RNG ruins the game.

[SuperiorSaturn]

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).

That poker analogy fails on more levels than one. Unlike gwent poker is ultimately a game of calculating odds. The only way you could draw a valid parallel here is with hand draws but in both games the more you play, the more your odds are normalized resulting in a normal distribution of good to bad draws. This affects every player in the game. However when you play cards like bribery in a lot of cases you're playing lower odds than drawing an ace. I've seen and pulled more gold duplicates from bribery than I have ace pair relatively speaking. That's not real rng and it's no secret that the devs haven't addressed it at all.

Also silver cards are redundant when provisions exist. Unless you're talking about the cards cosmetically but that'd be pretty silly.

I played 329 games this season and won 70,

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm more impressed than anything. How?

 

[thetruerenter]

I think the 70 wins mostly be done with dun banners, milling, soldiers swarm and spellatel, but I play a lot of other decks that need testplay to be tuned and some even tuned aren't that strong against the overwhelming damage most decks throw around. It still is fun, I don't play to rank as high as possible that would limit my deckchoices.

btw-do you in poker play ace x? I'd say all aces below 10 are bad, best to muck down, however when you are in the later positions you can play looser when the bets allow you to, do not leak chips. You will see the serious players will not try to steal your blinds every turn. The ones with ace x (like 1-9) may try and lose all their stash.

 

[Archan6el]

Create is awesome to play with, if it got removed from the game that will be a real big loss.

That's nonsense. This game is advertised as a strategic game. As much as you may like Create, it is pure gambling and has nothing to do with strategy. If the vision is for Gwent to truly be a strategic game and e-sport, then CDPR needs to create proper ground rules regarding mechanics and card abilities aligned with that vision. Create should not be allowed.

 

[Pietriej]

Generally, too much RNG is the enemy of consistency in card games.
Card games have the "chaotic" already in their core design - you draw certain cards that may be better or worse in certain scenarios. Playing Leo Bonhart? If you're playing against a Weavess fed with Yghern or a Dire Mutated Hound it's great, but if your opponent is playing a dwarf swarm it's not that great anymore, and may even become useless in certain scenarios.
Adding to the game effects like "Create and play a unit from your opponent's starting deck" may be extremely powerful or extremely poor, and I'd love to see Gwent moving away from it.

 

[petr_klokan]

Adding to the game effects like "Create and play a unit from your opponent's starting deck" may be extremely powerful or extremely poor, and I'd love to see Gwent moving away from it.

I can’t help thinking about Bribery. That’s the type of card that is ludicrous.

How do we determine a fair (balanced ) provision cost of Bribery?

The card draws are already random enough. I can maybe understand ‘boost/damage random unit by specified amounts’ in some cases and that’s about it. No other random effects should exist in the game.

 

[thetruerenter]

It's not gambling, it is anticipating, that's something different. You'd better nerf down the damage doers to balance the game properly. The game is about gaining as much powerpoints as possible. Those controll decks hardly gain 30 points a round. Which is boring and extremely childish in levels speaking of being creative.

Bribery was there in the beta and did good, and it still is. Maybe it's provision should drop to 5 figuring the most removal doesn't require much provisions to play.

Create makes you learn the game better since you have no steady base, it's a great addition tactical, it doesn't even win that much though, I do play decks that rely 100% on RNG. If you want consistency you'd better play chess, that does start every game with the same set up. Got to add that in Assimilate deck the RNG is quite low, usually I do get the cards I need via via, like to purify, it's always there, wat are the odds?

-probably the RNG in NG is better then the one in SK.

 

[Archan6el]

It's not gambling, it is anticipating, that's something different.

You're not anticipating. Anticipating is expecting or predicting something. Create is a pure gamble, you cannot predict anything. With Bribery, you can only anticipate that it is a card from the opponent's deck. That's nothing. You are simply hoping for something good. Pure gambling and nothing strategic.

You'd better nerf down the damage doers to balance the game properly. The game is about gaining as much powerpoints as possible. Those controll decks hardly gain 30 points a round. Which is boring and extremely childish in levels speaking of being creative.

Your damage and control problem is off-topic.

Create in Bribery and Imperial Diplomacy can also create OP combo's that should never be possible because these type of cards are not in the NG faction for balance reasons, for example Zeal on Damien. Balance issues created by Create.

 

[thetruerenter]

Your damage and control problem is off-topic.

With 363 games played and 75 wins only I beg to differ Sir. The damage problem is actually OP where create and RNG are not, just watch what cards defenders usually protect. The damage system is abusive and the nerfs that it requires because of it does wreck other creative decks. An example is Zoltan:Scoundrel and theres plenty of more cards being ruined by damage abusing.

Thereby, if you predict or expect something it isn't anticipating anymore. Since anticipating is done by unexpected moves. You like the consistency of BETA? It was so consistent it was predictable as hell and thus not quite a challenge anymore.

 

[Guest 4336264]

That poker analogy fails on more levels than one. Unlike gwent poker is ultimately a game of calculating odds. The only way you could draw a valid parallel here is with hand draws but in both games the more you play, the more your odds are normalized resulting in a normal distribution of good to bad draws. This affects every player in the game. However when you play cards like bribery in a lot of cases you're playing lower odds than drawing an ace. I've seen and pulled more gold duplicates from bribery than I have ace pair relatively speaking. That's not real rng and it's no secret that the devs haven't addressed it at all.

Also silver cards are redundant when provisions exist. Unless you're talking about the cards cosmetically but that'd be pretty silly.


Don't take this the wrong way, I'm more impressed than anything. How?

The point of the poker analogy was to point out that in a real card game where real decks are being used, a player is subject to the randomness of a shuffled deck - that was the key point.

If GWENT were to be played with a real deck, it'd be the same thing - you'd deal out your cards from a shuffled deck and have the option to discard certain cards - place them back in the deck in the case of GWENT. You're always going to be subject to a random element of play (no one can hand pick each card they'd prefer to play - just try and create a deck that complements the various cards throughout the deck).

As for silver cards and provision costs, my point was that silver cards should be re-implemented and the provisions mechanic reworked to allow for silver cards to function correctly - reducing the overall number of gold cards and returning them to the stature that gold cards once held.

 

[SuperiorSaturn]

The point of the poker analogy was to point out that in a real card game where real decks are being used, a player is subject to the randomness of a shuffled deck - that was the key point.

If GWENT were to be played with a real deck, it'd be the same thing - you'd deal out your cards from a shuffled deck and have the option to discard certain cards - place them back in the deck in the case of GWENT. You're always going to be subject to a random element of play (no one can hand pick each card they'd prefer to play - just try and create a deck that complements the various cards throughout the deck).

As for silver cards and provision costs, my point was that silver cards should be re-implemented and the provisions mechanic reworked to allow for silver cards to function correctly - reducing the overall number of gold cards and returning them to the stature that gold cards once held.

I still don't get what the key point is supposed to illustrate. I don't think anyone is really complaining about draw luck because like I said those odds are subjected to both players and your average hand is normalized against unlucky draws. The only thing I could see implemented to address this at all is blacklisting but even that restricts mulligans for certain niche cards.
This is not to be mistaken for the lame "rng" that still hasn't been fixed after all those patches that you can still end up pinging the same unit to death and drawing duplicate golds from bribery.

As for silvers I think you're ultimately arguing for a cosmetic change since provisions and 200 scrap golds perfectly fulfill those roles way better than the old deck builder. Not all gold cards are 20+ point swings, some of them are still 6 point plays.

 

[Guest 4336264]

I still don't get what the key point is supposed to illustrate. I don't think anyone is really complaining about draw luck because like I said those odds are subjected to both players and your average hand is normalized against unlucky draws. The only thing I could see implemented to address this at all is blacklisting but even that restricts mulligans for certain niche cards.
This is not to be mistaken for the lame "rng" that still hasn't been fixed after all those patches that you can still end up pinging the same unit to death and drawing duplicate golds from bribery.

As for silvers I think you're ultimately arguing for a cosmetic change since provisions and 200 scrap golds perfectly fulfill those roles way better than the old deck builder. Not all gold cards are 20+ point swings, some of them are still 6 point plays.

You should probably re-read the post that opened this thread and perhaps then you will understand the point of my posts - they were written to address the concerns expressed in that post, nothing more, nothing less. I threw in the part about gold and silver based off of what others have stated in other threads - particularly the fact that silver is linked specifically to witchers (silver swords killing monsters).

Ultimately, I want GWENT to be as close to the original. I prefer the reduced number of gold (3 - 4 gold), around 6 silver cards and various numbers of bronze. How it should all work - how it can all be balanced - is for others to figure out. However, for me, the current situation where you have only gold and bronze is quite ridiculous. SILVER needs to be re-introduced, and gold cards need to be reduced.

 

[SuperiorSaturn]

You should probably re-read the post that opened this thread and perhaps then you will understand the point of my posts

The OP is so silly I couldn't read past the first line. I just thought you were for rng in general, not just draws.

I might agree about the change to include silvers cosmetically but I still stand by the current provisions mechanic since the whole reason it was implemented was to give the devs shorthand tools for monthly balance patches (which I don't fully agree with but it works).

As a gameplay feature they already exist in weaker golds. They're literally just silvers with the same gold borders. Some golds have a point ceiling lower than current bronzes. This is where I don't see any logic to reintroduce rigid deck building that wouldn't work at all in the current meta and would encourage nothing more than aggressive netdecking since you have no reason to move cards around to fit a certain limit. Maybe a system where each individual card tier had its own provision limit, would allow finer tuning for leaders but it still seems kind of pointless.

 

[Guest 4336264]

The OP is so silly I couldn't read past the first line. I just thought you were for rng in general, not just draws.

I might agree about the change to include silvers cosmetically but I still stand by the current provisions mechanic since the whole reason it was implemented was to give the devs shorthand tools for monthly balance patches (which I don't fully agree with but it works).

As a gameplay feature they already exist in weaker golds. They're literally just silvers with the same gold borders. Some golds have a point ceiling lower than current bronzes. This is where I don't see any logic to reintroduce rigid deck building that wouldn't work at all in the current meta and would encourage nothing more than aggressive netdecking since you have no reason to move cards around to fit a certain limit. Maybe a system where each individual card tier had its own provision limit, would allow finer tuning for leaders but it still seems kind of pointless.

No, I'm not for all RNG. For example, there's a specific card that when it's deployed can have a number between 1 and 9 (random). I think that kind of card is pretty stupid and needs to be removed or reworked.

As for gold and silver, if I've understood you correctly, it sounds as though the mechanism for silver cards within the current system already exists. You have stated that 'weaker golds' are 'literally silvers with... gold borders'. Well, if that is the case, I suggest they change the borders back to silver. I'd prefer that 'cosmetic' change to the current bronze and gold situation that currently exists.

 

[petr_klokan]

Bribery was there in the beta and did good, and it still is. Maybe it's provision should drop to 5 figuring the most removal doesn't require much provision to play.

How about Bribery into Philippa Blind Fury or Prince Stennis or The Great Oak? Plus it increases size potential, triggers Assimilate and loads damage dealing engines? How is that a 9pr card or 5pr card as you are suggesting?

What is the fair provision value of this gamble? What is the mathematical formula for this?

Statistically the law of large numbers should hold but what is the average outcome of Bribery and how many game do i need to play for the law to kick in? A thousand?

 

[nedders]

How about Bribery into Philippa Blind Fury or Prince Stennis or The Great Oak? Plus it increases size potential, triggers Assimilate and loads damage dealing engines? How is that a 9pr card or 5pr card as you are suggesting?

What is the fair provision value of this gamble? What is the mathematical formula for this?

Statistically the law of large numbers should hold but what is the average outcome of Bribery and how many game do i need to play for the law to kick in? A thousand?

I played a game where the oppo had the NG defender + steffan into double bribery. They "randomly" created Iris:Shade (I had Living Armor on the board) for 25 points swing, and then my defender card (Covenant).

 

[Battlebop]

No seriously does anyone at cdpr play Gwent? And dont give me the uhh we do play a couple of games every now and then excuse, id like to know if anyone actually plays gwent consistently. its clear all the lead devs dont know anything about Gwent, they really show it in the dev streams, especially when they are looking at some match, commenting.

Gwent has a LOT of problems and issues which the devs would defintely would notice and do something about if they where playing the game. Whoever designs the cards and what they do obviously doesn't play gwent ether because more and more rng gets added to the game. some rng cards are fine but only when you can control the rng like with artorius or telekenisis. cards that have 100% unpredictable rng like the so called "meme" cards musicians of blaviken and umas curse are so badly designed, they should not eaven exist! a waste of good art is what it is. And dont eaven get me started on angouleme and the change they made to summoning circle anyone who plays gwent would never have greenlighted such things.

And where has all the creativity gone? back in the beta gwent had a lot of this, like for example beta bloodmoon. remember how bloodmoon worked in the beta? no of course you dont because every creative dev who worked during the beta probably quit due to crunching or some other thing.

cdpr please pull your management together, please stop making gwent more and more boring and generic, and please for the love of god play your own damn game!

Post automatically merged: Oct 21, 2019

Oh and mods? I suggest you email this post to all the devs.

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

Rng cards are loved by meme for fun deck builders, for the lols

 

[Moors-]

I don't have problem with the current state of RNG, but there are quite a few issues, as you mentioned.

For me, the most important ones are:

• UX/UI design (no "queue up actions" for 1+ year?)
• generic card desing and lack of creativity in mechanics
• a will to produce cards by value ≈ provisions amount formula, there are not enough scalable cards (most grants you a fixed amount of points)
• underdeveloped archetypes
• all tier-1 decks follows the same game plan with only micro decisions (the only macro decision is to bleed/not to bleed r2)
• most combo plays involves only 2 cards.

 

[Battlebop]

Rng cards are loved by meme for fun deck builders, for the lols

"meme cards" "for the lols" a bad excuse for poorly designed rng create cards that put you in a disadvantage and helps you lose. nobody has fun with meme decks because nobody enjoys losing.

 

[Jan_Szybawski]

I am very dissapointed with Triss: telekinesis - it could be really good 11 provinsion 4 str 5 dmg removal with alzur's Bolt - so something, that many deck's really needs in current meta. And usually is - but when opponent plays a lot of bronze specials in his deck (like Syndycate deck's usually does) poor selection of created cards only from his deck could loose a game for us so it is better to don't play it at all :/ it shouldn't be like that in so highly provinsion card