Suggestion for a more strategic game mode: Pick & Play

[Archan6el]

Let's create a game mode for players who want less RNG and replace random card draws completely by card picks:
- When players are matched, they see their opponent's leader ability. They do not see who will go first.
- Each player picks 10 cards from deck before start of round 1.
- Round 1 starts. The coin flip decides which player goes first.
- Before start of round 2 and 3, each player picks 3 cards from deck.

Winning or losing will depend a lot on card-picking strategy for the different rounds and anticipating what the opponent will pick and play. For example, you can pick most of your weak bronzes to play in round 1 and then try to overpower your opponent in round 2 and 3. Alternatively you can decide to go for a 2-0 with the same deck, using your strongest cards and combo's all at once. This will be a much more strategic and psychological game. And a lot of fun I think.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Maybe rework the seasonal mode to include these changes.

 

[4RM3D]

Like mentioned above, this could work as a seasonal mode, but I wouldn't create a separate mode for it. The most important reason is that a mode like this will be unbalanced, no matter what you try. Considering seasonal has the same issue, it fits well in the same category. Also, most seasonal modes grow stale pretty fast, just like the pick and play suggestion will.

On a general note, it's not a good idea to make too many different game modes because it will split the player base further, which cases longer queue times and/or less ideal match-ups.

 

[Archan6el]

Like mentioned above, this could work as a seasonal mode, but I wouldn't create a separate mode for it. The most important reason is that a mode like this will be unbalanced, no matter what you try.

Why would this mode be unbalanced? Reducing RNG would unbalance the game?

Post automatically merged: Feb 9, 2020

On a general note, it's not a good idea to make too many different game modes because it will split the player base further, which cases longer queue times and/or less ideal match-ups.

Or it will bring (back) more players who are really not interested or even disappointed in the current game mechanics.

 

[4RM3D]

Reducing RNG would unbalance the game?

Yes, when the RNG is used to balance the game in the first place. Some games and their mechanics are difficult to balance or cannot be balanced at all because of how said mechanics are implemented. An easy fix is to add RNG. Having fixed card draws would break a lot of CCG. Gwent is no exception.

 

[mazeebra]

- Before start of round 2 and 3, each player picks 3 cards from deck.

I wish I could do that with poker and other card games. But then again, it's card games!

 

[Archan6el]

Yes, when the RNG is used to balance the game in the first place. Some games and their mechanics are difficult to balance or cannot be balanced at all because of how said mechanics are implemented. An easy fix is to add RNG. Having fixed card draws would break a lot of CCG. Gwent is no exception.

Adding RNG is not a fix. It's a cover-up for bad/incompetent balancing of cards and mechanics. More RNG means increased variance, which increases the chance that good decks and players lose against weaker decks and players. As this is based purely on RNG, it reduces the importance of skill. For a game where it is advertised that skill beats luck, that's pretty bad. And it's horrible for tournaments, as rrc clearly points out here.

I wish I could do that with poker and other card games. But then again, it's card games!

Card games are games with cards. That doesn't mean that they have to be based on luck and gambling.

 

[4RM3D]

Adding RNG is not a fix. It's a cover-up for bad/incompetent balancing of cards and mechanics. More RNG means increased variance, which increases the chance that good decks and players lose against weaker decks and players. As this is based purely on RNG, it reduces the importance of skill. For a game where it is advertised that skill beats luck, that's pretty bad. And it's horrible for tournaments, as rrc clearly points out here.

Oh, I do agree. However, that's the way most card games work, Gwent included. Fixing the draws, without fixing the underlying issues, isn't going to improve the game. Ironically, quite the opposite will happen. And, as I have also mentioned in the other thread you've linked, there are different kinds of RNG, each requiring a different solution.

 

[Archan6el]

Fixing the draws, without fixing the underlying issues, isn't going to improve the game. Ironically, quite the opposite will happen.

I see what you mean. Removing draw RNG will for sure increase exposure to badly balanced card abilities and combo's. But it will not make the game worse than it already is. It will still be (arguably) better, because both players can now choose to play the most broken and degenerate cards and combo's from their deck instead of being at the mercy of draw RNG.

 

[InkognitoXI]

I see what you mean. Removing draw RNG will for sure increase exposure to badly balanced card abilities and combo's. But it will not make the game worse than it already is. It will still be (arguably) better, because both players can now choose to play the most broken and degenerate cards and combo's from their deck instead of being at the mercy of draw RNG.

You do realize that people already complain about tier 1 and in the worst case tier 0.5 decks.
The above suggestion would only make the game worse, because it would become solvable.

In theory every card game can still be solved, but the problem of figuring out all possibilities and weighting them accordingly is a monumental task (and usually would take far longer than the next balance changes take).
If you remove variance in terms of the available resources every game will eventually turn out the same, broken decks become completely uncounterable and general variety will completely vanish.
The problem is that without variance and decisionmaking (because let us face it, that will become meaningless if you do not have to ever improvise) the game has to be perfectly balanced and the only way to achieve that is to reduce any kind of variety and reduce everythign to the lowest common denominator.
In that case the game would turn completely bland and noone would ever want to touch it again.

 

[Archan6el]

If you remove variance in terms of the available resources every game will eventually turn out the same, broken decks become completely uncounterable and general variety will completely vanish.
The problem is that without variance and decisionmaking (because let us face it, that will become meaningless if you do not have to ever improvise) the game has to be perfectly balanced and the only way to achieve that is to reduce any kind of variety and reduce everythign to the lowest common denominator.
In that case the game would turn completely bland and noone would ever want to touch it again.

Of course not. You will have to decide and improvise because you will face different players with different decks and different strategies. If you like draw RNG-induced improvising, Patience is a game. Broken decks should be balanced by competent devs.

Let's just try it shall we?

 

[InkognitoXI]

Of course not. You will have to decide and improvise because you will face different players with different decks and different strategies. If you like draw RNG-induced improvising, Patience is a game. Broken decks should be balanced by competent devs.

Let's just try it shall we?

I would not try that.
Improvising within games, rather than following a prepared playline is something I enjoy.
My last point was that, unless you make the game completely bland, it is impossible to perfectly balance everything and when variance in terms of draws does not affect the playline the smallest differences will be enough to completely ruin any kind of variety.

 

[Archan6el]

when variance in terms of draws does not affect the playline the smallest differences will be enough to completely ruin any kind of variety.

Why? Are you always gonna pick the same deck, the same 10 cards for R1, the same 3 cards for R2, the same 3 cards for R3 and play them in the same order? Creating variety is up to you and your tactical skills, not some variance due to draw RNG.

 

[mazeebra]

Adding RNG is not a fix. It's a cover-up for bad/incompetent balancing of cards and mechanics. More RNG means increased variance, which increases the chance that good decks and players lose against weaker decks and players. As this is based purely on RNG, it reduces the importance of skill. For a game where it is advertised that skill beats luck, that's pretty bad. And it's horrible for tournaments, as rrc clearly points out here.

Card games are games with cards. That doesn't mean that they have to be based on luck and gambling.

I don't know any cardgames where you get to choose your cards, so per definition card games is about luck to some degree and often about gambling (on outcomes, or even literally).

But sure, I agree with what the others say, it would be a cool concept for a seasonal mode.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Why? Are you always gonna pick the same deck, the same 10 cards for R1, the same 3 cards for R2, the same 3 cards for R3 and play them in the same order? Creating variety is up to you and your tactical skills, not some variance due to draw RNG.

My point is that there is an objective ideal combination, unless the game is perfectly balanced.

 

[mazeebra]

My point is that there is an objective ideal combination, unless the game is perfectly balanced.

And how many times have I drawn that? Not so often, and this is part of the charm of the game.

Furthermore, if I am really good, I can use (good) the cards that I do not need for the ideal combination and build up the ideal combination for the last round, if I can manage to stay alive and healthy until then.

If I could choose which cards to get in combination with others, it would improve my game alot.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Regardless of outcome. Players should atleast have the option to try the 'fixed draw' mechanics so that we can deside for ourselves what we prefer.

Lets take the tier 1 deck issue as example. People tend to complain about the binary nature of artifact removal. More specifically, not drawing artifact removal/ Karathi heatwave when needed. Fixing the draws might make it easier to tech up against tier 1 decks.

There is no RNG in chess, yet some people think that it is a fun game. Lets try and think outside the box. Card games dont need to have build-in RNG aspect. Especially not in the digital format, where removing RNG element is very easy and doesen't require much preparation.

 

[4RM3D]

Lets take the tier 1 deck issue as example. People tend to complain about the binary nature of artifact removal. More specifically, not drawing artifact removal/ Karathi heatwave when needed. Fixing the draws might make it easier to tech up against tier 1 decks.

Unfortunately, that's not the way how this works. If a card can hard counter a deck and such a card can now be reliably drawn (without costing too much), then any such deck will cease to exist solely because of the fear of such counters. This will only lead to a lot of cards becoming unplayable and this, in turn, will actually create a far worse meta, which is determined by cold hard calculations. A mode like this will definitely destroy the game. As such, it has no place to be, besides as a seasonal.

 

[mazeebra]

Regardless of outcome. Players should atleast have the option to try the 'fixed draw' mechanics so that we can deside for ourselves what we prefer.

Lets take the tier 1 deck issue as example. People tend to complain about the binary nature of artifact removal. More specifically, not drawing artifact removal/ Karathi heatwave when needed. Fixing the draws might make it easier to tech up against tier 1 decks.

There is no RNG in chess, yet some people think that it is a fun game. Lets try and think outside the box. Card games dont need to have build-in RNG aspect. Especially not in the digital format, where removing RNG element is very easy and doesen't require much preparation.

Nilfgaard does have alot of deck control and can basically do that.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Of course not. You will have to decide and improvise because you will face different players with different decks and different strategies.

If the game is solved then your strategy won't matter, you know if you win or lose with 10 cards in hand. Sometimes this already happens right now.