Starting first on the first round

[Lexandre]

Starting first on the first round

by now it should've become pretty obvious to most gwent players that starting first puts you into disadvantage, heck thats even part of ST faction strategy to make you go first after you lose the round

im confident it has to be addressed before the game goes out of beta so how about giving some sort of benefit to the player who goes first on the first round?

the most blunt solution would be allowing the player who goes first to draw an extra card, but thats probably too strong so how about giving the player who goes first some sort of unit that has 1 strength and no abilities as an extra card?

 

[mkey82]

I agree with Lexandre here. Going first is a direct disadvantage, if for nothing else but because the opponent will have an extra card for the second turn, if they decided to quit the turn after you have made your move. Other card games deal with this issue in various ways.

One possible solution is to give the starting player and additional mulligan card or the second player simply gets one less redraw. To that effect the coin would need to be tossed before the mulligans are made.

 

[ThePrody]

yes, an additional mulligan seems the fairest solution

 

[SarahGabriella]

In YUGIOH the person who goes first draws 6 cards instead of 5 to make up for the fact they go first. But i also think decks are way to thin atm with just 25 cards compared to how many we draw in 3 rounds plus spy cards and other drawing effects.

 

[mkey82]

Scrolls also has/had one extra card for the starting player, but there you had a minimum of 50 cards which made more sense.

 

[Isi23_23]

Playing first is such big disadvantage because playing last cad could give you huge edge. So adding extra card to first player is certainly not goo idea, it would be much more imbalanced other way around, you would have extra card and chance to play last.

But I agree we need something that balance clear disadvantage in playing first. Extra low power unit in play is one option. Though I really did not like how this will be better for some strategies that try play lot of units and cards like Hawker Healer, Odrin, Yen and meaningless against cards like Harald and Tremors. Maybe just add power to first player without unit. But I'm not sure if this would not lead to too much first round passes without playing card.

Extra mulligan is certainly option or maybe ties could go to first player.

 

[SarahGabriella]

Scrolls also has/had one extra card for the starting player, but there you had a minimum of 50 cards which made more sense.

We should either draw less cards or have more minimum of cards in the deck. 50 would be too much but i think about adding 10 making it 35 would be ok.

 

[mkey82]

Well, that would need to be tested, in detail. Making 35 the base would be quite a large change, altering decks substantially.

 

[ManuW3]

I don't see such a big deal. Even in this scenario you present that someone passes after you make your play, they've given you a round, you can do the same for them in the second and you're even again for the third. Besides many factions have ways to deal with it. Most skellige can play cards on the first turn of the first round that can be recovered lately with added str, scoiatel can directly deal with this, monsters keeps the card on the field. It's just not that much of a determinant issue IMO.

 

[aholeel]

I disagree with most of the ideas in this thread. The "disadvantage" of going first is adequately compensated for by cards like Ciri, the multitude of ways to have a card carry over to the next round, gold cards (which are mostly protected from special cards your opponent might play), all of the cards that let you draw more cards, the fact that there are some cards you actually want to get on the field early so that you can make the greatest use of their effect (like Hawker Support), AND, most importantly of all, if your opponent doesn't play a card to counter you, you just won the round.

Yes, forcing your opponent to go first two rounds in a row does give you a slight advantage, but that's the whole point of the Scoia'tael faction ability. Out of all the faction abilities we currently have, it's probably the least powerful. There's no need to nerf it.

 

[ManuW3]

People are bickering about everything now, it's getting silly.

 

[gamingdevil800]

In YUGIOH the person who goes first draws 6 cards instead of 5 to make up for the fact they go first. But i also think decks are way to thin atm with just 25 cards compared to how many we draw in 3 rounds plus spy cards and other drawing effects.

Please enough or I'll send you to the shadow realm

 

[OwNeDUp]

Well I playing 1st isn't the best but it doesn't matter that much at the end. More problematic might be to play against scoiatael and start all 3 rounds 1st coz it's just getting stupid sometimes. I feel like ST abillity might be too strong.

 

[muetdhivers]

Too strong, too weak, you doesnt agree on the SCO passive...And some seams like they dont understand the power of playing last, and the most important thing in gwent : card advantage.

SCO passive is strong. the weakest was the monster one i think, and the change ignoring AR made it a little better, but still, it often work against the player if you dont build a deck specially for it.
SCO, NR, and SKE passive work for you, doesnt matter witch kind of deck you use.

the random of the first turn can be the deciding factor of a game, more often than you maybe think.

An adjustment could be done, but it's hard to not make it too strong too. i dont have any idea for such n adjustment, and i doubt it will exist, but i'm in favor of one.

 

[shdcs1975]

In YUGIOH the person who goes first draws 6 cards instead of 5 to make up for the fact they go first. But i also think decks are way to thin atm with just 25 cards compared to how many we draw in 3 rounds plus spy cards and other drawing effects.

No. In Yugioh you don't draw a card when you play first, so you started with 5 cards. But in yugioh is it a advanced to play first, so its good that starting player has card disadvantage.

In Gwent is better to play last, so beginning round 1 and round 3 is hard.

 

[OwNeDUp]

Too strong, too weak, you doesnt agree on the SCO passive...And some seams like they dont understand the power of playing last, and the most important thing in gwent : card advantage.

Ofc its all about card advantage vs scoiatael thats why i consider their faction skill a bit too strong also they have more opportunities to make bigger card advantage for example decoy + nature gift or even ciaran especially when u expect toruviell.

 

[Lexandre]

this isnt a topic about ST passive guys, its about when the game decides that a player should go first on the first round

 

[Laveley]

I like the idea of giving 3 or 4 points (not a card on the field, just the points) to the starting player.

An auto-pass would be a really bad play because its basically throwing a round out of the window for just one CA, than your opponent can cook you to oblivion on round 2. Not worth imo.

 

[AOHNH]

An auto-pass would be a really bad play because its basically throwing a round out of the window for just one CA, than your opponent can cook you to oblivion on round 2. Not worth imo.

It actually translates into two cards, because the winning player goes first in round 2. That's a very good lead, especially if the opening card was pretty strong.

 

[Laveley]

It actually translates into two cards, because the winning player goes first in round 2. That's a very good lead, especially if the opening card was pretty strong.

No because he will have to start the third, so it eventually equals out the opponent have to start 2. Winning first round in this game is a very strong move depending what faction you are playing with or against its definitely not worth it give up for just one ca.