarg my Greatsword, I couldn't his. Could not have been won. And the guy made a few misplays like Decreeing a unit he didn't need. Plus he used a leader with less synergy. No advantage has any meaning if you don't draw what you need.

Another layer of RNG is how important for many decks it is to win R1 (and not commit too much) where you only got about 50% chance to draw the card you need. Losing last say in R3 where you have no stategem or any other advantage except one more mulligan is disastrous for too many decks. And losing round control for decks that got no good short R3 is also disastrous.

So, after some consideration, I agree with @Alexander_Volgin. In order not to break the game implementing some new and untested mechanics, increasing the number of mulligans to 4 on blue and 3 on red is a safe solution that would lessen the impact of RNG.

A fun addition to that would be an option to banish or graveyard one card during each mulligan in order to get rid of tech you know you don't need (or think you don't need and then get surprised - another layer of fun decision making).

I know how you feel, sometimes it's just incredibly disappointing to lose a game just because of bad luck. I don't know if one "pick any card you want" mulligan would imbalance the game. Especially in mirrors it's very often luck if both players are equally good. It's just the nature of a card game I guess....

 

[Guest 4375874]

Almost everyone I talked to about Gwent more or less agrees with this line of thought: none of Gwent cards are really overpowered because MOST OF THEM ARE OVERPOWERED. The game allows for stunning possibilities to gain insurmountable advantage over your opponent as long as you've hit your draw and they have not. This leads to an obvious conclusion: the Gwent marketing slogan "Skill Beats Luck" is a major overstatement. Another slogan advertising "Back-And-Forth Gameplay" is also quite disconnected from reality. In most cases there is only a "forth" and there is no way in hell for a "back" unless - of course - you hit your draw.

This forces quite a sad comparison. Gwent is an amazing game in many aspects. But when it comes to the win-lose factor, it pretty much boils down to a more sophisticated version of a card game called "War." You drew your higher and the guy drew his lower - you take it. There is some skill involved, naturally, but that's limited to neutral draws. By the end of the day, cards in Gwent are so powerful and offer so much crushing synergies that if you didn't draw, no skill will help you. Not even if your opponent played open handed.

I hope devs are reading this because the solution - in principle at least but surely not in execution - is quite simple. Lower the cost and increase the availability of tutor cards. Royal Decree for example is 10 provision which is more or less at the same level as some of the most powerful golds. Why is it so? If it was cheaper and available in different versions (say 8 for Decree and other similar tutors but with different flavors in each faction), the chance of you not being able to use what you packed would not be so high.

I am aware that every change can affect or even ruin the cohesion of the system so I am not proposing this lightheartedly. But it is certainly something to think about. The frustration of constantly losing because you just couldn't draw what you needed is real. Gwent cards are just too powerful for the current level of how luck can influence the game.

Thanks for reading. All comments welcome.

I agree with the problem but not so much the solution. Why tutors? I've sen others suggest that tutors are a part of the problem you just described because it removes any semblance of risk if you can just correct a bad hand, obviously some factions can do this better than others.

TBH my thoughts are on the opposite in that what should be random doesn't feel random at all. From activating card abilities with "random" in their description to the cards that are drawn. Merely changing a single card in my deck drastically changes the cards I draw...not that there should have been a recognizable pattern to begin with but somehow there is.

 

[Archan6el]

Reducing RNG in combination with effective balancing will increase variety. Thus despite 'all games will play the same' we would actually see more deck variations.

Spot on. Because of draw RNG, every deck building exercise is focused on reducing the effect of draw RNG to get a more consistent and thus viable deck. That is severely reducing deck building opportunities and that's why you only see a limited amount of decks, especially when there are also some OP cards that will always be included: the current state of the game. With less draw RNG and better balanced cards (so that draw RNG also has less of an impact), there will be a much larger variety of viable decks and the focus will be more on strategy. I made a proposal to test this out in Seasonal some time ago: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...-more-strategic-game-mode-pick-play.11023181/

I think all this "RNG belongs in card games" and "less RNG reduces variety" talk is just something that CCG players have been used to for a long time and some can no longer think outside this box. The RNG makes it more a gambling game, which is great for game companies to keep players playing due to the dopamine bursts and possible addiction. The thrill of buying card packs and hoping you get some real good cards is very similar.

 

[IvRoz]

I'm divided regarding this issue. On one hand, I'd really like some crazy combos I envision to be a bit more consistent.

I'd also like to see more variety.

On the other hand, I think it would make control decks a bit overwhelming. In my opinion, a deck archetype specialized in countering being able to draw the right card whenever needed would be too much.

Furthermore, it wouldn't solve OP issue. If getting rid of RNG provides more variety, he wouldn't be able to predict the opponent's plays card by card.

Post automatically merged: Jun 16, 2020

Part of the strategy of a game like Gwent is designing consistent decks that minimize luck of the draw. Perfect tutors (like Royal decree that always draws the card of your choice) not only eliminate a challenging aspect to deck design, they reduce the challenge of improvising with what you have as well as reducing the variety of strategies used since now all players can not only always have the exact same cards but can always play them in exactly the same order too.

If the game depends too much upon lucky draws allowing you to win simply because you drew your 6 best cards when your opponent drew only 5 top cards, a far better solution is to even out the difference between cards so drawing suboptimal cards is not disastrous.

I agree with Mr @quintivarium

Reducing the gap between the stapples and bronzes would make bad draws less determining.

Edit: I don't know if "definitive" would be a better word. XD

I'd really appreciate it if anyone could tell me.

 

[Guest 4404014]

I agree with the problem but not so much the solution. Why tutors? I've sen others suggest that tutors are a part of the problem you just described because it removes any semblance of risk if you can just correct a bad hand, obviously some factions can do this better than others.

There are many layers of RNG. I'm talking about the one where the combination of cards you have drawn makes it 100% impossible to win against the combination of cards the opponent has drawn. Like the SK Greatsword mirror game example above. We had very similar hands. But he had Gremist and Decree, I didn't. I could not have won no matter how I'd play and how he'd misplay (misplay to a reasonable extent ofc).

And this happens quite often according to what I see. So where is the skill factor if you can't win even though you have the cards you know you need (deckbuilding skill meaningless) but can't use them (gameplay skill meaningless)?

I'm not saying luck factor should be reduced to zero. Just slightly reduced. A little more tutorship would help. Or more mulligans.

 

[Archan6el]

On the other hand, I think it would make control decks a bit overwhelming. In my opinion, a deck archetype specialized in countering being able to draw the right card whenever needed would be too much.

With less draw RNG, all decks would be able to play the strongest cards and combo's more consistently. Of course this is also true for control decks, giving more consistent control. Building a control deck that effectively controls and wins against every other deck should not be possible. If that would be the case, then these control cards would clearly be OP, and that's why it is (always) important to have properly balanced cards. A full-on control deck build to (try to) counter every other deck should not win that many games, because control cards should have low inherent value and match-up RNG makes you play also against decks that are hard to control. I guess match-up RNG is the only type of RNG that everybody likes.

 

[IvRoz]

With less draw RNG, all decks would be able to play the strongest cards and combo's more consistently. Of course this is also true for control decks, giving more consistent control. Building a control deck that effectively controls and wins against every other deck should not be possible. If that would be the case, then these control cards would clearly be OP, and that's why it is (always) important to have properly balanced cards. A full-on control deck build to (try to) counter every other deck should not win that many games, because control cards should have low inherent value and match-up RNG makes you play also against decks that are hard to control. I guess match-up RNG is the only type of RNG that everybody likes.

I'm still not sure about that.

If I happen to match against lockdown running a set focused on vanishing my cards, I'd be in a huge disadvantage unless I mullingan the lowest value cards towards my deck.

Thus, if I have cards I'm ok with being vanished, that's the real problem. I have disposable cards in my deck.

Regarding your last assessment, I actually find amusing playing around the draw RNG.

I don't really mind rank nor do I want to be a pro. I just play for fun. Maybe that is why.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Regarding your last assessment, I actually find amusing playing around the draw RNG.

Could you elaborate this statement ?
Do you mean the following: If I lose to card A, no matter what, then I wont play around that card, so I continue my strategy with respect to card B which I can play around.

Now if you are in the opponents shoes, and he realy hoped to draw the card A which would have assured his win. Now that he doesn't have it then it's either game over or he has card B, that could give him an advantage, a card which you try to play around.

The fact remains that you would still make the same decision, if draw-RNG was reduced. With other words, draw-RNG doesn't increase your level of choice/decision making.

 

[IvRoz]

Could you elaborate this statement ?
Do you mean the following: If I lose to card A, no matter what, then I wont play around that card, so I continue my strategy with respect to card B which I can play around.

Now if you are in the opponents shoes, and he realy hoped to draw the card A which would have assured his win. Now that he doesn't have it then it's either game over or he has card B, that could give him an advantage, a card which you try to play around.

The fact remains that you would still make the same decision, if draw-RNG was reduced. With other words, draw-RNG doesn't increase your level of choice/decision making.

Yes. I can.

When I miss on important cards, I try to bluff my oponent into overcomiting important cards of his/hers.

I've got opponents forfeit round 3. I guess it is because they had to drop an important card. Meanwhile, I have nothing remarkable in hand XD

Now then, there is a faction designed around shutting down whatever I put on board. And I'm okay with it.

It's only natural (for me) to be OK with the RNG Gods dealing me bad hands.

Maybe I'll change my mind when I get a bigger card collection or feel like pushing past rank 11.

Lastly, you are right . RNG doesn't increase the level of decision making, nor did I argue the opposite.

I just said it entertains me to try and pull a win without everything going my way.

 

[jed9653]

On the other hand, I think it would make control decks a bit overwhelming. In my opinion, a deck archetype specialized in countering being able to draw the right card whenever needed would be too much.

That's kind of what I was thinking. NG in general would almost be unstoppable if they could draw the perfect counter.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

That's kind of what I was thinking. NG in general would almost be unstoppable if they could draw the perfect counter.

Then the problem is in balancing and not in draw-RNG. Balancing is difficult when you have to account for draw-RNG at the same time. In particularly when developers design combos, which either are overtuned when drawn, and if balanced, too incosistent. The end result is that these combos won't be played solely because of inconsistency. This season can be said to have excellent variety in meta compared to what was, and yet to come next season. This is what you get with Draw-Rng.

Tutors like Royal decree should be for 'oops I messed up, and didnt account for that kind of play from the opponent'. Basically to provide you with flexibility.
It's understandable why people feel that 'matches already play the same' when you fill your deck with 2-3 tutors with the sole reason to achieve consistency.

It's messed up. We see it in the newly introduced cards where SK gained a new tutor, and Oneiromancy. It just doesen't make any sense to keep adding tutors to this game, when the core of the problem can be resolved through adding more mulligans.

 

[quintivarium]

Extra mulligans simply change the draw RNG. Now instead of risking not drawing a desired card, you have to risk discarding a decent 6 or 7 point card to hope for a better gold at the risk of some useless 4 point card. At least tutors 1. Force players to pay for higher consistency and 2. Allow players to carry potentially useless tech in their deck rather than being forced to keep it in hand.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Tutors have their own weakness, and more aparent so with the introduction of echo cards. Now it is more necessary than ever to actually draw a specific card round 1. Tutors that can help you draw that card will weaken your deck significantly, and having a tutor chain is not a healthy solution to draw-RNG.

I'm 100% certain that we in the future will see many complaints about the new echo cards, which will be labeled as 'unfair and 'no skill'. Leading the developers to balance those cards. Even if correctly balanced, and as mentioned before, you either get value which equals the cards provision cost, and if not drawn, the value will be below provision cost, making people select presumingly more consistent alternatives.

 

[Guest 4404014]

Phew, gottta get it off my chest, it really feels like rage quitting sometimes. I just lost a game with Greatswords DESPITE winning R1 for last say AND removing both Dagur and Greatswords in R3 AND the guy erroneously Second Winding Gremist he didn't need when he could've had both Greatswords on the board AND wasting Decree on Hammond vs. Hawker Smuggler in R1 instead of saving it for a defender ST has little answer to. Could not have been won no matter his misplays. The guy just drew all his best cards, and I didn't.

Games like that happen all the time. WTF!

 

[Balgar-bard-slayer]

Honestly "RNG" is ruining this game for me. I put "RNG" in quotation marks because true RNG would at least come at a cost.

But I can't believe how many games I lose to NG decks running bribery and assimilate decks drawing the perfect situational card one after another. It's getting ridiculous that the developers are just ignoring an obvious broken mechanic in how "RNG" operates when selecting three "random" cards.

We all know time and again how people complain about how Bribery is broken, but I had a game today which took the whole thing to another level.

Playing against a Rank 1 assimilate spies deck. First good piece of luck, Bribery RNGs Caranthir. Caranthir this is a card that spawns a second card, this triggering his assimilate twice. Okay, I have to over commit, but I take R1, and he had to play Bribery, Damien AND Yenvo in R1 to try and stay in the lead.

I dry pass R2, 9 cards each for R3.

In R3, he early on plays a card from my hand using leader, out of 6 cards he RNGs Glustyworp and consumes his spy units, okay it's a 50/50, good odds for him. I manage to claw it back through strategic removal options.

3 cards remaining, it is close, but he is up by roughly 10. But I've been setting up a finisher behind a defender. Runestone RNGs an extra purify. Okay... but I'm still good. I have a row of 7 insects and kikmora queen. And he's already gone hard on the removal.

He plays Skellen, I know bribery is already gone, so I don't need to worry about him drawing my tall units.

I play Endrega eggs. I have Endrega Warrior and Glusty held in hand. The game is done. GG, he can't possibly win.

Next card is imperial diplomat: it will be played twice due to Skellen, this is his final RNG roll of the dice. What are the two bronze cards it produces?

First is ICE GIANT
MO has a pool of 46 bronze cards, and he draws the biggest one.
Wtf, but fine, I'm still good, it will be tight but I will still win this.

What is the next card? I shit you not, he pulls a drowner.
A DROWNER, the one card in the whole monster faction that can move a unit. He moves my Kikimora queen off the row of insects, and I lose the almost guaranteed 12 points, +2 for body (2 damage removed th armour).

I play out my hand forced to consume kikimora queen to allow for Glustyworp to get value, and he wins the game 70 to 62.

WTF, you cannot tell me that CDPR are using a true RNG engine for this bullshit.

Let's replay this, my opponent in one game RNG'd the best possible situational cards not once, not twice, but 5 times in a row, FIVE TIMES IN A ROW in one game. I would like to say this is a one off, but we all know I would be lying to try to spin that bullshit.

So let's ask the obvious question:

How is it that NG RNG decks keep winning the lottery?

Answer:

Either these NG players shouldn't be wasting a life time of luck on a card game, or CDPR should really fix their their broken RNG engine.

Conclusion:

Well, what do you think?