[WirusLietuva]

I think personaly that depends on faction and your play style.

[Lonegunspy]

I think in a perfect world 50% would be a fair amount of RNG - it puts fate firmly in control - and I think fuels that drive that makes a lot of us play Rogue-like games - the challenge comes being able to overcome that fate.

However, in CCG - players are planning out their deck, carefully crafting it and, as you pointed out it can undermine how players feel about their deck if there's too much RNG. But as a call back to the origins (not so much for Gwent, but CCG's in general) not only was there RNG is what comes up, from your deck, but also what cards you could get from opening all those packs. Getting the cards themselves was already a RNG hurdle. While that's not exactly relevant since the game itself isn't like the physical boxes and the rarity and such, I think that feeling calls over from it, when playing the games.

Added to that, you want the players to actually play! so I think the % should favor the players - I'd have said 75% but... always knowing a card or set of cards will always be there - w/o the worry that it just pull a no-show - would be boring. That said. 60% RNG - would probably be the most fair. Would still put the player against luck! while at the same time have their crafted set-ups and strategies, shine enough to be gratifying. (Note this is RNG in favor of the player - so the inverse of the % for lady lucks' contribution- so I guess im saying 40% just pure randomness) Hope that made sense!

[queasydog]

I think the easy and quick answer is when the game is no longer fun to play.

Also at the top end it would be when lower skill players are regularly beating higher skill players because of RNG. Thankfully due to conquest format and usually only 1 meta deck having RNG that hasn't happened very much.

As for when the game is no longer fun that will vary considerably between players. What rank they play at, how important winning is, how often they play etc.

[SmileyMcCloseToDeath]

I remember when Hearthstone introduced RNG via an early set. I disliked it very much. I may not have given it a fair shake, but when the whole set seemed to implement or be affected by RNG cards, I gave up and moved on. Too much. That said I think the level of RNG in Gwent is fine and how it even adds to the strategic choices when you many times get to pick from three cards being spawned or created. This echoes what @Lyannen stated in his post above regarding variance and healthy implementation.

[Hudcylel]

I just want to join the laptop giveway....

[PepepainsX]

Im new to gwent so I dont know much yet, but ive seen some RNG cards already and I think its fine, of course the game shouldnt be a 50/50 randomizer, but I think RNG is important because it allows for riskier decks (i think)

[dona]

I'm just here for the giveaway

[MissLadyJay]

I think having some sort of RNG in Gwent is fine and can be fun too. There can also be too much RNG with some card abilities that people don’t like.

I like it when there are more “controlled” RNG such as Triss Telekinesis - she will create special bronze cards that are in yours and your opponent’s starting deck, so there isn’t that big of a pool to create from whereas something like a Runestone has a bigger pool and you don’t know what you would get.
In Beta, the other example of a create card I enjoyed was Hym - it could create a silver card from your opponent’s deck but you were only allowed to have six silver cards in your deck. So if you knew what deck your opponent was playing, then you almost know what you might get from playing Hym.

But there are also some other RNG mechanics I do not like such as Reckless Flurry - the leader ability - where you hope that your one set of 3 damage pings will hit a specific unit so that you may finish it off with another card. That can be frustrating when your opponents gets lucky in certain situations.

So yeah that’s my thoughts on RNG in Gwent.

[Crozyr]

One could say that the question of RNG was the original sin that set up Gwent's community for its wacky Roller Coaster Ride of Love/Hate-relationships:

While the game's original premise had been to be a no- to low-RNG alternative to Hearthstone (and bringing people like Lifecoach and SuperJJ into the community for that very reason), it was in December 2017 when CDPR released the now infamous "Midwinter" update. With it came "Create" and the first mass exodus of players from the game.

Create abilities let you choose 1 out of 3 options that are taken randomly from a specific pool of cards. However, some of the cards with the create ability had extremely diverse pools (such as Slave Driver, which created any bronze unit from the opponent's faction) and could randomly pull important answers that foiled the opponent's entire gameplan.

From being low RNG to a Create fun bonanza, people were flabbergasted by the change in design direction and Lifecoach, SuperJJ and many others decided to leave.

CDPR seemed so taken aback by the devastating feedback that they decided to redesign the entire game - project homecoming - with the intention to allow for a higher variety of mechanics they could introduce to the game while keeping the competitive, low rng integrity of the original Gwent.

Over the course of the following years, Gwent introduced, reintroduced and finetuned many RNG abilities, including Create, and the game has somewhat stabilized ever since.

In general, the consensus seems to be that RNG is fine when it is controlled - meaning, the pool of possible outcomes can be reduced to a minimum by playing out your gameplan or building your deck accordingly. For example, Triss Telekenisis has a relatively tame RNG effect since you can have an impact on her card pool by reducing the amount of bronze special cards in your deck. Artorius Vigo only becomes RNG if there are more than 3 bronzes in your deck, so the RNG is more of a punishment for lack of deck building optimization rather than a forced issue.

On the other side of the spectrum we have cards like Uma or Aguara, that create from a very large pool but are so overcosted that they never see competitive play. In effect, these examples are practically meme cards which will lowroll so frequently that no serious player would consider them in their deck.

These two poles - controlled, competitive RNG vs. chaotic, non-competitive RNG - have somewhat been a balance that the community has mostly settled upon.

"Mostly", because there are still sometimes outliers like Viper Witcher Alchemist which are non committal plays and usually weak if not set up, but which can still have a drastic effect on the game if their cheap highroll finds its mark. Until very recently, this card was accessable as a guaranteed option from an otherwise competitive card, so despite its low average power, it saw play in competitive decks and occasionally decided entire tournament matches because of it's RNG interaction with the opponent's deck.

In my opinion, this example serves as great way to specify, what RNG in Gwent should or shouldn't be:

While RNG can lead to variety and fun, it can ruin competitive play if its chaotic iterations are powerful enough to be included in meta decks or happen to be available as reliable options of multi-purpose competitive cards.

As long as RNG is controlled and limited, it serves as a great way to add variety to the top end of the ladder and encourages intelligent deck building and strategizing.

Both types of RNG have their place in Gwent, both types have their audience - it is just important to find the balance between chaos and control.

[Frytq]

Correct amount of RNG is 50%: either it is too much or not :)