Suggestion: Red coin cannot pass on first turn R2

+
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

The second which is more radical and not necessarily recommended by me (though I would love feedback,) is to literally not allow red coin to pass at all in round 2 until blue coin passes, regardless of who won round 1.

I welcome feedback and opinions.
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
Your first suggestion is very interesting. The second one is too wild for me.
I think round control and card advantage are interesting concepts and I enjoy dueling for them when it feels fair.
But now you have these situations like with the notoriously OP Skellige stuff where they just blindly hurl points your way because they get their investments back anyway through resurrections and you have to commit all your strongest stuff (including planned finishers) not to lose the game right off the bat.

Regardless of whatever else should happen I do think it's high time for TA to get a buff.
The 5 points at the start of HC made sense but should now move to 8 points to reflect the power buff of 4 provision cards.
After all, even if the red coin doesn't gain CA it's still very frustrating when they can win round 1 on even and then bleed you with impunity.
 
No.

I will always be against limiting the freedom of passing, because there is no legitimate reason to add such a thing. Drypassing has been a thing since the dawn of GWENT's time, and it is a perfectly valid strategy.
Coinflip is random, and while red coin continues to be an advantage despite Stratagems, whoever gets it should not be punished by forcing them to play if they want to pass.

This has been suggested many times, and every time I wonder whether the person or people themselves never drypass R2 after winning R1.
 
Like @Draconifors said, i don't like the idea of changing the game and limiting the freedom of players.
Just because SK is kindah broken atm doesn't meen we should change traditional gameplay rules.
I don't like what SK is doing either but it will have to be a different kind of nerf.
 
Like @Draconifors said, i don't like the idea of changing the game and limiting the freedom of players.
Just because SK is kindah broken atm doesn't meen we should change traditional gameplay rules.
I don't like what SK is doing either but it will have to be a different kind of nerf.

This suggestion wasn’t connected to the present imbalance or any other previous faction imbalance. My biggest problem with Gwent since it’s spin-off is the coin flip. The vast majority of players on here prefer to play red coin because they have any number of advantages in doing so. Tempo control in round 1. The strong possibility of getting the final play. The strong possibility of having a card advantage in round 3. Red coin is just OP and has been forever.

My suggestion is aimed at defusing the situation by making it harder for red coin to get that round 3 advantage. I would also be in favor of the coin flip winner getting to pick the color they play with knowing about the R2 restriction.

As I mentioned above, my first suggestion is the real one. I am not even sold on the second one, it just seemed like an interesting idea to talk about. Finally. @Draconifors, I agree freedom is important, but at the same time, so is balance. You would play differently in round 1 if you knew you had to play in round 2. It allows blue coin the ability to play lower tempo because they know they get a chance to get back what they lost in round 1. Overall I think we still need strategems and buffs for them, but this is at least another step toward balance.
 
You would play differently in round 1 if you knew you had to play in round 2. It allows blue coin the ability to play lower tempo because they know they get a chance to get back what they lost in round 1.
And it would be unfair. Look at it from both perspectives, not just from the blue coin player's.
Being forced to play R2 just because you were lucky, no thank you.
 
@wonderboy870

Let's also not forget bout the strategem you get when you get blue, that's the main advantage. The blue has that advantage while the red has the ones you mentioned... i know that the strategem some times isn't as useful as having the last say in a match but it falls to us to make it so, this is my personal opinion at least.

Cheers !
 
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

The second which is more radical and not necessarily recommended by me (though I would love feedback,) is to literally not allow red coin to pass at all in round 2 until blue coin passes, regardless of who won round 1.

I welcome feedback and opinions.

This is good idea, unfortunately with the availability of Stratagems it isn't something which will be implemented.
Tweaking the system through Strategems was a more creative approach than changing the underlying mechanics and incentitives. I think you have to come up with an idea that takes Strategems into account, a system which also is balanced, and doesent overcomplicate the game :)
 
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

The second which is more radical and not necessarily recommended by me (though I would love feedback,) is to literally not allow red coin to pass at all in round 2 until blue coin passes, regardless of who won round 1.

I welcome feedback and opinions.

I haven't played very long, but I kind of prefer it. It encourages people
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

The second which is more radical and not necessarily recommended by me (though I would love feedback,) is to literally not allow red coin to pass at all in round 2 until blue coin passes, regardless of who won round 1.

I welcome feedback and opinions.

I haven't played very long but I actually prefer it from both sides of that coin, as the winner or the loser.
Lucky first hand? Nice! I like it - no complaints.
If I get a so-so first hand but wrangle a win, I get an extra chance to reconfigure the so-so hand I gutted to get that win. I feel that's fair - it encourages people to actually play hard in the first round and I like that, too.
If my hand was crap the first pull and I lose, I can use Blue's passed round to get something good into the graveyard, or something bad out of my card swap rotation. They MIGHT have an extra card (I've been known to spend an extra card or two to get a win in R1) but I can't be mad - they won the last round.

And I appreciate that they are willing to play through the WHOLE GAME instead of disconnecting in the middle of a round when they get one point ahead. I wish someone would make a thread about that.
 
And it would be unfair. Look at it from both perspectives, not just from the blue coin player's.
Being forced to play R2 just because you were lucky, no thank you.

You get the choice of Red or blue if you win the toss. Blue gets the short end in round 1. Red gets the short end in round 2. They cannot simply coast into round 3. If they won round 1 then they cannot get a CA in round 3 simply by dry passing. It makes the game more competitive and thus more enjoyable. Your point though well made is not well taken because you forget that half of all games in ranked or casual will be played on Red and the other half on Blue. I would gladly pay the price on Red to ensure a better chance to compete on blue.

Also you need to realize that any time you fix an imbalance the people who enjoyed that imbalance will object. ST players hate the change to ST. Granted I am not an ST player and I hate it too. That said, in casual (which spend the majority of my in game time,) Red beats blue 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 depending on faction matchup. Of course the cherry pickers who only play red will think it’s unfair. But the end result is less cherry picking, which is better for Gwent overall.
 
You get the choice of Red or blue if you win the toss.
This doesn't make any sense. Red coin = "winning" the coinflip, blue = "losing". You don't choose anything.

It makes the game more competitive and thus more enjoyable.
No, it doesn't. It makes the game less enjoyable because it forces playing R2 if one got red coin and won R1.

because you forget
I'm simply not ignoring the obvious flaw in your suggestion, and any suggestions trying to artificially restrict the freedom of passing.

I would gladly pay the price on Red to ensure a better chance to compete on blue.
You and I bet a minority of players. Unless you have reliable, objective numbers proving you're not in a clear minority, this argument is not worth much at all. It's never a good idea to force restrictions that only a clear minority want or most players would not accept. A "me" perspective does not work when it comes to multiplayer games.

any time you fix an imbalance the people who enjoyed that imbalance will object.
Obviously they will. And they will especially object to "fixes" like this suggestion, that are not balancing anything but just adding pointless, unnecessary, and poorly justified restrictions.

Of course the cherry pickers who only play red will think it’s unfair.
No one picks anything. RNG decides coinflip, coinflip determines who is on red coin and who is on blue, winning R1 determines who goes first in R2. Your argument is flawed on a most fundamental level.
 
If indeed there is an imbalance in play between red coin and blue coin (and I’m not at all convinced there is— I’m sure CDPR has statistics on this and I, for one, prefer blue coin), a far better “fix” is to strengthen strategem, or even better, to make more, stronger proactive cards.

I find the more I play the game, the more I appreciate the decision making that comes with round 2. The fact that sometimes decision making involves a dry pass enriches the strategy of the round and of round 1 as well.
 
It would be another game. As mentioned before, this is a key element of Gwent. Let's have a look at a game on red coin. I win first round on even, can't pass so need to push or give up card advantage and trade a bad bronce for a slightly more poverfull card. If I win one card down (as the game intended) because my oponent made the correct pass, I still have no choice and will loose lastsay? bad game
Even "can't pass unless your opponent has more cards in Hand" would be a break to the game, because it takes away a lot of risks.

My suggstion would rather be, to allow an additional bronce card from your deck to be played or copied, perhaps even a store for the blue coin bronce instaed of the stratagem slot. This could have 4 or 5 provions and you don't have to worrie about updating those gems anymore. But then i think i don't really miss the old summoning circle. It'a mess.
Rightnow I can easily build a not so specialiced even considered outdated deck likes elves and win about 60% or more on red but lose 60-70% on blue.
Tier 1 deck is in reality not Tier1 because it is soooo good in all matchups, no its just instead of autolose/autowin an autolose/ easywin bluecoin/redcoin opponent
 
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

The second which is more radical and not necessarily recommended by me (though I would love feedback,) is to literally not allow red coin to pass at all in round 2 until blue coin passes, regardless of who won round 1.

I welcome feedback and opinions.

I think the R2 dry pass makes the gameplay boring and predictable. It happens in pretty much every game I play where the opponent wins first round and makes it feel pointless even having a second round. I'm not sure if a penalty for dry passing is the solution as otherwise where do you draw the line? People can play one card then pass, still makes the round boring.

Perhaps a system for winning the overall game which takes into account total points scored across the three rounds rather than having the result determined by how many rounds you win. Another option could be to provide a bonus to the person who wins R2 such as another faction strategem in R3. Both of these would incentivise people to play into R2. The first option would also increase strategy around when to pass in a round as points you're up/down would carry over across rounds.

Whatever the mechanic I agree some changes would make the overall game more interesting and less predictable.
 
Last edited:

DRK3

Forum veteran
Not a fan of the suggestion, on a personal level.

Im not a very aggressive player, i dont usually push R1 or R2, usually try to go for long R3s, to pull intricate, powerful combos, as most memes are exactly that.

Im already bled R2 way too often, which causes me to lose the match - with this change, this would make my type of decks even less viable and would strengthen midrange cards even more, that are always valuable and can be played anytime. The game would be dumbed down even further (if that's possible...)
 

Guest 4368268

Guest
If indeed there is an imbalance in play between red coin and blue coin (and I’m not at all convinced there is— I’m sure CDPR has statistics on this and I, for one, prefer blue coin), a far better “fix” is to strengthen strategem, or even better, to make more, stronger proactive cards.

I find the more I play the game, the more I appreciate the decision making that comes with round 2. The fact that sometimes decision making involves a dry pass enriches the strategy of the round and of round 1 as well.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I think at a competitive level there's a consensus that yes, red coin is a very big advantage. Why ever wouldn't it be? Just look at the whole Nilfgaard faction on blue coin vs. red coin. The Schirru deck that's currently popular, Monsters with Ethereal or Overwhelming Hunger. The coinflip makes all the difference.
It determines whether or not you can get away with playing trash cards like SK likes to do to fill up their graveyard.

I believe there's absolutely very specific situations where blue coin could be considered an advantage, but with 95% of decks you'll want to go second.
 
So the idea works one of two ways. The first is to mandate red coin to play at least one card in round two. This prevents the classic card advantage scenario from winning round 1 and dry passing R2.

I welcome feedback and opinions.

I get annoyed with card advantage. It often doesn't work for me when I have it because the non-Nil factions have BS point scoring ability. When I'm behind with cards, I usually lose.

Maybe the game could just ditch card advantage instead?
 
How about eliminating the stratagem entirely and allowing the player who goes first to have an 11th card in their hand for R1?
 
How about eliminating the stratagem entirely and allowing the player who goes first to have an 11th card in their hand for R1?

If that player is allowed to play one more card for free (in R1), then you'll just flip the problem the other way, meaning everyone wants to go first now. This basically means nothing has changed.
 
How about eliminating the stratagem entirely and allowing the player who goes first to have an 11th card in their hand for R1?

Should we give the blue coin dude a massage aswell after his match is concluded... !? :confused::coolstory:
C'mon man... :coolstory::coolstory::coolstory:
The game is fine as it is, sometimes you'll be lucky sometimes you'll be not, lets just flip the coin and get on with it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom