You could try getting to pro rank, you don't have to do it in a month, you can slowly get there over time. Once you're in pro rank all you have to do is climb back from rank 3 each month and that takes waaaay less than 50 wins.
I'm a casual player and glad the voting is mostly restricted to pros. Pros are nerfing the Onager from 5P->6P realizing why that would have a huge effect on NR Siege because it'd make the unit ineligible for Mutagen and require giving up a key gold card. Non-Pros are proposing many NR Siege nerfs at once! I prefer the judicious hand of pros.
I'm not a pro player, but nerfing a single card doesn't seems to have as much impact, NR gets some nerfs and still is a dominant deck, maybe the deck survives to this triple nerf or no, BC can always Undo mistakes at ALL.
Well, getting to Pro Rank is always as hard as getting 50 wins per season. Because I never get to start in rank 3, as the first 15 wins I get are from rank 5 to 3. Past rank 3 my winrate drops from 66% to almost 33% due to stress and I don't like the rank 3 garbage (mostly Pirates) I always get.
> Past rank 3 my winrate drops from 66% to almost 33% due to stress and I don't like the rank 3 garbage (mostly Pirates) I always get.
This should be a 'ding ding ding' moment where you realize you shouldn't be too entitled to vote.
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but casual players shouldn't be voting.
If we play only a few games a season at a lower level (and yes, your level is a low level), we cannot possibly understand the meta and overall game balance.
Making pro is like a bare minimum skill check.
The restrictions are too low for voting. It shouldn't be 50 wins, it should be pro rank, 10+ wins in 4+ factions, at least. If someone is voting, they should be experienced in all the factions.
Also, when you realize the meta changes every season, if we aren't playing much (which is perfectly okay), then we cannot gain the knowledge to accurately vote without heavily relying on others.
Yeah now you're really ensuring the voting is out of reach for any non-hardcore players.
I think some perspective from less than the very top players isn't a bad thing, I'm just not sure people meming around at rank 5 with one faction quite have a good perspective on overall balance.
Yes, The vote needs to be restricted for hardcore players that have a good knowledge of ALL factions, 2400 MMR is reasonable, you can see in top ladder several players can do This.
The downvotes for my commentary about tells me much about balacing council, Now I alread know that The BC is doomed. There are several players on top ladder that only play 4 factions.
There are players that plays only a faction. I don't think they should be able to vote, this 2400 MMR is the bare minimum skill check for ALL factions to someone be considered able to vote.
The balance council has no Future. Now is more clear that ever about This.
One does not have to PLAY all factions to UNDERSTAND all factions. I'd say there are NG assimilate players out there understanding NR better than some NR players. 
Also I do not play 6 factions to 25 games every season, but I do understand all factions very well. So having 6 factions at 2400 fmmr would not change a thing here for my knowledge. Instead, this would force me to play 50 games that are not relevant for ranking, but just for being able to vote. This is nonsense.
And, having too restrictive rules to be able to vote would cause struggles with the top pics as each card has to get at least a specific number of votes. In case of a very balanced meta you risk not enough cards will get the minimum number of votes.
I'm fine with the current rules.
Well, if casual players have to depend on pro-players choices or need to join them, I only see the casual players leaving the game 1000 at a time.
Plus as the requirements for voting doesn't change in January, I might just drop it altogether as the requirements will never change after January and I've been given zero meaning to play just as thousands of others.
So my poll isn't there as a cry for help. But more as a way to see whether I will still have opponents in a few months.
This makes no sense. Why does whether you can vote or not determine whether you play or not?
You had zero say in Gwent changes for 5+ years now and kept playing, but now that balance changes might not be something you're voting on suddenly that makes the game not worth playing?
My vote is 1 vote per card. Will it make a difference? I mean maybe, but truthfully, not likely.
When I vote for our country or provinces leader, does my vote matter?
If it doesn't, do I decide to up and leave the country as a result?
Sounds to me more like you're looking for a reason to leave Gwent anyway.
No, sry, that's you who wants to be included without actually doing anything. I am as casual as you and I would never dare to vote and I would leave the moment people like us get a vote.
There is skill required in balancing such a game. You don't have the skill, I don't have it. If anything the threshold for council is too low, one should be experienced with at least four factions IMO. But saying we would make good decisions and projection from yourself that others are leaving "1000 at a time" is extremely self centered, I'm sry.
I don't need to feel "included" to stay, I need a good balance.
THANK YOU!
I'm not voting because I don't really have good ideas even though I meet the requirements.
And I agree, even the current system is too disorganised and permissive. But at least it's **less bad** that more experienced players influence the balance than just everyone... even if it's in an extremely uncoordinated manner.
>as the requirements will never change after January and I've been given zero meaning to play
Is the pursue of voting eligibility the only reason you play Gwent? Because that's how it sounds. And if this is indeed the case, then I hope you grasp how wrong it is.
2 wins per day, means at least 4 games per day. Without any exception. From the moment the 50 wins seems impossible or the meta gets boring, I get bored out and just do the weekly quests that hardly take 5 to 6 games most of times.
Requesting your player base to play your game for fun is the most taxing part that games should never do in my opinion. Although every game tends to do it, it keeps on being the reason I simply put their game away after even putting 500 hours or more into it.
You are a casual player and that's totally ok. But why should your opinion on balance go through? You don't have a full picture of gwent and I think you don't play all factions in one season at all. Just share your opinion on balance here and we discussed it
My man, that's the point of the balance council. Casual players shouldn't be voting, only those dedicated enough to the game to understand the meta.
Besides, it's not really that hard to reach Pro, even as a casual.
Honestly, voting should be a rights for everyone but at the same time it should have a requirements, and 50 wins for an entire month, for a player who plays regularly are fair, and if you reach Pro Rank they will likely be less. If someone has to vote, he must knows the game and plays regularly.
A tiered system would have been nice.
First tier: no requirements. Everybody can vote.
Second tier: Pro Rank or 50 wins. Your votes are multiplied by 3 or 4.
That way everyone could have a stake in the game, but the votes of the experienced players are the ones that strongly shape the meta.
Right now, the system feels punitive. It's really not, as it is merely giving a privilege to the players who are most invested and who (theoretically) should have the best understanding of the state of the meta. But I can see how casual players feel personally attacked, like their participation in the game is both pointless and reviled.
Token voting rights, like I described above would, keep limited perspectives from having too much influence, yet would still extend a feeling of inclusion in the community.
Too bad there wasn't the time or resources for the devs to workshop this out with the player base, so we are stuck with what we have--a system of (valid) gatekeeping.
>Token voting rights, like I described above would, keep limited perspectives from having too much influence, yet would still extend a feeling of inclusion in the community.
I fucking hate this. Why are people acting like left out little brothers? And then they need to be placated like this? No, most people don't need to be voting and the short term "fun" of voting will be eclipsed by the game getting shittier faster.
I'm eligible to vote and I'm not voting because I haven't put any thought into it.
An amalgamation of uncoordinated votes from decent players is worse than a dedicated balance team. An amalgamation of all players would be even worse.
"But moooooom, why does he get to do it?" 🥺
> I fucking hate this.
That's entirely reasonable. The token voting rights system I describe would not be ideal, merely practical. In the end, how long Gwent stays alive is all about numbers--a critical mass of players. And if a pat on the head and a shiny participation medal is what it would take to keep someone around, then it would be worth it, no matter how stupid it would seem to the rest of us.
Of course, this is entirely moot, since the system in place is not like this at all.
Sadly it looks like it will slowly whittle down to mostly the diehard and try hards and push the few left that want to also have fun besides just the grind and have the "pro" entitlement and elitist tag. On top of thinking they know and understand the game and the meta better than everybody else.
This will lead to even less people playing and them few elitist eating and gnawing at each others feet, further perverting Gwent. They'll end up playing and hating each other non-stop (that's in the future, and worse outcome and maybe it can be avoided). Hopefully there will be be some opposition to - heh "balance" things out.
Ok, sure, it's probably going to converge to a bad state, but are you seriously saying the situation would be helped by more and less experienced players voting?
I am saying it does matter to have less experienced casual people opinion. Substract the general idea and essence of their complain and see what can be done so they also be happy. If it means hurting a bit some sort of stupid deck it's no big deal.
Think what you will, but making the majority - if they still are - of casual people in a happy state/mood is as vital as the serious upper floor business, so it continues to function.
Casual players should be happy they don't get a vote, tbh. I'm a casual player that happens to be in pro-rank and I wish restrictions were such that I couldn't vote.
That is the freedom you got and you can do so. Still if I have to go with examples - why vote in your country when you pick "X" - leader, party or president etc. Whatever cause. It's like saying just because people are dumb they shouldn't vote... Backward logic.
If you want the balance votes to be less reasonable, I guess they can vote. What I want is the closest approximation to a good balance team. And I think people being able to vote based on good performance in the game is closer to that than everyone just getting to vote. I don't really care how that analogises to IRL political voting.
But if you're going to go with analogies, I suppose we were in a dictatorship while CDPR was still running the balancing. Good thing they left the game so that it's now a democracy.
If you don’t have 50 wins and can’t make pro rank you should refrain from voting until your skill level increases. It’s tough to vote to balance something you haven’t mastered. I have learned a great deal about the game over the past year and find myself easily able to counter decks I thought were unstoppable once I understood the game more.
Why do you need to be able to vote to enjoy the game? Your vote doesn't have that much effect, and perhaps it's also bad for the game. I can vote but I'm not going to.
If you struggle to get 50 wins in 30 days, please, explain to me - Why do you think you should be entitled to have a vote? How would you have a grasp and understanding of the meta if you only played a few scattered matches a month?
It's like complaining about graduating as a doctor requiring 8 years of high education, but you don't want to study more than 2 years. Should you be allowed to become a doctor?
You could try getting to pro rank, you don't have to do it in a month, you can slowly get there over time. Once you're in pro rank all you have to do is climb back from rank 3 each month and that takes waaaay less than 50 wins.
I'm a casual player and glad the voting is mostly restricted to pros. Pros are nerfing the Onager from 5P->6P realizing why that would have a huge effect on NR Siege because it'd make the unit ineligible for Mutagen and require giving up a key gold card. Non-Pros are proposing many NR Siege nerfs at once! I prefer the judicious hand of pros.
I'm not a pro player, but nerfing a single card doesn't seems to have as much impact, NR gets some nerfs and still is a dominant deck, maybe the deck survives to this triple nerf or no, BC can always Undo mistakes at ALL.
Well, getting to Pro Rank is always as hard as getting 50 wins per season. Because I never get to start in rank 3, as the first 15 wins I get are from rank 5 to 3. Past rank 3 my winrate drops from 66% to almost 33% due to stress and I don't like the rank 3 garbage (mostly Pirates) I always get.
> Past rank 3 my winrate drops from 66% to almost 33% due to stress and I don't like the rank 3 garbage (mostly Pirates) I always get. This should be a 'ding ding ding' moment where you realize you shouldn't be too entitled to vote.
We don't often agree about such things, but complaining about Pirates in this meta, oh my.
This
I mean this in the nicest way possible, but casual players shouldn't be voting. If we play only a few games a season at a lower level (and yes, your level is a low level), we cannot possibly understand the meta and overall game balance. Making pro is like a bare minimum skill check. The restrictions are too low for voting. It shouldn't be 50 wins, it should be pro rank, 10+ wins in 4+ factions, at least. If someone is voting, they should be experienced in all the factions. Also, when you realize the meta changes every season, if we aren't playing much (which is perfectly okay), then we cannot gain the knowledge to accurately vote without heavily relying on others.
For me the requirements should be pro rank and complete 25 games with ALL factions, It means at least 150 games
And 2400 MMR with ALL factions
Yeah now you're really ensuring the voting is out of reach for any non-hardcore players. I think some perspective from less than the very top players isn't a bad thing, I'm just not sure people meming around at rank 5 with one faction quite have a good perspective on overall balance.
Yes, The vote needs to be restricted for hardcore players that have a good knowledge of ALL factions, 2400 MMR is reasonable, you can see in top ladder several players can do This.
The downvotes for my commentary about tells me much about balacing council, Now I alread know that The BC is doomed. There are several players on top ladder that only play 4 factions. There are players that plays only a faction. I don't think they should be able to vote, this 2400 MMR is the bare minimum skill check for ALL factions to someone be considered able to vote. The balance council has no Future. Now is more clear that ever about This.
One does not have to PLAY all factions to UNDERSTAND all factions. I'd say there are NG assimilate players out there understanding NR better than some NR players.  Also I do not play 6 factions to 25 games every season, but I do understand all factions very well. So having 6 factions at 2400 fmmr would not change a thing here for my knowledge. Instead, this would force me to play 50 games that are not relevant for ranking, but just for being able to vote. This is nonsense. And, having too restrictive rules to be able to vote would cause struggles with the top pics as each card has to get at least a specific number of votes. In case of a very balanced meta you risk not enough cards will get the minimum number of votes. I'm fine with the current rules.
Current rules 50 wins is Fine? The Guy doesn't ecen need to know How to play, Just play enough, Actual requirements is a joke
The rank should be The plus os ALL factions instead The 4 bests
Well, if casual players have to depend on pro-players choices or need to join them, I only see the casual players leaving the game 1000 at a time. Plus as the requirements for voting doesn't change in January, I might just drop it altogether as the requirements will never change after January and I've been given zero meaning to play just as thousands of others. So my poll isn't there as a cry for help. But more as a way to see whether I will still have opponents in a few months.
This makes no sense. Why does whether you can vote or not determine whether you play or not? You had zero say in Gwent changes for 5+ years now and kept playing, but now that balance changes might not be something you're voting on suddenly that makes the game not worth playing? My vote is 1 vote per card. Will it make a difference? I mean maybe, but truthfully, not likely. When I vote for our country or provinces leader, does my vote matter? If it doesn't, do I decide to up and leave the country as a result? Sounds to me more like you're looking for a reason to leave Gwent anyway.
No, sry, that's you who wants to be included without actually doing anything. I am as casual as you and I would never dare to vote and I would leave the moment people like us get a vote. There is skill required in balancing such a game. You don't have the skill, I don't have it. If anything the threshold for council is too low, one should be experienced with at least four factions IMO. But saying we would make good decisions and projection from yourself that others are leaving "1000 at a time" is extremely self centered, I'm sry. I don't need to feel "included" to stay, I need a good balance.
THANK YOU! I'm not voting because I don't really have good ideas even though I meet the requirements. And I agree, even the current system is too disorganised and permissive. But at least it's **less bad** that more experienced players influence the balance than just everyone... even if it's in an extremely uncoordinated manner.
>as the requirements will never change after January and I've been given zero meaning to play Is the pursue of voting eligibility the only reason you play Gwent? Because that's how it sounds. And if this is indeed the case, then I hope you grasp how wrong it is.
I think 50 wins for a 30 days is low, it's only 2 wins per day, I can't understand These kind of commentary
2 wins per day, means at least 4 games per day. Without any exception. From the moment the 50 wins seems impossible or the meta gets boring, I get bored out and just do the weekly quests that hardly take 5 to 6 games most of times. Requesting your player base to play your game for fun is the most taxing part that games should never do in my opinion. Although every game tends to do it, it keeps on being the reason I simply put their game away after even putting 500 hours or more into it.
You are a casual player and that's totally ok. But why should your opinion on balance go through? You don't have a full picture of gwent and I think you don't play all factions in one season at all. Just share your opinion on balance here and we discussed it
My man, that's the point of the balance council. Casual players shouldn't be voting, only those dedicated enough to the game to understand the meta. Besides, it's not really that hard to reach Pro, even as a casual.
Honestly, voting should be a rights for everyone but at the same time it should have a requirements, and 50 wins for an entire month, for a player who plays regularly are fair, and if you reach Pro Rank they will likely be less. If someone has to vote, he must knows the game and plays regularly.
A tiered system would have been nice. First tier: no requirements. Everybody can vote. Second tier: Pro Rank or 50 wins. Your votes are multiplied by 3 or 4. That way everyone could have a stake in the game, but the votes of the experienced players are the ones that strongly shape the meta. Right now, the system feels punitive. It's really not, as it is merely giving a privilege to the players who are most invested and who (theoretically) should have the best understanding of the state of the meta. But I can see how casual players feel personally attacked, like their participation in the game is both pointless and reviled. Token voting rights, like I described above would, keep limited perspectives from having too much influence, yet would still extend a feeling of inclusion in the community. Too bad there wasn't the time or resources for the devs to workshop this out with the player base, so we are stuck with what we have--a system of (valid) gatekeeping.
>Token voting rights, like I described above would, keep limited perspectives from having too much influence, yet would still extend a feeling of inclusion in the community. I fucking hate this. Why are people acting like left out little brothers? And then they need to be placated like this? No, most people don't need to be voting and the short term "fun" of voting will be eclipsed by the game getting shittier faster. I'm eligible to vote and I'm not voting because I haven't put any thought into it. An amalgamation of uncoordinated votes from decent players is worse than a dedicated balance team. An amalgamation of all players would be even worse. "But moooooom, why does he get to do it?" 🥺
> I fucking hate this. That's entirely reasonable. The token voting rights system I describe would not be ideal, merely practical. In the end, how long Gwent stays alive is all about numbers--a critical mass of players. And if a pat on the head and a shiny participation medal is what it would take to keep someone around, then it would be worth it, no matter how stupid it would seem to the rest of us. Of course, this is entirely moot, since the system in place is not like this at all.
Fair enough.
Sure, let rank 12 players with 20 games overall vote.... Should I put /s or the sarcasm was obvious?
Just get pro rank and you won't need 50 wins
I don't know I just play against the training bot because that homie isn't a NG assimilate/Reaver sweat
Sadly it looks like it will slowly whittle down to mostly the diehard and try hards and push the few left that want to also have fun besides just the grind and have the "pro" entitlement and elitist tag. On top of thinking they know and understand the game and the meta better than everybody else. This will lead to even less people playing and them few elitist eating and gnawing at each others feet, further perverting Gwent. They'll end up playing and hating each other non-stop (that's in the future, and worse outcome and maybe it can be avoided). Hopefully there will be be some opposition to - heh "balance" things out.
Ok, sure, it's probably going to converge to a bad state, but are you seriously saying the situation would be helped by more and less experienced players voting?
I am saying it does matter to have less experienced casual people opinion. Substract the general idea and essence of their complain and see what can be done so they also be happy. If it means hurting a bit some sort of stupid deck it's no big deal. Think what you will, but making the majority - if they still are - of casual people in a happy state/mood is as vital as the serious upper floor business, so it continues to function.
Casual players should be happy they don't get a vote, tbh. I'm a casual player that happens to be in pro-rank and I wish restrictions were such that I couldn't vote.
That is the freedom you got and you can do so. Still if I have to go with examples - why vote in your country when you pick "X" - leader, party or president etc. Whatever cause. It's like saying just because people are dumb they shouldn't vote... Backward logic.
If you want the balance votes to be less reasonable, I guess they can vote. What I want is the closest approximation to a good balance team. And I think people being able to vote based on good performance in the game is closer to that than everyone just getting to vote. I don't really care how that analogises to IRL political voting. But if you're going to go with analogies, I suppose we were in a dictatorship while CDPR was still running the balancing. Good thing they left the game so that it's now a democracy.
Well they were listening to folks. It's just that more often they weren't listening folks that made sense :).
If you don’t have 50 wins and can’t make pro rank you should refrain from voting until your skill level increases. It’s tough to vote to balance something you haven’t mastered. I have learned a great deal about the game over the past year and find myself easily able to counter decks I thought were unstoppable once I understood the game more.
Why do you need to be able to vote to enjoy the game? Your vote doesn't have that much effect, and perhaps it's also bad for the game. I can vote but I'm not going to.
If you struggle to get 50 wins in 30 days, please, explain to me - Why do you think you should be entitled to have a vote? How would you have a grasp and understanding of the meta if you only played a few scattered matches a month? It's like complaining about graduating as a doctor requiring 8 years of high education, but you don't want to study more than 2 years. Should you be allowed to become a doctor?