Monsters deck ability too RNG - Solution

+

Monsters deck ability too RNG - Solution

  • Monsters faction ability to remain the same.

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • I am willing to overlook it as the game is fun.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am ok with it being tweaked to involve less RNG.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • Should be replaced completely with something less RNG.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • I 'd like suggestion 1 (The "Mark")

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I 'd like suggestion 2 (Moving resilient icon around in an understandable pattern)

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • I 'd like suggestion 3 (Multi-round resilience, but no monster stays without resilient status)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I 'd like suggestion 4 (Choose monster to stay, no gold units can be selected)

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • I 'd like suggestion 5 (Random non-gold unit stays on board)

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • I 'd like suggestion 6 (Last monster to enter graveyard return to board for next round)

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • Total voters
    19
Monsters deck ability too RNG - Solution

So currently, the deck ability that one monster stays on board is sometimes fluctuating the match's outcome based on whether Geralt/Eredin will stay for next round. I 've seen cases where there are 9 units, most of them are 2 or 1 (on monsters side, deliberately reduced to invest to next round), and then out of them Geralt gets chosen and I lose the game. Gwent is supposed to be all about strategy, and it is (don't get me wrong here), but with this big exception. I plee to CDPR to look at this ability and brainstorm an idea that will require strategy for the Monsters' deck player, because it's not a single card that you can forget about and move on, its a full faction ability, so its 1/4 to be seen in every match (currently).

Suggestion 1:
My suggestion is the "Mark". The "Mark" is a glyph that goes above one monster card and determines the effect of the Monster's faction to be resilient. However, this mark will move to another target after each round, clockwise. If the player with the Mark passes, the Mark stays on the monster he chose before passing. If you have 5-6 units on the monsters faction, it may require deliberate stalling to get the Mark where you need to, there is NO RNG involved, and the opponent can mess with you by removing a unit to mess the order that the Mark moves (if a creature with the Mark is removed, the Mark moves to the next, clockwise). You can even make it so that the Mark stays longer on bronze creatures than silver and gold (2 turns on bronze, 1 on silver and gold - more complex though).

Suggestion 2:
An alternative is to do what the Mark mechanism does, but instead add the resilient icon on each Monster. If a Monster has the resilient icon, it gets one, but then it loses it after the icon moves to another creature. That is to balance power between rounds.

Suggestion 3:
Another alternative is that if there is a resilient monster already, it gets chosen 100% for next round and it doesn't lose the resilient status (meaning it will be chosen for all rounds instead for one which the resilient card does). That will make all resilient monsters stay for all rounds, but without the resilient status (activated by the card), no monster stays for next round.

Suggestion 4:
Let the player choose which Monster to stay on board, but remove the ability to select gold units. I think this will both nerf and empower the ability, while completely removing RNG.

Suggestion 5:
Random non-gold unit stays on board for next round.

Suggestion 6:
Last monster to enter the graveyard stays on board. This values the order in which they get removed and can even mean that a scorched monster can come back if no other monster was on board last round and round changes.



So, what do you think about the Monsters Faction ability?

CHOOSE ONE OF FIRST 4 (Optional: In addition, also choose one of the suggestions if you like them - poll is multiple choice)
 
Last edited:
Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
I 've seen cases where there are 9 units, most of them are 2 or 1 (on monsters side, deliberately reduced to invest to next round), and then out of them Geralt gets chosen and I lose the game

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Gwent is supposed to be all about strategy

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
look at this ability and brainstorm an idea that will require strategy for the Monsters' deck player

I call that strategy. You probably not looking at it from the monster pov or not using it the way it could work.

Using too much as monster can lead you to get only a low stg card. But playing that way might allow your opponent to take a big lead making it not worth it to catch back as monster(Card wise(I'm not talking Eredin + Geralt opening but passive ability and strategy around it)).

Or getting rob of a round. (E.g Monster play Eredin and Geralt. 22. Nr= Elite + promote 30, Monster Manticore + Crones 31, As for skellige and Sco i wouldn't know.
I'm playing a graveyard deck as Skellige so.. most of my counter to that opening wouldn't work for other peoples. But for Skellige using a Shield smith on a card you might revive next turn is "okay'ish"

Sco being probably the worst agaisn't this strategy. Unless playing AD rush.



Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Suggestion 1: My suggestion is the "Mark". The "Mark" is a glyph that goes above one monster card and determines the effect of the Monster's faction to be resilient. However, this mark will move to another target after each round, clockwise. However, if the player with the Mark passes, the Mark stays on the monster he chose before passing. Now I know you 'll think this is OP, but bear with me for a second. If you have 5-6 units on the monsters faction, it may require deliberate stalling to get the Mark where you need to, there in NO RNG involved, and the opponent can mess with you by removing a unit to mess the order that the Mark moves (if a creature with the Mark is removed, the Mark moves to the next, clockwise). You can even make it so that the Mark stays longer on bronze creatures than silver and gold (2 turns on bronze, 1 on silver and gold).

That wouldn't be different for Monster opening, except you would know if he get 10 or 12.

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Suggestion 2: An alternative is to do what the Mark mechanism does, but instead add the resilient icon on each Monster. If a Monster has the resilient icon, it gets one, but then it loses it after the icon moves to another creature. That is to balance power between rounds.

it wouldn't change much, as only 1 card stay in play. and all other goes to graveyard.
Most likely a monster will play a lot of cards rounds 2 anyway wihc doesn't have any debuff yet.
And this feature would be extremely overpower. As monsters would play their bigger card last, or whenever they know the "mark" will land on the right units.

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Suggestion 4: Let the player choose which Monster to stay on board, but remove the ability to select gold units. I think this will both nerf and empower the ability, while completely removing RNG.

I think it would be really overpower. I would only suppres the opening, but not resolve the issue most players have atm. Even if you remove a gold.

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Suggestion 5: Random non-gold unit stays on board for next round.

Of all i have reed on all posts about Monster ability this is the only one i see fitting. It make the opening disapear. But again, doesn't fix the issue of the card being still in play.

Wertandrew;n6874790 said:
Suggestion 6: Last monster to enter the graveyard stays on board. This values the order in which they get removed and can even mean that a scorched monster can come back if no other monster was on board last round and round changes.

That might be a intresting way to do it. But it would need some actual testing to see how it goes. If it become easy to counter the monster ability you therfor make it more or less useless.


--- Updated 04-11-16, 11:47 ---

And discussing rng in a cards games and wanting less of it (while being understandable), isn't really logical as pretty much all you games are HEAVLY based on the very same rng you are questionning.
 
Last edited:
I would accept it as a strategy, but the thing is that with the right tweak, it can still be a strategy, not mess around with the character of the deck (no rez, relies on power and weather) and STILL remove the RNG after each round. Personally I think with a tweak, it all can be fixed, which is why I made the poll. Your suggestions don't refer to the RNG, but rather the opening. I am fine with the G/E opening (even though some my suggestions could remove it) because there is not much RNG involved, in fact it is a risk against quite a lot of strategies.
What I am not fine is when you have a round 2 with foglets, wolves and wounded units, and the opponent gets lucky, gets Gerald to stay instead of everything else, and sometimes even skill doesn't matter if you get a bad hand, because you lose to a golden Gerald in Round 3.
 
Wertandrew;n6875150 said:
Your suggestions don't refer to the RNG, but rather the opening. I am fine with the G/E opening

This is the only exemple you gave.. and also false.

And i even gave you other case exemple as for you "non-gold" systems. Or question their viability in given cases wich all are others than E/G or apply better to other cards than E or G



Wertandrew;n6875150 said:
What I am not fine is when you have a round 2 with foglets, wolves and wounded units, and the opponent gets lucky,

That is you issue then. I play swarm foglets. I can tell you that i don't get lucky often with 7 foglets in play. And that in this exact case you give. I most of the time doesn't keep anything on the board.

Wertandrew;n6875150 said:
gets Gerald to stay instead of everything else, and sometimes even skill doesn't matter if you get a bad hand.

You are taking games where everything goes wrong. A lot of games i play even when the monster get lucky, it's a very close game. Maybe you should try to win in only 2 rounds rather than 3 ?
As for skellige. +3 on everything is quite strong. I'm certain they get around 40% more winrate on the round 3 than any others rounds.

If your issue is 'Waaah, monster get lucky and kept the strongest card he could have !' you need also to take into consideration the numbers of time it didn't give much to the monster. Where every other faction ability is absolut. and never as bad outcome.
 
The monster's deck ability is pretty balanced. You can easily keep a small pool of very strong units on the field to optimise the selection, but then you risk an "all your eggs in one basket scenario". RNG is a major part of this game already: Field Medic, War Longship, Udalryk, Roach, and Spectral Whale just to name a few. Removing the RNG aspect from the monsters deck such as with Suggestion 4 just means your strongest non-gold would just remain between rounds and there are already cards to facilitate just that. An important play I see novice Gwenters make is the Eredin -> Pass move, which can work out, if your cards have enough steam in them to carry you to victory for 2 rounds. Point being is that I think the ability is balanced out by the RNG, you have the chance of great success or utterly stupefying calamity, ergo Foglet.
 
iMorbit;n6877530 said:
The monster's deck ability is pretty balanced. You can easily keep a small pool of very strong units on the field to optimise the selection, but then you risk an "all your eggs in one basket scenario". RNG is a major part of this game already: Field Medic, War Longship, Udalryk, Roach, and Spectral Whale just to name a few. Removing the RNG aspect from the monsters deck such as with Suggestion 4 just means your strongest non-gold would just remain between rounds and there are already cards to facilitate just that. An important play I see novice Gwenters make is the Eredin -> Pass move, which can work out, if your cards have enough steam in them to carry you to victory for 2 rounds. Point being is that I think the ability is balanced out by the RNG, you have the chance of great success or utterly stupefying calamity, ergo Foglet.

I agree to an extent, but again this is not a single card that goes with specific deck, this is 1/4th of the current Gwent game. Even if it was a leader ability, I would be ok, but the RNG affects every match that has monsters in it. Monsters is my favorite faction by far, but I hate losing highly strategic plays just because of RNG. People may give up on Gwent if the release has this ability, just saying. Lack of RNG is what makes this game so great, and personally I dont mind cards with RNG as they are all special cases and not the rule.
 
Wertandrew;n6877860 said:
People may give up on Gwent if the release has this ability, just saying.

That's not really a concern, surely.

Though, I would be VERY interested to see what faction dominates the tournaments Gwent may (almost certainly) have.
 
The solution is simple, don't have gold cards stay, only bronze and silver, then let the monsters players actually have to play strategy instead of betting on keeping high value gold cards to next round. Monster's deck have enough good cards and strategies to not have to rely on this cheap scheme.
 
The ability is fine as it is to be honest. The faction abilities are supposed to be minor anyway.

- NR get +2 for every gold
- SKE get +1 to every card every round
- SCO get to choose who goes first
- MON retain a card at the end of the round (This can be amazing or just good, but you always get something)

Devs could modify the ability so that cards that are adrenaline rushed don't get selected by the ability, but people might feel it makes it more OP.
 
Frankly, I don't even know why gold units can stay for the next round. It wasn't like that in TW3.

So, OP's suggestion #5 got my vote.


(Just think of what Henselt could do to some blasted monsters if gold cards were exception of the passive.)
 
At the very least exclude the gold units from this, as they are immune to any counterstrategy. And I can't use adrenaline rush on my gold units either, so why should it be possible under this curcumstances?
 
Less RNG means less wins for console players which means less money for CDPR. The same case was with Wargaming and their World of Tanks where RNG is huge (+-25% at each action).

What we need is a statement from CDPR about their long term plans, what is their target, their vision etc. So far all that is a big question mark so such discussions are rather pointless.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom