Why are there STILL Create and RNG cards in Homecoming?

+
For example, they wrote

"Also, rows in the front and back would ALWAYS grant a different buff when a unit is placed there."

So, here is not smoke and mirrors. It clearly says that rows in the front and back would always grant a different buff. They could not uphold their promise. It's not a tragedy, mind you. It's like when you go to a restaurant and they tell you that the pizza is going to have on top true italian mozzarella. If that's not the case you might be disappointed...

In their letter they didn't say they would remove: one bronze copy, one row, armor, full Moon, crew tag, strengthen abilities, swap, reveal card in hands... Instead they chose to address the community concern with respect to RNG. Alas, one of the few thing that's still present is Create, they added quite a lot of damage X random units and added few highroll cards. They revolutionized everything, but kept the one thing they promised to address.

Smoke and mirrors wasn't meant to indicate there was ambiguity in the initial HC announcement. The smoke and mirrors comment was meant to indicate what was said ultimately boiled down to, "Oops, we acknowledge we may have screwed up. We're sorry and promise to do better.". The rest of it was.... filler.

In any case Create probably isn't at the top of the list of issues. If anything stands out for that label it's the replacement of frequent R1 dry passing with not giving two shits about CA in R1 until you have 4 or fewer cards in your hand. Great solution.
 
still dont get the point, why do you comlain , you dont lvoe to rng cards , dont use them let use to people who loves them, anyway you are epic skilled players and can win this shitty no skill rng :rolleyes:

'cause Gwent is not solitaire, there are other players involved. Your rng cards affect also your opponent and I don't want to play coin flipping.

Well, i don't know which (Trading) Card Games you play, but most Card-Games (in this direction - so not talking about something like UNO) i played the only "real" "influence" you have is deckbuilding and the decision at the beginning of Mulligan (and even at the last case you have a downside like MTG where you can only pick 6 instead of 7 Cards and so on). The Rest of it is purely RNG and the "appeal" of Card Games was unlike other Games (like Chess and such) that you have to work with what you get. To Adapt to your Hand and show "skill" by playing with this circumstances... so in general Terms i have to agree with him.... (though i don't take any side of this argument if it comes down to Gwent...)

And by the way - schuffling in real TCG's often tend to ensure real "rng" so you can't cheat by order the Cards how you want them....

My argument was that there are two terms that defines the randomness of a game:
1) card draw
2) additional RNG, tied to card effects.

Let's take as an example Magic. To mitigate card draw randomness you have multiple copies of the same card in your deck and you can mulligan your initial draw. You have abilities that allow you to look at the top card an choose to discard it, you can directly fish for lands / card of a given type / same copy of your card and so on. As a player you can still have problems with the inconsistency of your card draws, but there are also tools to control it.

With RNG effects, the control that you have over the outcome of a game is reduced. Take Yogg Saron from HS, who could wipe the entirety of your enemy board, or Gascon who can rob you (that's fitting lorewise!) of a game with 12 point stats.

Players complaining are not against randomness in itself, but against a given type of randomness. The kind that allows you to run a second copies of Regis, because Uma created it, or a game winning scorch effect.

In any case Create probably isn't at the top of the list of issues. If anything stands out for that label it's the replacement of frequent R1 dry passing with not giving two shits about CA in R1 until you have 4 or fewer cards in your hand. Great solution.

Yes, probably you are right.
 
Unfortunately, what you were hoping for and what was said are not the same. The initial HC announcement was ambiguous for a reason.

Here is the reality....

1. Developer makes game.
2. Player decides whether they want to play game.

There, that is all there is to it. CDPR isn't obligated to do what you want. You're free to debate the finer points going into the "process". You're free to give feedback. Ideally feedback where you clearly state where you see a problem, why and alternatives or solutions. I've done plenty of it myself. Expecting or demanding it to go anywhere is naive.

The initial HC announcement said and implied a lot of stuff. Just look at the title. They also said Gwent was returning to it's roots and player hands count as a row. Yeah, smoke and mirrors :).

For my own personal situation it's quite simple. Do I think this game is worth playing? Yes, no, maybe? See, fortunately I don't owe CDPR anything either. So if, for instance, I think they had no idea what the hell they're trying to create, still don't, likely never will and the game is complete shit I won't play it. If, on the other hand, I felt it was an enjoyable product I likely would play it. I won't bother indicating which way I've been leaning for the last year+.



The less RNG it gets the worse it gets implies the more RNG the better. A bit of a simplification don't you think? There is a rather large difference between draw/mulligan RNG and slapping it directly on card abilities, by the way. To be completely fair it does appear like the 6 month time table was extremely ambitious. It wouldn't at all be surprising if many of those card abilities see further changes.

I didnt say bloat the game with RNG with we already have decks that are way too thin among other things that reduce RNG.
 
Skill doesn't mean anything. Opponents has big lead, that's fine go down 3 cards to win, then dry pass and have a full 10 card hand. Wtf.. Rounds are throw away for a 1 round battle. Just make the game 1 round then. I have no feelings when I play. No sense of risk / reward.
Feels like a different thread, but I agree. Hand size limits and card draw both serve to ruin the value of R1 and R2. R1 is like a discard mulligan for the most part. There's precious little reason to risk card disadvantage by playing beyond 3 cards. You play your 4th card, opponent passes, you look like an idiot. Now you need to pass early in R2 to recoup your card disadvantage. It's really painful.

Let's take as an example Magic. To mitigate card draw randomness you have multiple copies of the same card in your deck and you can mulligan your initial draw. You have abilities that allow you to look at the top card an choose to discard it, you can directly fish for lands / card of a given type / same copy of your card and so on. As a player you can still have problems with the inconsistency of your card draws, but there are also tools to control it.
Honestly, MtG still has major issues with card consistency. Mana screw and mana flood will destroy a game.
 
Really annoying that the developers rolled out even more randomly than before. Cool back to basics =)
 
people jsut lvoe play same op decks with same strategy every turn without any adaptive, current gwent is no skill based its make every turn the same game , make every same combo, make every mulligan same, every thing is same in current gwent and dont talk about skill there is nowhere skill to place swordsman and ship , curent top decks and plays has nothign with skill jsut repetetive moves from game to game. Dont believe jsut type in google any deck and watch this deck gameplay from different youtubers lol aswell as streamers, nothing changes


RNG makes a bit different story

This would only be true if every match-up were the same, they're not. If this were true every Greatsword player would reach Grandmaster, they don't. Create cards on the other hand take away player input in favour of player luck, meaning thatowo players can create linear decks and rely on the create mechanic for a variety of tech cards.
 
Let's take as an example Magic. To mitigate card draw randomness you have multiple copies of the same card in your deck and you can mulligan your initial draw. You have abilities that allow you to look at the top card an choose to discard it, you can directly fish for lands / card of a given type / same copy of your card and so on. As a player you can still have problems with the inconsistency of your card draws, but there are also tools to control it.
Let me get this straight, you take a game like MTG with HUGE variance due to the land system and a 60 cards deck and point it out as a good example?

Are you aware that in gwent you see guaranteed 16 cards out of 25, not counting the mulligans (that will increase said number) and card draw/tutors (which are still there, only at the appropriate cost now. If you don't want to use them, that's another issue)?

Even if every magic card have an attached "When this card enters the battlefield, draw a card" you would still not reach the same % of deck seen every game as in gwent.
 
Let me get this straight, you take a game like MTG with HUGE variance due to the land system and a 60 cards deck and point it out as a good example?

Not really. I took it as an example to address @SarahAustin comment and @LightningYu following remark that was pointing at Magic.

You cant remove rng from card games, its why theyre so fun to play...Thats like saying you dont want the deck to get shuffled, you want to know what youre drawing and when.

In almost every CCG or TCG, you do not simply just shuffle your deck. There are ways to control your opening hand. Ideally, you'd want to influence what you are drawing and when. All games do it, even MTG. The more this kind of games evolve the more you'll see mechanics aiming at controlling card draws (for example, "Surveil" in MTG).

My main argument was (and still is) that there are two terms that defines the randomness of a game: card draw and additional RNG, tied to card effects. Random elements that come from card draw are inherent to the genre, other RNG effects not so much.

If you set aside the randomness coming from the opening hand, there is no RNG in poker, bridge, trump,...
In all this cardgames, a good player can remember, which card was played but which opponent or teammate and narrow down the cards still missing. No one is suddenly able to create a "trump card" out of thin air and bias the result of the game.

My concern is not limited to Gwent. Also in TV-shows randomness is becoming more prominent. We are moving from the "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" to "Deal or No Deal" format. Instead of winning for answering correctly a set of questions, the player wins by chosing from a group of boxes, each containing randomly assigned sums of money.

The question is, why are we heading in that direction?
 
I didnt say bloat the game with RNG with we already have decks that are way too thin among other things that reduce RNG.

There were multiple points where few decks could reliably play the entire deck. Part of the strength of those decks was, you guessed it, reliably playing the entire deck. Even reliably pulling every important card in the deck is enough. The question is, how? It's rhetorical. Tutors. Tutors have a critical aspect in common with certain other mechanics. High tempo, resurrects, replayable cards and removal come to mind. They're a good idea until you have access to too many. The quantity of this stuff needs kept in check. Since Gwent first went standalone they have not been.

Limiting tutors, increasing deck sizes and reducing the ability to carry multiple copies of the same card are better ways to add RNG, and by extension variety, compared to slapping random on cards. The difference is one type of RNG can be reliably planned around. The other cannot. It should be clear which fits a game touted as having a focus on player skill.
 
Limiting tutors, increasing deck sizes and reducing the ability to carry multiple copies of the same card are better ways to add RNG, and by extension variety, compared to slapping random on cards. The difference is one type of RNG can be reliably planned around. The other cannot. It should be clear which fits a game touted as having a focus on player skill.

By doing everything at once, limiting tutors, increasing deck sizes and reducing the number of bronzes they are overcompensating.

- It is possible to have the player pay for the consistency. Someone in this forum proposed to have the provision cost increasing with the additional copy of cards you would put in a deck. Your first card costs X, the second copy X+1, the third copy X+2 provisions.

- Not all tutors / thinning tool are also equally interesting. Dun Banner Cavalry for example, I think they added a unique flavour to the game. Now they are just another damage X card. (Dun Banner Cavarly are a good example for what in my opinion is still reasonable RNG. They spawn on a random row, so thinks can still go wrong and put you in Igni range.)

No one here takes MTG for anything. Here we care about Gwent.

Well, I also like MTG, even if I don't play it that much. ;)
 
Last edited:
By doing everything at once, limiting tutors, increasing deck sizes and reducing the number of bronzes they are overcompensating.

- It is possible to have the player pay for the consistency. Someone in this forum proposed to have the provision cost increasing with the additional copy of cards you would put in a deck. Your first card costs X, the second copy X+1, the third copy X+2 provisions.

- Not all tutors / thinning tool are also equally interesting. Dun Banner Cavalry for example, I think they added a unique flavour to the game. Now they are just another damage X card. (Dun Banner Cavarly are a good example for what in my opinion is still reasonable RNG. They spawn on a random row, so thinks can still go wrong and put you in Igni range.)
They didn't increased deck size at all.
 
Top Bottom