RNG ruins the game.

[Archan6el]

Firstly, I did not say it was one to one, I said the opposite -- "let me take it to the extreme" (implying the closer games like MTG also successfully play with randomness). There is a lot of comparison to poker though: Random draws, reading your opponent, playing optimally.

Ok, some small similarities, but not the important game-deciding stuff.

You're not going to win each individual game, but in the long run, you will win most, this is fine in a ladder system where you are playing hundreds of games. By the law of large numbers, you'll sort yourself out to your correct MMR. This is valid.

That's the answer to the question you asked. The top players may have accepted needing to play hundreds of games to even out the RNG, while the more casual player may get frustrated by RNG deciding games too often. I think reducing RNG would benefit both the pro and casual players.

You're free to have your own opinion that beta gwent was superior of course

That's not my opinion. Please read the posts above.

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Ok, some small similarities, but not the important game-deciding stuff.


That's the answer to the question you asked. The top players may have accepted needing to play hundreds of games to even out the RNG, while the more casual player may get frustrated by RNG deciding games too often. I think reducing RNG would benefit both the pro and casual players.


That's not my opinion. Please read the posts above.

You keep bashing new Gwent for it's level of RNG, referring to a previous version of Gwent that had less RNG. Yet your opinion is not that previous Gwent was superior... ok

And yes, I was always talking about how better players win in the long run, please read posts above.

 

[Archan6el]

You keep bashing new Gwent for it's level of RNG, referring to a previous version of Gwent that had less RNG. Yet your opinion is not that previous Gwent was superior... ok

Binary thinking again I'm afraid. There is lot in between beta and HC. But I already explained that.

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Binary thinking again I'm afraid. There is lot in between beta and HC. But I already explained that.

No one is saying that. You're just trying to argue semantics constantly that actually address the point.
You're making nebulous claims about how the RNG is bad without pointing anything specific, nor what you'd prefer, then just try and dodge the point when someone brings something else up rather than responding to it.

 

[thetruerenter]

Can someone confirm to me that around 1998-2000 in MTG there was no RNG? I remember as far as been playing cardgames we made decks in whih every drawn card was usefull at any moment. Sure, plenty of tutors in that time. Which game came with this RNG? I belief YuGiOh don't have it? It's fun in my opinion, having effects like create or discover, but sometimes all options they give are just bad and make a victory brick the wall.

 

[4RM3D]

Can someone confirm to me that around 1998-2000 in MTG there was no RNG?

What are you talking about? MtG might as well have been called RNG simulator. It had RNG from day one and it got even more RNG later on.

 

[thetruerenter]

Are you sure? Randon Numeric Generation it is? We used to run decks that will kill the opponent in round 4 for sure, such as the Enduring Renewal combo, or even quicker with Timewarp. I don't see any randomness in that?

 

[4RM3D]

I don't see any randomness in that?

Randomness is more than the effects of cards. It's also about draws and finding the combo you need.

 

[KoncertMajstor]

Are you sure? Randon Numeric Generation it is? We used to run decks that will kill the opponent in round 4 for sure, such as the Enduring Renewal combo, or even quicker with Timewarp. I don't see any randomness in that?

One of magics biggest problems was and is mana.
Sure you can ratio your deck properly and tech in burn lands and other land tutors to thin quickly but people losing to mana draws (usually not enough) was a major drawback to the game.

I agree that all cards should feel useful however. I'm looking forward to the bronze updates.

 

[thetruerenter]

Randomness is more than the effects of cards. It's also about draws and finding the combo you need.

I agree, however, this was rarely of influence with the decks we had in 1998-2000. 99% of anytime you'd be able to play the combo a.s.a.p. (with tutors) and the combo usually finishes the game unless countered which again was very hard. So I may conclude that the RNG factor in that case was just very low, almost zero. MtG features 4 of the same cards maximum, so with 4 spells for the combo and 4 tutors to find it, there is -consistency- and not RNG. A lot of gamefeatures which we have now were unavailable at that time since there was no online gaming version. You can't discover or create something playing real cards. That's why I thought the RNG was something newer in time, say, about 10-15 years?

 

[4RM3D]

MtG features 4 of the same cards maximum, so with 4 spells for the combo and 4 tutors to find it, there is -consistency- and not RNG.

But the deck also had a minimum of 60 cards including 20 or so lands. Mana flood or mana screw was the most common RNG. Furthermore, drawing your expensive cards early and your cheap cards late was another form of RNG. Gwent is much more consistent in this regard. You draw most of your deck (only consisting of 25 cards) and you do not have mana.

That's why I thought the RNG was something newer in time, say, about 10-15 years?

There has always been RNG, but with the release of Hearthstone, our view of what RNG is might have been shifted/skewed.

In the end, I suppose that it depends on what your base line is for comparison. A lot of players haven't played any other CCG besides Gwent and went on to complain about the increased RNG. However, those that came from Hearthstone and MtG know what RNG is really like and they probably can appreciate the higher consistency that Gwent brings.

 

[Archan6el]

Funny how there is too much RNG and too little as well. I would like CDPR to explain the "RNG" of random hits. It's clear to me that these are not random at all and that there is some broken mechanic behind it (Great Dandelion Show material enough). Please explain to me how my (experimental) Shupe: Mage can hit my first unit 7 times in a row killing it, then hit my one remaining other unit 3 times in a row killing it as well, then finally putting the remaining 3 hits on the one enemy unit. Gwent has no RNG indeed. Absolutely completely ridiculous.

 

[ardeathwinggwent]

No, what's killing the game is the Devs decision to not balance mid season. Something in me dies everytime I see the enemy is Foltest/Dj/Meve. Poor balance that is.
RNG actually is what is fun in this game, otherwise it would be pretty boring.

 

[Lulu_Lulu_Lulu]

But... but....the website specifically says its a game of Skill...

"GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon."

 

[Archan6el]

CDPR seriously needs to remove all Create effects from the game. On itself, Create makes no sense at all; you don't build a deck not knowing which cards you include, that's not strategy. The worst is that it is pure RNG. I just lost a game against some ridiculously lucky Bribery and Imperial Diplomacy. A great feeling you "create" CDPR, defeating strategy with no-skill RNG. These Create cards are pure gambling, gambling that you get something useful. Gambling has no place in a strategic game and it's also well known what gambling does to the brain. That makes Create inexcusably bad.

It's not only Create though. To be really strategic, Gwent should be more calculative. Binary or semi-binary mechanics like "Destroy" and "Poison" can create ridiculous point swings as there is no limit to their variance, which is also based on RNG. Another gambling aspect. There is way too much RNG in this game.

 

[Payus]

CDPR seriously needs to remove all Create effects from the game. On itself, Create makes no sense at all; you don't build a deck not knowing which cards you include, that's not strategy. The worst is that it is pure RNG. I just lost a game against some ridiculously lucky Bribery and Imperial Diplomacy. A great feeling you "create" CDPR, defeating strategy with no-skill RNG. These Create cards are pure gambling, gambling that you get something useful. Gambling has no place in a strategic game and it's also well known what gambling does to the brain. That makes Create inexcusably bad.

It's not only Create though. To be really strategic, Gwent should be more calculative. Binary or semi-binary mechanics like "Destroy" and "Poison" can create ridiculous point swings as there is no limit to their variance, which is also based on RNG. Another gambling aspect. There is way too much RNG in this game.

Play chess then

 

[Guest 4336264]

If you were playing with a physical deck of cards, it'd be necessary, as in Poker, to shuffle the deck and deal out your hand. The same would be true for your opponent. Thus, there'd be an element of randomness in those types of games - just as there is in Poker. If all players could simply select their best hand/cards all the time, that'd be no fun whatsoever. The whole point of having a minimum amount of cards, with different levels of power, is to ensure that hands are varied and not necessarily always with the best cards you have.

I've seen people complain that gold cards are too common, and the silver should return (I agree); however, in a deck of of cards with minimum 25 cards, it's pretty obvious that gold cards being played should actually be rarer than having to play a bronze card. Likewise, in card games such as Poker it's not always the case that you'll be dealt an ACE - sometimes you gotta make do with a deuce (2).

 

[Evangium]

It's players playing the same deck over and over who make the game boring. Having too much RNG currently limits the game to having only a few consistent and good decks that have high synergies and/or thinning. Proper balancing and being able to create more deck consistency in all decks would bring a larger variety of viable decks and would make the game more interesting.

It's rather telling when one of the mechanics, assimilate, has very high synergy with create based RNG. And then to put in a faction reknowned for consistent thinning, tutoring and synergy with tactic tagged cards. Very bad use of RNG, to provide additional bonuses on top of the already high reward- low risk that Gwent's RNG has become.

 

[Archan6el]

It's rather telling when one of the mechanics, assimilate, has very high synergy with create based RNG. And then to put in a faction reknowned for consistent thinning, tutoring and synergy with tactic tagged cards. Very bad use of RNG, to provide additional bonuses on top of the already high reward- low risk that Gwent's RNG has become.

With HC much more RNG has been introduced, not only through less consistent card draws which is acceptable to a certain degree (mulligan blacklisting should be re-introduced to make the game feel much better), but also by introducing cards with high variance RNG in their abilities, innate and/or through binary mechanics. These cards can easily decide a game, which is simply not acceptable as Gwent is marketed as a strategic game. This RNG in card abilities also diminishes the concept of using provision points for balancing cards as there is nothing that can properly balance a card if it has high variance RNG.

Why are so many gambling aspects introduced in this supposed to be strategic game? To cloud bad balancing issues because RNG can save the day when losing? - to lower the win-rate of good players? - to keep players going as in gambling games? One thing I do know: It has nothing to do with a strategic game. The lie that skill beats luck should be removed from the Gwent website.

 

[thetruerenter]

Create is awesome to play with, if it got removed from the game that will be a real big loss. Assimilatie is great as well, it's one of the few decks that can win a game without doing damage at all. I'd say that does require skill over blasting everything that enters the board to bits.

Weird enough Assimilatie loses most matches vs a Knickers deck then other decks I played against.

I played 329 games this season and won 70, almost none of the losses is to blame to RNG in any kind. But to an overdue of damage, yes. Usually it's very hard to play a card and keep it aboard, even with defenders around. Every card getting busted instantly aboard is a funkiller though. I see so much removal around it makes it look like players actually are scared to lose a game. You know that movie named Instinct? Control is an illusion.