Starting first on the first round

[mkey82]

I disagree with most of the ideas in this thread. The "disadvantage" of going first is adequately compensated for by cards like Ciri,

The fact there are cards which can lessen the disadvantage, don't make the disadvantage any less of an issue. The "start first" thing is a core game mechanism and all players should receive a fair compensation for this penalty, not only those whom have cards which could possibly alleviate the issue.

An additional mulligan is the most natural solution to this problem.

 

[aholeel]

The fact there are cards which can lessen the disadvantage, don't make the disadvantage any less of an issue. The "start first" thing is a core game mechanism and all players should receive a fair compensation for this penalty, not only those whom have cards which could possibly alleviate the issue.

An additional mulligan is the most natural solution to this problem.

I disagree. I don't think there's a significant disadvantage at all. The round starts, and I play a card. How I am now at a disadvantage? You have one more card than me, but I have more points on the board. You're always going to be trading cards for points--that's how the game works.

 

[idomyownstunts]

To quote the poet, "Err, no thanks".

 

[shdcs1975]

As suggestion they can put in a mechanic that the looser from a round can choose who play first card in the next round. I think that required a change of the scoia ability, but it can work to reduce the card disadvantage to play first in round 1.

Additional mulligan is not a solution for that. How often you used 3 mulligans and how often you stop by 2?

 

[cydhi]

As suggestion they can put in a mechanic that the looser from a round can choose who play first card in the next round. I think that required a change of the scoia ability, but it can work to reduce the card disadvantage to play first in round 1.

I feel that would kind of devalue the Scoia deck ability, if everyone else is able to point who goes first in second round - it's hard for me to say which deck ability is best, but in a game so geared towards getting card advantage, the Scoia one is often decisive. One way to counter the disadvantage could be to let the person who went first to draw an extra card (three instead of two) at the start of the next round, or even at the start of the first, after the coin toss.

I don't think it would nerf Scoia's ability that much - if anything, the one affected most might be Skellige because it wants the match to get to third round, so the extra card gives whoever plays against Skellige a better chance of ending things in two rounds.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, Scoia will probably get even stronger because they'll pick to go first in the opening round every time. Ugh.

In the end, we can only speculate, since we can't test this kind of basic game mechanics in beta, but overall I agree with the sentiment that going first in the opening round now is a disadvantage (though not necessarily a game-breaking one) and worth CDPR's time to look into.

 

[IAxiiYourMother]

And we should also all get an advantage given to us if we draw a bad hand because that is random and not fair.... lmao.

-Trap based Scoi decks love going first to start developing the board.
-NR like playing Yen first bc you can pull unicorn and roach and give you 18 STR starting first round.
-Skel has no problem starting with bear, discard spies, and discard buffed cards.
-monsters can start stacking Ancient Foglet an extra turn.
-More turns to get Reaver Hunters out of the deck.
-more turn for Reinforced Trebuchet to tick away.
-etc. etc. etc.

It is more of a deck problem if going first hurts you that badly; lay off the control cards. They only get a card advantage if you play more cards than them with the acceptation of Sco who's soul purpose is to gain card advantage or crash and burn. Also if it is that big a deal why not add more card advantage cards to your decks. It comes down to if you are willing to replace that big shiny gold card with 6 point Ciri, or your silver cards with decoy for card advantage. You then could lose rounds because you don't have the base numbers to win. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[mkey82]

I disagree. I don't think there's a significant disadvantage at all. The round starts, and I play a card. How I am now at a disadvantage? You have one more card than me, but I have more points on the board. You're always going to be trading cards for points--that's how the game works.

Yes, you are right while people who took a whole lot of time to balance various card games out there are all dead wrong. Yes.

I'll try, but I know it won't suffice:

Turn 1:
player one drops a random card (other than Ciry or something that will hang on the board)
player two concedes

Start of turn 2:
player one has 12 cards
player two has 13 cards AND goes second

Player 1 has a total of 1:0, but player 2 has the upper hand because they play last AND they have an extra card.
Not only that, but the first card player 1 played may partly reveal their strategy, while player 2 hasn't revealed anything.
As long as they get to play card for card, player 2 has the last move and they have the option to play one extra card or keep it for round 3.
In which case, in round 3 (as long as player 2 wins round 2 obviously) player 1 has 1 card while player 2 has 2 cards. Player 2 goes first, but they still have the final move to play.

Yes, there are ways to settle this advantage deck wise, but that's completely besides the point. Initially player 1 is put at a disadvantage, which is an inherent core mechanism of any card game. The end.

 

[mkey82]

Additional mulligan is not a solution for that. How often you used 3 mulligans and how often you stop by 2?

You are correct there, that's why initially I said that a possibly better solution would be to give player 2 one mulligan less. So, 3 for starting player, 2 for player 2.

I don't think there are any better solutions for this issue, like having an extra card for player 1 (which would totally swing the disadvantage in the other direction) or giving player 1 some starting strength points (which depending on the strategy may mean a lot or not much at all.) Maybe an extra card draw with the extra mulligan, requiring you to discard one card. There are several ways to do this.

 

[mkey82]

Just as an aside, why do I have to start about 90% of the matches first? It should be a 50:50 split in the longer run.
Only now and again do I get the chance to go second.

 

[Lexandre]

I disagree. I don't think there's a significant disadvantage at all. The round starts, and I play a card. How I am now at a disadvantage? You have one more card than me, but I have more points on the board. You're always going to be trading cards for points--that's how the game works.

if you dont think that going second is a significant advantage then why dont you try to play scoia'tael while making yourself go first every round, all those ST players who use their faction passive to make the opponent go first after the round their opponent lost must have no clue what they are doing right?

And we should also all get an advantage given to us if we draw a bad hand because that is random and not fair.... lmao.

-Trap based Scoi decks love going first to start developing the board.
-NR like playing Yen first bc you can pull unicorn and roach and give you 18 STR starting first round.
-Skel has no problem starting with bear, discard spies, and discard buffed cards.
-monsters can start stacking Ancient Foglet an extra turn.
-More turns to get Reaver Hunters out of the deck.
-more turn for Reinforced Trebuchet to tick away.
-etc. etc. etc.

It is more of a deck problem if going first hurts you that badly; lay off the control cards. They only get a card advantage if you play more cards than them with the acceptation of Sco who's soul purpose is to gain card advantage or crash and burn. Also if it is that big a deal why not add more card advantage cards to your decks. It comes down to if you are willing to replace that big shiny gold card with 6 point Ciri, or your silver cards with decoy for card advantage. You then could lose rounds because you don't have the base numbers to win. You can't have your cake and eat it.

you have lots of misconception here

your ideas with trebs, foglets and reavers come from assuming that the player who started second will pass first since there is no other way to get advantage from playing them first, well here's news: if the player who starts second passes first that literally gives them 1 card advantage, no trebs, foglets or reavers can make up for that since being 1 card ahead on the last round easily decides the match and all your trebs foglets and reavers will gather dust on the graveyard

I have Ciri and decoy and start first, my opponent also has Ciri and decoy, now what? Ciri is an entirely different level of design flaw which i dont want to elaborate here, she deserves an entirely separate topic so lets just settle on the fact that both opponents have the same cards that generate card advantage and that puts us back at the point where the player who goes first is in a disadvantage but on top of that he also MUST win round 1 because otherwise player who goes second will take advantage of their Ciri and the first player's Ciri becomes a deadweight card

 

[aholeel]

Yes, you are right while people who took a whole lot of time to balance various card games out there are all dead wrong. Yes.

I'll try, but I know it won't suffice:

Turn 1:
player one drops a random card (other than Ciry or something that will hang on the board)
player two concedes

Start of turn 2:
player one has 12 cards
player two has 13 cards AND goes second

Player 1 has a total of 1:0, but player 2 has the upper hand because they play last AND they have an extra card.
Not only that, but the first card player 1 played may partly reveal their strategy, while player 2 hasn't revealed anything.
As long as they get to play card for card, player 2 has the last move and they have the option to play one extra card or keep it for round 3.
In which case, in round 3 (as long as player 2 wins round 2 obviously) player 1 has 1 card while player 2 has 2 cards. Player 2 goes first, but they still have the final move to play.

Yes, there are ways to settle this advantage deck wise, but that's completely besides the point. Initially player 1 is put at a disadvantage, which is an inherent core mechanism of any card game. The end.

Well, first of all, let's set aside other games. There are plenty of games where going first is a disadvantage. But we're talking very specifically about Gwent.

If every card had the exact same point value, and no effects, then you would be correct. But, fortunately, there are different kinds of cards. You're extremely dismissive of the fact that cards do things ("other than Ciri or something that will hang on the board", "there are ways to settle this advantage deck wise, but that's completely beside the point"), which is odd to me, since the range of possible cards has everything to do with how the game is played. I've won games where I didn't have a card advantage, and lost games where I did. It matters what cards you have, and how you use them.

Another thing that I think you're failing to take into account is the fact that, in round 2, the player who is down 0:1 cannot pass, or they risk conceding the game. This gives the player who is up 1:0 an ability to control the flow of the game. Anything player 1 (in your scenario) puts down on the board must be countered by the opponent. If I can win the first round by playing a single card, I'm usually pretty happy with that.

As you say, "as long as they get to play card for card," player 2 has the advantage. But, as player 1, why would I let them play "card for card?" If my hand is stronger than theirs, I can potentially make them play more than one card for each card I put down. Or I can make them use up their strongest cards in round 2, trying to match me card-for-card, and have the stronger cards going into round 3. If my hand is weaker than theirs, I can attempt to balance things out by making them play stronger cards than me, until the cards remaining in our hands are more even. And, of course, regardless of how my hand matches up to theirs, I can make use of the many cards out there that allow you to draw more cards, keep cards on the board, spawn more cards, re-play cards, etc.

Card advantage is absolutely a real thing, but it's only one of several factors to that can affect the outcome of a match. And turn order is only one of many things that can affect card advantage.

I think "winning" the coin toss in Gwent is similar to winning the opening coin toss in American football: you'd rather win the toss than lose it, but I don't know anyone who believes that it makes a substantive difference in the outcome of a game (a belief that, for football, is supported by the actual statistics). Everything else that happens between that coin toss and the end of the game matters way more--so much more that it makes the coin toss irrelevant.

 

[aholeel]

Just as an aside, why do I have to start about 90% of the matches first? It should be a 50:50 split in the longer run.
Only now and again do I get the chance to go second.

Um, it is a 50-50 chance... that's how coin flips work. If you think there's a problem with the game's random number generator, you should file a bug report.

 

[mkey82]

I really don't know what to tell you anymore, the issue is plainly evident and you keep conflating decks with core game mechanisms.

To use your inappropriate football reference, it would be like having a match divided into three thirds and the pitch slightly skewed down toward one goal. Meaning one team would have to run uphill for two thirds of the game. In this case your argument would be: "they should get stronger players whom will have a less difficult time running against an inclination."

 

[BenDav]

Isn't it random who goes first? Except in cases where one person is using SCO effect?

 

[cydhi]

I think "winning" the coin toss in Gwent is similar to winning the opening coin toss in American football: you'd rather win the toss than lose it, but I don't know anyone who believes that it makes a substantive difference in the outcome of a game (a belief that, for football, is supported by the actual statistics). Everything else that happens between that coin toss and the end of the game matters way more--so much more that it makes the coin toss irrelevant.

You make a valid point in that what goes during the match (either Gwent or American football) is what decides the outcome, not the coin toss. But I disagree that the coin toss is irrelevant - to use your own example, there is a reason why in three-quarters or so of the NFL matches, the team that wins the toss chooses to defer and receive the ball at the start of the second half. As I understand it, the thinking is that if you have that extra possession it can prove decisive. Of course, it is not always the case, just as going first in the opening round is no guarantee of defeat. But I think card advantage matters even more than having the last possession of the NFL game (where the most you can score is eight points, and the swing in Gwent can be so much more - and there are so many more ways to affect the score).

It is a somewhat moot point when we don't have statistics about how much card advantage cards are being used in actual decks. I can only go by what I've seen in playing against other decks (I do the statutory two levels a day, occasionally three), but I see them a lot. In a game that's all about card advantage, winning the coin toss can be a liability, but as stated earlier - not a game-breaking one. So, some mechanic to even things out would be welcome, but I'm not overly exercised about it either.

 

[aholeel]

if you dont think that going second is a significant advantage then why dont you try to play scoia'tael while making yourself go first every round, all those ST players who use their faction passive to make the opponent go first after the round their opponent lost must have no clue what they are doing right?

Slow down there, buddy. I think you're confused. Making your opponent go first an extra time that they wouldn't otherwise go first is obviously an advantage. That's the whole point of the scoia'tael faction ability. But that's completely different than who goes first to start the game. Normally, the turns will alternate in a balanced way. The Scoia'tael ability allows you to nudge the turn order to gain a slight advantage.

Also, the scoia'tael ability is one-use only, so it's not possible to make myself "go first every round."

you have lots of misconception here

your ideas with trebs, foglets and reavers come from assuming that the player who started second will pass first since there is no other way to get advantage from playing them first, well here's news: if the player who starts second passes first that literally gives them 1 card advantage, no trebs, foglets or reavers can make up for that since being 1 card ahead on the last round easily decides the match and all your trebs foglets and reavers will gather dust on the graveyard

I have Ciri and decoy and start first, my opponent also has Ciri and decoy, now what? Ciri is an entirely different level of design flaw which i dont want to elaborate here, she deserves an entirely separate topic so lets just settle on the fact that both opponents have the same cards that generate card advantage and that puts us back at the point where the player who goes first is in a disadvantage but on top of that he also MUST win round 1 because otherwise player who goes second will take advantage of their Ciri and the first player's Ciri becomes a deadweight card

Not quite sure where to even start with this one...

Ok, first-off if we're talking about Monsters, that card will potentially stay on the board for the next round. So it's not "gather[ing] dust [in] the graveyard". Most factions can also do things to utilize cards in the graveyard.

Second of all, to your concern that "that literally gives them 1 card advantage," they're also down 1:0 (see another recent post I made in this thread). And you can easily out-maneuver them to regain the card advantage--if you even care to do so. There are a bunch of threads on this very forum that talk about GG and the etiquette for what to do when you have cards left, but know you can't win. Why? Because that's a situation that happens to people all the time! "Being 1 card ahead on the last round" does not "easily decid[e] the match." If I'm up by 25 points in round 3, completely out of cards, and you have a card in your hand that can net you 20 points... well, good luck with that. And even then, you're assuming that they retained their card advantage through round 2 and into round 3, which is not a given at all.

Finally, in your example with Ciri I think you miscounted. Let's count this out together:
1) I play Ciri. -1 card for me.
2) You play Ciri. -1 card for you.
3) I pass. no change in card count.
4) You play a card to win the round. -1 card for you. +1 card for me (because of Ciri's effect).

The result, you win the round, but must now go first, and I am up by 2 cards, even though I started the game.

Or, if you also pass, and we tie, then you haven't gained anything, and we go into round 2 with the same number of cards and wins. Except that now you have to start round 2 instead of me.

Also, you can't use Decoy on Ciri (and wouldn't want to anyway), so I'm not really sure why Decoy is relevant there...

For your own future reference, though, the main point of a Decoy is to be able to use a card's effect again, and/or move a card to a different row or side of the field. You have to play the Decoy card--it's not a free, extra card. The way that Decoy can be used to get a card advantage is if you use it to re-play a card whose effect then gives you a card advantage, or if you play the decoy from your deck (for example, with an elven mercenary).

 

[cydhi]

Also, you can use Decoy on Ciri (and wouldn't want to anyway), so I'm not really sure why Decoy is relevant there...

I don't believe you can, actually. Ciri's description says "return a non-Gold, non-Relentless unit". Never tried to return Ciri to my hand ('cause description), so I wouldn't know if there is a bug there or not. But that's a minor quibble.

Edit: I see you edited your post. In retrospect, it makes more sense now. Again, minor quibble.

The other point Lexandre was making - if I understood it correctly - is that if the coin toss makes you go first in the opening round, you'll always play first in that match.

1st round - coin toss says so. Scoia opponent wins - they go first anyway (and Scoia uses ability to make them go first in final round). If Scoia wins opening round, they make you go first again (and Scoia opponent starts first in final round if they take round two).

Out of curiosity, since I don't play Scoia myself, how does the faction ability resolve itself when it's Scoia vs. Scoia?

 

[aholeel]

I really don't know what to tell you anymore, the issue is plainly evident and you keep conflating decks with core game mechanisms.

To use your inappropriate football reference, it would be like having a match divided into three thirds and the pitch slightly skewed down toward one goal. Meaning one team would have to run uphill for two thirds of the game. In this case your argument would be: "they should get stronger players whom will have a less difficult time running against an inclination."

I'm sorry, but I disagree. And I think your line of reasoning is extremely tautological. You're basically saying "going first is bad because it gives the other person card advantage, which is bad because card advantage is good, which is true because winning is good, and you're going to win if you have a card advantage because card advantage is good." You then fall back to, more or less, "omg it's just so obvious and everyone knows this."

Instead, you should now try to prove your assertion ("going first is bad") by showing:

1) That the person who goes second will be significantly more likely to have a card advantage in 2 out of 3 rounds. So far, you've only proved this for the case where both players have the exact same cards and it doesn't matter in which order the cards are played. But those assumptions don't apply to Gwent, so you still need to prove this assertion for Gwent, since that's the game that we're talking about.

I have, in several posts in this thread, offered evidence to disprove this point. I would expect that you would be able to offer evidence to refute my assertions. Or, at the very least, I would want to hear why a cards are not a "core mechanic" in a card game, and why only "core mechanics" should be taken into consideration.

Instead, it seems like you're trying to arbitrarily re-define the argument to invalidate any evidence that disproves your point, which is pretty lame. What you're doing is a lot like saying "I don't buy beef because it will spoil if you leave it out too long." And then when someone says "well, you can put it in the refrigerator," responding, "Why are you talking about fridges? I'm talking about beef. I'm obviously right that beef will spoil if you leave it out too long."

Except that you haven't done anything to prove that it matters how fast the beef will spoil outside of the fridge--most people who buy beef either eat it right away, or put it in the fridge (or freezer). Likewise, everyone who plays this game does so with the cards that are in the game. You haven't shown why we should ignore all of the cards (in the card game) when assessing how well the game works.

2) That a card advantage in 2 out of 3 rounds is a significant predictor of who will win the game. I have, again, offered evidence to the contrary (such as all of the threads talking about what to do when you have cards left at the end of the game but know you can't win). You have not offered any evidence to support your point. Saying that "card advantage means you'll play last, and playing last means you'll win" is meaningless, unless you prove that "playing last means you'll win." (I'm willing to accept "card advantage means you'll play last," if we assume that you're talking about a specific round. If you mean to say that a card advantage to start round 2 means you'll play last in round 3, you're gonna need to offer some proof.)

3) That the combination of these two things show that going first is a) a disadvantage and b) a significant enough disadvantage to necessitate compensation for the player who goes first.

Your argument rests on assumptions (as all arguments do). If you can't support those assumptions, you don't really have much of an argument.

 

[aholeel]

I don't believe you can, actually. Ciri's description says "return a non-Gold, non-Relentless unit". Never tried to return Ciri to my hand ('cause description), so I wouldn't know if there is a bug there or not. But that's a minor quibble.

Edit: I see you edited your post. In retrospect, it makes more sense now. Again, minor quibble.

The other point Lexandre was making - if I understood it correctly - is that if the coin toss makes you go first in the opening round, you'll always play first in that match.

1st round - coin toss says so. Scoia opponent wins - they go first anyway (and Scoia uses ability to make them go first in final round). If Scoia wins opening round, they make you go first again (and Scoia opponent starts first in final round if they take round two).

Out of curiosity, since I don't play Scoia myself, how does the faction ability resolve itself when it's Scoia vs. Scoia?

If it's two Scoia'tael playing each other, the abilities get negated, so you never get the option to choose.

 

[Mr.Win]

I have lost for 5 games straight so far just because I went first lol. If I was second, I would've won since opponent always save their commander horn/D-bomb last. There should indeed be a benefit for going first on the first round. For me personally, it would be starting with an extra card that has 6 power with no ability.