Why Should Drawing the Second Round Results in Defeat (after losing the first round)?

[Guest 4336264]

So, I've played a few games where I've lost the first round, but drawn the second round only - but not playing a third round as the winner of the first round is awarded an overall victory. I'm not sure this is quite right. Should it not be possible to play a third round and either force a draw or the other player wins 2 clear rounds?

As things currently stand, if I win the first round, but lose the second, the third is a decider. However, it is possible to achieve a draw on the third round when both players end the match with the same score (and having won one round each). At any rate, three rounds are played in that scenario - it can end in either a clear victory for one of the players, or a drawer.

Anyway, I'm unsure as to why losing the first round, but drawing the second round should result in an overall loss when there is, in reality, the possibility of a third round - forcing an outright draw or an outright victory. If anyone has arguments as to why one player should win outright simply by winning one round and drawing the second - and not even playing a decider (the third round) - I'd be interested in hearing it.

 

[Jesting-Jack]

Each time you win or draw a round you get half a crown. The first player who gets both halves wins the game.
So when your opponent won the first round, he got half a crown while you got none. The second round was a draw which means that your opponent got another half, thus completing his crown, while you were left with only one half.

 

[Guest 4336264]

Each time you win or draw a round you get half a crown. The first player who gets both halves wins the game.
So when your opponent won the first round, he got half a crown while you got none. The second round was a draw which means that your opponent got another half, thus completing his crown, while you were left with only one half.

Good point, I completely forgot about the crown. I guess that settles that...

 

[Celadyl]

out of curiosity: has anyone actually ever had a game where both round 1 and round 2 were draws? lol

 

[Guest 4336264]

out of curiosity: has anyone actually ever had a game where both round 1 and round 2 were draws? lol

That would be curious - I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of achievement related to such an outcome.

 

[kilarr]

I haven't done two draws on the first two rounds but once I won the first round, lost the second and then had a draw on the 3rd and it did count as a draw, not a win or lose. That match is fairly recent in my history actually

 

[Guest 4336264]

I haven't done two draws on the first two rounds but once I won the first round, lost the second and then had a draw on the 3rd and it did count as a draw, not a win or lose. That match is fairly recent in my history actually

Yeah, that's as expected.

Still, despite the fact that a player is awarded half a crown for a win or a draw, I can't help feeling that under certain circumstances it doesn't feel right:

So, if I've taken into account all the possible scenarios... ...it means that:

There are 4 match variations that require 3 rounds to be played for either a win or a lose.

There are a possible 7 variations in the way a match can play out that require only 2 rounds to be played - resulting in a win, lose or draw.

There are exactly 0 variations of possible match play that requires 3 rounds to achieve a draw.

Let's try a few other possibilities where the match isn't lost following a lose and a draw type scenario...

Normally it's something like this:

Lose ---------- Draw ---------- N/A ---------- Lose ---------- x2 rounds played

However, let's say that under such circumstances a further round - the decider - must be played:

Lose ---------- Draw ---------- Lose ---------- Lose ---------- x3 rounds played

Lose ---------- Draw ---------- Win ---------- Draw ---------- x3 rounds played

Lose ---------- Draw ---------- Draw ---------- Draw ---------- x3 rounds played

Effectively, an extra round will only ever permit a draw or a loss. Would a player prefer to play the extra round to achieve a draw, or are they content to lose under these circumstances?

How about the following?

Win ---------- Draw ---------- N/A ---------- Win ---------- x2 rounds played

With a decider:

Win ---------- Draw ---------- Win ---------- Win ---------- x3 rounds played

Win ---------- Draw ---------- Draw ---------- Win ---------- x3 rounds played

Win ---------- Draw ---------- Lose ---------- Draw ---------- x3 rounds played

In those instances, with a decider, the outcomes are either win and draw. Should an extra round be played in the hopes of trying to force a draw instead of granting an outright win after two rounds and only one win?

Then we have:

Draw ---------- Draw ---------- N/A ---------- Draw ---------- x2 rounds played

A third round here would either result in a draw, a win or a lose. In these circumstances, I think a third round would definitely be useful.

Next:

Draw ---------- Win ---------- N/A ---------- Win ---------- x2 rounds played

If one draws the first round and wins the second this results in a victory.

However, playing a third round could result in either a loss on the third round that results in a draw; a win in the third round that results in a clear two round win; or a draw on the third round that would still result in a win. Best outcome is to improve the losing player position from outright loss to a draw - never a win.

Finally (I'll stop here...), the following:

Draw ---------- Lose ---------- N/A ---------- Lose ---------- x2 rounds played

If the first round is a draw, and the second a lose then the match is lost.

Playing a third round would result in a possible draw by winning the third round; outright loss by losing the third round; or still losing by drawing the third round - the best a losing player could achieve is a draw, but never a win.

CONCLUSION

By playing a third round under certain circumstances a player who loses immediately on the second round - by losing then drawing, etc. - could force a draw if a third round were played. It doesn't appear that a win is ever possible under such circumstances.

However, the question must be asked - particularly when playing for a RANK - do you prefer the current system whereby you may lose under certain circumstances where a further round could result in a DRAW, or would you prefer to be able to play on and try to force a DRAW or a clear LOSS (or WIN from the other perspective)?

 

[Payus]

I've had some double draws, it's obviously rare but happens. And i like the current system, you can bluff pass and get draw wins sometimes, and as the player trying to win after losing round 1, it forces you to use math before hero passing.

 

[nedders]

Not sure if it's related, but I think if you go first/lose coin toss, you always go second in R3. I think it would change the dynamic of plays and bring R2 into the equation more.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] but I think if you go first/lose coin toss, you always go second in R3.

That's incorrect. The player who wins the round, goes first in the next one.

 

[nedders]

That's incorrect. The player who wins the round, goes first in the next one.

Haha! Sorry, I meant whoever goes first SHOULD automatically go second in the 3rd round, if there is one. Winner of R1 goes first R2.

 

[Evangium]

out of curiosity: has anyone actually ever had a game where both round 1 and round 2 were draws? lol

It just comes up with the same 'Draw' splash that you get when you both draw in R3.

 

[Guest 4336264]

I'd be interested to hear opinions about RANK and how drawing a game affects RANK. It's pretty obvious that LOSING a game is going to negatively affect a player's rank; I imagine, too, that having a higher number of draws will push down a rank - more wins the better.

For those players who particularly enjoy playing RANKED matches, would you prefer to be able to play a third round in certain circumstances if it would provide a chance to force a DRAW - but possibly resulting in a loss?

The fact is that the current system means you will be given a LOSS simply for losing a round and drawing a round. Whereas, if, under those circumstances, you could play a third round, it may well be possible to turn that guaranteed LOSS into a DRAW - surely better for a player rank...

 

[Evangium]

I'd be interested to hear opinions about RANK and how drawing a game affects RANK. It's pretty obvious that LOSING a game is going to negatively affect a player's rank; I imagine, too, that having a higher number of draws will push down a rank - more wins the better.

For those players who particularly enjoy playing RANKED matches, would you prefer to be able to play a third round in certain circumstances if it would provide a chance to force a DRAW - but possibly resulting in a loss?

The fact is that the current system means you will be given a LOSS simply for losing a round and drawing a round. Whereas, if, under those circumstances, you could play a third round, it may well be possible to turn that guaranteed LOSS into a DRAW - surely better for a player rank...

Unless CDPR have changed things since open beta, then drawing to someone with lower MMR than you has a negative effect on your MMR and a positive one on theirs. I'm kind of on the fence about the current way R1 win+ R2draw is handled. One the one hand, it's great if you're the person who won the first round. However, it kind of renders a key Gwent CA strategy, dry-pass and set up for R3 invalid, since we shouldn't be playing to R3. If CDPR never intended R3 to be anything but a rarely used tie-breaker, then both players should discard their hand and draw enough cards to make it a fair sudden death round. You should also get a higher score for 2-0, rather than 2-1. If they intended their game to be 3 rounds long, then R1 win+R2 draw only means anything if you win R1+R3. Anything else is a draw, which brings us back to R3 not really being critical in the context of the game.

 

[Guest 4336264]

Unless CDPR have changed things since open beta, then drawing to someone with lower MMR than you has a negative effect on your MMR and a positive one on theirs. I'm kind of on the fence about the current way R1 win+ R2draw is handled. One the one hand, it's great if you're the person who won the first round. However, it kind of renders a key Gwent CA strategy, dry-pass and set up for R3 invalid, since we shouldn't be playing to R3. If CDPR never intended R3 to be anything but a rarely used tie-breaker, then both players should discard their hand and draw enough cards to make it a fair sudden death round. You should also get a higher score for 2-0, rather than 2-1. If they intended their game to be 3 rounds long, then R1 win+R2 draw only means anything if you win R1+R3. Anything else is a draw, which brings us back to R3 not really being critical in the context of the game.

Interesting stuff. I'm totally oblivious to how the ranking system works. All I know is that a win is a good thing and a loss is bad. I would have thought a draw was kind of neutral...

As for the rounds and the way they are played, I've noticed that a lot of the time players will simply surrender round 2 (having won round 1) because the may be a card or two down. Obviously, where they have equal cards they continue to try and win round 2. Seems a bit crazy to me that you work so hard to win a round then simply pass on the 2nd round to try and win the 3rd.

I realise that has little to do with my question about draws and losses, but it was something that came to mind when reading your comments.

Still, from what you've said, it would appear that trying to go for a draw in a round 3 in certain scenarios would be better for rank than having a loss. However, the fact that the currently mechanics are applied equally to all, it's not like anyone is particularly disadvantaged by the current system as it can (probably has) happen to us all.

 

[Evangium]

Interesting stuff. I'm totally oblivious to how the ranking system works. All I know is that a win is a good thing and a loss is bad. I would have thought a draw was kind of neutral...

As for the rounds and the way they are played, I've noticed that a lot of the time players will simply surrender round 2 (having won round 1) because the may be a card or two down. Obviously, where they have equal cards they continue to try and win round 2. Seems a bit crazy to me that you work so hard to win a round then simply pass on the 2nd round to try and win the 3rd.

All to do with card advantage. It's been a problem for Gwent since the beginning I think. Simply if you win the first round, it tends not to matter much if you have more cards going into R2 than your opponent - you'll have even more cards if you pass the second round and play the third one. There's only really a few exceptions - opponent has some form of carryover, or they're playing a deck that does well in a long third round being two of them.

Still, from what you've said, it would appear that trying to go for a draw in a round 3 in certain scenarios would be better for rank than having a loss. However, the fact that the currently mechanics are applied equally to all, it's not like anyone is particularly disadvantaged by the current system as it can (probably has) happen to us all.

Yeah, but you need to run an external tracker that shows player MMR to know when those situations appear. Otherwise, it's just a surprise at the end of the match