[berniewrangle]

Alchemist (now Spotter) or YOLO Cantarella are bad because they are randomly stealing a card. If they kept the same RNG aspect but spawned a copy of the card instead of stealing it, it wouldn't be nearly so bad.

Destroy my scenario - too bad, but it probably traded well with Heatwave.
Mill my scenario - you're a jerk. Why are you playing mill?
Copy my scenario - seems you shouldn't be able to do that, but here we are.
STEAL my scenario - I don't want to play this game any more.

[ASnowL]

RNG is relevant to most card games in the draw phase more than any other phase, imo. The cards that tend to RNG value from opponents decks are situational at best and require setup at the least. Spotter, Cantarella, etc. are all cards that can just be RNG value if you're having a good/bad day. While I'm not a huge fan of the RNG of those cards, I do understand why they exist and how give the player a high risk/return situation. The RNG in these examples though should be available to more than one faction. Letting one faction have RNG and then not letting others have similar archetypes restricts the leve of play that RNG brings to CCG's as a whole.

[Raphkiller974]

@TheaBeasty Hard to find the balance

[JakeRSA]

Having played Hearthstone before coming to Gwent, I feel there's a much better balance of RNG in the game. A bit of RNG is good but I feel it must still allow for the better player to ultimately win. There is also nothing worse than losing to a random effect in an uninteractive way.

[RoamRam]

@TheaBeasty too much RNG will make you frustrated with the game

[ybkseraph]

Hi there, new to the game - was tired of HearthStone which was too much paywall.

The RNG in the game starts with the draw of the deck - and I think there are lots of clever ways to mitigate that RNG through cards with special abilities.
The point of the game is to find synergies and engines and therfore to counteract the RNG of the draw somewhat.

In regards to RNG cards, I have mixed views - it probably gives some 'spice' when you play them, but also remove the control you have over your game.
I think it is ok, as long as difference in outcomes is not massive.

It also provides an option for players who would like to enjoy a bit more of russian roulette.

Personnaly I'd prefer a choice in outcome rather than RNG, to adapt the play to the game you are playing at that time.


Seraph

[GigerFox]

I think too much RNG is when RNG outpaces skill and thought, as the overall deciding factor of a match.

[tropicalMint]

I think that RNG is too much in a game when it can ruin the game for you.
But overall it is good to have randomness in Gwent.
Playing cards with a random element is more risky but it can also bring higher reward.
This makes the game more intersting and not boring in my opinion.

[Dutycalling]

The level of RNG required is and always will be a difficult question to answer. I think the whole community agrees that RNG is a necessity as without it, we would downgrade Gwent into nothing more than a glorified game of rock, paper, scissors.

The issue right now is that RNG is battling an ever-evolving set of extremely strong meta decks (most often those without even a single element of RNG). In order for non-meta decks to have a chance of winning against the top dog of that season, the RNG spectrum of said cards is often expanded to such an extent in that a single card can make or break a round or even a whole game. Put those kind of cards against a player that wants to have fun without a meta deck and he or she might feel powerless and lose interest in the game overall.

This level of power on a single (or a few) cards should not exist in my opinion but cannot be taken out of the current game without also balancing out the power of meta decks. In an ideal situation, RNG will not win you the round by itself but forces the opponent to alter his strategy. Gwent should be a game in where a lot of decks can win from one-another and where timing/skill are the primary factor of your success.

[shmek]

I don't have the time to read all contributions, but 'm sure someone has already established some approximate formula for the evaluation of RNG with the contributions of size of effect and ease of setup (and perhaps something else still).
What is more interesting to me, however, is how the same mechanic can produce such differing opinions and preferences as can be observed in the community. And sure, a substantial part of that is differences in our expectations, the types of fun we prefer to derive from playing, personalities, etc. But especially when the people most vocal about their frustrations voice their opinions and start describing their experiences (and sometimes even get heard by CDPR!) I have the impression that there is yet another factor we have to take into account, that is the slew of biases that influence their perception, topped, as usual, by the confirmation bias. And I wonder, has there been a systematic study of those effects for Gwent ever undertaken?