Something needs to be done in regards to bribery

+
I played with and against it, I am not a NG hater either.

My fundamental question is this: based on what exactly can anyone determine fair (balanced) provision cost of Bribery?

In my view its hard without running something like a monte carlo simulation (advanced model to estimate random outcomes) which i doubt CDPR did.

Also, I think its provision cost is way too low. If it was fair, given the RNG outcome, people wouldn’t play it consistently and constantly aiming often to play it twice (!) on competitive level.

The random outcome must simply be great value for 9p in more then 50% of the time, hence highly profitable.

EDIT: I believe the provision cost was calculated like this: created cards range 6-14 provisions, average is 10 but we are generous and give it 9 ignoring its ‘Tactics’ tag. If this is the case there are multiple obvious issues with this calculation.
 
Last edited:
I played with and against it, I am not a NG hater either.

My fundamental question is this: based on what exactly can anyone determine fair (balanced) provision cost of Bribery?

In my view its hard without running something like a monte carlo simulation (advanced model to estimate random outcomes) which i doubt CDPR did.

Also, I think its provision cost is way too low. If it was fair, given the RNG outcome, people wouldn’t play it consistently and constantly aiming often to play it twice (!) on competitive level.

The random outcome must simply be great value for 9p in more then 50% of the time, hence highly profitable.

EDIT: I believe the provision cost was calculated like this: created cards range 6-14 provisions, average is 10 but we are generous and give it 9 ignoring its ‘Tactics’ tag. If this is the case there are multiple obvious issues with this calculation.

I dont think that bribery is OP but the fact is that I play NR and almost always opponent get My Falibor or Philippa From bribery
 
I dont think that bribery is OP but the fact is that I play NR and almost always opponent get My Falibor or Philippa From bribery
How is it not OP if you’re telling me your opponent gets almost always 11p card for 9p plus the benefit of “Tactics” tag?
 
I like the card but it's cardpool definately seems to be small and thus not rng but consitent. This also is the case for the NG Runestone, if you need an assimilatie unit that can purify you can play it and 99% draw it. The Soup card also has this same issue, for being rng it shows me a lot of time the same faces.
 
I might have misunderstood something at the beginning, so let me summarize.

A. there is no bug

B. create generates 3 unique cards and they are always different(even if there are duplicates in the pool?)

C. under these conditions the chance to redraw a unique card with your subsequent bribery is at 25 unique cards 23%, If you run duplicates of course its more eg with 20 unique cards its 27%. The chance of playing a triple is somewhere around 5-7% (It isn't really a rare event).
On a second thought this might be a slight issue as it enables the player to use borderline strong cards more often then the ones who are using them, who are usually limited to use them only once. But then again, this game has long time passed the point where extra copies of gold cards were an issue: see here
So If you want to touch bribery due to this you might as well check out all the other cards that generate extra copies of gold
cards or recycle them.

D. Another target of complaints was the generation of gold cards. If 50% of your cards are gold the chance to draw at least one golden card for your opponent is 87,5%. but bribery is a gold anyway.

E. The average value of card is for example for the deck I am using right now at 6,7 provisions. Bribery is 8 provisions. The card on its own is balanced value wise. the danger is more indirect.

a, The danger lies within the units that reuse bribery on field again and again creating a card advantage with it. But who in their right mind wouldn't target damien or skellen when they hit the field? IF anything this discussion should have been about those cards (and that a control got a defender), and whether they need a power nerf because alzurs thunder is too expensive and killing 11-10 provision cards for 5 provision is out of fashion in current meta.

b, due to the reactive nature of the card it punishes players using standalone (=requires no set up /perform on their own with no support ) cards AND imbalanced cards wich generate way more value compared to their provisions cost or are way too turn efficient. In short imbalanced meta boosts bribery. This is of course terrible, we should nerf bribery instead of balancing. In fact and this is the funny part "Nilfgaardians are known to use your own strengh against you". Due to the conceptual design of NG it will allways benefit from the lack of balance and too much standaloneness (which is sort of the same imo).

D.
Facing a bribery reused again and again creates deep emotional scars. Already 3 can create severe frustration. This is sort of a surprise cause how many times can bribery(or any tactic) used in a single game?
1. Tactic card (here bribery)
2. Stefan Skellen (card advantage)
3. hero ability Tactical withdrawal on Skellen/Damien to reset order [simmilar possibilities in mirros with ardal and henrietta] (card advantage)
4. Damien de la Tour reseting tactical withdrawal to repeat 3 (card advantage or an eternal reset replace cylce with Damien which makes no sense but why not)
5. Letho: the kingslayer copies Damien or Skellen (card advantage)
6. Syanna copying Letho's deploy skill (card advantage but too expensive)
7. Decoy on Skellen (card advantage at a later point,hey lets use Skellen on an other round too)
8.Mandrake on Skellen/Damien (no card advantage Madrake just generated a bribery)
9. Assire Var Anahid shuffling tactic card back (reset for another round, no card advantage)

at some point slowy provision cost becomes an issue but not replaying Bribery

10. Renew some fancy card for example Skellen? (Skellen again will generate a card later, card advantage just too expensive)
11. Vigo's Muzzle on Damien/Skellen (we have a mirror, there is no card advantage thanks to a fancy lock, so we have to purify that away first)
12. Yennefer's invocation (we still have the mirror but we were kind enough to let the opponent copy Skellen before so we could have some fun use for this card, no card advantage on that turn, just later when we repla.....)
13.Hanmaruyn's blue dream (inefficient, but somehow over the course of this mirror some fancy card got down into the opponents graveyard; just where should I get all the provisions from? hmm how about opening a thread to manipulate provision cap in some indirect way)
14. Uma's curse, somehow I got place for this card andluckily It generates a candidate from the previous list so I could create an extra Bribery, wait but then this means that in theory
15. Bribery can generate in a mirror any participant of this list and with this generate additional causal chains of card generation!! If eg Bribery->Skellen->Bribery loop is possible you can get 13 Skellens down on field by turn 5?? D:
This includes a Bribery->Bribery->Bri...? Then the number of possible Briberies in a mirror is ∞. The number of possible Bri-berries in a normal game is probably somewhere around 7-9 at least. Complaining about 3 Bribery...
 
I Think you're overcomplicating things here:howdy: players that have stuck around for a while know Gwent has a tricky history with things that are based on 'randomness' (see the 'mulligan bug' and knighthood after release etc.)
If so, could run a simulation and see how much does Bribery pull off specific cards versus a fixed deck.
Then the course of action would be for the developers to figure out if there's anything wrong with the RNG system, and fix it. Simple as that.

But if the issue had nothing to do with "the rng system is busted". Then, could run some math, figure out the chance of each individual pick versus some meta decks. and average the values you'd get.

After calculating those numbers, one would figure how much "risk vs reward" the card Bribery is. Then, we can talk about how busted/random/unhealthy it is.
 
How is it not OP if you’re telling me your opponent gets almost always 11p card for 9p plus the benefit of “Tactics” tag?

I just don't feel as much threat from it. But fact remains
Post automatically merged:

I've played today and indeed enymy didn't get good selection of cards from bariery; so I change opinion and indeed it is random - but second or third usage of it with Stefan Skellen should be RNG also , not a copy
 
Last edited:
Bribery works exactly as intended. No conspiracy, no trickery in the Create mechanics, or whatever. When bribery is replayed you have a chance to get the same card available among the 3 choices. In fact, if we consider a base of 20 unique cards in a deck, this chance is around 15%, which is quite high.
I attempted some rough calculations earlier in this thread but made a few errors.

Bribery creates units. There are 13-25 units in a deck (probably with some duplicates).

Units generally range 4-14 provision. Average is 9 provisions. This will be different for different decks, though.

Bribery offers a choice of 3 cards.

All the above makes the calculations of expected outcome quite complex, IMO.

In addition Bribery provides insight into opponent’s deck, has the ‘Tactics’ tag benefits and triggers Assimilate.

Can anyone justify its 8 provisions cost is fair? IMO it’s way too low. That’s why it’s an auto-include in all NG competitive decks.

As it is a gold card I suspect its ‘RNG’ is somehow skewed to offer at least one gold at most times (i.e. getting 3 bronzes is very rare event). I am purely speculating but in my experience I have seen way too many high value golds created rather than low value bronzes. But I admit I haven’t used it say 1,000 times to compile relevant statistics.

Lastly, it’s bad for the game to have such non-transparent, speculative, yet somehow profitable cards/mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Something has clearly happened with this card. Every time it's played against me, it pulls a high end Gold. Last match it got my Regis and I actually had a few units lined up with 1,2,3 strength. I hate it because it adds to the feeling that the game is sometimes simply 'fixed' against you; like when playing FIFA online, you've won a few and suddenly your 95 pace striker is getting easily caught and tackled by a lumbering defender.
 
I have two huge issues with this card.

-First and foremost this is a strong RNG card. I really don't like RNG cards. There is enough RNG built into the game already through the match up and your card draw. Adding in cards that can roll low or very high simply makes the game worse.

-My second problem with this card is that there there is a good chance that the good card the bribery player pulls will straight up counter your own strategy. One example is playing a swarm deck and your opponent pulls something like glusty or yennifer.
 
The only RNG I dislike with Bribery is when it creates a card that counters your own deck, for example with Glusty or Ozzrel. Other than that, I think the card is fine.
CTRL + C

there is a good chance that the good card the bribery player pulls will straight up counter your own strategy. One example is playing a swarm deck and your opponent pulls something like glusty or yennifer.
CTRL + V

:sneaky:
 
I like the card but it's cardpool definately seems to be small and thus not rng but consitent. This also is the case for the NG Runestone, if you need an assimilatie unit that can purify you can play it and 99% draw it. The Soup card also has this same issue, for being rng it shows me a lot of time the same faces.
Well, I don't really have a viceral issue with Bribery myself but if you want to find one it's definitely what you pointed out.
Everybody else talk about Bribery as being an RNG card but the thing is, it's barely RNG at all.
3 cards out of a 25 cards deck (no sorry, you have to remove the special and artifact cards, which reduces the pool even further) is nothing and you have to add to that the fact you picked your cards based on how good they are (meaning that, unless you have a drastically different game plan vs your opponent, the chances that they get a good card are huge).

Having said that, I think there is a lot other things that are more problematic than Bribery atm. They could increase its provision cost a little bit if they really want to but there is some more pressing matters that are actually ruining the experience in quiet a few games (Portal, Pincer maneuver, Enslave ect).
 
I am fed up with bribery and anyone who defends it either had an agenda or doesn't know what they are talking about. Bribery has FAR too good odds to pull game winning golds and its obvious when you see it done over and over and over again. I just got out of a game were the guy pulled Jutta for 12 points and then Geralt Axii for something like 20 points. This is not an exception it happens constantly and the only thing different about his game was the guy didn't pull the same gold both plays which is what I am usually looking at. Maybe the devs will do something about all of the broken BS in this game next patch. Fingers crossed.
 
but second or third usage of it with Stefan Skellen should be RNG also , not a copy

I did an arena run where I picked Stefan Skellen early, and Bribery was one of the two tactics cards I ended up being able to pick. In 5-6 games where I used double bribery, at no point did I get the same 3 cards on both occasions. Once I did end up choosing the same card on both occasions, but the other two choices were different. On at least one occasion my clear best choice was a bronze card (forget the name, 2 power, heal unit for 3 and then boost it by 3)

If so, could run a simulation and see how much does Bribery pull off specific cards versus a fixed deck.
Then the course of action would be for the developers to figure out if there's anything wrong with the RNG system, and fix it. Simple as that.

This is something that shouldn't be too hard to do. There are enough people in this thread interested in and/or upset with the card to organise to play 50ish games in total where the other person's deck is 100% known, both put bribery in the deck, hopefully get 100 or more samples of what is drawn and so draw some conclusions.

Bribery offers a choice of 3 cards.

All the above makes the calculations of expected outcome quite complex, IMO.

It's not too tough. I've just googled a couple of decklists. Two that have enslave and the bare minimum number of units, the provision costs of its unique units are 4, 5, 5, 7, 4 x 8, 9, 10, 11. 11 unique units. Other has 5, 5, 7, 5 x 8, 9, 10, 10, 11. I'll try and do an average provision cost for bribery later today, by assuming that higher provision cost = better choice. But very quickly, for that 2nd deck list, your chance of pulling at least a 9 provision with bribery and it being rng only is 74.5%. You're virtually guaranteed to pull at least an 8 provision in both cases, so the average will certainly be above 8.

Looking at an annoying NR deck which relies on 2 x vernon roche, it's quite unit heavy. 2 x 4, 7 x 5, 6, 2 x 7, 8, 2 x 9, 2 x 11, 12. 18 unique units, 5 of them 9+. Of the decks that people copy in an attempt to be competitive, I'd guess that may have the lowest % of large provision units? In this case, the chance of bribery pulling a 9+ provision card is still 65%.

Working out the average best provision cost is quite easy, just a little time consuming, but if anyone wants to give me half a dozen typical unit distributions for popular decks, or the deck they were playing that got defeated by opposition briberies, I'll do it tonight.

My guess is a reasonable way to value bribery would be to look at that average provision cost, add small amounts due to it being a tactic, due to having the potential utility of choosing a couple of different good cards, dock it slightly due to the chance you pull high provision stuff that's not useful with the current board or your own deck. I'm pretty sure that'll be higher than 8.
 
Last edited:
Did they change Bribery already? it didnt have such groundbreaking cardchoices the last times I played it. The same occurs with Aguara, for an 11 provision unit the latter gave me in one game just 3 points which you can consider worse then like....all bronzes.
 
Did they change Bribery already? it didnt have such groundbreaking cardchoices the last times I played it. The same occurs with Aguara, for an 11 provision unit the latter gave me in one game just 3 points which you can consider worse then like....all bronzes.

Something has happened, for sure. Aguara is absolutely abysmal. Not only are the choices I got in about 4 consecutive games poor, they actually played into the hand of the opposition.

Every time CDPR "meddle", they seem to screw up the more interesting cards and leave the broken, dull, repetitve decks alone. If I see another Monster bleeding deck with the same boring cards I'll go crazy. Why do players keep doing the same boring things?
 
Top Bottom