Something needs to be done in regards to bribery

+
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?

Because sadly enough it's the most optimal way to play monster bleed. There just isn't much room to be creative.
 
Well, at least its balanced now. But perhaps its also an idea to remove crime cards from Aguara. They are useless if you don't play syndicate.
 
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.

I got sidetracked. As nobody posted their deck that bribery screwed over, I'll just go with the two extremes I posted. Spoiler tags don't seem to work, so I'll leave out the detailed working.

One extreme is an enslave deck with minimal units. Unique units are 2 x 5, 7, 5 x 8, 9, 2 x 10, 11. For this unit composition, the median highest provision cost is 10. There's a 62% (816 out of 1320 unique draws) chance of having at least one 10+ option among the 3 cards. The average highest provision cost among the 3 choices is 9.61

Other extreme was the NR deck with almost all units, half of them 4-5. Unique units are 2 x 4, 7 x 5, 6, 2 x 7, 8, 2 x 9, 2 x 11, 12.

This time, the median is 9. 44% (2166 out of 4896 unique draws) chance of having one of the 11+ options available. The average highest provision cost is 9.18

Most deck compositions look like they'll see bribery pull a card with a 9-10 provision on average. Bribery is probably too cheap currently, as you're using an 8 provision card to consistently play a 10+ provision card, and the likely worst case is a 7 provision that's not super helpful for the board state/your deck. It probably should be at least a 9 (if you make it a little less than the average it pulls due to the risk of unhelpful abilities) or a 10-11 (if you make it a little higher because of the benefit of it being a tactic & easier to tutor/repeat and the utility of getting 3 potential options). I'd say it should be at least a 10. It certainly seems an auto-include in every single NG deck at its current cost.

Of course, this assumes the bribery draw is randomly from the pool of unique units. I haven't seen evidence it isn't, my own use of the card in arena suggests it really is random, and selective memory & anecdotal data based on the times our opponent got a really good draw isn't good data. I'd still be curious to see the results of trying bribery a few hundred times and recording the options, but not enough to do the testing myself.
 
Bribery is shocking, it's completely broken and allows CDPR's ludicrous game-fixing mechanic to be enforced.

Here's an example - just won a match, easily, so head into another one. Decided to play a longer R2 and end up with bribery created NG defender, then Glynis sat nicely in a row. Then the oppo plays Stefan. I know double bribery is on the way, but I've got my defender so should be ok; nope. First bribery creates Vilgefortz. He blitzes my defender, which summons from the deck....my defender. Activates Stefan, which creates Sweers, seizes my second defender. I mean wtf is that about? There's ZERO skill. This is the problem when Gwent mostly tries to avoid RNG - when there IS RNG, it epically fails.
 
I was thinking about Bribery, and I think it would be much better if instead of raising Provision Cost, it would have an effect similar to Nilfgaardian Knight: "Create and play a card from the opponent's starting deck. Boost an enemy unit by 4."

Then the word 'bribe' would make sense: one player gets an extra card from the opponent's starting deck, the other gets 4 Provisions worth of points.
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
I was thinking about Bribery, and I think it would be much better if instead of raising Provision Cost, it would have an effect similar to Nilfgaardian Knight: "Create and play a card from the opponent's starting deck. Boost an enemy unit by 4."

Then the word 'bribe' would make sense: one player gets an extra card from the opponent's starting deck, the other gets 4 Provisions worth of points.
Doesn't that just raise more issues? Such as, what if there's no enemy unit to boost, will Bribery just self destruct? Plus if you boost a unit but then bribery into something like a Bonhart that still leaves players feeling terrible. For some cards slight changes are in order but when it comes to RNG nonsense you might as well just rework.

How about Bribery (Artifact) 'block the next instance of damage the opponent tries to inflict on your side of the board' (including cards like lacerate) if timed well (guessing your opponents remaining cards in hand) you could cost the opponent tremendously and if timed wrong your opponent can circumvent it with a low damage dealing card.

That would obviously have to be the cheapest golden card in the game though.
 
Doesn't that just raise more issues? Such as, what if there's no enemy unit to boost, will Bribery just self destruct? Plus if you boost a unit but then bribery into something like a Bonhart that still leaves players feeling terrible. For some cards slight changes are in order but when it comes to RNG nonsense you might as well just rework.

How about Bribery (Artifact) 'block the next instance of damage the opponent tries to inflict on your side of the board' (including cards like lacerate) if timed well (guessing your opponents remaining cards in hand) you could cost the opponent tremendously and if timed wrong your opponent can circumvent it with a low damage dealing card.

That would obviously have to be the cheapest golden card in the game though.

I don't think it would raise more issues, but who knows.
Blocking damage has even less to do with being bribed though, so I think some form of tradeoff has to be incorporated into this card. Even somethign crazy as "Seize an enemy unit. At the end of the round, the unit returns to its owner and gains Resilience." I know thigns I'm suggesting aren't balanced at all. I'm just saying that Bribery needs to do something with an actual bribery.
 
Bribery is "Create", a crappy RNG mechanic that shouldn't be in this "strategic" game. Creating a copy of an enemy doesn't make any sense. It should bribe an enemy; Bribery should be like the current "Seize" mechanic and move a 3 strength enemy unit to your side. The current "Seize" makes no sense either as it simply doesn't represent what "seize" means. "Seize" should always lock and do something like: Lock an enemy unit of 6 or less strength, remove all its statuses and armor, half its strength and move it to your side. More realistic, creative and balanced.
 
Last edited:
Lock an enemy unit of 6 or less strength, remove all its statuses and armor, half its strength and move it to your side.

Might as well just get rid of the whole keyword then. I get your point, but gutting the whole mechanic isn't really 'creative'. Seizing should definitely lock, that part I fully agree with, I could even entertain the thought of resetting a seized unit, but the rest... no.

I also disagree with Create being a crappy mechanic. I do believe they should make it more restricted - as in, instead of picking 3 random cards from a whole faction or border color, it should relate to either your own cards or the enemy's card at any given time. Also "from your opponent's starting deck" shouldn't be a thing. It should always pick something from the current deck, would be way more lore-friendly and convincing then. Unless Create is somehow supposed to be the art of time travel or necromancy.
 
Might as well just get rid of the whole keyword then. I get your point, but gutting the whole mechanic isn't really 'creative'. Seizing should definitely lock, that part I fully agree with, I could even entertain the thought of resetting a seized unit, but the rest... no.
To seize means to capture and not for a unit to join your side. If a unit is captured, it makes sense that that unit loses its statuses, armor and some strength. This in turn provides balance against the easy Purify to reactivate a strong captured engine.
I also disagree with Create being a crappy mechanic. I do believe they should make it more restricted - as in, instead of picking 3 random cards from a whole faction or border color, it should relate to either your own cards or the enemy's card at any given time. Also "from your opponent's starting deck" shouldn't be a thing. It should always pick something from the current deck, would be way more lore-friendly and convincing then. Unless Create is somehow supposed to be the art of time travel or necromancy.
I agree that Create must be more restricted, but that inevitably means that Create in its current state is a crappy mechanic.
 
If a unit is captured, it makes sense that that unit loses its statuses, armor and some strength.

It depends on what you capture. If you capture a siege unit, that actually makes no sense, it's not like the machine will throw off it's own parts and not work just to piss the oppressors off. Same goes for a mindless monster. For sapient creatures, yeah that would make sense, but I guess that's why the mechanic was called 'Charm' and not 'Seize' originally.

but that inevitably means that Create in its current state is a crappy mechanic.

I would say unrefined, not crappy.
 
It depends on what you capture. If you capture a siege unit, that actually makes no sense, it's not like the machine will throw off it's own parts and not work just to piss the oppressors off. Same goes for a mindless monster. For sapient creatures, yeah that would make sense, but I guess that's why the mechanic was called 'Charm' and not 'Seize' originally.
It's mainly a balance thing. A lot of players don't really like the mechanic of getting a strong engine stolen and used against them just like that. If it gets weakened with Seize (that should also lock), it's at least a bit easier to counter if it gets unlocked.
I would say unrefined, not crappy.
Saying "unrefined" is a bit more refined, but quite aligned.
 
The consensus I'm getting from these forums is that Bribery is indeed one of the most broken cards in the game. The problem is that it's paired with OTHER broken cards in Nilfgaard's deck. Stefan/ Damien (At least make them Melee Only) etc

I've heard Nilfgaard mains say themselves that this card is broken, and believe me I think NG's concept is fantastic. Using your opponents cards against them is cool and I wasn't initially upset about them...BUT

After game after game of NG using 2 Briberies, 2 Leader Abilities, 2 Lock and Capture Cards, Defenders that USE 2 ABILITIES.... this is getting out of control man!

Why don't CD Projeckt Red release the MOST played faction in competative Gwent. I guarantee you NG is at the top!
 
Just a little fun for everyone to get in on; share your experience in your Gwent games today how Bribery makes you laugh :) Like this double Stefan Skellen for the triple Bribery Gold Cards
1.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 2.JPG
    2.JPG
    109.7 KB · Views: 60
The card would be ok, when the player gets a card of similar value of 8 or the chances are distributed normally. Unfortunately it's too often that bribery chooses a card of higher value.
It should easy for CDPR to analyze it (statistic).
 
If Bribery also included bronze copies from the opponent's deck, I think that would balance things out greatly and there would be no need to kill an otherwise cool combo with Stefan. And no I'm not defending him because we have the same name lol.
 
If Bribery also included bronze copies from the opponent's deck, I think that would balance things out greatly and there would be no need to kill an otherwise cool combo with Stefan. And no I'm not defending him because we have the same name lol.

I think so too, if that is in fact an issue. Rumour says it is, and a fix would go a very long way.
 
Anyone notice any difference with Bribery after it was supposedly fixed to include ALL card copies instead of each unique card copy?
 
Top Bottom