Changes to the Balance Council

[EduFerraz]

0) Well, you have not demonstrated anything, you just have talked about how strong you are (talking about yourself, not about everyone).

1) But look, I have done the job. And keep in mind it depends if you stay with your own creative deck, or if you renounce to use the most abusive decks and factions of the moment (mostly it will be the same boring NG encounters anyways until Rank 0, or 1 abusive deck of another faction).



2) Now for 50 victories, only playing Ranking Mode, multiply by 2 these values.
This system is clearly not fair for lot of players (even skilled players, using 1 to 6 factions). Not fair because of the time, but not only. (And do not make the mistake supposing I or anyone showing the same facts as me is necessarily a weak player unable to reach Rank0, or to win +/- 50% of his games in ranking mode).

3) Then, take into account

1. some players only play Fun Modes, other Mostly Fun Modes (multiply the values quoted by 0h, 0h, 0h, 0h)
2. others half Fun Modes and half Raking Mode. (multiply again the values quoted by 2 = 25h, 50h, 75h, 100h)

Because there is no ranking mode in Fun Modes, not to show how dumb people are (look at me I am a pro gamer), but to face users at our level. So Fun Players are penalized.

This objective demonstration shows that something is wrong, because you do not take into account each type of players. And I seriously doubt the majority of players only play for the dying raking mode (only to win 25 keys per cycle). Especially because it is possible to win more games (thus more keys) in Fun Modes (between 66 to 95% of victories depending on the mode of the week), because it is based on more Creativity and less silly identical decks. So you play mainly for diversity, for creativity... leading to fun.

PS : Furthermore, nothing proves that players playing a lot will balance cards, especially because they profit from umbalance (to use abusive cards allowing them to be over the top, more than knowing well all the cards and archetypes. In fact they truly know a tiny amount of archetypes, because most of them will lead them to loose their rating score).

Man, take it easy.

As we say here in my country, "use your break"

All your post is blaming as pro players were the worst players in the world (worst = evil).

First - fun modes i think you want to say seasonal modes.
Why in hell someone Who only plays that (or majority plays that) Will want to change cards?

"oh i faced so many idarran in that seasonal wich duplicates units, lets nerf it"
"oh, i faced so many coup in that seasonal that duplicates special, lets nerf it".

Or

"i only play in non ranked with cheesee decks, but heatwave insist to brake my decks, lets nerf it"

Really?

Also i already said in this topic, some guys are blaming like if they cant vote they cant play anymore.

Why someone Who only plays in "fun modes" Will want to vote? Tô break the game? Because it is what is going tô happen


For me someone Who only plays in "fun modes" should never be able to vote, because there is no sense on it.

Also Someone Who plays casual and cant reach those wins, well i dont think its deserve to vote, because only plays casual.

Someone Who plays "hardcore" and dont get 50 wins in rank Mode. Well i think this player should change The game, because gwent its not for him

For the rest, despite i always reach pro rank (and usually stop there, i dont "chase mmr") i dont say it in every month, i only try tô bring some datas to prove my point.
Yes, its my personal experience, but its better than others Who came with rock and dont even try to win The games.

I went tô rank 3 to rank 1 with a strange simbiosis deck, with no heatwave. Where is the "meta" in that deck?

 

[WhiteWolf4207]

I think people are overreacting 50 wins for non pro rank players. See it in this way. Previously, we had like 12 or 13 days to win 25 games so that you can vote in that Balance Council. Now most likely Balance Council will be every 30 days. So, win requirement is double but you get double the days too. So, I don't think 50 wins requirement is big deal.

 

[duracell1955]

What objective evidence (not just opinion) is there to support the notion that the ability to win games is proportionate to the ability (or willingness) to effectively balance cards?

Everyone has their own skills when it comes to balancing cards, mine are unaffected by the number of wins I have and I expect that this is the same for others.

There are a limited number of filters that can be applied to change voting patterns and the change in the numbers of wins requirement seems little more to me than an attempt to change the voting distribution. The downside is that it disenfranchises those who have the ability and willingness to try to improve the game but don't have the time to play enough games each month.

I see little credibility in the imposition of a wins restriction, and it has the downside of sending the message to a portion of the player base that they are not considered fit to vote.

A viable alternative could be a games played restriction, such as:

'Play at least five games with each faction, and win at least one round in each game.'

This would have the advantage of forcing players to play all the factions, increasing their knowledge of each. A player could not simply download the best net deck of the month and play it until the requisite wins had been achieved. The restriction that one round must be won for a game to count would prevent players simply playing one card then conceding in order to reach the games played requirement.

 

[Barracuda88]

OK, so you dispute the merit of the notion that the ability to win games is proportionate to the ability to balance the game, based on lack of "objective evidence," and yet you immediately turn around and propose the alternative restriction of "forcing" people to play all factions, because that will definitely "increase their knowledge of each" and that, in turn, is... going to be proportionate to their ability to balance the game? I assume there is plenty of "objective evidence" to back that up? Not to mention the evidence that forcing people to waste their time playing five games with every faction will increase their knowledge of the factions and not their annoyance?

Even if a player downloads the best deck of the month or whatever, getting 50 wins with is going to take levels more effort than spamming faction games, even with this "foolproof" anticheating mechanism of requiring a complete round in every game, whatever that means.

I think the current win and prestige requirements are quite rational and logical, and probably the best reasonably available, without going into some convoluted upper-lower chamber nonsense with weighted votes. That would just be a bit too much effort for a free game that's been removed from support, imo.

 

[Trevorzan]

maybe we need to accept the sad truth: our suggestions and feedback will not be taken into account. I see no reply from the devs, not a single "We will think about it" or "Although we would like to implement that great idea, the reality is that it is out of our budget". Nothing. We will need to take wathever is offered to us.

Not what we want to read, but it is what it is. Besides, not that the devs owe us something. Yeah, it would be nice, we definetely would appreciate some authentic words outside of the canned responses, but we should not expect anything... from a free game that's been removed from support (I liked that line).

Let's enjoy as long as the game is online and be grateful we played many hours this game.

 

[quintivarium]

After spending the better part of a three day break playing far more Gwent than I should have, I am still 4 wins short of meeting the requirement to vote.

I can only reiterate the absolute absurdity of a 50 win requirement. It is now the case that the only people who can vote are either literal professionals (people who earn a living playing Gwent) or those with no life ambition outside video games.

As for me, I will probably vote in the December balance council (since I am so close to being eligible). After that, unless things change, I will simply comment from the sidelines — unless I choose to quit in protest instead. It is simply not worth feeling pressured to play more than I want in a mode I don’t like.

 

[Trevorzan]

After spending the better part of a three day break playing far more Gwent than I should have, I am still 4 wins short of meeting the requirement to vote.

I can only reiterate the absolute absurdity of a 50 win requirement. It is now the case that the only people who can vote are either literal professionals (people who earn a living playing Gwent) or those with no life ambition outside video games.

As for me, I will probably vote in the December balance council (since I am so close to being eligible). After that, unless things change, I will simply comment from the sidelines — unless I choose to quit in protest instead. It is simply not worth feeling pressured to play more than I want in a mode I don’t like.

lol same here. I completed 100 wins with reckless fury, so I changed to rage of the sea and tweeked a bit my deck and it worked as I started to win more. I played more than usual with that deck and got up to 38 wins so far, and its crazy the amount of time one has to invest.

I used to have almost same number of wins across factions. With the latest event that distribution changed for me because not all challenges were equally distributed.

 

[Brippe]

After spending the better part of a three day break playing far more Gwent than I should have, I am still 4 wins short of meeting the requirement to vote.

I can only reiterate the absolute absurdity of a 50 win requirement. It is now the case that the only people who can vote are either literal professionals (people who earn a living playing Gwent) or those with no life ambition outside video games.

As for me, I will probably vote in the December balance council (since I am so close to being eligible). After that, unless things change, I will simply comment from the sidelines — unless I choose to quit in protest instead. It is simply not worth feeling pressured to play more than I want in a mode I don’t like.

This is even worse.... because the only players able to do this stupidity are NG, SK and NR players.... and they tend not to think in another thing more than boosting the faction they play.

Balance council is not a council, is the demonstration that what they call "majority" is not for the common good of the game, instead is a bunch of biased players that only want to play with the system (Like the guy that uses one of the -1 power slot to boost a spy....)

 

[rrc]

I thought of creating a new post or telling this somewhere here, but then I thought only it would make me look dumb and didn't post here. But seeing that at least a couple of people haven't realised this, let me tell you guys this: You getting to pro or getting 50 wins wont allow you to vote in the next balance council. If you see, the season ends and the BC opens at the same time. So, I got this doubt a long time (almost the whole season and only recently I wanted to clarify my doubt) so, I clarified with ThorSerpent and he confirmed in the twitter what I doubted.

So, I know you will all be mighty disappointed like me, but that is life.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726550585783320811

In case you guys don't have twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726615374953930946

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726884067189424185

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726886273137418513

 

[Barracuda88]

What in the bloody hell is he talking about? When i saw the season ended on the same day voting began, I wasn't sure what to make of it. Asked here in a thread and got no response, so I kinda went through a couple of possibilities in my mind, starting from a typo to like some type of a buffer voting period between seasons, none of which really made a whole lot of sense, but with no info what are you gonna do. But this twitter exchange makes even less sense, while STILL not explaining how this same day thing is supposed to work. Can somebody spell it out for dumb people like me?

The season ends in 4 days. The voting begins in 4 days. When does the new season begin? When does the voting close? When do the voted on changes come into effect? Right now, including the gibberish above, it sounds like there's not going to be a patch before the start of the new season at all.

 

[rrc]

As far as I have understood, there won't be any balance updates in 4 days. BC will open after 4 days and whoever wants to vote will have to go to pro or 50 wins in the new season. We may get two cycles like how we got last time or one time after the season ends, which I am not sure. But there is no patch for at least 19 days (midseason) and our wins and pro rank will be useless for next voting.

 

[Jannay]

Of course, the new voting starts only in December. The current short season is irrelevant.

 

[WhiteWolf4207]

(Like the guy that uses one of the -1 power slot to boost a spy....)

If you are talking about me here, then it's fine to disagree with my voting choices. Nobody's comment influences my choices.

 

[gwentista]

Here comes my suggestion to gwent developers: I think top pro-ladder players should have more Balance-Council vote quotas than normal players. And below are my reasonings.

Since the gwent master tournament is going to cease after 2023, crown point is somehow useless then, so what are the incentives for top pro-ladder players to keep on fighting for the rank? I think more BC vote quotas is a great incentive. The better you played, the bigger influence you will have about how this game's card should changing. And this will have a stimulus for all the players to try to climb to a higher rank.

I didn't mean the top players should decide the game changing, but I think adequately give them more BC votes will give them a right to choose which trend to follow among all popular opinions.

My suggestion is to divide the BC vote players into two areas, basic area and bonus area, the basic area players consists 80% of all qualified BC voters, and bonus area take the remaining 20%, and the bonus vote distribution should follow a escalating up rule. For example, among the bonus voters, 60% of them can have 2 votes, 30% of them have 3 votes, 9.99% of them have 5 votes, the top 20 players have 10 votes, the top 3, 2, 1 player have 20, 30, 40 votes each.

This plan have a successful example: Stackoverflow.com, this programming QA site is run successfully by a user community, the users with higher points will have correspondingly managing privilege, and people can earn points by asking good questions or writting good answers. (Just like gwent players can gain more influence to the game by playing better in my plan.)

 

[ismail_53]

Hello everyone!

Not so long ago, we concluded our first Balance Council cycle. Voting is open for the second one, but we would like to apply some changes.

Choosing the number of changes for this system is a challenge. More changes mean their impact will be bigger, but also the spread of votes can be higher, which can result in overnerfing/overbuffing certain archetypes. Less changes mean the game is more stable - the spread of the votes is lower, which means that only a handful of deserving cards are affected, but as a consequence, the impact can be less noticeable.

Since, for technical reasons, we need to decide on one number for maximum changes for all brackets, we would like to try an approach opposite to the one we tried at first, so in the current cycle, the maximum number of changes per bracket will be 5. We will need your feedback to decide whether or not that is enough to have an impactful update, and based on that, we will decide what that number should become in future cycles.

Moreover, starting from the next cycle (the current one will be unaffected), we will increase the minimum number of wins for non-pro rank players to 50. Keep in mind that the regular length of the cycle is 1 month, so there will be more time to get there.

Happy voting!

In my opinion, 15 days cycle time and 15 changes per bracket is fine. Some cards needs more than 1 cycle to be playable. Nerf bracket not neceserally needs to be 15 but definately buffs brackets are. Otherwise people tends to vote for the most impactful changes back and forth.

 

[Gemueseknolle]

in my opinion, the best would be to use playtime: everyone that has played gwent more than 2000h (or at least 1000h) shall be able to vote.
simple and easy.

 

[TommyMtd]

50 wins just to be able to voice an opinion, really?? You do realize not everything revolves around those in pro rank and the meta enjoyers just outside of it, right? I've been in pro, but getting into it is a massive waste of time unless you're a streamer, like to grind or are an extemely competitive type aka no lifer. For some people it's 3-5 games a day, no more. 50 wins just to cast a vote is ridiculous. It's like you don't want to hear what your community wants to say (or is it too much work to look at?) By limiting the pool of votes you're not doing any favors to the state of the game. The same broken cards will be getting all the attention since balance is non-existent. What about more casual stuff? Nothing, the average casual doesn't get to vote lol. I get why you wouldn't want new players to be able to influence the votes, but this ain't the way. Off topic, but yugioh master duel has this proficiency test where different situations in game are described and you have to actually know what cards do and find the neat little interaction between them to answer correctly. If it were me, I'd do something similar here.
Anyway, game is dead and has been dead for me for quite a while now, I just like popping it open from time to time to have some fun with underrated lists. This may no longer be my main card game, but who's to say I lack in knowledge? The 50 wins maybe? The answer is no, a new player meeting that criteria will still be a new player, at least in my book.