Ideas of removing rng (haters gonna hate)

+
Ideas of removing rng (haters gonna hate)

First of all (i know it has been discussed) draw mechanic. Drawing on last round clear weather is annoying so here's the thing: you have 13 cards, but on first round you can play only 10, at second 2 more and so on, heres better counter to help players with it (and my great gimp skills)

first number is number of your cards and second bigger is number of card that you can play this round (quite simple isn't it?). "But wait Gwent will be no more fun to watch because its not suprising and so on" Well i prefer to play better game than watch better.

Second idea. You always get at least 2 silver cards and one gold at the beginning before mulligan(i know that you can have only 2 silver and 1 gold card in deck and be sure to get them but it will be the only "better" cards you can get so its not unfair). I think it doesn't need more explanation.

Removing rng special effect eg replace "wound random" to "wound strongest/weakest"," resurrect random" to "resurrect most recent" and so on
 

Attachments

  • photo73780.png
    photo73780.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:
DziejopisWawel;n6859300 said:
Second idea. You always get at least 2 silver cards and one gold at the beginning before mulligan(

It would be extremely overpower in some case. Where you would for exemple put only those.
And even without "abusing" this system some decks ALWAYS drawing those cards would have tremondous advantages.

DziejopisWawel;n6859300 said:
first number is number of your cards and second bigger is number of card that you can play this round (quite simple isn't it?). "But wait Gwent will be no more fun to watch because its not suprising and so on" Well i prefer to play better game than watch better.

I didn't understand the idea and how it fix rng. Maybe because the image isn't available ?

However player complaining about RNG, always complain about RNG agaisn't them, while note noting that they have rng in their favor as well. Like drawing a card turn 2 that give you value.

And most of the decks are 25 decks right ?
You draw 13 in most deck without draw cards. (Unless you have a muster ability.)
Giving you a healty 1 in 13 chance to draw a clear skies in the last round. And you might as well count the number the said card allowed you to win a game.
 
You are too smart. This game need huge RNG because they target XBOX and "casuals". They were saying many times they want to "improve their selling". Looks like they have realized they can earn more by doing less so why not to do it? Anyway we will see the direction after 1st major patch. Probably they will not change mechanics tho :(

Ofc there should be no place for RNG so also no card draw after 2nd round. A good idea is to have silver, gold, bronze units, bronze special in the same intervals in your deck so no situations like 4 gold and 4 silver vs. all bronze.

Other huge problem is picking your deck on the start. It should be other way around.
 
Last edited:
makor86;n6859560 said:
You are too smart. This game need huge RNG because they target XBOX and "casuals". They were saying many times they want to "improve their spellings". Looks like they have realized they can earn more by doing less so why not to do it? Anyway we will see the direction after 1st major patch. Probably they will not change mechanics tho

If you can't stand the rng of a card game. (Wich all rely on btw.)
I suggest playing Chest, where both players avec same options. Or similar games. Maybe cards games aren't for you.

Seems like you are really angry about CDPR, i don't know why but your post doesn't seems rational at all.

makor86;n6859560 said:
Ofc there should be no place for RNG so also no card draw after 2nd round.

We might maybe even remove the first 10 cards we get. that way no RNG at all.

makor86;n6859560 said:
4 gold and 4 silver vs. all bronze.

Pretty sure that the odd of that happening is around 0,00001% and i'm not even exagerating. as you pretty much always have a gold card in hand. and 2 silvers. Edit: in fact i'm pretty sure you cannot have only bronze in hand, unless your deck is full of bronze.

makor86;n6859560 said:
Other huge problem is picking your deck on the start. It should be other way around.

How would that work ? You get to choose your opponent get to choose ? So basicly that the same thing that the as the matchmaking is right now.
Or maybe you want to choose upon knowing what you are going to face to counter it ? Seems really balance if it's only you. =)

Maybe, just maybe you should think this though man.
 
You know why there is less rng in MTG ? because using rng irl is way harder. You would have to use for exemple a dice to choose the card an effect goes on. And is unreliable as some token decks get ENORMOUS amount of tokens. you would need to roll the dice 3 to 4 times.

Having more RNG doesn't make the game worst. As your opponent is under the same rules.

Seems like you answering only on what you can find a reasonable answer.
 
My idea is:
- in the beginning you have 15 cards
- you can change up to 3
- then you are keeping 10 card for the game, returning 3 cards to the deck, and 2 card form a reserve. You will receive reserve cards in the beginning of third round.

And no more "I can play all my cards in the first round, and bless me RNG after that!"
 
bre3zer;n6860130 said:
You know why there is less rng in MTG ? because using rng irl is way harder. You would have to use for exemple a dice to choose the card an effect goes on. And is unreliable as some token decks get ENORMOUS amount of tokens. you would need to roll the dice 3 to 4 times.

Having more RNG doesn't make the game worst. As your opponent is under the same rules.

Seems like you answering only on what you can find a reasonable answer.

​He is technically right when he talks about specific card RNG but he did miss the point of gwent where you draw more than 1/3 of your deck instead of the 1/6 the magic gives you. Which is less reliable. It also relies on the RNG of drawing into the mana needed for plays.

People cant compare the draw mechanic here of 2-3 cards vs the RNG of drawing a card every single turn which can be super damaging. Top decking a win condition happens way more often in any other card game due to this. Top decking a noticeable win condition in gwent only happens in round 3 and is very uncommon. The game is usually played out by then and a winner is usually already determined through the play of the players.

The only RNG that bothers me right now is the monster RNG, specifically grabbing a gold unit to go into round 3 with. Most other RNG is controllable for the most part.

 
I like suggestions to remove a lot of randomness. Gwent has way too much randomness. Especially I like suggesting that you can have 13 cards right away has to leave at least 3 in the first round and one in the second. Those adrenaline rush, clear sky or dimeritium bomb as the last card happens rather a lot.
 
makor86;n6859560 said:
You are too smart. This game need huge RNG because they target XBOX and "casuals".

Sounds like stereotyping people who play differently than you play. Playing on Xbox doesn't make you "casual".



--- Updated 02-11-16, 23:13 ---

Yourfacetm;n6861140 said:
The only RNG that bothers me right now is the monster RNG, specifically grabbing a gold unit to go into round 3 with. Most other RNG is controllable for the most part.



Agree with this. The monster RNG is the only example of going a bit too far IMO. Those of you who can't stand drawing that useless card in the last round have the option to get rid of it from your deck completely.



 
Last edited:
unfortunately RNG is necessary. even tho i hate it once u understand the need of it there is no denying it. any deck that manages to pull out all bronze cards and keep the "good" ones in the 2nd or 3rd turn will win. that's how it goes. i was in numerous situations where i managed to get a winning condition card in 3rd round and it felt so good. but every so often my opponent does the same. those moments are the best for me.
 
worst idea ever. "rng" is nothing more but no skills protection. look at masters of RNG WG. they use "rng" to punish skilled players and to favor no skilled players so everyone is close to 50% wr.

somehow the best and most popular games have no RNG at all and all games which suck have big RNG so how is that RNG is needed?
 
For people who think that RNG is bad for games I can recommend reading this. TL;DR: solvable game quickly turns into simple memorization, there's no fun and no tactics - all these happen only while the players solve the game. When it is solved - the fun ends.
 
Last edited:
Master_Kenobi;n6898730 said:
can you make an example?

Wasteland_Ghost Doesnt apply for multiplayer. Tell it to CS, Lol, Dota or even SC players. All the 4 kings of gaming have no impact RNG(rng only for meaningless aspects like spawning positions etc.). Games with big RNG (sucks) are World of Tanks (and they try very hard and pour big money for promoction). In some way also OW and CoD (both spray and pray).
 
makor86;n6901580 said:
Wasteland_Ghost Doesnt apply for multiplayer. Tell it to CS, Lol, Dota or even SC players. All the 4 kings of gaming have no impact RNG(rng only for meaningless aspects like spawning positions etc.). Games with big RNG (sucks) are World of Tanks (and they try very hard and pour big money for promoction). In some way also OW and CoD (both spray and pray).


comparing this game to dota, lol or anything which isn't a card game has no valid point in my book. i'm sorry, but it's not how it goes.
 
rng abuse is a mental damage mitigation of sorts. you can always blame it for your losses.
 
It wasnt about this game but about the claim RNG is good and needed for games in general.

You want comparison with card game then look at Magic TG. Also no RNG in mechanics.
 
Top Bottom