Is being the one to start first is really a matter of luck?

[Sabfas]

I am not sure what is happening exactly, but it doesn't look random at all.
For the past 7 times, I never started once. For the +30/+40 games I played so far, I rarely was the one to play first.. Like, 5 out of 40 rare AT MAX.

Are there any factors in play here other than pure chance? Because statistically speaking, 40 games is kinda a decent sample.. And to get less than 5 hits overall indicates that there is really something terribly wrong.

It is just frustrating to almost play every game with pretty much 5 points behind.

[✪ Wuhan Warrior 🍉🍉]

Those people who starts second or in other words, on red coin, actually are favored in winning the round and subsequently the game (by getting card advantage due to winning on even).

[Lagrange]

You have a coin toss in the beginning that decides who go first. You start if you get the blue coin.

Its funny you say this because during Gwent Beta, people would PRAY to not go first. This is to avoid playing 'catching up' with the opponent where you're pressured to win the first round in order to take control of the game in round 3 (where you having last say is optimal). This was a huge problem with several players theorizing and giving opinions on how to fix the 'coin toss issue'. In a nutshell, going second was always preferred.

The stratagem and extra mulligan exist for a reason and that is to compensate the player going first with an advantage over the privileged player going second. You're not back by 5 points, you're simply at a vantage point where the first player must now win in order to sustain themselves in round 3.

[Sabfas]

✪ Wuhan Warrior 🍉🍉 a écrit :

Those people who starts second or in other words, on red coin, actually are favored in winning the round and subsequently the game (by getting card advantage due to winning on even).

I see.. So if I am getting this right.. It was never about pure chance.. But rather something that heavily takes your past history into consideration? If so.. That may explain it.. I win more than I lose. I doubt it would be about how strong my deck is.. Most people I met had a far superior deck to mine.

Mind if I ask you, just out of curiosity, is this you guessing or have you actually read that somewhere?

[✪ Wuhan Warrior 🍉🍉]

Sabfas a écrit :

✪ Wuhan Warrior 🍉🍉 a écrit :

Those people who starts second or in other words, on red coin, actually are favored in winning the round and subsequently the game (by getting card advantage due to winning on even).

I see.. So if I am getting this right.. It was never about pure chance.. But rather something that heavily takes your past history into consideration? If so.. That may explain it.. I win more than I lose. I doubt it would be about how strong my deck is.. Most people I met had a far superior deck to mine.

Mind if I ask you, just out of curiosity, is this you guessing or have you actually read that somewhere?

I don't think it's anything to do with winrate (but I may be wrong), coin toss is pretty much a 50-50 as far as I understand.

I have played Gwent for 2 months now, and am on pro rank. These terms are basically quite standard to most of us.

I do understand that it seems to be advantageous with the +5 going first, but due to the nature of most cards, it's often times better to play on a reactive turn then a proactive turn. (This of course depends on decks, some decks do well with going proactively).

Think about it this way- on round 1, is there any difference if the opponent wins by a 20,30,40 score gap? When you go 2nd, you get the luxury to "control" the opponent by threatening to win on even. If you do, I would say the chances of you winning the game is often times as high as 85% (depends on your draws/opponent's draws too) but you get the idea. Even if you don't win round 1, opponent might have been forced to use a lot of his "good" cards, hence his rounds 2/3 would be meagre at best vs yours.

[Sabfas]

Lagrange a écrit :

You have a coin toss in the beginning that decides who go first. You start if you get the blue coin.

Its funny you say this because during Gwent Beta, people would PRAY to not go first. This is to avoid playing 'catching up' with the opponent where you're pressured to win the first round in order to take control of the game in round 3 (where you having last say is optimal). This was a huge problem with several players theorizing and giving opinions on how to fix the 'coin toss issue'. In a nutshell, going second was always preferred.

The stratagem and extra mulligan exist for a reason and that is to compensate the player going first with an advantage over the privileged player going second. You're not back by 5 points, you're simply at a vantage point where the first player must now win in order to sustain themselves in round 3.

This makes sense, just regarding an entirely different topic :P
I have felt that advantage.. And I gotta admit, it felt pretty good!

But here is an argument.. Why 5? Why such an arbitrary number? I mean.. I would love to play first with that 5 boost. I am someone who tends to play his cards safely (And so my opponent would rarely find an opening to efficiently attack after). I also tend to play my cards in a way that I kind of drive my opponent's next moves.. Predict and lead.. That kind of strategy.
So for me.. With how it currently is.. I would love to start first. That is an advantage to me.. Unless the boost was something like 2 points, for instance.. That's my balance point.

[ctclonny]

5 points are arguably not enough to compensate going first.
You will understand how big the disadvantage is when going first, sooner or later.

[__m__Yn_F_onY__d]

Sabfas a écrit :

Are there any factors in play here other than pure chance? Because statistically speaking, 40 games is kinda a decent sample.. And to get less than 5 hits overall indicates that there is really something terribly wrong.

Did you record the toss results somehow? Human memory is generally biased and unreliable. If the tosses were truly random, streaks would be inevitable. Keep in mind you're just one player of many, so while you may personally witness improbable streaks locally, such streaks would be far more probable considering the total number of tosses across all players' tosses. Similarly, the result of your prior 40 tosses wouldn't say anything of what your next 40 would look like. Really, any unique permutation of 40 tosses would be equally likely, it's just that streaks don't 'appear random'. With all that said, in actuality the game likely uses some fast, predictable PRNG and it may even try to avoid streaks so the system feels gamey.

Sabfas a écrit :

Why 5? Why such an arbitrary number? […] 2 points, for instance.. That's my balance point.

The compensation isn't arbitrary, but the result of careful design work and rigorous testing, like the nature of all the other game mechanics (except, perhaps, the coin toss ).

[Sabfas]

monad a écrit :

Did you record the toss results somehow? Human memory is generally biased and unreliable. If the tosses were truly random, streaks would be inevitable. Keep in mind you're just one player of many, so while you may personally witness improbable streaks locally, such streaks would be far more probable considering the total number of tosses across all players' tosses. Similarly, the result of your prior 40 tosses wouldn't say anything of what your next 40 would look like. Really, any unique permutation of 40 tosses would be equally likely, it's just that streaks don't 'appear random'. With all that said, in actuality the game likely uses some fast, predictable PRNG and it may even try to avoid streaks so the system feels gamey.

You are right regarding the human memory, in general, that is.. I only played around 40 games and that is not a very huge number so it is relatively easy to remember. I also remember very well the times I had the coin to be tossed on the blue side (Starting first).. That is mainly because these were so rare so I could have easily remembered them. However, I still gave a range of less than 5 and not an exact number, just to be a little more accurate.

A sample of 40 (Now it is up to 60 as I played a lot of games since then and I only got 1 toss to start first, among these 20 more games.. And I clearly remember this as I was having this topic in my mind) fairly follows the normal distribution as per the central limit theory.. And to assume that a perfect average would be around 20 tosses out of 40 for either sides (Considering the huge population of gamers). Having around 2-4 is very low. It is possible, sure.. But it is very rare and there is a good chance that it indicates that this thing might not be random at all (At least a good statistician would consider that thought).

I only asked here because I had my doubts.. Still the game is not going in my favor regarding starting first...
But hey! At least now I don't have an issue with it. I just considered what others said here regarding how disadvantageous for a player to start first.. It is amazing how a single change in perspective can change a lot! Even the outcomes of the games, if I may add (Perhaps it also has to do with confidence? That's just an entirely different topic! :P).

monad a écrit :

The compensation isn't arbitrary, but the result of careful design work and rigorous testing, like the nature of all the other game mechanics (except, perhaps, the coin toss :resmile:).

Amen to that!

(Appreciate your reply, btw! )

[__m__Yn_F_onY__d]

Well, I'm not a statistician, so I was curious to estimate how far off my intuition might be. The chance of getting 5 or less heads or tails in 40 flips of a fair coin is about 1/723,269. Assuming there are 2,000 online players[steamdb.info] at any time and assuming they're in a match for half the time they're in-game (with an average match time of 12 minutes[forums.cdprojektred.com]), you'd expect 1 player to see 5 or less heads or tails in 40 flips about every 6 days. So, while it is exceedingly rare, there do seem to be enough games played that the occurrence happens regularly. On the other hand, maintaining the same assumptions, you'd expect a player to see 6 or less heads or tails out of 60 flips only once every 85,707 days. The assumptions may be conservative, but that is quite a rare event to account for.

For a different possibility, I realized that in friend matches the inviting player always goes first[www.playgwent.com], but I'm guessing by the context that you weren't playing with friends.

[Sabfas]

That's right.. I was playing through public matchmaking. And yes, it is possible.. I have said that before.. But the thing is, when something so rare happens.. It is very natural to start asking around.. Because you either hit a jackbot or things are not as random as they seem. It is always worth it to investigate further. That's why I came asking here.

Anyways.. I changed my character and guess what? Now I played 13 matches (I kept counting), 11 of them I started first! What a turn around, huh? Thing is.. I came to realize that it is a huge disadvantage. I really miss how things were before! :D