Something is off With the Coinflip

[gigabomb]

We did an exercise in class once, we had about 80 people that all flipped a coin 10 times, and we wrote down the numbers. Wouldn't you guess, it was a nearly perfect normal distribution with a few people getting 10 of 10 heads and tails. You have a 50/50 chance every coin flip, it resets every time, and the odds aren't cumulative. If a roulette wheel hits 00 five times in a row, it is just as likely to hit 00 the 6th time as it was the other 5 times, but they post the last 10 or 20 numbers hit by the table because people generally make assumptions about chance based on history. I try to avoid becoming superstitious about things like this..

The devs are working on a solution to make it fair. Sorry if you are on the losing end, but keep in mind that someone is always on the winning side of your coin flips.

 

[SigilFey]

We did an exercise in class once, we had about 80 people that all flipped a coin 10 times, and we wrote down the numbers. Wouldn't you guess, it was a nearly perfect normal distribution with a few people getting 10 of 10 heads and tails. You have a 50/50 chance every coin flip, it resets every time, and the odds aren't cumulative. If a roulette wheel hits 00 five times in a row, it is just as likely to hit 00 the 6th time as it was the other 5 times, but they post the last 10 or 20 numbers hit by the table because people generally make assumptions about chance based on history. I try to avoid becoming superstitious about things like this..

The devs are working on a solution to make it fair. Sorry if you are on the losing end, but keep in mind that someone is always on the winning side of your coin flips.

This is not official or anything, just me yapping:

I'll admit openly that I really dislike randomization mechanics. To a large extent. But at the same time, I really love games that use it (XCOM, wargames, Risk, d20 RPGs, etc.) The issue is when randomization trumps intelligence...which is always bound to happen whenever there is a "100% random element" (...yes, I sort of mean that as a pun). Now, philosophy:

People play games to both be challenged and have fun. If randomization adds spice and excitement, that's great, but when the RNG takes my carefully laid plans and puts me into an unwinnable situation -- completely ignoring my input -- the fun vanishes. It's fine when I "win some, lose some". But what happens when I'm in that bottom 2% that rolls snake-eyes 10 times in a row? That's not fun; that's frustrating and dispiriting. The thing is -- that is part of 100% honest randomization.

So the real question is: "Does this game benefit from 100% honest randomization? Would it, perhaps, be better for it to utilize a weighted system?"

The way I look at it, everything (in life) works best in 3's. I think a tracking system that only allows 3 matching results in a row before forcing the other result might be better. So, if I get 3 "heads" in a row, I now KNOW that I'll get a "tails" next toss. Psychologically, it means I know I'm still in the game, and it means I'm not at the mercy of sheer luck. For example (sticking with the XCOM thing), say I carefully move 3 soldiers to flank...I fire...and manage to miss once, twice, and a third time. Come on! / Give me a break! / What the fuph! That's utterly ridiculous, and it leaves me in an impossible spot. That's basically Game Over right there! There's nothing I can possibly do! Rage-quit. / Swearing diatribe. / Save-scum.

Frustration, upset, and disenchantment.

But...what if I KNOW the next shot will be a guaranteed critical because I suffered such outrageous misfortune? What if the game is programmed to recognize complete ridiculousness and compensate for it? I can now plan accordingly to deal with my misfortune. Psychologically, I'm still very much in the game and there's a reason for me to keep playing.

I think weighted randomization accomplishes several things:

+ It ensures that even great misfortune is somehow balanced by an integral game mechanic.
+ Intelligent strategy and/or problem-solving are recognized and rewarded, even if the "dice" don't cooperate.
+ No, one element can suddenly and nonsensically begin "dominating" simply because an RNG was in its favor.
+ It creates an omnipresent understanding that ridiculous misfortune will directly lead to a guaranteed reward, encouraging perseverance in play.
+ It helps that bottom 2% out a bit, keeps the top 2% in check, and it should be almost invisible to the last 86%.

Is this 100% "authentic"? No...but neither is a game. Any game. The game is not there to mimic reality, it's there as an escape. It doesn't need to be 100% "authentic"; it simply needs to accomplish its goal. And that goal is to engage and reward players, create a challenge, and generate fun. 100% honest randomization simply opens up the possibility for many players to be robbed of the experience.

Why chance it?

(If I want 100% randomization that results in crushing defeat no matter what I do...I'll just go sit in on a school board meeting.)

 

[gigabomb]

As a pseudo random MM pvp game, as close to true random as possible makes sense given that you aren't just playing cards against the same person over and over. Weighted random assumes that both players accept that there is a skill difference between the players, or that the random element is inherently broken.

I think the devs accept that it is broken, and they are working on a solution, but pseudo random coin flips in a pvp game with random matchmaking is not a good solution because it would mandate further MM limits.

I could argue that I shouldn't play against a faction 3 times in a row because my deck composition is weak against that faction in the meta, backed by their own statistics, that this is damaging my experience, and that they need to create new MM limits.

And what about the 25 card limit and random card draws? if I draw adrenaline rush in the last round, I shouldn't be able to draw resilience in my next game that lasts to round 3, should I? Unless I already have a card that mulligans it in my hand, they can certainly control for that, but it puts the person I am playing against the second time around at a clear disadvantage, and this is a game they are trying to put in the tournament scene.

 

[OverKing53]

If I observed it correctly, then it's not the winner of last round, who starts next. It's the player who played the last card.
So if you played the last card, pass and lose in round 1, then you will start first in next round.

 

[Theodrik]

If I observed it correctly, then it's not the winner of last round, who starts next. It's the player who played the last card. So if you played the last card, pass and lose in round 1, then you will start first in next round.

Negative, you didn't observe it correctly. I's the player who won the last round that starts the next, always.

 

[WAVE4]

Unluck with coinflip

For last 2 days i won litteraly 1(!) coinflip. How it even possible if the chances are 50%? It some bug, or luck really hates me.
Proof

 

[Draconifors]

WAVE4 Thread merged.

You've just been really unlucky. 50 % chance to win = 50 % chance to lose.

 

[cwlouis]

I kept track of match record for sometimes. And the coinflip is about 50 50.

 

[Teplokot]

Completely forgot about my thread, looks like it grew into another conspiracy theorycraft one which is a shame.

After playing this game for excessive amount of time i must agree that one the long run coinflip is as close to 50% as it could be but still there are long streaks which is actually a proof of RNG working as intended.

Problem is it is getting on ones nerves and because of this most online games are using pRNG system instead that have a pity timer of a sort that prevents streaks. As an example crit chance calculation in DOTA lprevents you from getting a critical ten times in a row but also iterally guarantees a crit ever so often.

I merely wish we had a similar system in GWENT

 

[partci]

Teplokot Funny how I am constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) on a 7 out of 10 losing CF side, but never on the opposite. Like, I am used to start first, which is kinda OKish in Casual, but if I decide to go on the Ladder (I am Rank 20) it becomes a nightmares nightmare.

 

[balKilen]

the whole mechanic should be redone honestly. the guy who has to start is at a disadvantage throughout the whole game really often.

 

[coralzombie]

Teplokot Funny how I am constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) on a 7 out of 10 losing CF side, but never on the opposite. Like, I am used to start first, which is kinda OKish in Casual, but if I decide to go on the Ladder (I am Rank 20) it becomes a nightmares nightmare.

It's a coin flip, the way it should be. a 50/50 chance to have an advantage. How would you change it? Give the loser an extra card or mulligan? Doesn't seem fair to me.