RNG a key element of Gwent?

[TigrisCallidus]

@Cubituss sorry for the late answer, but something seemed off to me and I now know what:

True but the outcome of the battle between those 3 decks would be less predictable.

I am not sure if this is really desirable! Lets compare it with Rock Paper Scissors. There are world championships held in it. And of course this is about "luck" but it is also kind of about predicting your opponent.
The same way with fixed decks you can "win" (or have better chances of winning) if you predict the metagame (what enemies play most) better.

Adding more randomness in the outcome would make this predicting skill less important!

The problem with this is that it is a "win more" scenario. After internal tests this was changed to level out frustration

Basically if you win the first round with NR and get another card, you already won the second one as well. The result is that the opposing deck concedes halfway through the first round which is obviously not fun.

I kind of expected this. And I can still understand why people might think this way, but after analyzing the situation a bit, this is not entirely true! (Except maybe against skellige).

Gedankenexperiment

Lets assumethat whenever you won the first round, you also won the second round with the old passive. (Draw on winning)

Now there are 4 scenarios (opponents) you could have:

1. Playing versus Northern realms

This is the mirror, here they will fight more for the first round, thats in my oppinion fine. I mean the mirror is always balanced and if you have some matchups which play different (fight "only" for first round) this may make it even more interesting to play!

2. Monsters:

If you have always won with the old passive, you will also always win with the new passive!
Here is what happens:

You win round 1.
You pass round 2.(without playing a card)
Enemy plays no card. (If he had a creature in round 1)
Enemy wins round 2.
You draw a card.
Round 3 starts, enemy goes first.
-> You are in the same position as with the old passive. Enemy has the same monster on play as in round 2 and you have drawn the bonus card. Additional the enemy has to go first, which is a small advantage!

So in this scenario the new passive (and or losing the 2nd round with the old) is AT LEAST AS GOOD!

3. Playing versus Scoiatael:

In this scenario having the new passive (or losing the second round with old passive) is even strictly better!

1. You win round 1
2. You pass round 2 (without playing a card)
3. Enemy has to play a card.
4. Enemy wins round 2.
5. You draw a card.
-> Round 3 is the same as round 2 with the old passive, the only difference is, the enemy has 1 card less!

So if you won always using the old passive, you WIN EVEN EASIER NOW!

3. Playing versus Skellige:

Here the new passive is worse then the old one! But the difference is not that big!

1. You win round 1.
2. You pass round 2.
3. Enemy plays his worst card (still on hand).
4. Enemy wins round.
5. You draw a card.
6. Enemy gets best card from his graveyard to hand.

So here you have a worse situation. The enemy trades the worst card in hand with the best (non hero non special) card from his or her graveyard.
This is a gain for him/her (although he or she gets the small disadvantage of having to play first).
Additional skellige might want to do some stuff over 3 turns (like reanimating the same creature 2 times!)

Fazit:

So the old passive was only better against 1/4 of the Factions when winning the first round.
It was worse in 1/4 of the cases (when you really try to win both rounds)
And it is about the same in 1/2 of the cases.

However, the new passive is ALWAYS better when losing the first round.

So overall the new passive is a clear buff, while making it more similar to the skellige passive (also wanting to play 3 rounds for extra card), the difference is Skellige HAS to win 1/2 rounds to get a benefit Northern Reals does not.

Additional remarks:

Wanting to win both rounds even brings additional disadvantages like not being really able to play spies and when the enemy knows you try to win the first round he can a bit abuse it (by playing spies decoys etc.)
Also the old passive would have as mentioned allowed aggro decks (Northern Realms itself or also Monsters as aggro (since they get better against Northern Realms) in additional to more controlish decks (which still would be playable!)
On top of that you could have had matchups which were potentially 1 round matchups, leading to a more diverse gameplay.

I know there would be the psychological effect you mentioned! It does feel win more and it may be discouraging.
However, when players know to play with/against it (and see that this passive is actually not weaker at all!!) they will surely adapt, and this would diversify play!

I never understood how RNG can be fun. Sure, sometimes you will win because of it, I played yogg tempo mage for a while and got legend with it, 0 fun while doing so. If you lose because of RNG, the feeling is even worse. Either way, it is not very fun so I don't understand its purpose.

Again, RNG is fine as long as it is within some boundaries (so if you are unlucky, you still don't lose so much and same goes for being lucky, you won't get such an advantage). An example of this could be Animal Companion card.

I think the fun of RNG is that you do not see every time the same and that you cannot plan 100% meaning you have to improvise instead of learning the best tactic by heart. (Theres a reason why most people prefer card games to chess! And why no new games (like chess) without randomness are made).

About the randomness I like most: I would however prefer the animal companion card, if you know beforehand (in hand) which one you get. This way you can plan with it! I prefer random where you get from the random different choices you have to plan with and make the best out of it. It is still random which one you get (draw).

 

[Coto132]

I never understood how RNG can be fun. Sure, sometimes you will win because of it, I played yogg tempo mage for a while and got legend with it, 0 fun while doing so. If you lose because of RNG, the feeling is even worse. Either way, it is not very fun so I don't understand its purpose.

The Early, unrefined, Yogg Saron decks were just funny, they weren't supposed to win games and they weren't supposed to make legend for sure.

They ran inefficient cards for a marginal boost in surviveability while buffing Yogg and when they finaly triggered they often lost. Hilarity ensued in many cases (Often seen by streamers of the game). Seeing your deck vanish, causing you to overdraw cards, and wanting to laugh at absolutely ridiculous plays that Yogg made was always something that interested me. Playing things like the tempo mage with Yogg in it is more of a choice for actual card power, as opposed to making a deck to do silly things that probably don't work.

Many people still laugh at the insane things Yogg can do, both good and bad, its more of a party conversation than fun from winning or losing. The experience is important more so than the outcome in that kind of deck. I feel that is more the case with RNG, its not about winning, its about telling your friends about the crazy, silly, upsetting, funny things that happened when you casted 27 spells with Yogg and had Brann on the board.

RNG decks are not fun by everyone's opinions, and when you play for a serious game and all you get is an RNG based game that isn't engaging you're often disapointed. That's a big issue, if a mechanic is sucking fun out of the game, and is the biggest problem I personally have with RNG.

---------- Updated at 10:42 PM ----------

I prefer random where you get from the random different choices you have to plan with and make the best out of it.

Not to Nitpick, but this isn't so much RNG as it is a pick one effect. This is a tactical choice as opposed to receiving a random effect. RNG would be closer to Flame Waker to Animal Companion.

As for other things

Playing against three of the decks you mentioned requires you to win on round 1, which you can't always do, and to pass round 2, which isn't always wise to do. The way a deck plays will largely depend on the kind of hand you get as opposed to how your deck is built. In Hearthstone or Magic you have mechanics to draw your deck in such a way that allows you to consistently have certain plays and to achieve certain conditions. In Qwent you will not have such a luxury. in a 25 card deck, you get to choose which 10 cards you want from your deck, Obviously this is not exactly the case but is close enough to understand the concept, and these 10 cards only give you a small amount of options. You will not always be able to force your opponent to pass R1, and using resources to ensure that you do is sometimes wasteful. Since you can't generate cards, having an aggressive play style comes at a cost. If you run out of steam, you lose.

This means that Gwent will not just be Rock Paper Scissors, but it will rely on the ability of the player to analyse their situation and force them to either bluff their hand or actually work the deck. Either way, there will be potential for the cycle of "this deck beats that deck" to be less prevalent.

Also, a card game does not have to have randomness to be interesting, exciting, or to have different outcomes. Considering what I have seen, there are decks in Hearthstone that only rely on 2 or so cards that have RNG attached to them, and its because of the power level of the card rather than to have a YOLO moment (Talking about control warrior and Ragnaros/Brawl here). In this deck the only RNG is draw, and how things are drawn. If you lose a Brawl, often you achieve destroying multiple threats your opponent played, which allows you to damage and execute the card that survived, or having a sylvannis on the board will steal it if you lose, generating a guaranteed result. With Ragnaros, the idea is more based on pressure of a large, powerful, card, rather than being based on "If it hits this three times I win, even if its a 1/7." It is both, but one tactic is used and not the other, with very few exceptions.

Some RNG is nice, it helps make things more intense and gives a more colorful experience at times, but if it is too heavy it can lead to soul crushing experiences, and it discourages new players to lose multiple games to just luck, sometimes to the point where they quit. This isn't engaging in my opinion, but I may be a minority here. Any further thoughts?

 

[TigrisCallidus]

@Coto132

I think what I said was not good formulated:

1. With the "I prefer random where you get from the random different choices you have to plan with and make the best out of it." I meant random cards, not "you choose" cards. But random events, which gives you (depending on the random efvent) interesting choices.

Examples here are:
Drawing random cards (after that you have the choices which card to play when etc.)
Having a random map generated in a strategy game (to which you need to adapt) etc.


On the second quoted point the context was the following:

1. I suggested making the passive of Northern Realms the old one again.
2. Cubituss stated "With the old passive whenever Northern Realms won the first round it won the match."
3. (The post above) I tried to show, that the new passive does not change this IF THIS IS TRUE.

Nothing else I do not realy know, what you have understood, but most of the post was dedicated to just show, that the new passive would not change the situation described by Cubituss!

So I tried to (mathematically) conclude that:

If {
"when NR win first round it wins game with old passive" is true
}
Then {
"When NR win first round with new passive" is also true.
}

Of course the situations included Northern Realms winning the first round, SINCE THIS WAS THE PREMISE.

 

[Coto132]

.

1. With the "I prefer random where you get from the random different choices you have to plan with and make the best out of it." I meant random cards, not "you choose" cards. But random events, which gives you (depending on the random efvent) interesting choices.

I apologize for misunderstanding this. I must not have read this well enough previously and did not gather what exactly you meant, assuming it was like a point someone had previously made.

1. I suggested making the passive of Northern Realms the old one again.
2. Cubituss stated "With the old passive whenever Northern Realms won the first round it won the match."
3. (The post above) I tried to show, that the new passive does not change this IF THIS IS TRUE.

The fact of this is that the new passive forces two conditions, not just one. In the event you won R1 with the old passive, you sweep R2 without the opponent gaining benefit from their own passive. This means that previously Skelliga would never have their ability triggered, and Scoiatel and Monsters could be swept into round 2 and 3 forcing out resources in round 2, leaving round 3 freely to NR. Considering the addition of 1 card allowing the game to tie, you must again beat the opponent. This means that you must actually fight for two rounds, as opposed to fighting halfheartedly for round 2 and easily taking round 3. This means the premise of your debate is sound, but the logic is not supported because the issue is more complex than you are giving it credit for.

As for your initial suggestion of changing the passive back, The developers have obviously already tested the passive has seen its shortcomings. They don't want to change the theme of the ability, but they want to change its power level. Whether or not it did is the matter for debate, and in a complex situation such as this nothing is black and white. The change in the passive will need to be retested, and simply not making a change leads to a less engaging game, as Cubituss has stated.

While I may have made a disregard to some of your post, and I apologize for that, you seem to have disregarded the developer's experience with this exact scenario, which is his premise

 

[TigrisCallidus]

This is not a matter of testing, this is a matter of pure math. Testing can be wrong (psychological effects, statistical error), pure math cannot.

There are 8 cases

The old passive was better:

Against Skellige when winning the first round.

The New passive is better:

Against Skellige when Losing the first round.
Against Monsters, when Losing the first round.
Against Scoyatel, when Losing the first round.

And if you try the 2nd round win with the old passive it is also better:

Against Scoyatel, when winning the first round.
(slightly Against Monsters, when winning the first round).


The stated problem was:

"With the old passive, Northern Realms always won, when winning the first round, therefore, we changed the passive."

But the new passive would not change this, if this was the case with the old one, except against Skellige!
It could make it even worse against Scoyatel (and against Monsters).


Experience does not beat Math. My post shows mathematical (in a not 100% formal way), what I stated above.
If testing showed different, this was a psychological effect in testing. This psychological effect "People think that when Northern Realms win the first round, then they always win" might be an argument for the new passive, BUT the stated argument does not work, since the new passive does not change anything.


Formal Proof (with some shortcuts)


So lets make it more formal (I hope you had classes in Inference : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference)

Premises and Definitions

The premises are the following:

1. Original premise:

"If old Northern Realms won the first round, it also won the game"
if A then B
->
!A OR B

2. (Implicite) premise: (New passive does fix premise 1)

"Winning with new Northern Realms first round, it is possible to lose the game"
NOT if C then B
-> C AND !B


We now assume Northern Realms won the first round (because we cannot say anything when it has not won the first round):

Without loss of generality lets now name the hand cards of Northern Realms after round 1 (which it won): N
And the Cards in Hand of the Other Player M.
Additional the proberty Value is defined as V(X) for any Cards in Hand X further if V(X) > V(Y) this means the cards X beat the cards Y.

So at the beginning of round 2 we have:

A !A OR B --> B ---> V(N) > V(M)

Without loss of generality we define N as N=N' + C, where N' stands for the cards in hand at the end of round 1 and C stands for the newly drawn card. (The card which is on top of library at the end of round 1).

Now we look at the 3 possible (NON MIRROR) situations with the new passive: (
Again we assume we win the first round)

1. Versus Skellige

After winning round 1 we have:

V(N') ? V(M) (we do not know which one is stronger)

Player Northern Regions now pass round 2.
Player Skellige plays the weakest card D -> M' = M-D
Player NR Draws card -> N = N'+C
Player Skellige gets back best card from Graveyard D' >= D
->
V(N) ? V(M-D+D')
V(N) ? V(M')

To fulfill C AND !B we still need !B, this means we need to know if it is possible, that V(M')> V(N)
-> ? Exist D, D', N, M such that V(N) > V(M) AND V(N) < V(M') < => C AND !B
YES THERE EXIST!

This is true for D=0 D'=2 V(N)=1 and V(M)=0

-> So it is could be possible with the new passive to lose against Skellige with the new passive, when winning round 1!

2. Monsters:

We take the same naming as above (and the same assumptions and strategy).

There is just the small addition that the Monsters have a card E on the field after round 1 (Monster passive).

So at the start of round 2 with the old passive we have:

V(N) > V(M)+V(E)

At the start of round 2 with new passive we have:

V(N') ? V(M)+V(E)

Then Northern Realms pass the round.
Monster pass the round (best strategy not losing a card since spied could have been played round 1).
Monster Win. (Nothing change for monsters)

We get V(N)= V(N'+C) ? V(M) + V(E)
We now need V(N) < V(M) + V(E), but this is not possible, since V(N) > V(M) + V(E). This is a contradiction, meaning one of the assumptions must be wrong! (So the new passive does not make it better against monsters) !

This is even not considered, that going first is a disadvantage!

3. Scoyatel

For the old passive we have at the start of turn 2:

V(N) > V(M).

With the new passive we have:

V(N') ? V(M)

Northern Realms again pass the 2nd round.
Scoyatel now plays the weakest card D they have and win.
Northern Realms draws a card.

We now have V(N) ? V(M-C)<V(M) => V(N) < V(M-C) so it is not possible for Scoyatel to win the round !B is not possible, this means again, the new passive did not change anything in this regards.

Fazit

So as one can see, the new passive does ONLY improve the situation for Northern Realms against Skellige
(And may egven make Scoyatel and too a small degree monsters worse in the situation!)

Northern Realms against Northern Realms is not considered since in a mirror it is always 50/50 who wins, due to simmetry.


So with the change of the passive only 1 Matchup became worse, when winning the first round, BUT ALL MATCHUPS BECAME BETTER, WHEN LOSING THE FIRST ROUND! (and maybe 1 matchup became better when winning the first round).

I hope I do not have to also proof, that the matchup when losing the first round should now be better! (You have 1 more card!)