Rematch Button

+
Where am I talking about forcing..show me Draco..
Both agree for rematch will do but ultimately winning side got the upperhand here, that's my point here. Winner activating rematch.. that's more like siding to abusing the system than proper agreement/choice of both players.

You can reply, "hey losing side can agree or disagree".
Winner can 'use' the system all day because its there and technically allowed.

But no losing side going into another game with same losing deck.
And each win one match will make everything back to square one.. reward and leveling needs rework
 
It's not possible to abuse the system if the other player can simply reject the rematch suggestion.

----

In general, I don't see any issue with this suggestion, as long as it's limited so it cannot be exploited. Either player should be able to suggest a rematch, because to me it would make no sense to have the winner be automatically disqualified from doing it. Yes, some would use it to attempt to crush the opponent again, but that is not sufficient reason. And, again, the other player could simply reject so it wouldn't exactly matter in the first place.

Friend matches, since they don't reward experience or resources, could have unlimited rematches imo. Also because they're friend matches.
Edit: They don't even have a matchmaking system since they're manually initiated, so I'd imagine rematch would be easier to implement for them. Just a layman view and assumption, though.
 
Last edited:
It's not possible to abuse the system if the other player can simply reject the rematch suggestion.
So if losing side agreed rematch its totally fine to abuse the system? You think team Red will implement this idea under that motive..

Yes, some would use it to attempt to crush the opponent again, but that is not sufficient reason. And, again, the other player could simply reject so it wouldn't exactly matter in the first place.
Even you agreed some will abuse this then why not let the losing side take the risk for another game rather than winner initiate rematch and a get chance to abuse.

Friend matches, since they don't reward experience or resources, could have unlimited rematches imo. Also because they're friend matches.
Friendly need infinite rematch function all day and night.
 
So if losing side agreed rematch its totally fine to abuse the system? You think team Red will implement this idea under that motive..

The rematch should be limited to one max and the coin flip should always be reversed from the match before.
 
So if losing side agreed rematch its totally fine to abuse the system?
If the other player agrees then that is their choice. It's not abuse when the other player has a choice, and especially if the suggested limit also prevents attempting a rematch again after it has been rejected the first time.

let the losing side take the risk for another game rather than winner initiate rematch
It's the same thing either way... the losing side can reject if they don't want a rematch. It's optional to play against the same opponent again. Whoever suggests a rematch cannot force the other player to accept.
 
Let's break it down.. the abusive part

(A) Initial rematch idea:
Winner 50:50 loser (chance for rematch)

(B) Loser initiate rematch:
Winner 0:50 Loser (chance for rematch)

A game of Gwent is all about winning and getting right opponent for your deck,
Plan (A) could abuse match making and win-rates more than (B)

For first 10 or 100 games:
Win rate for Winner (A) will be higher hands down because (s)he got more chance for rematch
Win rate for Winner (B) will be lower than (A) because (s)he got less chance for rematch

Can you understand now... this all about abusing long run win rates, rematch chances and match making

:giveup:

PS: In the end it's up loser to decide either way but let's not give winner to initiate such chance and possibility to have more wins
Because as winner I can 'provoke' rematch...
 
Last edited:
Can you understand now... this all about abusing long run win rates, rematch chances and match making

If both sides can initiate a rematch and both sides can decline it, how would this be abused? Both sides know what they are getting into when they accept.

PS. Like I've mentioned, the rematch feature should only be usable once per opponent and it should be disabled in pro-rank altogether.
 
Can you understand now... this all about abusing long run win rates, rematch chances and match making
You're not understanding what I've been saying. 4RM3D clearly does so I'm not gonna repeat what he already said and what I've been saying all along.
 
If both sides can initiate a rematch and both sides can decline it, how would this be abused? Both sides know what they are getting into when they accept.
Winner Initiate rematch and 2 wins with one opponent. Not abusive enough?
What if 10 games with same scenario.. 10 match and 20 wins
I'm talking about worse case of the system
and
you both repeating about two player choices in one game, that's why this is going no where.. :shrug:


PS. Like I've mentioned, the rematch feature should only be usable once per opponent and it should be disabled in pro-rank altogether.
I've mention above too, only one extra match. Not sure about pro-rank..
 
Winner Initiate rematch and 2 wins with one opponent. Not abusive enough?

I don't understand why you think this is abusing the system. If you are strong (or lucky) enough to win twice, then that is a win well deserved. Besides, if the loser doesn't think he can win, then he'll just decline.
 

rrc

Forum veteran
I can't believe we are still discussing the "abuse" part. We are talking about Rematch between Friends, for Friendly game. Where the hell does the abusive part come? My advice, don't be friends with abusive people :shrug:
 
you both repeating about two player choices in one game
Because there are two choices. (Technically four but only two can happen in one scenario.)
Either player can choose to suggest a rematch, and either player can reject or accept a rematch suggested by the other player.

This time I will repeat what was already said, but I'll use more words.


Let's say players X and Y are matched against each other, and player Y wins. This is an entirely imaginary scenario, and merely a demonstrative example of what might happen.

Player Y can now choose whether or not they want a rematch. Player X also has that exact same choice.

Player Y won due to having a much stronger deck that crushed Player X's starter deck, and wants another easy win so sends a rematch request. This means Player X cannot send a request anymore (eliminating one of the four theoretical choices), BUT they can either accept or reject the one sent by Player Y.

If Player X realises Player Y has a much stronger deck and will more than likely win again, rejecting the suggestion is an easy choice.
If Player X thinks they have a chance to beat Player Y or simply wants another go regardless of the odds, accepting is an easy choice.
Either way, Player X can choose whichever option they want. If they accept, they are doing it willingly, knowing exactly what to expect. Which makes it not-abuse because it's entirely consensual.


And yes, if Player Y wins twice in a row then that's good for them, whether it be due to a strong deck, skill, or just luck. There is nothing abusive about it.
A max of one rematch prevents exploiting the system, so that hole would be plugged as well.

(Edited to add consistency to pronouns.)
 
I don't understand why you think this is abusing the system. If you are strong (or lucky) enough to win twice, then that is a win well deserved. Besides, if the loser doesn't think he can win, then he'll just decline.
I'm just being critical because there will be some players abusing functions like this to provoke a easy rematch. Yes opponent not dumb enough to fall for that but still chances are there.

Where the hell does the abusive part come? My advice, don't be friends with abusive people :shrug:
Lol that's because of me. dab dab dab :p
Post automatically merged:

Player Y won due to having a much stronger deck that crushed Player X's starter deck, and wants another easy win so sends a rematch request.
Same scenario in 100 games,
A) If Y initiate rematch and win twice. 200win
X 200lose
B) If Y initiate rematch lose, 100win 100lose, back to square one
X 100win, 100lose
C) If Y didn't initiate rematch. 100 win
X 100 lose
D) If X didn't initiate rematch. 100 lose
Y 100 win

Odds:
Elite Y vs Dumb X
= A D

Elite Y vs Lucky X
= A B D

Elite Y vs Elite X
= A B C D

Elite Y vs Wifi problem X
=A

More like favouring to Y or maybe you can try get different odds with different type of X.

This means Player X cannot send a request anymore (eliminating one of the four theoretical choices), BUT they can either accept or reject the one sent by Player Y.
Yes this what I meant by only one player send. But not the winner send request because duh why so greedy..(A)
Let the odds side the loser for once.. maybe by not accepting the rematch (D) lol

Both choice will do the magic but (A) looks pretty unfair. Can't explain why.. combine this with current meta and upcoming balance. It's up to player's choices.. especially new player

And stressing over something that is not collective and implemented. :beer:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, in a non-competive mode (for obvious reasons) and not too many games against the same opponent (time and number limited and then reset every week/month). I like this idea.
 
Both sides should just agree to one. Not force one. Wasted time if someone just ends up quitting the second match cause they don't want to or can't play you again.
 
Top Bottom