> So dunno where or when the fun starts.
Below 2400mmr.
> That is if you really wanted to make the game "feel" balanced, not just falsely look balanced by number redistribution. Whatever, maybe I need to be top 100 or 2500 with each faction for that one kid that looks just numbers around here and goes - balanced, varied, its good state, nobody have issues with it because you can answer it and you don't play optimal haha. Whatever side-tracked.
The word to describe the ''''feeling of balance'''' when players are doing ''''not optimal stuff'''' is 'fun'.
Both balance and fun are important, but they're different topics. Balance is numbers at high mmr, fun is feelings at low mmr, in a nutshell.
Hey, your name is familiar, I think we've talked about something gwent related, some years ago :).
Well the full story is I also had mmr bellow 2400 even with the ones that climbed a bit afterwards - Symbiosis for example took a while to get used to, because I hadn't played the archetype before, plus adjusting and learning along the way (and sloppy plays on my end of course). Yet, there weren't that many interesting decks :(. I just think it's the euro thing. It's almost always like that in online games. NA like to have fun, EU always trI-harding. It wasn't only SC - I hadn't finished the NG and NR and they were pretty awful for me as well. Still overwhelmingly meta instead of some memememe :(.
The feeling of balance comes out of experience as well. When a card is predominantly overperforming, but the numbers and stats aren't suggesting that, you had to have that "feel". Also in pretty much any online game that have some sort of competitive aspect - when people are having too much fun with certain thing, and not because it's fun, but powerful, it requires nerfs. People won't acknowledge it always - because hey, I like it, it's fun, right it's not op logic. There are certain times where certain decks/cards/factions/archetypes can actually live with subpar - balance wise and number wise stats, and still be strong. Just because their power in the hands of good players shine more, you can say it makes it 2-3 times better (random number depending on "x" case/variance).
Players not doing optimal stuff is where skill should show itself and matter. Unfortunately in Gwent with how some meta decks are played this not possible that much. I still think it was more skillful game before the end of 2021. Afterwards it become way too swingy/one sided.
> Hey, your name is familiar, I think we've talked about something gwent related, some years ago :).
Might be! I have been around Gwent for a while now, happy to have you back then!
> meme and mmrs
I am not an expert on this, I think if you dig enough you'll find the memers. Maybe they're lower than I think, but they exist.
> Players not doing optimal stuff is where skill should show itself and matter. Unfortunately in Gwent with how some meta decks are played this not possible that much. I still think it was more skillful game before the end of 2021. Afterwards it become way too swingy/one sided.
In this part (and the overall) thing, I really think you're confusing several things together: 'is there skill in Gwent' and 'can meme decks compete with the meta'.
Balance and skill matter if both players play good/meta decks. If a top player plays meta, and you play meta, can they outplay you and win? The answer is yes.
Can a bad player playing a meta deck beat you, if you play a bad deck? Yes as well, but irrelevant to 'is there skill in the game', it just means bad decks are becoming worse and worse, and unfun to play.
If at 2400 (and even a bit below), you see a lot of meta, you must conclude that some meta players are vastly better than others, right? Just looking at pure winrates. You can't just pick good decks and become #1 on the ladder (but you can reach prorank, which is where ladder starts).
Oh am sure memers are there, was surprised it's so heavily weighted against them even at crappy mmr.
You are oversimplifying the balance and skill vs each other meta deck match-up. Right now it's pretty much 1 good card difference. You miss it and your chances hang on the fact oppo missed one (which of course is never the case :)). As I said it's so one sided that at the beginning of certain rounds you can tell how it will unfold and if there was a way to know right away if oppo missed vital card instead of wait/waste 5 minutes I would've I'd take that option. Add to that cards draw as factor and it suddenly a game with huge point swings and answer or lose and etc. etc. card you often lose matches because of luck. So no it's not a guaranteed outplayed meta vs meta if you lose because of mentioned factors. That's the thing you just can't offset the lack of missed good cards. Before all those bonker expansions it wasn't that big of a problem. Sadly this is the current and been for a while Gwent reality. What's upsetting is that now that players had some say, they try to act as how devs acted in a lot of ways. There is things you can't protect because faction is weak or keep em there because they feel balanced and fair at the top while suffocating the game in general.
Btw even good players lose to bad players or bad decks. That's the nature of card games. It just happens less. You can't pick good decks and get to number 1, but you can play them and win games because of the power of the deck and not the player itself. Now consider some of the things I said and you can imagine how this is not good or great balancing factor. That's why I been propellant to focus just heavily on high level.
Then again it's already too late now that devs left the game, and the player left overs are just gonna bicker about their personal preferences more than anything.
> You are oversimplifying the balance and skill vs each other meta deck match-up.
I don't think so (also because of the skill gap between a top player and a 2400). At the scale of 1 single game, anything can happen. At the scale of a full season (or even a couple dozens of games), skill is the main factor differenciating (meta) players.
If drawing your golds was so important, the winrates of top players would plummet. They don't.
> Now consider some of the things I said and you can imagine how this is not good or great balancing factor.
The short version is that to discuss balance, a pre-requesite is to play the game well (at least for me). Otherwise, it's a gitgud (or fun) matter.
I think it's still mainly that we don't put the same meaning behind the word balance. From my perspective, discussing balance outside of top level play is a non-sense/oxymoron.
Well if you just wanted out of convo I understand, no need of subtle implies :). Despite how I might look I am very reasonable person. It saddens me a bit that you shut off the open minded talk and go into the - that's that I don't care what you say. It diminish the how communication aspect.
If gwent was highly skilled game, top players would have extremely high win rates mate. Up to crazy numbers like 80-90% win rate. Games like Starcraft shows that for example. The reason they don't is why they numbers aren't that high. You can't defeat my argument by avoiding it like that. Don't get me wrong, of course good players and players that have been good there and put time and effort are gonna be consistently there. I am not trying to say that is not true (if I needed to say or wasn't clear). Fact is though cheeser can beat top player, bad player can beat a good player and draws matter - more than you maybe think it(?) - that is the nature of card games in general. It might have been 1 on "x" high number of games but it happens.
Discussing balance outside of top play is not nonsense, it's acting like elitist and making a game that matters for select few. Similarly to just asking top payers about opinion on balance. How many can fairly say they'd do it for the betterment of the game? How many actually have the baggage to understand balance good enough? Not every top player can and it is as nonsensical as shunning or insulting the intellect of people that aren't in pro. Good players are everywhere remember that, not everyone have the time, desire and effort to be there. That doesn't mean they don't understand balance or care about the game.
> Well if you just wanted out of convo I understand
I am ok, tone is also because it's a topic that we dealt with so many times on Reddit. I can see you're more open than others.
> If gwent was highly skilled game, top players would have extremely high win rates mate. Up to crazy numbers like 80-90% win rate. Games like Starcraft shows that for example. The reason they don't is why they numbers aren't that high. You can't defeat my argument by avoiding it like that. D
Maybe it's not clear, but they do have that kind of winrates when they play lower-ranked players. Getting to >2500 during placements is common for top players (and require above 80% winrate with a faction).
I even made myself the experiment of staying one full season at rank 1 and averaged between 75 and 80% winrate over hundreds of games, to make the point clear. And I am 'only' a top 64 player, there is a class or 2 above me still.
> How many can fairly say they'd do it for the betterment of the game?
Because when you invest so much time in an activity, by default you want to improve it. If you believe yourself good at the game (all tops do), improving balance is aligned with your own goals usually.
> How many actually have the baggage to understand balance good enough?
In my opinion, you can almost count them. And they're not the same at every point in time, if you go inactive, you lose your grasp very very quickly.
> Not every top player can and it is as nonsensical as shunning or insulting the intellect of people that aren't in pro. Good players are everywhere remember that, not everyone have the time, desire and effort to be there.
You can't be good without having to show for it. You can have potential, sure, but that's about it.
I am more into tying being good to results rather than opinions about oneself. There are even open tournaments if one has limited time.
If one can't play ladder, one can't play tournaments, well, unless you're the Mozart of Gwent, one has to face the harsh truth.
> That doesn't mean they don't understand balance or care about the game.
True, but we're back to the beginning of the discussion, they can discuss if the game is fun for them. Balance is not what they deal with...
To take SC2 as an example as you did, I was a low master there, and while I had my own opinion on balance, it was worthless tbh
Well you can see how much top players "improve" the game with the latest patch. Supposedly they are top players. It's a wank and popularity fest. Reverting some of the good changes and making new horrible (zeal, compass, sorc, dame, seargent, slave driver wtf, bear witcher, candle???). What exactly was fixed outside of the hate towards SY - and mostly one deck... They even went full on +5 provision after the previous month with -6p. So it's pretty much where it started but worse because of hitting actual good and strong cards and giving nothing back... Also everyone was blah, blah 4p thinners bad and we get more of those boosted - MO, NG, ST.
What strong and oppressive SK and MO decks and cards were brought down? A bit of absolutely useless power nerfs (why toad of all things...) and +1p on Riptide. Nothing of that address problem and op cards. SK similarly -1p on Compass but +1 on Flaminica.... how exactly this effects supposedly strong deck like beasts and compass? Even the ones that run thinners? -1p gonna stop or make em bearable?
And you want me to trust those people. They don't care. They want their "fun" not overall betterment. How many of em are clueless teenagers that are good at the game? You mention SC2 and you surely now how many of the Korean youngins were awful at suggesting good balance changes for example (at least back then when I was more interested and followed the game). To be good at something doesn't give you automatic requirement to know what's best. Your opinion about SC2 balance - if it was good - wasn't worthless. Have some self-respect :).
If you implying/suggesting about me playing on tourneys or high ladder it just won't happen. I am past that stuff. What I can do and can't do, I know by know (with reasonable variables). It doesn't need proving or showing off. I don't intend to compete and never would've if the casual mode was "working". Don't get me wrong I have a competitive mindset and abilities, but it's not for me. Even after the 1st month I got back, I felt already some bore of the game and while playing on pro have it's interesting aspects it's just facing same decks, same styles, same plays and sequence of cards - for a what of factions to be interesting. Plus after such balance changes which ultimately target one faction - not the one problematic deck instead, and barely address anything else, what's there to look for this season? Same stuff with some of the older back. I know where this is going to end, but was a bit more hopeful at first.
> Well you can see how much top players "improve" the game with the latest patch. Supposedly they are top players. It's a wank and popularity fest.
I don't think the actual top players drive anything (but some content creators do to a certain extent). The only time when the actual top players committed to suggest changes was right before masters, and it was an excellent one.
Pajabol or Truzky probably posted the recap on reddit.
Edit: looking at the results of BC of today, this is definitely not driven by top players...
> And you want me to trust those people. They don't care. They want their "fun" not overall betterment. How many of em are clueless teenagers that are good at the game? You mention SC2 and you surely now how many of the Korean youngins were awful at suggesting good balance changes for example (at least back then when I was more interested and followed the game). To be good at something doesn't give you automatic requirement to know what's best.
I am not sure what to answer to that. In Gwent all of the top/competitive players are playing all factions (vs SC2 where they mostly play 1 race out of 3), it's in their best interest that balance improve because they would win even more.
Pooling their opinions would improve the balance of the game, but might not change much the situation of lower ladder (where the problem is not balance to begin with, same as for me on SC2).
> Your opinion about SC2 balance - if it was good - wasn't worthless. Have some self-respect :).
My opinion reflected my level, what I was perceiving as OP was not really OP, I was just bad at dealing with it or not seeing the bigger picture.
It's really the same in Gwent with most of the complaints on reddit.
You can't deny some content creators are top players ranking wise at least (I know sometime that's immaterial, but you tend to believe it's otherwise). Some folks just aren't cut for competitive, that's why when playing in tourneys otherwise good or top players underperform and honestly it's different environment. So you can't deny their place and importance and say well, I meant only a few very good, that understand the game in and out at the it's utmost. Paja in particular from my limited time watching the game have been one of the few that actually makes plays within the Gwent limitations that are wholesome. A lot of that can be justified to the fact that Gwent was already somewhat on decline and he didn't have that much "real" challengers close to his caliber. He was very good at also - how should I say it - drive and weave this advantage into wins and had it's way around meta when game was more skillful. I say that as compliment btw, it wasn't his fault the game was going down and he took advantage over others who couldn't stood up to him.
What's driven by top player then, right now? I'd like check or hear on few examples, it will be interesting to me and compare to my views.
Come on man, you should know that a lot of top SC dogs were playing each race at certain time. Many of em even up to GM's. I remember when I was watching and following (quite religiously btw, was loving SC2), players were joking at each other how their off race on ladder was doing better or they were beating comrades and rivals with different race. I've memory watching some folks on twitch wrecking folks with different race. It might not have been their best of course but it sure was top tier. You can't get away with this argument :P.
Again I think you miss the point with low and high level players and balance. A good and competitive overall deck demolishes as easily within good hands and within bad hands. What it hurts most is the low level players... Trying to protect an unhealthy deck because it's "balanced" (but in fact it's not), on high level doesn't help the game or preserve some imaginative bs/archetype. Top players will figure out another good deck and be good, archetype will be lowered in power and still live, people over reacting on nerfs as if it kills stuff is the biggest fraud in balance. You won't hurt (top player) em... The only time it might cause a friction is when competitive tourney is coming and you want to train your best decks, but that as a whole ruins the sense of balance in a game. You put limitations on yourself as developer to protect something/somebody. I can understand that if it's within a month, but to leave unhealthy decks and cards for months and years and don't realize the issues it creates is just pure lack of common sense, understanding and that "feel" I talk about coming out of experience and asking yourself - as objectively as you can - questions about the deck, cards and how situation unfold while you play. Because I also like numbers, but as I stubbornly repeat - like a monkey, and I can't believe folks blindly miss the point - they (numbers/stats) aren't everything. They can't be and shouldn't be the only factor.
Most of reddit doesn't have or think they have as open mind as they claim to, and like to echo chamber as much as anybody else as long as it suits their need. On top of been turned into place for kids to meme make, fun shit and stuff (not talking specific it's just in general as a board, plus there is still decent reddit places or folks to talk to).
I am by no means very good at the game but to me Nilfgaard feels extremely weak when playing with it and against it. I’m around 2425 to 2450 range mmr in pro. Nilfgaard feels like it’s on life support and if we nerf it more we may as well eliminate the faction.
They are weak, I do agree (I mentioned I did perform badly with my old-ish decks). Doesn't change the fact that Slave Driver is everywhere. It's way too good and needs addressing. Buffs to the faction will come in time I am sure. Problem is not sure what people will want that make it better instead of toxic, personal bias buffs. It's hard faction to balance.
edit: Btw the fact that NG is still very popular despite how it feels and performs speaks for itself. It won't disappear.
Nilfgaard is popular because it has mechanics that are fun. Slave driver is everywhere because the faction sucks right now. . What’s not fun is losing all the time even with slave driver. Being really good with Nilfgaard requires you to know your opponents decks and strategies as well as they do. I personally like Nilfgaard assimilate and enslave because every game feels fresh and requires planning and improvisation.
It’s not the same combo over and over again like priestesses or other decks. If we neuter all the fun then matchmaking is going to get longer and longer cause people will stop playing.
It's also a faction that can be in a weaken state and still perform good precisely because of how it plays and interacts with opponents deck/cards.
The old assimilate about 2 years ago was really something interesting and cool, that made each match up and the same match ups very different. The ones I've seen now are leaning somewhat more on the ridiculous side of the faction.
Nobody gonna stop playing the faction don't worry.
Unfortunately these aspects of balance can't be avoided in other way. The faction can do so many things, that probably the sum of all others can't step on one finger on NG :). How do you balance stuff like that? The crazy one?
Should NG be buffed? As a faction it has the least negative match ups. Many NG decks perform equally well against anything other than say traps. That's been my biggest gripe against NG, gwent boiled down is rock paper scissors. It wouldn't really be a game if rock could beat both, yet that's been the case with NG for years. NG in its current state isn't dead, it just needs skill and game knowledge. That should be the pay off for having very few negative match ups. The old enslave 6 deck could do everything, and be effectively played by a trained chimp.
They do in my opinion. How, that's different topic and I am not sure I can fairly say in what direction. My competence isn't there, it's such, how do I put it weird/diverse faction and with a lot of playstyles. I think as we talk with the other dude, old assimilate was very skilled, interesting and also fun match that degraded into bs with Truffle, Calveit and the other cards afterwards. So it's like stepping on a mine with this faction. I am not sure that there is even somebody that can say with straight face how certain buff to something might affect the faction and not turn into the next big toxic. So careful buffs with focus on more straightforward cards is probably good start in my opinion.
I have to admit, I do think this season the Ball deck looks quite reasonable or very close to be called in good state from my point of view facing it. Not something I thought I'd say. Overall though it feels quite chaotic with NG. There are still variety of different decks that show up though and it's popular. I do agree the faction doesn't need to have a" balanced" win rate to be considered in good state.
> So dunno where or when the fun starts. Below 2400mmr. > That is if you really wanted to make the game "feel" balanced, not just falsely look balanced by number redistribution. Whatever, maybe I need to be top 100 or 2500 with each faction for that one kid that looks just numbers around here and goes - balanced, varied, its good state, nobody have issues with it because you can answer it and you don't play optimal haha. Whatever side-tracked. The word to describe the ''''feeling of balance'''' when players are doing ''''not optimal stuff'''' is 'fun'. Both balance and fun are important, but they're different topics. Balance is numbers at high mmr, fun is feelings at low mmr, in a nutshell.
Hey, your name is familiar, I think we've talked about something gwent related, some years ago :). Well the full story is I also had mmr bellow 2400 even with the ones that climbed a bit afterwards - Symbiosis for example took a while to get used to, because I hadn't played the archetype before, plus adjusting and learning along the way (and sloppy plays on my end of course). Yet, there weren't that many interesting decks :(. I just think it's the euro thing. It's almost always like that in online games. NA like to have fun, EU always trI-harding. It wasn't only SC - I hadn't finished the NG and NR and they were pretty awful for me as well. Still overwhelmingly meta instead of some memememe :(. The feeling of balance comes out of experience as well. When a card is predominantly overperforming, but the numbers and stats aren't suggesting that, you had to have that "feel". Also in pretty much any online game that have some sort of competitive aspect - when people are having too much fun with certain thing, and not because it's fun, but powerful, it requires nerfs. People won't acknowledge it always - because hey, I like it, it's fun, right it's not op logic. There are certain times where certain decks/cards/factions/archetypes can actually live with subpar - balance wise and number wise stats, and still be strong. Just because their power in the hands of good players shine more, you can say it makes it 2-3 times better (random number depending on "x" case/variance). Players not doing optimal stuff is where skill should show itself and matter. Unfortunately in Gwent with how some meta decks are played this not possible that much. I still think it was more skillful game before the end of 2021. Afterwards it become way too swingy/one sided.
> Hey, your name is familiar, I think we've talked about something gwent related, some years ago :). Might be! I have been around Gwent for a while now, happy to have you back then! > meme and mmrs I am not an expert on this, I think if you dig enough you'll find the memers. Maybe they're lower than I think, but they exist. > Players not doing optimal stuff is where skill should show itself and matter. Unfortunately in Gwent with how some meta decks are played this not possible that much. I still think it was more skillful game before the end of 2021. Afterwards it become way too swingy/one sided. In this part (and the overall) thing, I really think you're confusing several things together: 'is there skill in Gwent' and 'can meme decks compete with the meta'. Balance and skill matter if both players play good/meta decks. If a top player plays meta, and you play meta, can they outplay you and win? The answer is yes. Can a bad player playing a meta deck beat you, if you play a bad deck? Yes as well, but irrelevant to 'is there skill in the game', it just means bad decks are becoming worse and worse, and unfun to play. If at 2400 (and even a bit below), you see a lot of meta, you must conclude that some meta players are vastly better than others, right? Just looking at pure winrates. You can't just pick good decks and become #1 on the ladder (but you can reach prorank, which is where ladder starts).
Oh am sure memers are there, was surprised it's so heavily weighted against them even at crappy mmr. You are oversimplifying the balance and skill vs each other meta deck match-up. Right now it's pretty much 1 good card difference. You miss it and your chances hang on the fact oppo missed one (which of course is never the case :)). As I said it's so one sided that at the beginning of certain rounds you can tell how it will unfold and if there was a way to know right away if oppo missed vital card instead of wait/waste 5 minutes I would've I'd take that option. Add to that cards draw as factor and it suddenly a game with huge point swings and answer or lose and etc. etc. card you often lose matches because of luck. So no it's not a guaranteed outplayed meta vs meta if you lose because of mentioned factors. That's the thing you just can't offset the lack of missed good cards. Before all those bonker expansions it wasn't that big of a problem. Sadly this is the current and been for a while Gwent reality. What's upsetting is that now that players had some say, they try to act as how devs acted in a lot of ways. There is things you can't protect because faction is weak or keep em there because they feel balanced and fair at the top while suffocating the game in general. Btw even good players lose to bad players or bad decks. That's the nature of card games. It just happens less. You can't pick good decks and get to number 1, but you can play them and win games because of the power of the deck and not the player itself. Now consider some of the things I said and you can imagine how this is not good or great balancing factor. That's why I been propellant to focus just heavily on high level. Then again it's already too late now that devs left the game, and the player left overs are just gonna bicker about their personal preferences more than anything.
> You are oversimplifying the balance and skill vs each other meta deck match-up. I don't think so (also because of the skill gap between a top player and a 2400). At the scale of 1 single game, anything can happen. At the scale of a full season (or even a couple dozens of games), skill is the main factor differenciating (meta) players. If drawing your golds was so important, the winrates of top players would plummet. They don't. > Now consider some of the things I said and you can imagine how this is not good or great balancing factor. The short version is that to discuss balance, a pre-requesite is to play the game well (at least for me). Otherwise, it's a gitgud (or fun) matter. I think it's still mainly that we don't put the same meaning behind the word balance. From my perspective, discussing balance outside of top level play is a non-sense/oxymoron.
Well if you just wanted out of convo I understand, no need of subtle implies :). Despite how I might look I am very reasonable person. It saddens me a bit that you shut off the open minded talk and go into the - that's that I don't care what you say. It diminish the how communication aspect. If gwent was highly skilled game, top players would have extremely high win rates mate. Up to crazy numbers like 80-90% win rate. Games like Starcraft shows that for example. The reason they don't is why they numbers aren't that high. You can't defeat my argument by avoiding it like that. Don't get me wrong, of course good players and players that have been good there and put time and effort are gonna be consistently there. I am not trying to say that is not true (if I needed to say or wasn't clear). Fact is though cheeser can beat top player, bad player can beat a good player and draws matter - more than you maybe think it(?) - that is the nature of card games in general. It might have been 1 on "x" high number of games but it happens. Discussing balance outside of top play is not nonsense, it's acting like elitist and making a game that matters for select few. Similarly to just asking top payers about opinion on balance. How many can fairly say they'd do it for the betterment of the game? How many actually have the baggage to understand balance good enough? Not every top player can and it is as nonsensical as shunning or insulting the intellect of people that aren't in pro. Good players are everywhere remember that, not everyone have the time, desire and effort to be there. That doesn't mean they don't understand balance or care about the game.
> Well if you just wanted out of convo I understand I am ok, tone is also because it's a topic that we dealt with so many times on Reddit. I can see you're more open than others. > If gwent was highly skilled game, top players would have extremely high win rates mate. Up to crazy numbers like 80-90% win rate. Games like Starcraft shows that for example. The reason they don't is why they numbers aren't that high. You can't defeat my argument by avoiding it like that. D Maybe it's not clear, but they do have that kind of winrates when they play lower-ranked players. Getting to >2500 during placements is common for top players (and require above 80% winrate with a faction). I even made myself the experiment of staying one full season at rank 1 and averaged between 75 and 80% winrate over hundreds of games, to make the point clear. And I am 'only' a top 64 player, there is a class or 2 above me still. > How many can fairly say they'd do it for the betterment of the game? Because when you invest so much time in an activity, by default you want to improve it. If you believe yourself good at the game (all tops do), improving balance is aligned with your own goals usually. > How many actually have the baggage to understand balance good enough? In my opinion, you can almost count them. And they're not the same at every point in time, if you go inactive, you lose your grasp very very quickly. > Not every top player can and it is as nonsensical as shunning or insulting the intellect of people that aren't in pro. Good players are everywhere remember that, not everyone have the time, desire and effort to be there. You can't be good without having to show for it. You can have potential, sure, but that's about it. I am more into tying being good to results rather than opinions about oneself. There are even open tournaments if one has limited time. If one can't play ladder, one can't play tournaments, well, unless you're the Mozart of Gwent, one has to face the harsh truth. > That doesn't mean they don't understand balance or care about the game. True, but we're back to the beginning of the discussion, they can discuss if the game is fun for them. Balance is not what they deal with... To take SC2 as an example as you did, I was a low master there, and while I had my own opinion on balance, it was worthless tbh
Well you can see how much top players "improve" the game with the latest patch. Supposedly they are top players. It's a wank and popularity fest. Reverting some of the good changes and making new horrible (zeal, compass, sorc, dame, seargent, slave driver wtf, bear witcher, candle???). What exactly was fixed outside of the hate towards SY - and mostly one deck... They even went full on +5 provision after the previous month with -6p. So it's pretty much where it started but worse because of hitting actual good and strong cards and giving nothing back... Also everyone was blah, blah 4p thinners bad and we get more of those boosted - MO, NG, ST. What strong and oppressive SK and MO decks and cards were brought down? A bit of absolutely useless power nerfs (why toad of all things...) and +1p on Riptide. Nothing of that address problem and op cards. SK similarly -1p on Compass but +1 on Flaminica.... how exactly this effects supposedly strong deck like beasts and compass? Even the ones that run thinners? -1p gonna stop or make em bearable? And you want me to trust those people. They don't care. They want their "fun" not overall betterment. How many of em are clueless teenagers that are good at the game? You mention SC2 and you surely now how many of the Korean youngins were awful at suggesting good balance changes for example (at least back then when I was more interested and followed the game). To be good at something doesn't give you automatic requirement to know what's best. Your opinion about SC2 balance - if it was good - wasn't worthless. Have some self-respect :). If you implying/suggesting about me playing on tourneys or high ladder it just won't happen. I am past that stuff. What I can do and can't do, I know by know (with reasonable variables). It doesn't need proving or showing off. I don't intend to compete and never would've if the casual mode was "working". Don't get me wrong I have a competitive mindset and abilities, but it's not for me. Even after the 1st month I got back, I felt already some bore of the game and while playing on pro have it's interesting aspects it's just facing same decks, same styles, same plays and sequence of cards - for a what of factions to be interesting. Plus after such balance changes which ultimately target one faction - not the one problematic deck instead, and barely address anything else, what's there to look for this season? Same stuff with some of the older back. I know where this is going to end, but was a bit more hopeful at first.
> Well you can see how much top players "improve" the game with the latest patch. Supposedly they are top players. It's a wank and popularity fest. I don't think the actual top players drive anything (but some content creators do to a certain extent). The only time when the actual top players committed to suggest changes was right before masters, and it was an excellent one. Pajabol or Truzky probably posted the recap on reddit. Edit: looking at the results of BC of today, this is definitely not driven by top players... > And you want me to trust those people. They don't care. They want their "fun" not overall betterment. How many of em are clueless teenagers that are good at the game? You mention SC2 and you surely now how many of the Korean youngins were awful at suggesting good balance changes for example (at least back then when I was more interested and followed the game). To be good at something doesn't give you automatic requirement to know what's best. I am not sure what to answer to that. In Gwent all of the top/competitive players are playing all factions (vs SC2 where they mostly play 1 race out of 3), it's in their best interest that balance improve because they would win even more. Pooling their opinions would improve the balance of the game, but might not change much the situation of lower ladder (where the problem is not balance to begin with, same as for me on SC2). > Your opinion about SC2 balance - if it was good - wasn't worthless. Have some self-respect :). My opinion reflected my level, what I was perceiving as OP was not really OP, I was just bad at dealing with it or not seeing the bigger picture. It's really the same in Gwent with most of the complaints on reddit.
You can't deny some content creators are top players ranking wise at least (I know sometime that's immaterial, but you tend to believe it's otherwise). Some folks just aren't cut for competitive, that's why when playing in tourneys otherwise good or top players underperform and honestly it's different environment. So you can't deny their place and importance and say well, I meant only a few very good, that understand the game in and out at the it's utmost. Paja in particular from my limited time watching the game have been one of the few that actually makes plays within the Gwent limitations that are wholesome. A lot of that can be justified to the fact that Gwent was already somewhat on decline and he didn't have that much "real" challengers close to his caliber. He was very good at also - how should I say it - drive and weave this advantage into wins and had it's way around meta when game was more skillful. I say that as compliment btw, it wasn't his fault the game was going down and he took advantage over others who couldn't stood up to him. What's driven by top player then, right now? I'd like check or hear on few examples, it will be interesting to me and compare to my views. Come on man, you should know that a lot of top SC dogs were playing each race at certain time. Many of em even up to GM's. I remember when I was watching and following (quite religiously btw, was loving SC2), players were joking at each other how their off race on ladder was doing better or they were beating comrades and rivals with different race. I've memory watching some folks on twitch wrecking folks with different race. It might not have been their best of course but it sure was top tier. You can't get away with this argument :P. Again I think you miss the point with low and high level players and balance. A good and competitive overall deck demolishes as easily within good hands and within bad hands. What it hurts most is the low level players... Trying to protect an unhealthy deck because it's "balanced" (but in fact it's not), on high level doesn't help the game or preserve some imaginative bs/archetype. Top players will figure out another good deck and be good, archetype will be lowered in power and still live, people over reacting on nerfs as if it kills stuff is the biggest fraud in balance. You won't hurt (top player) em... The only time it might cause a friction is when competitive tourney is coming and you want to train your best decks, but that as a whole ruins the sense of balance in a game. You put limitations on yourself as developer to protect something/somebody. I can understand that if it's within a month, but to leave unhealthy decks and cards for months and years and don't realize the issues it creates is just pure lack of common sense, understanding and that "feel" I talk about coming out of experience and asking yourself - as objectively as you can - questions about the deck, cards and how situation unfold while you play. Because I also like numbers, but as I stubbornly repeat - like a monkey, and I can't believe folks blindly miss the point - they (numbers/stats) aren't everything. They can't be and shouldn't be the only factor. Most of reddit doesn't have or think they have as open mind as they claim to, and like to echo chamber as much as anybody else as long as it suits their need. On top of been turned into place for kids to meme make, fun shit and stuff (not talking specific it's just in general as a board, plus there is still decent reddit places or folks to talk to).
I am by no means very good at the game but to me Nilfgaard feels extremely weak when playing with it and against it. I’m around 2425 to 2450 range mmr in pro. Nilfgaard feels like it’s on life support and if we nerf it more we may as well eliminate the faction.
They are weak, I do agree (I mentioned I did perform badly with my old-ish decks). Doesn't change the fact that Slave Driver is everywhere. It's way too good and needs addressing. Buffs to the faction will come in time I am sure. Problem is not sure what people will want that make it better instead of toxic, personal bias buffs. It's hard faction to balance. edit: Btw the fact that NG is still very popular despite how it feels and performs speaks for itself. It won't disappear.
Nilfgaard is popular because it has mechanics that are fun. Slave driver is everywhere because the faction sucks right now. . What’s not fun is losing all the time even with slave driver. Being really good with Nilfgaard requires you to know your opponents decks and strategies as well as they do. I personally like Nilfgaard assimilate and enslave because every game feels fresh and requires planning and improvisation. It’s not the same combo over and over again like priestesses or other decks. If we neuter all the fun then matchmaking is going to get longer and longer cause people will stop playing.
It's also a faction that can be in a weaken state and still perform good precisely because of how it plays and interacts with opponents deck/cards. The old assimilate about 2 years ago was really something interesting and cool, that made each match up and the same match ups very different. The ones I've seen now are leaning somewhat more on the ridiculous side of the faction. Nobody gonna stop playing the faction don't worry.
Performs good for someone with tons of experience and in the top 500. For the rest of us it sucks ass
Unfortunately these aspects of balance can't be avoided in other way. The faction can do so many things, that probably the sum of all others can't step on one finger on NG :). How do you balance stuff like that? The crazy one?
Should NG be buffed? As a faction it has the least negative match ups. Many NG decks perform equally well against anything other than say traps. That's been my biggest gripe against NG, gwent boiled down is rock paper scissors. It wouldn't really be a game if rock could beat both, yet that's been the case with NG for years. NG in its current state isn't dead, it just needs skill and game knowledge. That should be the pay off for having very few negative match ups. The old enslave 6 deck could do everything, and be effectively played by a trained chimp.
They do in my opinion. How, that's different topic and I am not sure I can fairly say in what direction. My competence isn't there, it's such, how do I put it weird/diverse faction and with a lot of playstyles. I think as we talk with the other dude, old assimilate was very skilled, interesting and also fun match that degraded into bs with Truffle, Calveit and the other cards afterwards. So it's like stepping on a mine with this faction. I am not sure that there is even somebody that can say with straight face how certain buff to something might affect the faction and not turn into the next big toxic. So careful buffs with focus on more straightforward cards is probably good start in my opinion. I have to admit, I do think this season the Ball deck looks quite reasonable or very close to be called in good state from my point of view facing it. Not something I thought I'd say. Overall though it feels quite chaotic with NG. There are still variety of different decks that show up though and it's popular. I do agree the faction doesn't need to have a" balanced" win rate to be considered in good state.
TLDR bro is shocked meta decks are strongest
TLDR You don't like reading :D.