Will Gwent ever change?

+

rrc

Forum veteran
RNG stands for Random Number Generator. It is like a computerized dice roll. Actually generating truly random numbers is something that is not as easy to achieve as you may first think. Ever had one of those CD changers that "randomly" plays the same CD or track over and over?
You can learn more here.
Implementing the logic of creating "truly" random numbers may be hard which will generate truly random number with in a given range. But these logic were all implemented in every programming language and all you will need is to call the standard SDK to get a random number. Also RNG is part of every single card game. There can never be a card game without any RNG involved and draw RNG is the basic of all card games.

But the current problem of Gwent is, the cards are so horribly polarized (top deck cards generating so much value than the low end cards, out of proportion) that missing a few (or in some cases even one card) determines whether you are going to win the game or not. If the cards are not this horribly polarized (4P cards get at least 6 points and 7 in some cases and cards like scenarios which can generate 18 or 19 [just by themselves and on top of that putting an engine which can generate even more points] for 13-15P. Now if you don't draw this card, you are losing HUGE point swing. Now you have drawn them and now the next deciding factor of whether the opponent can win or not depends on whether he had drawn Heatwave) the draw RNG will not play such a major role in whether one can win or not if not for the polarization.

Magpie brought a deck with twelve 4P cards and thirteen high provision cards because of this huge freaking polarization and the outcome of the game is mostly decided by whether he draws his top end cards or not. At the highest level of the tournaments, there is a bit of player agency involved, but at most levels, it is "whether I drew my cards and whether my opponents didn't draw the counter" determines the outcome. The game plays by itself in most parts.

This is what people tell when they mention RNG determines the game. Mostly meaning that the individual player's decision has little to do with the outcome (it is there.. the only thing now the players need to know is when to pass in R1) and the rest is completely determined by "who drew better" and the reason is bloody polarization.
 
(Nathan277 here, my actual account got deleted somehow)
Yeah, I honestly feel like I've never enjoyed the game any less than I do now. I've touched it once or twice the last couple of weeks and I don't miss it and about 5 minutes into a session I remember why I don't wanna play in the first place.

The game isn't more unbalanced now than it was before. But it is so much more boring than ever, at least to me.
I feel like the game operates like dominos now. To give you an example of what I mean by this:
>Lippy deck opponent >Oops I'm on blue coin >Oops he answers my TA with his Geralt/Curse/whatever and I'm now behind > He drew his coinflip abuse package so I'll never get ahead >guess I lose on even >guess I lose the game.

Player agency just feels nonexistent in so many games. There's nothing there that excites me anymore.
I've many times in Homecoming felt the need to take a couple of months off, now I just feel like quitting altogether.
It is what it is, many people like what Gwent is now and I'm only one person. But yeah, as a fan of TW3 Gwent and Beta Gwent and some segments of HC, this just doesn't feel good anymore. Will check back in with the next expansion and see how that goes. If that doesn't reinvigorate the game I will assume nothing ever will.
 

ya1

Forum regular
Lippy deck opponent

This list is obnoxious. No disrespect for people who play it but I won't GG it ever (and used to GG everything in the past... #gwentmademebitter ;)). It's the essense of what's wrong with Gwent. Things like this should be looked at with even more scrutiny than Shieldwall. But it's never gonna be balanced because: 1) winrates 2) not enough Reddit hate.

Another one is the previous "meta" Precision Strike. I always loved Gord decks and control but this is ridiculous. There should seriously be an option of showing your hand to the opponent. Because if they didn't miss most of their stuff on red coin, there is no need to even play.

OH is the deck that it's easy to demonstrate the polarization. They got 19 (Haunt), 19 (Dethlaff) and 10 (Golyat) in their hand. Is it even possible to win with this with any combination of 3 cards which aren't strictly top end? Even Heatwave only plays for 13 here. (Oh, and Ruehin got popular, too, which can play for like 30 points throughout the round and is a easy pick for people with no skill/patience to bleed).
 
Last edited:
Imo, heatwave could be the same except instead of fully destroying a unit it could set it's power to 1 and give it doomed. :] And keep it to kill Artifacts.
 
First, a little rant alert. I'm here to share my recent experience with Gwent, and it's not a very positive experience, unfortunately. After the initial fascination with the game's outstanding art, music and the setting in the Witcher universe, I realized that from the point of view of CCG gameplay, Gwent is not a very good game... After some time spent on the more competitive side of Gwent, I realized that it's quite a torture and requires nerves of steel and major frustration resistance. It's not easy to quit because of the time and money investment (luckily not so much of the latter) but I don't think it is okay to keep torturing oneself with a game that plays badly.

Number one issue is the ratio of player agency to good ol' luck. It is only maybe 1 in 4 or 5 of my losses where I can clearly pinpoint my misplays and know it's the misplays that cost me the game. About 75-80% of my losses seem like there was nothing I could do. Those games seem like the player has no agency in them whatsoever. You just draw for the win or you don't. Playing such a game where you are bound to lose from the start - it's like to watch your own doom, in the face of which you are totally powerless, slowly unfold in front of you. This is extremely frustrating. Especially when it's the Sisiphean task of MMR climbing.

But the realization of how unsatisfied with the game I really was came when I took a closer look at my wins. It was exactly the same. Very few wins felt like I got them "fairly." Majority of my wins, I was either crushing my opponents silly with draw and/or matchup advantage, or would have lost if they drew this or that. And in either case, how those games were actually played by the players was of no consequence.

What makes things worse, meta is swarming with decks that abuse RNG by fishing for unconditional R1 wins in order to abuse round control and last say. An example is the Ciris-Lippy deck. Or the MO decks that pointslam R1 with Haunt and Dethlaff and can't lose if they draw them, and then abuse R3 last say with some Glusties, Rats, no-unit strategies or other degeneracies. When those decks draw to win R1, it's already game over. If the game is over before it even started, it's not really a game, is it? And the problem is that regular meta decks aren't so much different from these fringe RNG abusers. Get the better draw for R1, get round control/last say while the oppo can do nothing about it, win the game. This is basically the essence of Gwent.

Another thing is that the game is MEGABINARY. Many games are like just flip your Heatwave coin and get done with it. Top-end card abilities are so ridiculously strong that it makes many games like "Get your removal A for the target X, removal B for the target Y and removal C for the target Z, mess one thing up on either side and it's game over."

Third thing is the "balancing." (Talking about Heatwave, devs will probably provision-nerf it "because it's too popular" and call it a day... I could bet a small sum on it ;)) This "balancing" without much insight into how the game plays in practice is really really tiresome for someone who follows it. Every patch seems like 30% ok changes and 70% total fails. The weakest archetypes, factions and decks get nerfs. The strongest, most oppressive interactions are rarely changed or remodeled but usually just get the lazy provision nerfs that change little or leave room to be replaced by other broken alternatives. Or sometimes, the most broken stuff gets additions that break it even more. It seems like no playtesting is ever done for the balancing purposes. Bad balancing only magnifies the core problems with the game.

Fourth, many obvious problems are never being addressed. Like the total dumpstering of the casual mode by mock quest decks. Again, why can't people do their quests in the training mode? I can guess devs wanted people to craft interesting decks and get them to match against each other in diverse and interesting games. Well, if that was the mission then here's a newsflash: MISSION FAILED. Casual is a dumpster for people who just slap weird cards together at random and spam them to get the quests done, never actually trying to "play Gwent" or caring for the win.

In conclusion, it's been fun. CDPR is best game devs ever (in general). Witcher universe is best. But I think it's time to quit. I'll stick around till next patch, see what's up (probably nothing) and then quit. Gwent seriously deserves better then what it's getting.
Well we've probably never agreed on much but this I can agree with. I stopped playing 2-3 weeks now. From what I hear the devs have said the next patch will not include any balancing so take that as you will lol I'm a MO player but even I don't want to play the cards you mentioned. Even if I win I feel it wasn't earned so rather than add to the problem I felt it best to leave the game. I'll see what happens the next expansion whether it's worth returning
 
This match in a textbook example of how missing one card auto-loses you the game.

None of this is not ofc meant to question Pajabol's ability. But these games do not prove in the least that he's a better player than WangID. If they changed places, WangID would probably have won the all the games he lost.

People forget that a lot of the skill in tournament play is in what decks you bring. It's way different than ladder play. He could've packed more fetch cards (monsters does have them). If he did and used it for something else, his deck was too dependant on too many cards. He valued other cards or decks instead of consistency and he lost. It happens.

And you're right: it doesn't prove he's the better player. But does it need to? You get the top 8 players together, where the difference between number 7 and 8 is so small they might've switched there anyway. They merely play one series to crown a winner. Try to prove how FCBarcelona losing to some crappy team in the Cup makes the crappy team somehow the better team, even though they'd lose 95% of the time. I can't believe I have to explain this...

And can we please not push CDPR to make Gwent more like chess? Fixed decks, fixed hands. You realise 90% of the userbase will just quit as it'll be boring to them. People don't realise that even top players have about, what, 65% win rate? In a non-meta world (aka. the lower regions of ranked) it's possible to get 80+% so that will tell you that skill is definitely a thing. The skill ceiling is just way lower than chess because of RNG but the game badly needs it.
 
People forget that a lot of the skill in tournament play is in what decks you bring. It's way different than ladder play. He could've packed more fetch cards (monsters does have them). If he did and used it for something else, his deck was too dependant on too many cards. He valued other cards or decks instead of consistency and he lost. It happens.

And you're right: it doesn't prove he's the better player. But does it need to? You get the top 8 players together, where the difference between number 7 and 8 is so small they might've switched there anyway. They merely play one series to crown a winner. Try to prove how FCBarcelona losing to some crappy team in the Cup makes the crappy team somehow the better team, even though they'd lose 95% of the time. I can't believe I have to explain this...

And can we please not push CDPR to make Gwent more like chess? Fixed decks, fixed hands. You realise 90% of the userbase will just quit as it'll be boring to them. People don't realise that even top players have about, what, 65% win rate? In a non-meta world (aka. the lower regions of ranked) it's possible to get 80+% so that will tell you that skill is definitely a thing. The skill ceiling is just way lower than chess because of RNG but the game badly needs it.

The problem isn’t just deck building, it is random match ups. For example, a well built thrive deck will struggle against a control deck. Likewise a revival deck will thrive against a control deck, as will swarm in most cases. NG against Syndicate has an advantage, but NG against SK is a tough sell.

Deck building is half the fun of Gwent. The issue is that net decks make the game feel more like a grind then a game. Faction identity used to allow more diverse gameplay, but now most factions play the same and even the ones that are quasi unique really boil down to control, engines, and scenarios.

To fix Gwent you need 3 things.
1. Balance the factions power.
2. Create more factions and give each faction truly unique cards and abilities. Coins and fees are not unique enough either. Make SK the revival faction, make NG the spying faction, make MO the only thrive faction, ect... get rid of things like Harmony and replace them with other characteristics like ambush and trap. Movement is another thing that should be exclusive to ST. I could go on but you get the point.
3. Redo the ranking system to give huge MMR penalties to popular leaders. You should get 1/5th the MMR for winning with the best leader as you get for winning with the worst. Invigorate should literally pay out 5 times more points than nature’s gift. Imagine how much more diversity you would see if weak leaders paid more but also lost more often.
 

ya1

Forum regular
He could've packed more fetch cards (monsters does have them). If he did and used it for something else, his deck was too dependant on too many cards. He valued other cards or decks instead of consistency and he lost.

Sorry but this is just bad commentary. WAngID used pretty much the default Magpie's Keltulis list with Oneiromancy. It's not inconsistent or "dependent on too many cards." (BTW MO actually have the worst "fetch" cards: only Naglfar with possible Ge'els. No deckbuilder at that level would ever use them in devotionless MO with Oneiromancy.)

He just didn't draw what he needed and couldn't have won which is how 70-80% of games in Gwent end up. Even I would have won that game against him.

And can we please not push CDPR to make Gwent more like chess?

I'll take "more like chess" over "more like chess where one of the sides might end up having only pawns" any day.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but this is just bad commentary.

I didn't really look at his decklist, so it's not specific commentary, but I knew he didn't pack Naglfar. So that fact alone made it less consistent than what it could be. And what "level" are you talking about? This is not regular tournament play of 10 rounds. They just play 2 matches on average with their decks. I've seen Swim utilize decks no one would dare play on ladder, and he dominated some of the top tier decks because they didn't pack an answer.

The call for less RNG in cardgames isn't new. I get that people were mad in Hearthstone as they graduately introduced it. In Gwent things haven't really changed much imo. You started it, you stuck with it. Now deal with it or decide on some other game. I've played through MtG seasons years ago where there were the same "you have it or you don't" scenarios. Few people were complaining about it. Thank god Wang is a veteran who understands the game. He chose the deck. He knew there's a chance he wouldn't get it. He accepts the loss, probably even more because he knows he couldn't change the outcome. There's always cases in gaming where matches are won or lost before they officially start.
 
There's always cases in gaming where matches are won or lost before they officially start.

It doesn't have to be like this! You're so used to this being normal because Homecoming Gwent has always been like this. It's like people are brainwashed into thinking this game is supposed to be binary af. I remember in pre-midwinter Gwent you always felt like you had a chance to win, no matter the match-up.
 
I've said it before and will reiterate again - ultimately, every major issue modern Gwent has, boils down to linear and uninspired card design after HC. Add one point, remove one point, without any kind of important condition or consequence.
Some cards just add or remove better. There's no reason to even discuss anything while this is the case, because unless engines/removal get heavy "restraining bolt" type of nerf as card types, they will keep outclassing everything else with their dumb linear efficiency.

Make Rebukes scale from 2 to 10, depending on the amount of treants you have on board, make Boiling Oil require two soldiers, make Drummers only boost adjacent unit when a Soldier or a Knight is played that turn, make all the instant knee-jerk reaction cards like Korathi harder to use (like, I dunno, lock a unit/scenario for a turn and banish it if it isn't purified?)
so that game finally involves some deeper planning than "kill everything nasty and slam engines that tick no matter what".


And only once every powerful play involves walking at least an extra step to facilitate it (or paying more provisions if it doesn't involve any setup), will there be something to talk about. There is no way to balance linear mechanics - one will always be better than another on purely math level, and consequently, skill will always be less important than the deck itself.

p.s. I know I'm guilty of participating in such pointless, needlessly-particular threads myself. But I always try to align my suggestions with this general idea of the global makeover.
 
Can someone explain to me what random is? I think your complaints are you learning how the game actually works over time which isnt a bad thing, It seems that there was an uncomfortable sense of the game building because of the rigidity of the coded game which is perfectly fair, If I play too much one day i feel burnt out and need to do something more creative and abstract like drawing. It is what it is , this is actually why they add cards with " wild rng " so you dont feel so locked into the path of the game and it can still swing based on card draws, less rng cards means that you will be relying on your card draw to form your strategy which is just another more complex form of rng over the course of the game. So the choice remains yours , make a deck with high rng swing cards or build a solid ramp deck with lots of synergy or do what most people do and create a nice mix. traking your wins and mistakes doesnt really work when u cant see the other players cards and choices once the game is over and thats just too much work and is way to complicated considering all the faction matchups etc etc
 

ya1

Forum regular
Back from 10 games in this promo period with 6 wins and 4 losses. EVERY SINGLE LOSS, THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO DIFFERENTLY THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME. 100%. And that is despite my opponents playing really crap homebrews and making outrageous misplays. Like this Congregate (without Fallen Knights lol) pushed into R2 without Whoreson in hand, spent all leader and Jaqcues when it was obvious 2:0 can't be done, lost card advantage but still won because they topdecked 3 golds while I had 1 gold and 3 bronzes. I was THIS close to throwing my phone outta the window.

I imagine it didn't look much different for the guys who lost to me. Devs should seriously think how to fix this crap instead of throwing cosmetics around, making seasonal promos and trying to design more broken cards for the expansion. These ridiculous value gaps make 3-4 out of 5 lost games outright IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN. This game is a roulette but instead of seeing the outcome right away you gotta spend 10-15 minutes pretending to "play cards" which in the end is of no consequence in the majority of games.

It is still a fine game in those minority of matches where draw and matchup advantages are more or less evened out. More matches should be like that.

So the choice remains yours , make a deck with high rng swing cards or build a solid ramp deck with lots of synergy or do what most people do and create a nice mix.

This sounds great in theory but has nothing to do with reality. You can miss your Oneiromancy just like any other card. And it is those decks with high rng swings that are a big part of the problem. Because when they draw good they are either outright unbeatable or force you to draw exactly same provision value to the card.

BTW, the more your deck depends on synergies between cards the more it's prone to 1) bricking and 2) getting bled out of your packages. And the latter is not any less RNG-dependent than the former because round control goes to whoever drew better for R1.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before and will reiterate again - ultimately, every major issue modern Gwent has, boils down to linear and uninspired card design after HC. Add one point, remove one point, without any kind of important condition or consequence.
Some cards just add or remove better. There's no reason to even discuss anything while this is the case, because unless engines/removal get heavy "restraining bolt" type of nerf as card types, they will keep outclassing everything else with their dumb linear efficiency.

Make Rebukes scale from 2 to 10, depending on the amount of treants you have on board, make Boiling Oil require two soldiers, make Drummers only boost adjacent unit when a Soldier or a Knight is played that turn, make all the instant knee-jerk reaction cards like Korathi harder to use (like, I dunno, lock a unit/scenario for a turn and banish it if it isn't purified?)
so that game finally involves some deeper planning than "kill everything nasty and slam engines that tick no matter what".


And only once every powerful play involves walking at least an extra step to facilitate it (or paying more provisions if it doesn't involve any setup), will there be something to talk about. There is no way to balance linear mechanics - one will always be better than another on purely math level, and consequently, skill will always be less important than the deck itself.

p.s. I know I'm guilty of participating in such pointless, needlessly-particular threads myself. But I always try to align my suggestions with this general idea of the global makeover.
i like your ideas

Its seems evs create to powerfull buff cards. So they need to create cards that can counter it.

But now, we only see counter decks.

So i think we need to change everything. Makes more dificult to have win combos (those combos that if you dont stop in the beggening you lose) but also makes more dificult to use the counter cards.

Its still going to be RNG dependence, but i think the skills of the player will count more
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Even though i really hate this meta, because of how stale it is, and mostly unchanged since early July when MM expansion dropped, im having no trouble winning (although i dont play ranked, if that matters).

How? Well, if my 1st love is meme decks, my 2nd is swarm decks. And swarm is great in this meta, where everyone is playing Heatwave and tall removal, most are playing tall units and no one is playing wide punishment.

Seriously, the only lacerates and surrenders ive been seeing are used by newbies, which is ironic because they're getting good value out of those, but they lose because of the rest of their cards, while the metadecks often lose against my swarms but would've won if they had those lacerates instead of whatever cards in 7provision range they're using.
I only need to worry with werecat in OH matchups and Hemdall vs SK Warriors. Even Precision Strike decks are not using Schirru, just going tall and playing tall removal.

So my advice is instead of playing tall+tall removal, play wide+tall removal, it works well, and its always fun to see opponents spend their Heatwave on a 5pt non engine unit.
I know some argue scenarios are really good now because they "trade well" with heatwave, but i'd rather not use scenarios and really make sure the heatwave never finds a good target.
 

ya1

Forum regular
It's not about losing or winning. It's about losing (or winning) solely because you have 6 golds stuck in your deck and your opponent has 5 (or vice versa). This is what Gwent came down to. These losses feel just frustrating and these wins do not feel satisfying at all.
 
It doesn't have to be like this! You're so used to this being normal because Homecoming Gwent has always been like this. It's like people are brainwashed into thinking this game is supposed to be binary af. I remember in pre-midwinter Gwent you always felt like you had a chance to win, no matter the match-up.
That was my experience with Gwent during the majority of Beta as well. During those periods, with a well crafted home brew deck, I almost always felt like winning was possible in any given match. The only exception I can think of offhand is when you missed drawing your counters against a Sabbath deck.

I can't say the same for Homecoming.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the relative distribution of value between cards. In the later period of Beta, bronze cards were reckoned to be typically worth about 12, silvers about 15 and golds about 18 (albeit some values being more circumstantial than others). With more evenly weighted cards, you could still win even if you missed drawing your golds.

These days, under the current provision system, the much greater value discrepancy between cards clearly makes luck of the draw far more impactful to your chances during any given match.
 
Even though i really hate this meta, because of how stale it is, and mostly unchanged since early July when MM expansion dropped, im having no trouble winning (although i dont play ranked, if that matters).

How? Well, if my 1st love is meme decks, my 2nd is swarm decks. And swarm is great in this meta, where everyone is playing Heatwave and tall removal, most are playing tall units and no one is playing wide punishment.

Seriously, the only lacerates and surrenders ive been seeing are used by newbies, which is ironic because they're getting good value out of those, but they lose because of the rest of their cards, while the metadecks often lose against my swarms but would've won if they had those lacerates instead of whatever cards in 7provision range they're using.
I only need to worry with werecat in OH matchups and Hemdall vs SK Warriors. Even Precision Strike decks are not using Schirru, just going tall and playing tall removal.

So my advice is instead of playing tall+tall removal, play wide+tall removal, it works well, and its always fun to see opponents spend their Heatwave on a 5pt non engine unit.
I know some argue scenarios are really good now because they "trade well" with heatwave, but i'd rather not use scenarios and really make sure the heatwave never finds a good target.
I have the same stratagema.

I love to use a ritual ursine deck i create by my own, and in this seasonal i reached pro rank with it (in the last 2 seasonal i reached with SC devotion simbioses deck). My deck has a lot of useless cards thats only puts a lot of points hehehe
 
I agree that cards HAVE become more boring since HC. They add or substract more or less than other cards. They even made it so simple that a schmuck like me can do the math. For me this is still fine, but I get that the more 'competitive' players want to move on to another game. (But do that then. No point in complaining as it'll never be like it was before...)

And don't worry about wide removal. Once people are 'swarming' towards point spam again, it will become popular again and you will lose more. That is the way of the meta. :p
 
Addressing issue number one, about luck on draws. Mulligans could be reworked including a wager mechanism. I don't know how exactly this could be implemented, but mulligans could have a different system that takes into account if and when you mulligan up or down on provisions. Sometimes you need that gold, sometimes you need that bronze, the thing is that, overall, mulligan into lower provisions when you just don't need those higher provisions cards is critical and possible game over. My point is that the actual value of cards is match dependent so the "trade" could include this feature somehow.
 
Top Bottom