Thing is, the strength of a deck is always relative to the other decks you could be playing. Reducing draw RNG helps high variance decks at the cost of making low variance decks (in relative terms) weaker.
Let me know if you need any help analyzing the data.
Iāve actually never played Gwent, or the Witcher, but I will take that as a compliment, since they seem like quality games. Is the Mulligan system in Gwent similar to the way I describe? In what way is it different?
I didnāt play every card game but I tried a lot of them and i never saw a mulligan that gives you back the same card that you discarded if you donāt have other copies. I donāt know how to explain it anymore but it is just wrong. I donāt understund how can it be a good think.
You cannot have a discussion if you cannot acknowledge the other side.
How can anyone take you seriously, if you say to the other side: āYouāre just wrong, I cannot explain it, but I donāt understand how can you like what you likeā. In matters of taste, acknowledge or shush. The fact that you prefer one option to another does not make the other one wrong, and saying this out loud is rude - to say it lightly.
In some games you canāt even play cards until turn 3 and some times even turn 4, isnāt it a valid argument? Those games are just lost 100% no matter what you do because you canāt do nothing. You canāt say that this is just my opinion. This is bad for the players and itās bad for the game. Do you really canāt see it? Itās unbelievable.
Yeah, nice answare
No, it isnāt. But Iāve already touched on this. The existence of non-functional draws does not in anyway imply that draw variance should be reduced.
So unplayable games means variance for you?
variance
noun: variance; plural noun: variances
the state or fact of disagreeing or quarrelling.
āthey were at variance with all their previous alliesā
synonyms: conflicting, in conflict, contrasting, incompatible, irreconcilable, antithetical, contradictory, clashing, contrary, different, differing, divergent, dissimilar, disagreeing, in disagreement, at odds, at cross purposes, at loggerheads, opposed, opposing, opposite, in opposition, poles apart, polar, at outs; More
LAW
a discrepancy between two statements or documents.
STATISTICS
a quantity equal to the square of the standard deviation.
GAMES OF CHANCE
having a bad draw sometimes
Ofc luck itās a factor in every card game and you have to deal with it but it canāt have that much influence on the winner of a game. But ok, I get it. You donāt care if some games are decided just by pure luck and the players skill level doesnāt matter at all. If thatās the case, there is no point in continuing this discussion.
OMG we are doomed, dis gaem no skillz just luck.
You forgot to mention itās P2W and it has cheaters. But I have to agree with you, there is no chance at a discussion when one side of said discussion is on a soapbox, heralding doom is nigh.
Iām not saying random no sense stuffs. I didnāt say ādis gaem no skillz just luckā. I just said that some matches are decided just by pure luck because how the mulligan and the first turns work. And this is 100% true and you canāt disagree with it.
You also didnāt provide any argument why itās oh so important to remove that specific piece of RNG being able to sway some games, and not the other RNG elements also being able to sway some games. Instead, as without a doubt every time, you went to scream on top of your lungs āwin through luck!ā and āno skill!ā, not to mention the undying āitās wrong!ā and āitās bad for the game!ā.
Every time asked about backing or argumentation you instead turn to populism and soapboxes. And this is 100% true and you canāt disagree with it.
And this is why there wasnāt any discussion in the first place. Because you actively refuse to take a part in one.
Some games are decided just by pure luck. This is an argumentation.
No, itās a statement. A fact, too. An argument is, in this case,
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
As I understand it, your argument is that all luck needs to be removed, and as such, the game needs to stop using any random draw mechanics, correct?
Incorrect. The point is just to avoid games where luck is the only thing that matters and you donāt even have a chance to start playing cards.
There we go. So now we go back to original question:
What is the argumentation for the luck cut off point to be at the draw? Why other luck based losses are ok, but bad mulligans are not?
Why is it fine when the win comes down to that one lucky draw at the end of 30 minutes game, but wrong when itās at turn 0?
Because it is fixable and I donāt see why you shouldnāt do it. Do you?
Yes. And there is a SQUARE TON of that already in the topic.
INB4:
āBut itās luck and I LOST A GAME and there is no skill and itās bad and I cannot see why you have fun so you are wrong because my fun is only fun and luck is not fun and youāre having fun wrong!ā
Yeah, Iām the one on a soapbox, you arenāt. And you also give a lot of valid argumentations that arenāt personal taste at allā¦
So i will answer only to the ānon personal opinionā points.
7. I am a programmer and I know for sure that a change like this is super easy to do, it doesnāt take much time and it doesnāt require to develop any new stuff at all, itās just a small change.
9. In a tournament you chose your decks order in a way to counter your opponentās decks and if you lose your only good deck against a certain opponent deck, then only luck can save you at that point.
10. Again, losing a game because you canāt even play a card is a big argumentation. If you lose on turn 10 because your opponent draws flame burst when you have 3 healt it is luck but it isnāt only luck because you had a chance to play and to do something and your opponent as well did something to get you to 3 life so he doesnāt win only because that one lucky draw.
