Some basic rules that CDPR should follow before any balancing update
Hello fellow gwent players,
I have already posted this topic on reddit, but I would be happy to also discuss about it here.
Since the roadmap update, we know that there will be one balancing patch in May, and that it is supposed to be the only one, until october-november.
Therefore, this update will be decisive for the 6 months to come.
Thanks to meta reports, and the stability of the meta since nearly 3 months, we may easily know who are Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Leaders/archetypes currently.
This is how I would classify them :
Obviously, the perfect balance would be to have a 50% W/R with every leader, even if, of course, this is nearly impossible.
But to simplify, it means that Tier 1 Leaders/archetypes need a nerf, Tier 2 should remain unchanged and Tier 3 need a buff. Why am I stating such obvious rules ? For the simple reason that many players suggestions actually don't seem to care about balance. I don't want to sound harsh, but I have the feeling that a certain number of players just want to get rid of any card that is an annoyance for them.
I perfectly agree that some changes are needed. For example, Brouver must be reworked, so that he won't be able to use his mad Cleaver/Yaevinn combo anymore. Moreover, I accept the fact that wardancers need a nerf as well (I must specify that I'm playing a Francesca swap/swarm deck). But I am also convinced that wardancers won't be simply nerfed, they will be killed, like Iorveth:meditation or enforcers.
With all these predictable nerfs targeting Scoia'tael, you might think that players would be satisfied. But still, some players ask for a nerf for half elf hunters as well. It is a fact that they are really good. But nerf them, and you will just weaken an already weak archetype.
Without his Cleaver combo, Brouver W/R should be on par with current Francesca one, ie : 45-47%. Without wardancers, this W/R should fall even more. At this point, Scoia'tael won't need an additionnal nerf, but on the contrary a real buff.
Of course, ST is not the only example. Many players also ask for a nerf for Viper Witchers. I don't like them either and I consider them broken. But they must be nerfed with caution, because without them, Alchemy archetype will lose a lot of effectiveness.
I could give a lot more examples, like Imlerith:Sabbath (a broken card in a weak deck), but I think you get the point.
I'm not saying that a broken card should not be nerfed just because it belongs to a weak deck. But such a nerf has to be accompanied with the boost of other cards from this deck, in order to counterbalance.
Incidently, I hope that CDPR won't listen to the players who demand the disapperance of nearly any form of removal, because this is huge factor of balance and interactivity. Moreover, right now, there is no Tier 1 removal deck.
Once again, these rules may seem obvious, but even CDPR does'nt appear to always follow them.
Thanks for reading.
Hello fellow gwent players,
I have already posted this topic on reddit, but I would be happy to also discuss about it here.
Since the roadmap update, we know that there will be one balancing patch in May, and that it is supposed to be the only one, until october-november.
Therefore, this update will be decisive for the 6 months to come.
Thanks to meta reports, and the stability of the meta since nearly 3 months, we may easily know who are Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 Leaders/archetypes currently.
This is how I would classify them :
- With their 51%+ Win Rates, Brouver, Henselt, Crach and Harald are clearly Tier 1 Leaders.
- With around 48-50 % Win Rates, Jan Calveit, Arachas Queen, Dagon, Bran and Emhyr (handbuff) are Tier 2 Leaders.
- Anyone else is a Tier 3 Leader.
Obviously, the perfect balance would be to have a 50% W/R with every leader, even if, of course, this is nearly impossible.
But to simplify, it means that Tier 1 Leaders/archetypes need a nerf, Tier 2 should remain unchanged and Tier 3 need a buff. Why am I stating such obvious rules ? For the simple reason that many players suggestions actually don't seem to care about balance. I don't want to sound harsh, but I have the feeling that a certain number of players just want to get rid of any card that is an annoyance for them.
I perfectly agree that some changes are needed. For example, Brouver must be reworked, so that he won't be able to use his mad Cleaver/Yaevinn combo anymore. Moreover, I accept the fact that wardancers need a nerf as well (I must specify that I'm playing a Francesca swap/swarm deck). But I am also convinced that wardancers won't be simply nerfed, they will be killed, like Iorveth:meditation or enforcers.
With all these predictable nerfs targeting Scoia'tael, you might think that players would be satisfied. But still, some players ask for a nerf for half elf hunters as well. It is a fact that they are really good. But nerf them, and you will just weaken an already weak archetype.
Without his Cleaver combo, Brouver W/R should be on par with current Francesca one, ie : 45-47%. Without wardancers, this W/R should fall even more. At this point, Scoia'tael won't need an additionnal nerf, but on the contrary a real buff.
Of course, ST is not the only example. Many players also ask for a nerf for Viper Witchers. I don't like them either and I consider them broken. But they must be nerfed with caution, because without them, Alchemy archetype will lose a lot of effectiveness.
I could give a lot more examples, like Imlerith:Sabbath (a broken card in a weak deck), but I think you get the point.
I'm not saying that a broken card should not be nerfed just because it belongs to a weak deck. But such a nerf has to be accompanied with the boost of other cards from this deck, in order to counterbalance.
Incidently, I hope that CDPR won't listen to the players who demand the disapperance of nearly any form of removal, because this is huge factor of balance and interactivity. Moreover, right now, there is no Tier 1 removal deck.
Once again, these rules may seem obvious, but even CDPR does'nt appear to always follow them.
Thanks for reading.
