Allow me to just lol real hard at the idea that Elven Mercenary in a deck designed for using it is in any way RNG. (In the sense that in a deck designed for Elven Mercenary, the person playing it knows exactly what they're going to get, based on the cards played so far, the cards in their deck and the cards in their hand.)
Here's a butterfly thought:
What if "RNG" elements were things players could purchase with scraps to augment certain cards of their choice. It's just a fluttering idea at the moment, but rather than having specific cards that rely on RNG, players could...I don't know..."stud" cards of their choice with something that increases the amount of "Strength" or gives a chance for an added effect.
Take a single PFI card, add a stud, and there's a chance each turn of it gaining or losing 1-5 Strength when played. Stud the card again, and it may gain or lose 2-7 Strength each turn. Stud Johnny, and he'll auto-draw a Gold Card...or nothing.
Of course, these are just wonky, base-level examples. Overall, it could be a way of "maximizing" a card at the risk of having them be completely ineffectual. RNG, but player-choice. The greater the potential gain, the greater the potential deficit. (Up to a limit, of course.)
What if "RNG" elements were things players could purchase with scraps to augment certain cards of their choice. It's just a fluttering idea at the moment, but rather than having specific cards that rely on RNG, players could...I don't know..."stud" cards of their choice with something that increases the amount of "Strength" or gives a chance for an added effect.
Take a single PFI card, add a stud, and there's a chance each turn of it gaining or losing 1-5 Strength when played. Stud the card again, and it may gain or lose 2-7 Strength each turn. Stud Johnny, and he'll auto-draw a Gold Card...or nothing.
Of course, these are just wonky, base-level examples. Overall, it could be a way of "maximizing" a card at the risk of having them be completely ineffectual. RNG, but player-choice. The greater the potential gain, the greater the potential deficit. (Up to a limit, of course.)
4RM3D;n8452010 said:
The obvious answer is perhaps "no". But Chess proves otherwise. I would say even Nilfgaard Spotter archetype proves otherwise. He also basically answered it with the Wikipedia quote:
Codexhel;n8451860 said:
I feel CCG's should remain at the middle of the RNG boundaries. Not as hearthstone and not as Chess, more or less. Even when there's a predictability in the range of what RNG can give you, you require certain things out of it. Unpredictability (which can make a game more interesting) can be achieved by the game itself and by humans brain.
Well, it certainly needs cards that give incentive to be unpredictable and somewhat punish predictability. The higher i get to the ladder the more boring it becomes. I see the same decks again and again.
Then for me the problem extends since i am a F2P account, i just need to take it all need and be patient, at the same time i also try to not netdecking.
Then for me the problem extends since i am a F2P account, i just need to take it all need and be patient, at the same time i also try to not netdecking.
I just started playing Gwent so I am obviously a beginner but in my experience every PVP game has an RNG element, even team PVP, just look at Overwatch.
And here we are, were 25 deck limit and "Order" units and deployable Leaders give even further consistency to an already quite consistent game. Predictability, thus, is the plague that spreads across the "land" and makes me feel bored and disappointed. I recall the excitement of the Tournament Final before this meta bring the extinction of interactivity on the board, the extinction of control deck archetype which is used by Special/Spell only deck that include no more than 3 to 6 units.
Codexhel;n8451860 said:
What i fear is if these discussions actually make no point to those who matter...As i see it the consistency now makes the path more narrow and way too predictable. I am at the point were i know every deck and archetype in a way that the game feels more boring than exciting and the weight is leaning all more closer to end of boredom.
That alongside Weather functionality made me start playing other CCG's i quit years ago. Many archetypes feel underwhelming, lack of tools, lack of synergy and always but always more and more predictability as consistency gets more consistent.
Codexhel;n8451860 said:
Your logic and comparisons leading up to this point are incorrect. The fundamental problem here is that Gwent is completely different from chess, checkers, etc. because each players tokens are not pre-defined. You can solve chess because each player always plays with the exact same pieces. This is not the case in Gwent. Gwent would only become solvable if everyone played the exact same deck, or small subset of decks and no counters existed for those decks. If one deck or set of decks becomes super popular you can always build a counter deck specifically teched to win against those counter decks. Even if RNG was completely eliminated from the actual gameplay of Gwent it could not be solved because you're never forced to play with a standardized set of 'pieces'.
It'd be kind of like if in chess you got to choose what number of pieces you used. Maybe you'd run a strategy that ran 8 rooks, or all pawns and that adds a completely new dynamic to the game. But it's a bit more complicated than that because in Gwent you don't actually know what cards the opponent is playing. So it would be kind of like that version of chess, but you also couldn't see which pieces your opponent was playing until they moved them or something. Now you could make really good guesses about which pieces your opponent was running based on what the current best strategies were (the meta), but your opponent can always decide to throw in a curve ball and include something out of the ordinary that's impossible to account for before you see it. So, unless Gwent gets to the point where there are standard decks that everyone runs to the letter it will never be possible to solve the game.
Now if we're removing all RNG from the actual game we could argue that it basically turns the game into a glorified version of rock paper scissors and whether you win or loss all comes down to if you queue into a match where your opponent has teched to counter your deck or not. That's arguably true. However, I'd argue it feels less bad to lose a game to an opponent who has made the call to include cards that specifically counter your deck than it does to lose the game because you lost a 50-50 on drawing the one card in your deck you needed to win. Reducing in game RNG essentially shifts the main focus of the game more towards deck building.
Too long to watch the whole post, I will just gonna say my solution to reduce RNG here:
Make cards with these abilities:
1.Taunt: Become the target of a random hostile ability (weaken, damage etc) when possible. If multiple targets, the rest targets will be randomly choosen after all taunt unit are picked, if multiple taunt units and less targets, then it is randomly resolved among them. This ability will be used to increase the tactic thinking and decrease the RNG factor.
2.Likable: Same as taunt, but for random beneficial ability (give shield, boost, strength etc)
3.4. Eager / Craven:
When unit has this ability, when a "random" unit is needed to take out from the deck and this unit meet the requirement (gold,silver, spell, agent etc), play/don't play this unit.
Note that Eager and Craven ability is probably not ideal to have on unit originally, as units with this ability will probably not cop well with other builds and if such unit is powerful, then the whole deck become completely standard on every game. It is better to have spell or tactic cards that apply eager/ craven on cards in your own deck / opponent's deck, so when you get to apply eager to your crucial units, your opponent can counter it with craven.
More other ability suggestion in this post
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...ability-ideas-that-can-improve-the-experience
Make cards with these abilities:
1.Taunt: Become the target of a random hostile ability (weaken, damage etc) when possible. If multiple targets, the rest targets will be randomly choosen after all taunt unit are picked, if multiple taunt units and less targets, then it is randomly resolved among them. This ability will be used to increase the tactic thinking and decrease the RNG factor.
2.Likable: Same as taunt, but for random beneficial ability (give shield, boost, strength etc)
3.4. Eager / Craven:
When unit has this ability, when a "random" unit is needed to take out from the deck and this unit meet the requirement (gold,silver, spell, agent etc), play/don't play this unit.
Note that Eager and Craven ability is probably not ideal to have on unit originally, as units with this ability will probably not cop well with other builds and if such unit is powerful, then the whole deck become completely standard on every game. It is better to have spell or tactic cards that apply eager/ craven on cards in your own deck / opponent's deck, so when you get to apply eager to your crucial units, your opponent can counter it with craven.
More other ability suggestion in this post
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...ability-ideas-that-can-improve-the-experience