Let's discuss rounds, mulligans and drawing of cards

[bots_killer]

Hello everybody,

I'd like to discuss some issues I've encountered with Gwent regarding the basic gameplay.

First of all, I love the concept of building your own deck, adquiring new cards, the provision cap, leader abilities, etc. So I don't think I can find fault with any of that (apart from imbalances, but the concept is great)

But let's go to the point, here is my rant:

1) Round 2 in most matches is just about dry passing in order to draw one more card or an attempt to bleed your opponent, doesn't feel competiive at all. Most of the time, we already know who is going to win that round and it's anticlimatic. So one player wins a hard-fought, heavily-strategic round 1 and then he/she just dry passes the second round to gift a temporary tie. Round victories should be hard-earned, not gifted, in my opinion. Maybe the concept should be revised.

2) Another issue is the drawing of cards and the maximum number in your hand. Let's say I like playing in a very aggressive kind of way, using my best cards/combos in the first turns in round 1, just to intimidate my opponent or for whatever reason. Well, it turns out, I can't. I'll explain why:

Let's say that after the first 3 turns I have an advantage of +20 points (7 cards left for each player), then if I pass, the opponent can play up to 3 more cards, win that round, dry pass the next, and then we will start round 3 with 10 cards apiece (ridiculous). On top of that, he/she gets last say and likely plenty of golden cards in R3. I don't mind if the opponent decides to play 3 more cards than I did in one round but should be punished for it in the next rounds, not rewarded. So, this means players are forced to keep their best cards for later stages, it kills strategic variety. Maybe the hand shouldn't be capped to 10 cards, thus avoiding this unfairness.

3) I don't personally like mulligans or the randomness of the drawing of cards. I think players should be able to choose from their decks the cards they want to use depending on the rival. What's the point of drawing a tall removal card if you are expecting a swarm player? So maybe, players should choose the golds and bronzes they want to have in their hand for a particular match. It would also be interesting to be given the chance to pick cards every round, thus adjusting your play to your opponent's. This way, it would be a more strategic game, in my opinion. As of now, many times I find myself playing cards I don't want to.

What's your take on all this?

 

[Actuas]

Question is: why are you dry passing round 2 with 3+card advantage.

Round 2 should be used to capitalize on your round 1 success.

If you let that go to waste, that's on you.

 

[bots_killer]

Question is: why are you dry passing round 2 with 3+card advantage.

Round 2 should be used to capitalize on your round 1 success.

If you let that go to waste, that's on you.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain it very well, the opponent is the one dry passing the second round after winning round 1 by playing 3 more cards than me.

 

[4RM3D]

1) Depends on the match-up. Certain decks do want to push round 2, especially against decks that thrive in a long round, even if that means going down a card in round 3. However, the importance of round 2 is a more difficult concept to grasp and a lot of new players get it wrong. Same applies to knowing when to pass.

2) True, but the opposite also applies. If you have to go first and there isn't a hand limit, you continuously have to match the opponent's strength in order to not lose card advantage. This is far more punishing and makes the coin flip worse. Ironically, that's how it worked in beta and a lot of top players dry-passed the first round because of it. The hand limit was introduced to give players more room to play cards in the first round.

3) I have to strongly disagree here. Gwent is already one of the most consistent CCG out there. This brings a lot of downsides, like how matches always play out the same. As such, it's a very bad idea to allow you to pick one or more starter cards.

 

[ShadowKayn]

if mulligans are removed and you can choose what cards you play then every game will be the same and it will be imbalanced as only the best deck will be played even more than it is now. the idea behind muligans is that if your deck relays on a single card that can change the game then you have to spend more provision points on card draws and deck thinning cards. in some decks you are guaranteed to draw all your gold cards every game because of al lthe thinning that is included in the deck

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Hello everybody,

I'd like to discuss some issues I've encountered with Gwent regarding the basic gameplay.

First of all, I love the concept of building your own deck, adquiring new cards, the provision cap, leader abilities, etc. So I don't think I can find fault with any of that (apart from imbalances, but the concept is great)

But let's go to the point, here is my rant:

1) Round 2 in most matches is just about dry passing in order to draw one more card or an attempt to bleed your opponent, doesn't feel competiive at all. Most of the time, we already know who is going to win that round and it's anticlimatic. So one player wins a hard-fought, heavily-strategic round 1 and then he/she just dry passes the second round to gift a temporary tie. Round victories should be hard-earned, not gifted, in my opinion. Maybe the concept should be revised.

2) Another issue is the drawing of cards and the maximum number in your hand. Let's say I like playing in a very aggressive kind of way, using my best cards/combos in the first turns in round 1, just to intimidate my opponent or for whatever reason. Well, it turns out, I can't. I'll explain why:

Let's say that after the first 3 turns I have an advantage of +20 points (7 cards left for each player), then if I pass, the opponent can play up to 3 more cards, win that round, dry pass the next, and then we will start round 3 with 10 cards apiece (ridiculous). On top of that, he/she gets last say and likely plenty of golden cards in R3. I don't mind if the opponent decides to play 3 more cards than I did in one round but should be punished for it in the next rounds, not rewarded. So, this means players are forced to keep their best cards for later stages, it kills strategic variety. Maybe the hand shouldn't be capped to 10 cards, thus avoiding this unfairness.

3) I don't personally like mulligans or the randomness of the drawing of cards. I think players should be able to choose from their decks the cards they want to use depending on the rival. What's the point of drawing a tall removal card if you are expecting a swarm player? So maybe, players should choose the golds and bronzes they want to have in their hand for a particular match. It would also be interesting to be given the chance to pick cards every round, thus adjusting your play to your opponent's. This way, it would be a more strategic game, in my opinion. As of now, many times I find myself playing cards I don't want to.

What's your take on all this?

If you play 3 of your best cards, while the opponent plays engine oriented deck, and the opponent is punished, by playing additional cards after you pass, then there wont be any incentitive at all to play engine oriented decks.
Hence there will be less variety in terms of playable decks, and not more as you suggest.

Also, in order to master Gwent you are forced to manage resources efficiently. With that in mind, you have to think more carefull about when to dedicate your best cards. It's not strategic at all, rather mindless, to smash your 3 best cards round 1 and then let the game mechanics punish the opponent for slow play, just because his deck cannot out-tempo yours.

However, I can agree on that consistency in draw-mechanic could be better. For this reason number of mulligans should be adjustable, in order to find that specific number which would satisfy majority of players.
It's just silly that the number of mulligans remained fixed for so long.

 

[Archbandit]

I like it as it is. I've seen some clever play in round two and some (but not often) dumb play in rounds 1 and 3. Sometimes by me. I think a lot depends on the opposite player but usually if there are 2-3 cards left for round two, then no one bothers because it's both a lottery and could hamstring you for the final round. Perhaps they could make it so you can have up to 10,8,6 in each round but again that might be a bit too simple and I'd prefer to keep things as they are.

 

[DRK3]

OP would get a kick out of Gwent Beta, it was pretty much exactly how he suggests it should be on 1) and 2), so try to get your hands on a time machine and lets all go back to 2016/2018

But now seriously, that was probably one of the main reasons the dev team was unhappy with the direction of their game - where you could push for card advantage anytime in R1, plus the spy abuse - so they changed it to its current state.

You can still do what you suggest, and play really agressively R1 with yor first 3 cards and pass, but you need a significant advantage so your opponent cant catch up with 3 extra cards. If you're a good player you can also pass at 6/5 cards when you suspect your opponent wont be able to catch up without using leader ability or playing one extra card, that's the difference between someone strategic and someone who's not - thinking ahead, sometimes 3 or 4 or 5 turns ahead.

 

[quintivarium]

If you are frequently losing round 1 with 7 cards to your opponent’s 4, you probably need to push one or two more rounds before passing. 6-3 or even 5-3 will give you card advantage.

But even 7-4 has some advantage — you get more mulligans than your opponent.

 

[GroovyPants1]

Gwent Hack

Hi Gwent forum,

I've noticed recently that players who win the 1st round skip the 2nd to force their opponent to play a card or forfeit. This gives them a (huge) card advantage in the final round and almost guaranteeing victory. Can the moderators please open a thread for players to share this experience, and ultimately empower the developers to change the game so players in the second round cannot pass without playing a card.

This hack and style of play, while clever, has resulted in an unfair playing field and detracts from the enjoyment of Gwent and how it should be played.

Open to hearing other player's thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[Draconifors]

Can the moderators please open a thread for players to share this experience

Done.

It is not a hack or cheat or unfair. It's strategy.

 

[ReaperTek]

Discussion of Passing Mechanics

Hi, I am playing now for around two weeks. And one thing bothers me a lot, many Players wehen they won the first round pass the second round. So I need to play a card to win this round. That seems not right because this makes the whole second round useless and kills all the fun. Sure thing, I...

forums.cdprojektred.com

 

[Six-Sided-Prism]

Gwent Hack

Hi Gwent forum,

I've noticed recently that players who win the 1st round skip the 2nd to force their opponent to play a card or forfeit. This gives them a (huge) card advantage in the final round and almost guaranteeing victory. Can the moderators please open a thread for players to share this experience, and ultimately empower the developers to change the game so players in the second round cannot pass without playing a card.

This hack and style of play, while clever, has resulted in an unfair playing field and detracts from the enjoyment of Gwent and how it should be played.

Open to hearing other player's thoughts.

Thanks!

If this happens to you on a regular basis, try capitalizing on it by adding a Unit with Resilience to your deck; then, you're the one who gains the advantage. Admittedly, I'm not sure how many options you have to pick from, and most of them are probably Scoia'tael. Alternatively, you can intentionally keep something bad (like a 4-Provision Unit or Bomb Heaver against a deck without a Scenario) in your hand during the Round 2 mulligan process.

 

[4RM3D]

I've merged the thread, instead, because the topic was already covered (and in more detail).

 

[Shaningans]

The infamous unplayable 2nd round! Why even bother? All anyone ever does is pass as long as they won the first round. This way they can draw an extra 6 cards no matter what and basically just start the first round over again. Its almost like playing one round. Its boring. You should not allowed to pass if you did not play a card, the loser should go first to hopefully excite a player enough to actually play, maybe lower draws to 1 card each round or by 1 each round no matter what is played, or you receive either one less card in the third round or none at all if you do not play a card in the 2nd round and just pass. People obviously feel no need to play if they can just skip a round and get a 6 card draw. it's kind of pathetic. You can scream strategy all you want in response, but to me its just plain boring and an exploited loop hole.

 

[Draconifors]

All anyone ever does

That isn't even remotely true. Bleeding is just as real a strategy as drypassing, and many do it. Then there are those who go for a 2-0, another legitimate strategy.

There's no objectively valid reason not playing anything on R2 should be punished. You don't like it, which is fine but does not mean it isn't a perfectly "legal" strategy.

PS. The hand limit already has made drypassing at 8 or more cards less good, since you can never have more than 10 cards in hand. This was especially true when extra cards were simply discarded, and even with the mulligan conversion it does not provide (additional) card advantage.

 

[Shaningans]

That isn't even remotely true. Bleeding is just as real a strategy as drypassing, and many do it. Then there are those who go for a 2-0, another legitimate strategy.

There's no objectively valid reason not playing anything on R2 should be punished. You don't like it, which is fine but does not mean it isn't a perfectly "legal" strategy.

PS. The hand limit already has made drypassing at 8 or more cards less good, since you can never have more than 10 cards in hand. This was especially true when extra cards were simply discarded, and even with the mulligan conversion it does not provide (additional) card advantage.

Ok....99.99 % of the time it is true. *shrug* Yes its legal, but this is a request to limit it. A suggestion. I think its dumb. You enjoy it. I would bet MANY more people would rather see the change made. Round 2 is all but pointless as it stands.

 

[Draconifors]

Round 2 is all but pointless as it stands.

Nope. 99.99% still isn't even remotely true. I tend to see roughly as much bleeding and 2-0 attempts as drypassing, for example. It depends on the player and the deck they're playing, and possibly other factors such as the exact scenario.

R2 can be decisive, and when R1 is a tie R2 is always decisive. R2 is not pointless; without it there would be a total of two rounds, which would naturally result in TONS of draws. R2 needs to exist, and it imo needs to be able to be played using whatever strategy the player wants.

 

[quintivarium]

It is in part round 2 that keeps round 1 interesting. Without something to drive further play, round one would likely deteriorate to grab quick lead then pass to have card advantage.

Something that might make match strategy more interesting would be to have best of 5 rounds — but that would either make the game much longer or change its core nature by reducing draws and making rounds much shorter.

 

[TVSAdamwest]

You can stop your opponent from dry passing round 2 by winning round 1.
The winner of round 1 has the momentum, as a reward for winning.