RNG ruins the game.

+
Don't you have this backwards? In beta you could have single, double, triple bronze.. whatever you wanted. Homecoming forces you to have only 2 bronze and limit your deck's synergy. Its huge reason why so many decks feel incomplete.

It's not backwards. When you are building optimized decks you always want as many copies as possible. Thus reducing the number of different cards you include. These are for competitive decks.
Again, in MTG you must have 4 of a kind to draw the card you want more often. You build your deck around a specific strategy so you won't put singlets in there unless you have to. (Mythics in MTG or gold silver in beta)
 
This is quite a gross exaggeration. You have to admit that.

There is enough consistency that you will go through most of your good cards every game. You are not able to play the same thing every single time and still have to adapt. That's a good thing.
I don't believe that is an exaggeration at all. Many games are lost simply because the best cards to counter or create points are still left in the deck. There's nothing strategic about that. Playing crappy 4 - 5 point bronzes, having your four best golds still in the deck in R3 and your opponent smashing you with gold cards feels very much like you just lost a gambling game.

"the same thing every single time": another extreme, black-or-white. It will not be the same thing every single time, as explained above. With more consistency, there would still be enough RNG through card draws (not drawing the cards you want, in the round you want them or in combination with the cards that the opponent plays (that round)). You would less often feel like you got screwed with the card draws and matches would be a more tense and strategic fight for single points to make the difference.

Being forced to have triples of each card would make decks more boring. This is one big drawback to MTG. Each deck has 4 copies of most cards. I much rather prefer the variety. Copies of 2 allows you to push a certain strategy without feeling like you're just playing the same cards over and over again.

You're playing a card game where you draw cards... Of course there will be inconsistency, but it is not just so random that you are just wildly playing different cards every game.

Let's be fair to the devs and stop pointing out problems where none exist.
Variety is not the same as RNG, but it seems the devs would like you to believe that. Variety should be brought by having many different and well-balanced cards to choose from, so that you can create a large variety of interesting and consistent decks. Introducing (loads of) RNG is simply creating fake variety and balance.
 
In the end of OB you had all the cards that you wanted and when you wanted. It was boring...same plays in every match. You can make your decks consistent: build in tutors...they are expensive? Yeah you must pay the price for consistency.
 
In the end of OB you had all the cards that you wanted and when you wanted. It was boring...same plays in every match. You can make your decks consistent: build in tutors...they are expensive? Yeah you must pay the price for consistency.
Another beta reference. Earlier response applies. More consistency is not the same as going back to the beta situation.
Post automatically merged:

Don't you have this backwards? In beta you could have single, double, triple bronze.. whatever you wanted. Homecoming forces you to have only 2 bronze and limit your deck's synergy. Its huge reason why so many decks feel incomplete.
I think you're right and it's even worse. There are many fun decks to create, but most of them are simply not viable because they are too inconsistent. Consistency is not what makes the game boring. 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.
 
Last edited:
Another beta reference. Earlier response applies. More consistency is not the same as going back to the beta situation.
If you add blacklisting and more tutors then we have a situation what we had in OB. You said card draw RNG is enough to you and then said "my 4 golds are in the bottom of my deck and my oppenent draw all his/her golds". This is card draw RNG...bad luck. Add more tutors and blacklisting and you have your needed cards every time you want them...like in OB. One of the greatest issues with OB was the too much consistency. I played Calveit Reveal...I had almost always the cards what I wanted. Almost all my games were the same. Same with greatswords and alchemy decks.
 
RNG ruins the game? It's the bloody "tubers" that ruin the game. Their decks are used by everyone aren't they?

How can a game survive this? It can't. Everyone will get bored eventually.

Today i'm using swims discard deck, tomorrow Freddies NG spy deck and on and on it goes...If you want to do well on ladder. You must use their decks.

Isn't the point that you make your own deck!?!

Nope
 
If you add blacklisting and more tutors then we have a situation what we had in OB. You said card draw RNG is enough to you and then said "my 4 golds are in the bottom of my deck and my oppenent draw all his/her golds". This is card draw RNG...bad luck. Add more tutors and blacklisting and you have your needed cards every time you want them...like in OB. One of the greatest issues with OB was the too much consistency. I played Calveit Reveal...I had almost always the cards what I wanted. Almost all my games were the same. Same with greatswords and alchemy decks.
Exactly, bad luck. Happens a lot. Has nothing to do with strategy. Gwent website: "a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". Bla bla.

Again the OB reference. Is it so hard to understand that a bit more consistency doesn't make the situation the same as with OB? The problem with OB was that there was limited choice in good combinations and the players making it boring for themselves by playing the same decks over and over, as Mr_Mugglez correctly notes.

P.S. Challenger #5... where luck, not skill, may decide a winner. I really hope not.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, bad luck. Happens a lot. Has nothing to do with strategy. Gwent website: "a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". Bla bla.

Again the OB reference. Is it so hard to understand that a bit more consistency doesn't make the situation the same as with OB? The problem with OB was that there was limited choice in good combinations and the players making it boring for themselves by playing the same decks over and over, as Mr_Mugglez correctly notes.

P.S. Challenger #5... where luck, not skill, may decide a winner. I really hope not.
I respect your opinion, but I really don't know, how do you want to make more conaistent decks without making the same mistakes like in OB? What is your suggestion? Blacklisting? Makes the decks too consistent: I'm not good in mathematic but we have now a 25 cards deck and we draw 16 (!) cards. With blacklisting you find your cards always! More tutors? Bronze tutors were bad for the game in OB...everybody played them...was a mistake. We have now thinning, tutors but they are really expensive...if we want a more consistent deck now, we have to sacrefice raw power...or we can hope for lucky draws. But it's card draw RNG, and you said you have no problem with it. So I'm really courious, what would ve your solution to make the decks more consistent.
 
I respect your opinion, but I really don't know, how do you want to make more conaistent decks without making the same mistakes like in OB? What is your suggestion? Blacklisting? Makes the decks too consistent: I'm not good in mathematic but we have now a 25 cards deck and we draw 16 (!) cards. With blacklisting you find your cards always! More tutors? Bronze tutors were bad for the game in OB...everybody played them...was a mistake. We have now thinning, tutors but they are really expensive...if we want a more consistent deck now, we have to sacrefice raw power...or we can hope for lucky draws. But it's card draw RNG, and you said you have no problem with it. So I'm really courious, what would ve your solution to make the decks more consistent.
It doesn't matter that you will see most of your cards. What matters is in which round you draw them, against which cards of the opponent and how you play them. That is strategy, and that still has enough RNG. The problem with the current card draw RNG is the possibility that you will never see your four strongest cards. That's simply too much.

Mulligan blacklisting makes sense and as there are only 2 bronze copies, this will make a small but feel-good impact. A little bit more bronze tutoring makes sense (but certainly not as much as in OB) and this will automatically make the bronzes a bit stronger as well (nice!). If that's done, having only 2 bronze copies is not so bad (vs. 3 copies in OB).
 
It doesn't matter that you will see most of your cards. What matters is in which round you draw them, against which cards of the opponent and how you play them. That is strategy, and that still has enough RNG. The problem with the current card draw RNG is the possibility that you will never see your four strongest cards. That's simply too much.

Mulligan blacklisting makes sense and as there are only 2 bronze copies, this will make a small but feel-good impact. A little bit more bronze tutoring makes sense (but certainly not as much as in OB) and this will automatically make the bronzes a bit stronger as well (nice!). If that's done, having only 2 bronze copies is not so bad (vs. 3 copies in OB).

I still disagree with You, but thanks for your answer! :beer:
 
I get the feeling a lot of players, who complain about RNG, haven't played other CCG. You might counter that argument, telling me you know about the RNG fiesta that is called Hearthstone. Well, I want to take it one step further and talk about Magic the Gathering.

In MtG, you draw lands (mana) together with your other cards. This creates even more RNG because you need just the right about of lands and other cards with the right amount of mana cost. When your opening hand is garbage, which happens more often than not, you cannot mulligan cards. No, you mulligan your whole hand at the cost of drawing one less card. So, if you don't draw a proper hand then, you might as well forfeit.

I have played both of the aforementioned games and knowing about the insane amount of RNG, Gwent is a welcome change.
 
I get the feeling a lot of players, who complain about RNG, haven't played other CCG. You might counter that argument, telling me you know about the RNG fiesta that is called Hearthstone. Well, I want to take it one step further and talk about Magic the Gathering.

Of course there is still less RNG in comparison to those games, but back in 2017 Gwent had practically 0 unfair RNG. It's what made Gwent special and stand out from the rest. We've slowly seen the unfair type of RNG creep it's way into Gwent especially with Homecoming. Saying that it's still a small amount of RNG in comparison to MTG and Hearthstone doesn't change the fact that Gwent's RNG keeps increasing. Why though? Why does Gwent feel the need to be like those other games?

I don't know if anyone here watches Great Dandelion Show, but all his videos the last few months showcase just how much RNG has been added. It is literally every single play in his videos. Compare that to his pre-midwinter videos, where there is so little RNG and the difference is enormous.
 
I still disagree with You, but thanks for your answer! :beer:
No problem, agree to disagree. :beer:
I have played both of the aforementioned games and knowing about the insane amount of RNG, Gwent is a welcome change.
That may be so, but it doesn't matter. Gwent is not other card games. Gwent is literally advertised as "a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". With the current level of RNG, that is simply not true.
Hit the nail on the head.

We'll see what Challenger #5 will bring. Looking forward (not really) to a "golden-R3-draw" or "Wheel-of-Fortune" champion. :shrug:
 
Of course there is still less RNG in comparison to those games, but back in 2017 Gwent had practically 0 unfair RNG. It's what made Gwent special and stand out from the rest.

Gwent stands out from other CCG regardless of its RNG. Anyhow, you've mentioned unfair RNG a few times, implying that you also think there is some fair RNG in the game. So, what is what? And why? If card draws is in the unfair category, then you are defying the essence of CCG. Sure, Gwent beta may have been different in that regard, but the thinning to zero and the consistency of the game actually made the game worse in the long run. Claiming the game is "strategic and requires skill, not luck" only takes you so far...

Why does Gwent feel the need to be like those other games?

Because the original Gwent was not suited to be an online competitive CCG. You could argue that CDPR went to far with Homecoming, but you cannot dispute the fact that the state of the game in beta had no future.
 
but you cannot dispute the fact that the state of the game in beta had no future.

That is not a "fact" and I can dispute that. That's what these forums are for, and I'm really surprised to see a mod say something so rash.

Gwent was much more popular in Beta, I've already made several post showing charts on Twitch/GOG that show population numbers were 2-3 times higher in Beta. How is that having no future?

Because the original Gwent was not suited to be an online competitive CCG.

People flocked to Gwent for it's consistency and lack of RNG. I thought of CDPR as a pioneer in CCG because of it. You might think that made Beta Gwent "not suited" to be a CCG, but i know a lot of people that thought otherwise...
 
Gwent was much more popular in Beta, I've already made several post showing charts on Twitch/GOG that show population numbers were 2-3 times higher in Beta. How is that having no future?

That chart doesn't take everything into account. In beta, number were already dropping. Furthermore, it's rare to see a game gaining more users past its initial momentum, unless it's a really popular game. This means that if Homecoming never had happened, the user base still wouldn't be as high as the peak, during beta. I would even dare to say the number might actually be lower than it is today.

Also, if beta really was a success, then why did CDPR decided to abandon it and try again with Homecoming? We cannot answer that question, but it does make you wonder. Whatever the case, beta was not successful enough. Still, there may have been more going on. Trying to release new expansions would have been difficult because all the cards had to have the same power level. With the provision system, it became possible to release a wider variety of cards and it become easier to tweak those cards.

Lastly, I want to mention that the further Gwent moved away from the original game in the Witcher, the better it actually got because it stripped away the imbalanced parts. Then, during Midwinter, the devs might have gone a bit too far. However, that also thought them a valuable lesson and it was probably the trigger (or an important one) for the upcoming switch to Homecoming.

People flocked to Gwent for it's consistency and lack of RNG.

Of all the things that set Gwent apart from its competitors, (the lack of) RNG was only one small part. I know that for some people it's important. However, I do not believe it was the main selling point. Regardless, you are pretty focused on that one aspect, while Homecoming also brought a lot of good things.
 
I wish the game good luck (fnar fnar) in the future when it goes mobile. Tens of thousands should tart playing.

The lifecycle of a new player to Gwent is what...couple of months before they quit? If they get their hands on one of the few decks that are worth playing, maybe longer.

I certainly won't be playing any other CCG.
 
Claiming the game is "strategic and requires skill, not luck" only takes you so far...
What do you mean? Again, on the Gwent website: "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". Do you think that's true for current Gwent? I don't.


Because the original Gwent was not suited to be an online competitive CCG. You could argue that CDPR went to far with Homecoming
Yes, I would definitely argue that CDPR went to far with introducing RNG.
but you cannot dispute the fact that the state of the game in beta had no future.
Fact? Proven how, by whom? I think numbers in beta were dropping because nothing was happening. Homecoming as a new game should have boosted the numbers.
This means that if Homecoming never had happened, the user base still wouldn't be as high as the peak, during beta. I would even dare to say the number might actually be lower than it is today.
Homecoming never happening is very different from a Homecoming that would build and further develop beta instead of almost completely discarding it. If beta would have been further developed and optimized with HC features, I think the user base would have been much higher now.
Also, if beta really was a success, then why did CDPR decided to abandon it and try again with Homecoming? We cannot answer that question, but it does make you wonder.
Looking at the numbers, that makes me wonder about CDPR's decision making and vision for the game.
Of all the things that set Gwent apart from its competitors, (the lack of) RNG was only one small part. I know that for some people it's important. However, I do not believe it was the main selling point. Regardless, you are pretty focused on that one aspect, while Homecoming also brought a lot of good things.
While I agree that Homecoming has brought a lot of good things, it has also discarded a lot of good things from beta Gwent (pissing beta players off) and it has introduced quite a lot of things that are not so good. Overall, that has apparently resulted in a drop in numbers. Main selling point? The first sentence on the Gwent website page "About the game": "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon." You can keep ignoring it, I will keep bringing it up.
 
What do you mean? Again, on the Gwent website: "GWENT is a card game of choices and consequences, where skill, not luck, is your greatest weapon". Do you think that's true for current Gwent? I don't.

I actually think that that it describes the game quite accurately. Skill is definately your greatest weapon, I'm pretty sure that a player like me, playing in the higher casual ranks would get beaten 9/10 by the top pro ladder players, pretty much like i made my way when i returned to Gwent with 12-15 voctories streaks on the lower ranks.
When 2 player of more or less equal skill play, there is an RNG factor as in any card game i would say. I'm not talkin about RNG cards (like Aguara true form for instance) becasue including them in a deck is up to the player and there is quite few of those anyway.
Would you suggest having all decks thin to 0 cards (like in cases of many decks during beta) , or better yet have all the deck in your hand in order to get rid of RNG completely?

I agree with you that homecoming changed some things for better and some for worse, but its not like beta didn't have any problems, as far as i remember during beta i would face the same 2-3 meta decks all tha time while now there is more veriety.
 
I actually think that that it describes the game quite accurately. Skill is definately your greatest weapon, I'm pretty sure that a player like me, playing in the higher casual ranks would get beaten 9/10 by the top pro ladder players, pretty much like i made my way when i returned to Gwent with 12-15 voctories streaks on the lower ranks.
When 2 player of more or less equal skill play, there is an RNG factor as in any card game i would say.
Right now there is quite a large RNG factor. That RNG factor currently decides most of the time who of those equally skilled players will win, instead of small differences between these players in intuition, choices and strategic plays. Even simpler: if you are not so skilled but you draw all your good cards at the right time and in the right combinations, you will win against a pro player who doesn't. Luck beats skill.
Would you suggest having all decks thin to 0 cards (like in cases of many decks during beta) , or better yet have all the deck in your hand in order to get rid of RNG completely?
I'm getting tired of seeing this extreme being used as an argument/question all the time. Better access to cards in your deck through mulligan blacklisting and a bit more bronze tutoring does not mean thinning to zero or getting rid of RNG completely. Even if you would thin to zero, there would still be a lot of RNG through timing of specific card draws and opponent play. I already explained this above.
I agree with you that homecoming changed some things for better and some for worse, but its not like beta didn't have any problems, as far as i remember during beta i would face the same 2-3 meta decks all tha time while now there is more veriety.
Beta had it's problems, that's why it was a beta that needs to be further developed and optimized. The problem with beta in my opinion was the limited content and netdecking that makes the game less diverse (than it can be).
 
Top Bottom