[ARDsagart]

We should ask Gascon, RNG is his everything ))
In my opinion RNG is one of the important differences between CCG and chess. Some things depend of your luck. If the total amount of cards is around 1500, less than 70 RNG is ok.

[daheca1105]

I feel I'm in no position to demand how much RNG would I like in Gwent. The moment I do that, is the moment I lost all interest in the game.
When I play a game, I want to be surprised, shocked, astonished and amazed. Games have rules for a reason, and that is we all agree in those terms, anything can and will happen.
It is up to developers what they want in a game, what they think nobody would expect and what outcome anyone would accept.
So developers, go ahead, make your move.
Set it at 1% where people that are different will stay different.
Set it at 99% where even poor Charlie Bucket has a chance on that golden ticket.
Set a RNG to decide the RNG itself.
But more important, make me want to play more!

[oZZy26]

@TheaBeasty If it doesn't screw you over in terms of strategy 90% of the time then its fine. But RNG can't be too little otherwise certain cards can be broken and ruin the game. It comes down to the player at the end of the day to play the right cards and hopefully get that randomness in their favor.

- - - Updated - - -
@TheaBeasty If it doesn't screw you over in terms of strategy 90% of the time then its fine. But RNG can't be too little otherwise certain cards can be broken and ruin the game. It comes down to the player at the end of the day to play the right cards and hopefully get that randomness in their favor.

[Buyiswa]

What do those 3 cards have in common?

Nilfgaard. They are all in Nilfgaard.

[Torrtino]

@TheaBeasty I feel like RNG will never really feel fair for everyone in general. The person playing something like cantarella might get a card that is not good and they will feel cheated. On the other hand the opponent might get a key card taken or milled and they will feel cheated.

In terms of how much rng is too much, it just depends on who you ask. But in my opinion if most of your key cards are ones that rely on rng then its too much. Strategy should always trump luck in a card game and decks like mill tend to cross the line of being strategic and just lucky. But i know it is very difficult for the devs to balance things like this and at the moment i don’t think rng is that big of a problem in gwent.

[TheaBeasty]

@daheca1105 I laughed at that Charlie Bucket reference 😁

[voldemarlemberg]

Back in beta (particularly pre-midwinter but also during the 6-month content), the small amount of RNG was probably one of my favorite aspects about Gwent. Minimum RNG is also the main reason why I never looked back at Hearthstone or Magic the Gathering ever since Gwent was released (although with Magic, my biggest problem was draw RNG, especially when it comes to lands). However, while CDPR generally managed to prevent RNG cards from overtaking the meta (Shupe says hello though), there is rarely a point in time during which we don't have at least 1 or 2 cards that overstep the healthy boundary and can drive some players nuts. As others have mentioned in this thread, usually those cards are from Nilfgaard and are irritating by design, which is a philosophy I never agreed with. Other RNG-heavy cards are either useless and harmless like Gascon or are perfectly fine like best boi Knickers.
As to the main question of "How much RNG is too much?", my answer won't be original - if an RNG-reliant card is one of your deck's wincons or if your deck consists of at least 25% (this number is rather arbitrary) RNG-based cards regardless of their power level, then I think there's a problem that should be fixed regardless of how much fun someone might have high-rolling their way through the ladder.

[daheca1105]

@TheaBeasty 🤪
And even that I know I don't stand a chance on the giveaway due to regional reasons most likely, couldn't go through life without comment.
But hey, the topic is RNG, so anything can and will happen...

[ishqKan]

@TheaBeasty Definitely some RNG is needed in a card game if everything is just too deterministic then it takes away the one factor that a game needs to have, i.e. fun. Having said that, I am not saying games that are deterministic are not fun, say chess or GO, they are both top tier games but with a CCG like gwent the RNG needs to be balanced in a way that it is not too deterministic nor it is only randomness. One example of "healthy" RNG (if you can call it that) that comes to my mind is of Shupe(and yes I know how much Thea loves shupe). There is a probability of 60% that the card you want to play will show up which imo is good per say because it is more than 50%. On the other hand, a "bad" RNG is uma's curse. There are just too many options for the pool for the rng. Hell, I'd even say Alzur RNG is even better. For the case of 13 provision proc, there is 1/6 chance that you will spawn a 1 power Sunset wanderer, in this case which might be the worst option. That means you are getting punished for choosing to go RNG route but you are also rewarded with other options which makes the card fun as you are gambling by rolling a dice and you are literally hoping to not roll a 6.

So, the gist of it is. As long as you are getting rewarded for RNG and the reward is marginal, then RNG is good and healthy as there is a good chance that you are going to be punished for being too greedy. If RNG is taken away/minimalized then the game will lose it's unpredictability, almost all matches will start playing out the same as you will both keep cards in your hands that will counter each other's plays which in turn will make gwent dull.

[Merxtef]

Unless you can build a >50% win rate deck around just RNG it's fine