RNG a key element of Gwent?

[Pawel1995]

RNG a key element of Gwent?

Hey guys,

So I'm very hyped for the upcoming Gwent Beta. Not because I'm a big fan of The Witcher franchise, but I also like Video card games.

I'm a bit worried, because it's cdpr's first cardgame and even their first multiplayer game.
I already said my opinion, that the UI that we saw at E3 looked "too complicated" to me, in comparision to TW3 version or to other cardgames (like HS). I know, you can't make the table TOO simple, because you need at least 9 rows of space for Gwent, but there should be still ways to make the table look "cleaner".

MAIN POST, sorry xD:

However I really liked what we saw at E3. I saw many new cards or old, changed gwentcards.

One question is still unanswered for me: Will Gwent have many RNG elements?
Obviously you want to make a skill based Card game and that's great. It should be rewarding to do correct moves.
People from HS know that RNG is a huge thing there, that's why people are joking and call it even "SkillStone"
I DO NOT want a RNG focused game like HS, where a single card can win/turn/lose you a complete game, just because you had luck, but what about a bit of RNG in Gwent?

RNG is a nice thing in multiplayer card games in my opinion, to make it more enjoyable. Like I said, I don't want a "RNG focused card game", but a bit of rng always makes the game funnier, because you have a comeback mechanic and you don't have to surrender just because your enemy had 2 spies and you just 1 (talking about TW3 Gwent here )

So my question to the developers would be: Do you plan to implement a few of such "rng"-effects? One of these mechanics that we know already from TW3 is: "Play Spy => Draw Scorch => Kill 3 cards with 8 strength each => Win the game", but besides the Spy cards, that we already know from TW3, I haven't seen any other rng-based cards in the Trailer/Gameplay-videos from E3

 

[Guest 3893205]

We understand that RNG (in proper proportion) is one of the key elements of a fun card game. However it may be not overwhelming and games will not be won due to a single instance of RNGesus intervention - that is our goal.

 

[DrewjiLA]

Let's not forget drawing just 10 random cards from a deck of 22+ is RNG. Competitive card games don't need too much more beyond that.

 

[Pawel1995]

@DrewjiLA Well drawing cards is the most basic rng-element a card game can have, right? I was talking more about card-effects that depend on your luck.


For example: "Scorch: destroy the card(s) with the Highest value on the battlefield OR destroy the card(s) with the lowest value on the battlfield"
Just as an example ! .

I'm happy with the answer I got from the Dev though.

 

[waraidako]

There is some element of RNG involved. It's the luck of the draw as they say. But Gwent is about bluffing. You can totally win with an inferior hand of cards if you just know when and how to play them.

 

[DrewjiLA]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying -- drawing cards is RNG, so when you want a bit of RNG to add some drama to the game, it's already there.

Not sure I understand your example, either. Is that scorch letting you choose which one or it just happens randomly? If it's random, that card is unplayable as you could never build a deck to take advantage of both extremes. If it's a choice, than that's the opposite of RNG...

 

[Pawel1995]

Randomly, obiously. Otherwise that would be no example of rng....
It was also an EXTREME EXAMPLE, just to make clear was talking about Cardeffects with rng elements, not about basic mechanics like drawing 10 out of 30 cards

 

[lazaruss90]

The less random is something, the more skillbased it is. Look at csgo - everything is consistant and if its not they are trying to change it.

 

[StormKorp]

I hope there is a good random element so that people with starting deck cards can win from times to times against people with more advanced cards.

 

[DrewjiLA]

RNG is a bad way to combat card quality disparity between players. The better option is make acquiring good cards cost-effective for most players, so we don't need to rely on RNG to win games, which hurts competition. Winning should be a result of decision making as much as possible, it makes the game more rewarding. RNG is built into the game from the start (drawing cards), which is plenty - from there the game actually combats RNG because you don't draw new cards every turn or round (unless stated by a specific card), so adding more RNG doesn't make much sense.

 

[Guest 3893205]

The problem with "initial card draw is the only RNG" is that very soon you have 2-3 cookie cutter decks and the game becomes stale. We will not overload RNG but some will be present, just to add some spice to the game. We absolutely do not want however situations where RNG wins the whole game. We are balancing it out.

 

[TigrisCallidus]

The problem with "initial card draw is the only RNG" is that very soon you have 2-3 cookie cutter decks and the game becomes stale. We will not overload RNG but some will be present, just to add some spice to the game. We absolutely do not want however situations where RNG wins the whole game. We are balancing it out.

Well adding randomness to cards, does not necessarily add more varietyto the cookie cutter decks.

Example still only 3 decks

Lets say the 3 top decks have each about 300 power in them with 25 cards each. (Just a simplification to have a "metric" to compare how strong decks are).

This means the average card has in average 12 power. Since we allready calculating average, it does not make much of a difference for these coockie cutter decks if a card included has a random element or not.

Lets say the weakest card is just an 8 Power card. If now a new random card exists which has 50% chance to be 6 power and 50% chance to be 11 power, this card will be included in the coockie cutter decks, since it has a better power in average.

I know this is a big simplification, but in hearthstone and magic you also include random cards in the deck, if their average power level is big enough.

So even with random cards, there could be in the end just 3 coockie cutter decks.

Example more variety with variance

The only case, where having ALSO random cards can be interesting, is when you have something like this:

You have 2 Decks Deck A and Deck B Both have average Power of 10 per card.

However in Deck A all Cards are exactly 10 power and in Deck B half the cards have 50% chance of having 0 Power and 50% chance of having 20 power.

Here both decks are in average about equal in strength, but one has a higher variance. In these case a player has now 2 choices, if he wants the more random deck or the less random one.

Restriction (and usage)

However, this only works, if the decks are REALLY well balanced.

In this case both decks would make sense, since different player might prefer different playstiles. Especially "stronger" player may pick the not random deck (since they think they can outplay the opponent) and the weaker player may take the more random one, hoping to win some games against stronger players by luck.

Or if some other deck is around with 11 average card value, having the random deck gives you at least some chance to beat it!
On the other hand when there is a deck with 9 average card value, the non random deck is a lot better to beat that.

So I agree that SOME random cards/strategies can improve the available tactics, but this has more to do with having different AND BALANCED available strategies.

(And having soo powerful random effects as in Hearthstone can realy be frustrating, and there deck diversity (at some points) also decreased because some random cards were so powerful, that almost everyone played them).

If you can provide balanced decks, where some have more variance than other,s then I am all in for these random cards!
However, I think this is allready given with some of the mechanics (The "swarm" mechanic as one example has higher variance since drawing the same card twice is realy bad).


Sidenote ("aggro" deck)

I would realy like to see the Northern realms to draw a card again, when winning a round (instead of when losing!
At the moment all factions (monster the least) want to play always 3 rounds, however having the northern realms only drawing cards on winning, could help to get decks (Northern realms or monsters (against northern realms and the others)) which try to win in 2 rounds, which would increase strategical variance.

 

[Guest 3893205]

So even with random cards, there could be in the end just 3 coockie cutter decks.

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

So I agree that SOME random cards/strategies can improve the available tactics, but this has more to do with having different AND BALANCED available strategies.

Agreed.

I would realy like to see the Northern realms to draw a card again, when winning a round (instead of when losing!

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

At the moment all factions (monster the least) want to play always 3 rounds, however having the northern realms only drawing cards on winning, could help to get decks (Northern realms or monsters (against northern realms and the others)) which try to win in 2 rounds, which would increase strategical variance.

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.

 

[Koffiemok]

With the weather and the scorch cards in the game and the variety of factions and leaders I think 3 cookie cutter decks would be countered eventually by an other deck.

 

[Devizz]

The problem with "initial card draw is the only RNG" is that very soon you have 2-3 cookie cutter decks and the game becomes stale. We will not overload RNG but some will be present, just to add some spice to the game. We absolutely do not want however situations where RNG wins the whole game. We are balancing it out.

Many competitive Hearthstone players complain that Blizzard's game became too RNG based - and rightfully so. Obviously card games need to have some RNG factor present but adding too many RNG based cards to the game can be... bad. Back in beta, Hearthstone had very few cards that were completely RNG based but as more expansions were being added, the proportions of RNG based cards to non RNG based cards changed dramatically for the worse. I'd recommend avoiding such a route with Gwent.

 

[Guest 3893205]

Many competitive Hearthstone players complain that Blizzard's game became too RNG based - and rightfully so. Obviously card games need to have some RNG factor present but adding too many RNG based cards to the game can be... bad. Back in beta, Hearthstone had very few cards that were completely RNG based but as more expansions were being added, the proportions of RNG based cards to non RNG based cards changed dramatically for the worse. I'd recommend avoiding such a route with Gwent.

As an avid Hearthstone player since the closed beta I am pretty aware of that and so are the developers - don't worry.

On a side note, Hearthstone right now does a really good job of mitigating the RNG influence on the meta. No more piloted shredders/dr 7s.

 

[Devizz]

As an avid Hearthstone player since the closed beta I am pretty aware of that and so are the developers - don't worry.

On a side note, Hearthstone right now does a really good job of mitigating the RNG influence on the meta. No more piloted shredders/dr 7s.

I suppose that wild and standard modes somewhat eased the said issue but in my opinion as of right now, Hearthstone would be a better game if it has less RNG involved in it. For example cards like 'Tuskarr Totemic' or 'Ram Wrangler' should never been made to begin with - I utterly detest them, really no clue who designed those.

Anyhow, really looking forward to the beta in September, if I do get it I'd really like to help you guys with balancing and whatnot.

 

[ShifuoftheCards]

Totally agree!! This game excites me because you can win the game with decision making. There will always be "net-decks", but now you can outplay them using skill, and not RNG. This is the CCG I have been waiting for

 

[Coto132]

Something that needs to be considered widely by the community, i think, is that RNG is not something you should build a deck around in order to be effective. In my experience with card games, namely HS and a little bit of Magic, decks are build to be a balance of consistent and powerful. A deck that is very powerful (Say Reno Jackson decks from hearthstone) is less consistent than decks that are less powerful (Like Zoo-lock from Hearthstone). These are the two extremes for meta decks that have been seen. They saw play because the decks were effective, either in the way of a little bit of luck of the draw with good card knowledge, or though a very consistent win condition with good card knowledge.

Decks that were RNG heavy were often seen as "bad" because they had a massive overbalance of power that was not consistent enough. One such deck could be seen as an early Yogg Saron mage from Hearthstone, or a Death Cloud deck from Magic. Both had a dream of dealing an insane finsiher to the opponent through a miracle of perfect effects or perfect draws respectively. These decks weren't effective in the meta, but were widely seen as fun to play by many members of the community. The goal in these cases was to get a good laugh out of ridiculous happenings, rather to compete with the meta.

Whether or not the developers will add something with "RNG Fun" is a toss up with pros and cons. On one hand it leads to a less serious game that can be seen as a way to relax for professional and casual players alike, but on the other it can lead to a game that is invasive to people who do want a serious experience and lose to an infuriating turn of luck

There are ways to do this incorrectly, that will lead to neither result (As I'm perfectly certain the Dev team is aware of). One such way is a deck that swamps the game with only RNG that has a great power level, leading to an experience that seems serious, but is misunderstood or isn't engaging for the opponent, leading to negative reception by the majority of the community. That being said, I have faith that the Dev team has an image in mind of the way they want the game to be received, and their design will reflect that. I look forward to seeing what the future holds for the amount of RNG that Gwent will provide.

 

[Devizz]

Something that needs to be considered widely by the community, i think, is that RNG is not something you should build a deck around in order to be effective. In my experience with card games, namely HS and a little bit of Magic, decks are build to be a balance of consistent and powerful. A deck that is very powerful (Say Reno Jackson decks from hearthstone) is less consistent than decks that are less powerful (Like Zoo-lock from Hearthstone). These are the two extremes for meta decks that have been seen. They saw play because the decks were effective, either in the way of a little bit of luck of the draw with good card knowledge, or though a very consistent win condition with good card knowledge.

Decks that were RNG heavy were often seen as "bad" because they had a massive overbalance of power that was not consistent enough. One such deck could be seen as an early Yogg Saron mage from Hearthstone, or a Death Cloud deck from Magic. Both had a dream of dealing an insane finsiher to the opponent through a miracle of perfect effects or perfect draws respectively. These decks weren't effective in the meta, but were widely seen as fun to play by many members of the community. The goal in these cases was to get a good laugh out of ridiculous happenings, rather to compete with the meta.

Whether or not the developers will add something with "RNG Fun" is a toss up with pros and cons. On one hand it leads to a less serious game that can be seen as a way to relax for professional and casual players alike, but on the other it can lead to a game that is invasive to people who do want a serious experience and lose to an infuriating turn of luck

There are ways to do this incorrectly, that will lead to neither result (As I'm perfectly certain the Dev team is aware of). One such way is a deck that swamps the game with only RNG that has a great power level, leading to an experience that seems serious, but is misunderstood or isn't engaging for the opponent, leading to negative reception by the majority of the community. That being said, I have faith that the Dev team has an image in mind of the way they want the game to be received, and their design will reflect that. I look forward to seeing what the future holds for the amount of RNG that Gwent will provide.

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.