Removing dry-pass

+
Removing dry-pass

I feel that current Gwent deviates a lot from the way that it used to play out in Witcher 3, and from the whole idea of having rounds in the first place.

When I think of the idea of rounds, like battles in a war, the idea is this: "Okay, I lost this round, but maybe I can recover next one." Or: "I'll deplete my opponents resources this round, so I lose in disadvantage, but I'll be able to recover next round".

But in reality, in at least ~80% of games, Gwent effectively has two rounds. (And more and more frequently, we see dry-passing the first round as well: Gwent then becomes a super boring one round point fest.) And therefore there is no chance to "recover next round". Any advantage gathered in the first round is passed on directly to the third and decisive round. Often, this advantage decides the game. My proposal is to return Gwent to a 3 round game.

How to do so? Well, by removing dry-passing. (That is, players are not allowed to pass without having played a single card that round; unless they have no cards, of course.) The problem with dry-passing is that when you play first in a round, usually the best you can hope for is to lose 1 card up. But there is a way to assure one the outcome that is likely the best possible: simply dry-passing. In some very specific situations, and in some very specific match-ups, it might be better not to dry-pass, but that is a deviation from the norm. Unless you have strong specific reasons not to, it is always better to dry-pass.

Without dry-passing, people wouldn't be so afraid of losing on even cards or giving up the first round plus one card. Okay, you won this round; but I might win the second, and recover my disadvantage. This would even help control the effect of the coin-flip.And as a bonus: it would solve the problem of resilience cards (which without the dry-pass issue, are a very important mechanic for the game - a way to transfer tempo between rounds, which should be a central tenet of the entire game!). I also feel that it would increase the strategic complexity of the game, as you would have to think about how to win (or lose with advantages) three rounds, and not just "win first round with CA, have a good finisher", like most strategies nowadays.

So, any comments?
 
Last edited:
So, if I have to start first and win the round with one card down, I have to play another one, potentially never being able to catch-up?

Ironically, this suggestion actually makes the coin flip issue worse and carry-over even stronger. Not only that, it also forces players to save a strong card combo to be played first in order to preserve card advantage. Also, I don't think it will increase the complexity of the game. Quite the opposite, it actually forces players more towards a binary choice.
 
I understand what you're going for, but this is not a good solution. It heavily depends on the deck you play, really. With decks like Axeman you want a long round, so you win the first one and you then dry pass the second one. With decks like Temerian Blue Stripes, you want to bleed your opponent out as much as possible in order to then play your Temerian Infantrymen as the finisher.
 
4RM3D;n10454112 said:
So, if I have to start first and win the round with one card down, I have to play another one, potentially never being able to catch-up?

Ironically, this suggestion actually makes the coin flip issue worse and carry-over even stronger. Not only that, it also forces players to save a strong card combo to be played first in order to preserve card advantage. Also, I don't think it will increase the complexity of the game. Quite the opposite, it actually forces players more towards a binary choice.

If you don't want to win 1-card down, you can always choose to pass and lose with same amounts of cards. (Remember that no one can dry pass, so you get first choice.) (And then you have a round to fight for it, instead of 90% chance of losing the game.) But unless the player going second at every point has higher tempo, you could choose to lose 1 card up (which is what happens most of the games, mind you), and then he is the one that has to keep his CA. (Instead of dry-passing and going to round 3 with final say.) And if he can keep his tempo throughout the round, then in the current situation you would be much more screwed than without dry-passing, since you would have to concede the round +0 cards and that is basically a loss under the current system. I can't see how this makes the coin-flip worse.

But I agree with you that in a scenario where it is bad to win 1 card down (as in if I win 1 card down, you are favored to win the game), then this system would fall apart. Because people would just play highest tempo card possible, play highest tempo card possible, pass. But I really doubt that this is true, because otherwise you would already see this behavior now. Bear decks would cast Bran for carry-over, card, pass. And they definitely don't do that.

And I think having to play a card combo to preserve CA is good. Much better than currently, where everyone saves all their tempo combos for last play. (E.g. Ciri: dash.) A world in which people would start round 2 with Ciri: dash sounds like a good world to me.

And I definitely don't see how this makes carry-over stronger. The whole point of carry-over is denying your opponent the dry-pass. That is why it is a broken mechanic right now: 1 point carry-over is exactly as strong as 10 points carry-over. (Or better put, 1 point above your opponent's.) But if there is no dry-passing anymore, cards that are considered borderline OP, like Wardancer, would lose this use, and just count for points.
 
Last edited:
TrompeLaMort;n10454412 said:
1 point carry-over is exactly as strong as 10 points carry-over. (Or better put, 1 point above your opponent's.) But if there is no dry-passing anymore, cards that are considered borderline OP, like Wardancer, would lose this use, and just count for points.

That is true, but if you cannot dry-pass anymore, then the carry-over actually means a lot more for generating tempo. Going back to the first scenario I've explained: if I have to start first and win the round with one card down, I have to play another card next round, potentially never being able to catch-up. If I can dry-pass, I would be able to go into round 3 on even cards, which is fine. However, when I cannot dry pass, I need to play another card and hope I can out-tempo the opponent. This means it puts more pressure on the person that has won the round with one card down, which would be unfair for the player going first.

Depending on your deck and the opponent's deck, sometimes you would want to dry-pass, while other times you want to bleed the opponent. Occasionally, you can also try a power-play on the first turn of the second round to force your opponent going down an extra card. There are a variety of tactics depending on the situation and abolishing the dry-pass only limits the ways you can play your deck.

Finally, I want to point out that you can always play a Silver spy to circumvent the dry-pass, which kinda breaks your suggestion and puts to much emphasis on spies.
 
4RM3D;n10455302 said:
This means it puts more pressure on the person that has won the round with one card down, which would be unfair for the player going first.

I still don't get this part. I agree that it puts pressure on the person that has won the round one card down, but in my personal experience, at least, 80% of the time that is the player going second, not first.

4RM3D;n10455302 said:
Depending on your deck and the opponent's deck, sometimes you would want to dry-pass, while other times you want to bleed the opponent. Occasionally, you can also try a power-play on the first turn of the second round to force your opponent going down an extra card.

This will still exist, but the strategy will be more difficult then just whether you press space or not. If you want a short round, you have to work for it. You should have a strong tempo play to force your opponent out.

4RM3D;n10455302 said:
Finally, I want to point out that you can always play a Silver spy to circumvent the dry-pass, which kinda breaks your suggestion and puts to much emphasis on spies.

That is true. But silver spies already circumvent so many things; I'm not sure that this will make such a huge difference.

Anyway, I feel that CDPR should at least try this out. I play a low-tempo deck, so I have no chance on blue side of coin. So I dry-pass. Half the time, the other player just dry-passes back, and we play a 1 round game. And then it becomes just a really boring points game. I just feel that this was not what CDPR intended this game to be.
 
I understand the problem of the starting post, but I don't think neither that the solution is the correct one.
Generalized, the problem is, that it absolutly doesn't matter with how much of an adventage you win a round.
If you drypass you often have to sacrafice a normal unit, even if 1 point would have been enough. Or, you loose the coinflip and either loose round 1 on equal cards or win with two cards down, but a lot more of points.

Therefore, I think an automatic carryover would at least improve this. The winner of a round gets his point adventage as a carryover divided by X (I think X=3 would be good).
The factor should be high enough that it isn't worth playing all your cards even if your enemy has passed (like AR on Unseen Elder play in the past or the old Dwarven Resilence decks), but it should be good enough to give the winner a significant adventage the next round, such that it might be worth going down 1 more card. For example if you can set up a great scorch with 2 more cards and then lead by 60 points.
Moreover, this would make Card Adventage spies a lot more risky in round 2 as the opponent gains some of the points in round 3. Also just daining your opponent in round 2 won't work that good either.
 
Last edited:
FG15-ISH7EG;n10459252 said:
The winner of a round gets his point adventage as a carryover divided by X (I think X=3 would be good).

That's... interesting. It needs some careful balancing, but it could potentially work. Gameplay-wise it would also make sense that the victor still has units left on the battlefield.
 
FG15-ISH7EG;n10459252 said:
... Therefore, I think an automatic carryover would at least improve this. The winner of a round gets his point adventage as a carryover divided by X (I think X=3 would be good).
The factor should be high enough that it isn't worth playing all your cards even if your enemy has passed (like AR on Unseen Elder play in the past or the old Dwarven Resilence decks), but it should be good enough to give the winner a significant adventage the next round, such that it might be worth going down 1 more card. For example if you can set up a great scorch with 2 more cards and then lead by 60 points.
Moreover, this would make Card Adventage spies a lot more risky in round 2 as the opponent gains some of the points in round 3. Also just daining your opponent in round 2 won't work that good either.

This will totally kill the losing part in R2 and will basically force all parts involved to play both their hands in R1.
 
The incentive to dry pass would be gone if the player who lost a round had to go first in the next round. Then the winner of round 1 could play a card or several in round 2 and still get the same 1 CA gain as a dry pass would give. On the other hand that 1 CA gain would be partially mitigated by the winner of round 1 having to go first in round 3.

Even though this alternative gives the winner of round 1 less automatic advantages I wonder if the increased flexibility would make the round 1 win too valuable.
 
Masur;n10483912 said:
The incentive to dry pass would be gone if the player who lost a round had to go first in the next round. Then the winner of round 1 could play a card or several in round 2 and still get the same 1 CA gain as a dry pass would give. On the other hand that 1 CA gain would be partially mitigated by the winner of round 1 having to go first in round 3.

Even though this alternative gives the winner of round 1 less automatic advantages I wonder if the increased flexibility would make the round 1 win too valuable.

That is true, but you are completely screwing the guy that lost round one. Winning the first round already gives good advantage, what you are proposing only makes it even bigger. I mean, today at least the winner of round 1 has to choose between getting easy 1 CA or drying the opponent for the round. I proposed that he gets neither; what you propose is that he can do both. That is basically making win the first round automatically win the game.
 
TrompeLaMort;n10484212 said:
That is true, but you are completely screwing the guy that lost round one. Winning the first round already gives good advantage, what you are proposing only makes it even bigger. I mean, today at least the winner of round 1 has to choose between getting easy 1 CA or drying the opponent for the round. I proposed that he gets neither; what you propose is that he can do both. That is basically making win the first round automatically win the game.
While that would be rough it's not completely one sided. Losing the first round on even cards would only let your opponent play 1 card after your last instead of 2 as with the current dry pass situation. Losing the first round 1 card up would give you both even cards and last say in round 3. To take last say away from you the opponent would then have to follow up the round 1 win with passing while ahead in round 2.
 
Maybe we should think about the past. Dry-Passing comes up recently, why not earlier in ten beta? Because you dont have the threat of outpowered by each bronze unit. You could play a card whih wasnst a waste after the next bronze is a twenty hitter or something. Dry-Passing is nothing more then conserve your own power because you are in a disadvantage in second round, which is even greater nowadays. Ther would be no point in extermitnate the dra-passing if the balancing would be fair. Some cards like Frost rider with "if loosing, stay at the field" ect. You can still dry-pass, but you opponent dont have to play a card. So to get you CA back, you have to play, or keep you card disadvandage.
 
Fimbulthrym;n10490792 said:
Maybe we should think about the past. Dry-Passing comes up recently, why not earlier in ten beta? Because you dont have the threat of outpowered by each bronze unit. You could play a card whih wasnst a waste after the next bronze is a twenty hitter or something. Dry-Passing is nothing more then conserve your own power because you are in a disadvantage in second round, which is even greater nowadays. Ther would be no point in extermitnate the dra-passing if the balancing would be fair. Some cards like Frost rider with "if loosing, stay at the field" ect. You can still dry-pass, but you opponent dont have to play a card. So to get you CA back, you have to play, or keep you card disadvandage.

Honestly, I get the feeling that people didn't dry-pass in the beginning simply because they didn't understand how it was simply better than playing the round. (Remember, as opposed to other CCGs, Gwent is completely new. To have an idea how little people understood Gwent, CDPR gave Scoia'tel the ability to choose to go first, because they thought back then that going first was potentially better; while we now know, of course, that it is horribly worse.)

It is like round 1 dry-pass. It was very rare in the past, simply because people didn't understand how good it was. Then in Gwent Open or Challenger we all saw the pros doing it. And then we stopped, and thought about it, and we realized that it is indeed a good strategy in a lot of decks (and I wouldn't be surprised if in the near future, people decide it is the best strategy in all decks: ST already plays Wardancer R1 to prevent first round dry-pass).
 
Masur;n10490742 said:
While that would be rough it's not completely one sided. Losing the first round on even cards would only let your opponent play 1 card after your last instead of 2 as with the current dry pass situation. Losing the first round 1 card up would give you both even cards and last say in round 3. To take last say away from you the opponent would then have to follow up the round 1 win with passing while ahead in round 2.

Ok, I hadn't thought that whoever loses has last say. I guess this makes it alright, and I feel that CDPR could try that out in internal testing too. But your suggestion wouldn't deal with problem of carry-over, which my solutions deals with. And more importantly, my suggestion is so we have 3 real rounds again. Because there is much more room for strategy and outplay and the game is simply more fun when people play 3 rounds, then when they play only 2, as in 50% of the games now; or even worse, only 1, like in 30% of the games now.
 
Firstly I think dry passing is a problem - it removes half the fun. You can play all the cards in round 1 you like, but you kind of know round 2 you're just going to get given it even if you do lose. People value round 1 too much. I also feel that the point spam cards are an issue - why bother playing a round when your opponent can just plop down 20 points in one card at any time? The lack of carry over cards these days is also an issue, as that was a huge incentive to think about things a bit more. Just banning dry passing is going to solve nothing though, just make it a bit less fun.

I have two ideas about this. The first one is changing it to a 5 round game. I suggested this a while back as an alternative mode because I thought it would be fun to try, but I kind of think the game actually needs it now. It might actually add some tactics to the game, with 3 rounds it feels a bit simplistic, although I'm sure some people will disagree. Obviously that would need increased card limits, and would need to be thoroughly tested for a long time.

My second idea is something along the lines of banked points. Basically, instead of all cards just instantly just giving you points of the board, many (most?) also give you some, far fewer points towards a separate mechanic, maybe as another card in your hand. Crucially, playing these doesn't take up a turn - if you want to use them you'd still need to play a card after. However, you can always just play it and then pass to easily take a second round, and you'll always know your opponent can do that which means you are more likely to push the second round yourself. Again, it would need testing, but to me a lot of the problems in this game can be solved simply by having more options outside of just playing another card.
 
I want this feature to happen too. The passing button is greyed out at round start. Person who goes first in round 1 will have a wardancer spawn at round 2 start. This will make Gwent a more real 3-round game than it is now. The pressure is on the player who goes 2nd coz he has to catch up. Even he has one card up in round 2, it doesnt matter. He has to win round 2 at any cost. Plz make this feature happen
 
Top Bottom