Gwent Tactics

+

Raunbjorn

Guest
Really appreciate the effort! Your ideas seem a lot more appealing than the actual game. The thing is I've completely lost interest in Gwent (sad, right?xD). Ironically the least appealing aspect of the game right now to me, is the animations and the shimmering, shining effects the cards has. Visually and flavor wise the game is undesirable. It might mean nothing to some but the removal of trio art was a big disappointment too. There wasn't any refund and they didn't mention it at all? Also the cards doesn't have the same weight to them. I dunno about you PC guys but on PS4 when you place and play the card it feels really clunky and plasticlike.
I've picked up MtG again after playing it a bit as a kid. I've realised that playing a couple of games with your friends is a lot more enjoyable than ranking up in Gwent lol.

This thread deserves a sticky btw! Or give the man a job at CDPR at least ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is some good stuff here; it's almost becoming a seperate game...

How about a fork: Gwent Battlegrounds - where rather than the accrual of points quickly in a short game (10mins or so), but obviously points will be important in determining the "winner" it's more turn based strategy with units depicted as cards rather than... well, anything else really but on maybe a slightly re-designed board where games last a little longer (say 25mins?) and are more in depth; almost like a game of Gwent Chess....

I particularly like the tactics set for NG: that makes a lot of sense for that faction, and ST too. Not entirely too sure about the actual application of the effects in Gwent as it stands now, hence the fork suggestion, but seriously good work; suggest it to CDPR and see what happens; nothing to lose and all that.
 
Hello, I have not downloaded the game yet but I was very interested, if anyone played hearthstone know that apart from the ability you depend A LOT of luck, there you put a combo and if you do not lose everything is very random, I would like to know if this is the same in that sense.
PS: sorry for my bad english!!
 

Guest 4021160

Guest

Gwent Tactics v0.0.5




Hi All and happy new year.

Ok, now that Gwent Tactics has all the cosmetics done, the largest elephant in the room is The Balance. as hydra66 suggested.

Some final changes to cosmetics:
  1. Cheer changed to Inspire. insipired by hydra66
  2. Added rounding down to shield wall effect . thanks to hydra66
  3. Cleansing affects all rows behind shield wall.
  4. Inspire affects all rows behind shield wall.
  5. Distribute damage has been removed from Formation, because effect like Philippa becomes problematic. Instead, units in Formation cannot get killed (only wounded).
  6. Terror gets triggered by 3 monster units, but only works when you have double amount of units on your row opposed to row on the other side. Please check the file to see how row limit influences this tactic.
  7. Changed blizzard to move frost rather than create one. Thanks to ser2440
To balance Gwent Tactics I took into consideration the following.
  1. What is the best outcome of tactic and valued it by points on the board.
  2. What is the worst outcome of the tactic and valued it by points on the board.
  3. Calculated average of min and max and named it Effect Power.
  4. Calculated hypergeometrical probability to establish the chance of you or your opponent drawing cards so that your tactic would have maximum impact. The calculations takes into account:
    • Amount of cards in the deck (25 as a default value.)
    • How many duplicates of wanted card you have in the deck - population of success
    • The amount of draw at the beginning of the match (a.k.a your initial hand of 10 cards).
    • Number of successes in hand (how many cards you need to draw in order to succeed from the amount you have in a deck. For example if you need to draw 2 berserkers so you could damage them with Battle Fury, your population of success is 3 (as there are 3 in your deck) and number of successes is 2 (as you need 2 in your hand).
To calculate the chance I used this formula:
h(x; N, n, k) = [ kCx ] [ N-kCn-x ] / [ NCn ], where

N: The number of items in the population.
k: The number of items in the population that are classified as successes.
n: The number of items in the hand.
x: The number of items in the sample that are classified as successes.
kCx: The number of combinations of k things, taken x at a time.
h(x; N, n, k): the probability that an n-trial hypergeometric experiment results in exactly x successes, when the population consists of N items, k of which are classified as successes

to know more visit: http://stattrek.com/online-calculato...geometric.aspx




5. Calculated the Verdict: average of Effect Power compared to the most powerful tactic and Hypergeometrical Probabilities.

As it stands Gwent Tactics are a long way from balance. Here are the results:
NameVerdictTactic describtion
Inspire53%Inspire: Summon a bronze boon on all rows behind Shield Wall (if no hazard applied).
Manoeuver53%Manoeuver: Move a unit
Terror52%Terror: Move both flanks up on the opposite rowif you have double amount of units on your row as opposed to same row on the other side.
Intelligence51%Intelligence: Reveal 1 card
Ambush50%Ambush: Place ambush token for a card in your hand. Flips in 2 turns after deploy.
Entrapment50%Entrapment: Lock 2 units on opposite side.
Subterfuge33%Subterfuge: Trigger spy token on any card on the board
Freya's Blessing30%Freya's Blessing: Revive a unit
Cleansing24%Cleansing: Remove hazard from rows behind shield wall
Battle Fury21%Battle Fury: Damage 2 units on your side by 1
Blizzard20%Blizzard: Move frost to a different row
Resilience20%Resilience: Next consume trigger resilience token.
Shield Wall13%Shield Wall: Half all damage to a row below (rounding down)
Formation8%Formation: Unit can be wounded, but not killed (stays at 1)
Harm's Way7%Harm's Way: Discard a unit

This is where I ask the community to help. I simply cannot evaluate some of this effect by points (such as discard), therefore I’d like to ask for your help. If you think that there’s a way to get a better result of any given tactic or how to evaluate discard, please let me know. I will arrange the calculations accordingly in the next version.

To download Gwent Tactics v0.0.5 click here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
Can someone please tell me what is the best outcome of 1 DISCARD. I mean if you could discard 1 card, what card would that be and how many points on board would it represent. Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
Ok, i really have to work on how to calculate Balance. to do that, I will create an excel based calculator which includes all the calculations above, BUT I will have it count whats is the benefit/harm of each tactic PER turn.

To do that I will have to add following variables:

Match length: 13 turns, as there are 13 cards drawn in total (this is a constant)
Potential: how much damage/ harm your side of a board can have with and without tactic PER turn. (this is a variable)
Thinning: With how many cards you start and finished, based on effect of tactic (not card effects).

So far the variables include:
1. Chance of getting the cards you need.
2. Card potential on deploy.

It's not a stretch to say, that numbers in v.0.0.5 does not represent actual Balance yet. As a matter of fact they are quite wrong.

So bois and gals, you wanna see the ultimate balance calculator progress? Well you GOT IT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to read the whole thread, but it seemed far too much for me. So here is my feedback from what I have seen from the last Tactics update.

Basicly it is a really great idea. It gives rowplacement a lot of extra meaning and gives some more depth to the game.

Nonetheless, I have some questions. How often can these tactics trigger? Once per round or more often, and can you decide if you want to trigger the tactic? Else it can be easily abused by the enemy if he has movement to trigger the tactics before any of it is usefull.
If tactics can happen more than once in a round, what happens when to 3 units, which activated a tactic a fourth is placed of the same type. Does the tactic trigger again, or can each 3 units trigger a tactic only once?

Also, while most conditions for the tactics are quite easily managable with most archetypes, the NR one seems pretty hard, if you don't play armor archetype.

Moreover, while there are some effects which interact really good with the rows, most of them have nothing to do with it, and therefore just make it more usefull to stack same units on the same row, which is kind of a shame. Furthermore, what I dislike a bit is that most effects are rather strong, but I would have prefered more subtle effects which happened more often, for example "Sanctuary of Freya: whenever a unit is revived to a row with only priests on it, the unit is buffed by the number of priests." as this would make reviving untis to rows much more interesting.
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
FG15-ISH7EG;n10159632 said:
I'm sorry that I wasn't able to read the whole thread, but it seemed far too much for me. So here is my feedback from what I have seen from the last Tactics update.

Basicly it is a really great idea. It gives rowplacement a lot of extra meaning and gives some more depth to the game.

Nonetheless, I have some questions. How often can these tactics trigger? Once per round or more often, and can you decide if you want to trigger the tactic? Else it can be easily abused by the enemy if he has movement to trigger the tactics before any of it is usefull.
If tactics can happen more than once in a round, what happens when to 3 units, which activated a tactic a fourth is placed of the same type. Does the tactic trigger again, or can each 3 units trigger a tactic only once?

Also, while most conditions for the tactics are quite easily managable with most archetypes, the NR one seems pretty hard, if you don't play armor archetype.

Moreover, while there are some effects which interact really good with the rows, most of them have nothing to do with it, and therefore just make it more usefull to stack same units on the same row, which is kind of a shame. Furthermore, what I dislike a bit is that most effects are rather strong, but I would have prefered more subtle effects which happened more often, for example "Sanctuary of Freya: whenever a unit is revived to a row with only priests on it, the unit is buffed by the number of priests." as this would make reviving untis to rows much more interesting.

This is very valuable insight. Thank you. I will take that into account and update accordingly.
in terms of tactic trigger. Its once per round.
the 4th unit does not trigger it again, however it makes it harder to counter for your opponent.

The power of tactics is a work in progress, i will only be able to do it properly when the balance calculator is finished.

The NR tactic triggered by armor. Yes, its not cursed archetype oriented, however there are so many armored units in NR i find it very easy to trigger the tactic for entire faction. Also, there are ways to add armour. It solves 2 things. 1. It gives subtlety and 2. faction flavour to tactic.
And lastly, I agree wholeheartily about what you said of effects not being strictly row interactive. You would have probably liked if I took the direction of v.0.0.3 and improve it. I also envisioned it like this. And you will never know why I changed that, unless you ...drumroll... read the entire entirity of this thread. Haha time.
i have a feeling that the only thing of true value to CDPR is going to be that balance calculus anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4021160

Guest
Shadow-Stalker , your ideas were brilliant. I havent reflected on them yet because you said youre going to update them.
 
Karolis.petrikas;n10126842 said:
A grid would require board indexing

melee - Unit 1 - Unit 2 - Unit 3 - Unit 4 - melee
range - Unit 5 - Unit 6 - Unit 7 - Unit 8 - range
siege - Unie 9 - Unit 10 - Unit 11 - Unit 12 - siege

Why can't it be

melee - M1 - M2 - M3 - M4 - M5 - melee
range - R1 - R2 - R3 - R4 - R5 - melee
siege - S1 - S2 - S3 - S4 - S5 - siege

?

Then you'd just need to change the identification of each card instead of just blanket labeling all units.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I can tell you've been charged with coming up with an idea to remedy the consequences of making all units agile, unfortunately you're still thinking about the game like it's Gwent. Just because it has the name and there's art from the Witcher, doesn't make it Gwent. You need to make the game revolve around strength of units OR revolve around positioning of units, it can't be both. Every single other card game is focused on strength of units, Gwent used to be about positioning.

Either you want the units to be attacking, buffing, moving, debuffing and interacting to win the game for you.
Or you want positioning to dodge, bluff, surprise, maneuver, act and react to win you the game. I would argue that this is true 'Gwent', and not the direction the game is going. Specifically, the introduction of 'Duel' is a big step in the wrong direction IMO.

You can't have both, and this is why it feels more and more RNG focused. One is an active game, the other is a passive game. The game is turning into Elder Scrolls Legends with an extra row.

IMO In order for your idea to work and truly shine, you need to not have all units agile. Or it will not work and you should abandon the idea completely. But like I said... if you want the position for the units to matter then don't allow them to be placed anywhere, otherwise your interactions are forced to be bland in order to balance.

To fix your idea for the current not-Gwent it would have to be something akin to:
3 NR on a row, gives armor to the row below it.
3 Mon on a row, the one in the middle consumes the two on the side.
3 SK on a row, does 3 damage split randomly to random units on the opposite row.
3 NIL on a row, reveals/hides all units on the this and the opposite row.

It works, it's thematic, it's balanced ... but kinda bland. I think you'd find anything more then, something relatively like, that would feel 1. op and 2. frustrating.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4021160

Guest
fodare;n10206262 said:
Why can't it be

melee - M1 - M2 - M3 - M4 - M5 - melee
range - R1 - R2 - R3 - R4 - R5 - melee
siege - S1 - S2 - S3 - S4 - S5 - siege

.

M R and S indexes its row, but not the position towards cards in other two rows. Try thinking of a way for card S2 to buff units diagonally. How would r1 and r3 know they're the target.
 
No Title

It's not really about gwent tactics, but while thinking about how to implement a prefered-row-system (https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...ed-opportunity), I also came up with an idea how units could be placed on the board.

I made some top notch graphics ;), I have attached them to this post.
The problem was, that a machine-deck would have to rowstack a lot considering how the current crewman ability works. So I thought it would be better to have the crewman card in front of your siege unit.
I marked the cards in front and behind R2 to make my intention more clear.
Other rules: If you're placing a card on the empty ranged row, it has to be at R1, on the melee and siege row you have two options. Then you can play cards adjacent to the ones already on the board until you have reached M5/R6/S5 on the left or the right side (to make things clearer: you could play all M1 left, M2l, M3l,M4l,M5l or like M1l, M1r, M2r,M3r, M2l).

Things I still have to think about:
- Should you be allowed to "push" units to the side by placing a unit between two cards? (probably yes)
- What happens if one unit in the middle gets destroyed? (I prefer: nothing happens, but you have to fill the empty spaces when playing cards)
- How do cards like rabid wolves (woodland spirit) spawn?
 

Attachments

  • photo190622.jpg
    photo190622.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 39

Guest 4021160

Guest
BornBoring;n10209702 said:
It's not really about gwent tactics, but while thinking about how to implement a prefered-row-system (https://forums.cdprojektred.com/foru...ed-opportunity), I also came up with an idea how units could be placed on the board.

I made some top notch graphics ;), I have attached them to this post.
The problem was, that a machine-deck would have to rowstack a lot considering how the current crewman ability works. So I thought it would be better to have the crewman card in front of your siege unit.
I marked the cards in front and behind R2 to make my intention more clear.
Other rules: If you're placing a card on the empty ranged row, it has to be at R1, on the melee and siege row you have two options. Then you can play cards adjacent to the ones already on the board until you have reached M5/R6/S5 on the left or the right side (to make things clearer: you could play all M1 left, M2l, M3l,M4l,M5l or like M1l, M1r, M2r,M3r, M2l).

Things I still have to think about:
- Should you be allowed to "push" units to the side by placing a unit between two cards? (probably yes)
- What happens if one unit in the middle gets destroyed? (I prefer: nothing happens, but you have to fill the empty spaces when playing cards)
- How do cards like rabid wolves (woodland spirit) spawn?

just look at them graphics. high res. :D

what does the different colour triangular bubbles means?
 
Karolis.petrikas;n10211452 said:
what does the different colour triangular bubbles means?

"I marked the cards in front and behind R2 to make my intention more clear."
Blue: cards in front of R2; Orange: cards behind of R2. No top notch graphics without colours.

 

Guest 4021160

Guest
ser2440;n10118212 said:
thanks for the toolset. working on NG and specifically subterfuge :) Monsters are the easiest to counter the rest so far.

I like your idea about Elven and Dwarven kin. I'd use Elven Kin, Dwarven Kin and Ambush/Entrapment with Brouver, Francesca and Eithne as each tactic leader to counter the problem xD Now remains Skellige. The condition is easy, the effect is the problem... :/

waiting. still waiting. :)
 

Guest 4021160

Guest
Lets catch up in a few months my work has caught up to me too. Dont lose the progress!!
 
Now that's a blast from the past. :D

I still think the original ideas (2017) were quite cool for what the game was like back then.
 
Top Bottom