Might as well look at what "random unit" means.

[mzeebra]

Hi guys,

Is it just me or is the "reveal" a "random" card not random at all? I've been playing Nilfgaard recently, and many times during these matches I've also met opponents with Nilfgaard, and other opponents. In any case, during these matches I and/or the opponent have used "reveal a random card, then..." mechanism, and this random card has often been the same card.

This make the whole "reveal" thing not come off as random at all. It seems it's a random factor X calculation, and this calculation stays the same somehow. It has happened to me many times now. Has anyone else noticed this? Same "random" card drawn from myself and the opponent from a pile of many cards. Let's say first round as an example.

This is inconvenient if you have seen a "random" card, and somehow you can "play" a random card, you can calculate which one it is! It will be the same random card that was revealed in the same round.

Am I wrong? Is my imagination playing tricks on me? I know the difference between random and top. I "use" the top mechanism for various things. I know making a "random" mechanism in computing not being easy, but it should be possible. It is possible..

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

I've seen some similar complaints in the forum already, so it might be partially true. Though as it is with randomness, everything is possible and there shouldn't be any conclusions drawn from a too small number of data.

Furthermore, if we are talking about the scenario of using Morvan in round 3 and the enemy has drawn 3 cards each round as well as played the Witcher Trio, such that only 7 cards remain in the deck, the chance for Morvan to see a card at least twice is about 40%. (And it becomes even higher, if the enemy has thinned further, or has dublicates in the remaining cards)

 

[4RM3D]

@mzeebra thread merged

 

[mzeebra]

I've seen some similar complaints in the forum already, so it might be partially true. Though as it is with randomness, everything is possible and there shouldn't be any conclusions drawn from a too small number of data.

Furthermore, if we are talking about the scenario of using Morvan in round 3 and the enemy has drawn 3 cards each round as well as played the Witcher Trio, such that only 7 cards remain in the deck, the chance for Morvan to see a card at least twice is about 40%. (And it becomes even higher, if the enemy has thinned further, or has dublicates in the remaining cards)

Nah. Let's say you use Morvan in round one, and then someone use a boost by random reveal, or play random reveal or something similar, and it is the same exact card out of say 12 or 13. What is the chance of that?

 

[MysticJoey]

1/12 or 1/13?

 

[mzeebra]

How about discarded cards? Is that suppose to be random shuffled back into deck, or put on top of the deck?

 

[MysticJoey]

How about discarded cards? Is that suppose to be random shuffled back into deck, or put on top of the deck?

what do you mean? discarding puts cards into the graveyard

 

[mzeebra]

what do you mean? discarding puts cards into the graveyard

Nah, I mean those you discard at the start of each round with the card exchanges.

 

[MysticJoey]

those go to the deck randomly

 

[mzeebra]

those go to the deck randomly

Ooh, because I very often receive the same cards next turn around, as if they were put on the top. Perhaps another randomness problem?

 

[featherlace]

I cannot say too much about reveal, but I noticed that the "damage a random enemy by 1" mechanism very often targets the exact same cards several times in a row. Might be coincidence, though.

 

[mzeebra]

Just had a game against Nilfgaard. Out of 8 cards, in my deck, in the last round, the opponents "random reveal" cards revealed "Geralt of Rivia" 3 times during this same round.

I double checked the cards used to see if it said random reveal, and it did.

 

[mzeebra]

Yesterday I had a situation where my opponent used the (don't remember the name) bow card that reveals one random card from his deck and one from mine, then does additional damage if his card is higher.

A second time, either a second card, or replaying the deploy ability of that card, it revealed exactly the same cards as the first time. I had to double check if that card said "random reveal", because I was so shocked at this. It revealed Nilfgaard Knight from his deck and Cantarella from mine.

I could even speculate he did his second move because he knew it would reveal the same cards again.

There is definitely something wrong with the "random" mechanism. I don't remember how many cards were left in our decks, but far more than would justify the same two "random" cards being revealed two times in a row. I'm pretty sure the deck was substantial on both sides, maybe 10 cards.

Post automatically merged: Apr 12, 2019

I cannot say too much about reveal, but I noticed that the "damage a random enemy by 1" mechanism very often targets the exact same cards several times in a row. Might be coincidence, though.

Well, in programming, "random" would be the same thing for that function I think. Depends a little, but I think the problem is that the randomness in CDPR programming is not working as it should. They probably use the same randomness library/program/function.

 

[nedders]

I just disagree with any element of random, there should be as little as possible in the game. Nilfgaard is the guilty party in this so needs a rework, Usurper needs to be removed and so does the large amount of random summon/reveal.

The deal and mulligan system needs work to reduce random too. I mean, does anyone think more random is good?

 

[SkiZophreniC]

I'm playing a lot with a reveal deck this days, and I do not have any suspicions on the RNG in the game. Apart from that:

I just disagree with any element of random, there should be as little as possible in the game.

Betting on luck to win is not a good idea. Now, let us consider poker. There is much more RNG in poker than in Gwent, but there are good and bad players because good players know their statistics, and on average they will win.

Now in Gwent, my reveal deck is competitive because I managed to reduce RNG by thinning and using cards that are still okay even whit bad luck. The result is very fun to play (except the really slow reveal animation), and in rare cases I got very lucky/unlucky, but on average I'm doing fine.

NB: this post is dedicated to my last opponent, a ST player leading R3 by 30pts with his Sheldon last play, I was about to forfeit but I played my last card and I just went into double Joachim de Wett, drawing Golem (reveal a 1 pt dwarf) and Caldwell for a 32 point slam. Pure luck, I felt sorry for my opponent...

 

[tulamide]

There is so much to randomness, that we tend to not understand it. For example, if I throw a die 6 times, how often will I see the six?
You just can't answer the question. Many might think "well, it's a 1/6 chance", so it should be seen once, and therefore misunderstand the core concept. It's a 1/6 chance for each throw, not overall. Randomness doesn't have a memory. It doesn't care which numbers already were seen.

"Ok", others might say, "then let's throw the die 60 times. Now it must show the six, because the number of throws is 10 times higher than the chance per throw for a 6-throw-round." That's were propability kicks in. It will tell you that on average the six will show the more throws you do. Alas, it doesn't guarantee you the six. Even with 10000 throws it's still just a propability. It is more likely, but you can't be sure.

And the other way 'round? The less throws, the higher the propability of extremes. It's totally possible to throw the two 6 times in a row. And it is even more propable than throwing 1 six. But, again, it is just a propability, not a guarantee.

In Gwent you only have a deck of 25 cards, which has a higher propability for extremes than, say, getting a different card each time.

That also means, whatever you observe, it is not saying anything about the randomness. And when placing cards from the board or hand back in the deck, it even raises the propability for extremes, since the deck size doesn't change.

We also tend to remember the extremes that hurt us, while forgetting the extremes that helped us. When we draw exactly the card we need 4x in a row, we declare it to be the typical randomness, while seeing the opponent doing the same leads us to believe that something is broken.

All of those aspects play together, you can't seperate them.

And that's why I hate randomness in games. And Gwent should better spare us anything of it that is not integral part of the nature of a CCG (for example, there's this card in Gwent that does random damage from the range 0-11. It's such a stupid card for both sides. It should never have been introduced)

 

[mzeebra]

I cannot say too much about reveal, but I noticed that the "damage a random enemy by 1" mechanism very often targets the exact same cards several times in a row. Might be coincidence, though.

Yup, I was actually about to mention this. I've noticed that too.

Post automatically merged: Apr 25, 2019

I just disagree with any element of random, there should be as little as possible in the game. Nilfgaard is the guilty party in this so needs a rework, Usurper needs to be removed and so does the large amount of random summon/reveal.

The deal and mulligan system needs work to reduce random too. I mean, does anyone think more random is good?

It's a card game. Back when I was young and played card games with my family, we used to shuffle the deck. Randomness was desireable in the cardgames.

 

[Bruele]

Coral hit the same target every time.

 

[mzeebra]

True software randomness is really difficult to make. Just ask software developers.

I'm pretty confident the randomness software (algoritm/engine) of CDPR for Gwent is lacking in quality and that it needs to be improved.

 

[Bruele]

1 Coral every shot hit the same target. 2 When svalblod butcher kills an harald's friend the target is every time the same.