Nilfgaard Handbuff Still Needs a Nerf

[Hellsmoke77]

"Those bronze units were just getting too much value" - CDPR

Dropping one 23 point bronze after another is "too much value". Pointing at other factions doesn't change that.

Dave you speak for CDPR now? Congrats, didn't know you were on the team!

 

[NomanPeopled]

(...)'it's not a good deck, but it is oppressive', that last part because when it wins it does in fact win big.

That's not even always the case. I win more than a few games just a few points ahead - or lose just a few points behind. A game loss after a succesful setup is not extraordinary. People who think that pulling off the combo autowins the game have no idea.
It does roll over noncompetitive noninteractive decks though. (Unless it craps out, at which point it would have trouble against a shy kitten.)

I'll reiterate that it's a deck to watch out for in the future. Just ... fix it when it's broken, not before.

These 23 point bronzes are the result of a multiple card setup and an entire deck built around making them, and the deck is a marginal deck that few people play and so doesn't need to be looked at.

Yup.
I'll merely add that CDPR has better data than all of us forumites put together, and they're certainly monitoring the metagame much more closely than any of us.

Dropping one 23 point bronze after another is "too much value". Pointing at other factions doesn't change that.

The deck is represented less than many a tier 3 deck.
Evidently, 23 point bronzes (up to 27 actually) aren't even sufficient value.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

The deck is represented less than many a tier 3 deck.
Evidently, 23 point bronzes (up to 27 actually) aren't even sufficient value.

Sure you can say that...if you completely ignore the two videos mentioned in this thread that show it competing in the top hundred world wide and winning. But don't mind me, let's buff it since it doesn't generate "sufficient value". What would you like it to generate, 30? Sounds about right for a bronze...

 

[iamthedave]

"Those bronze units were just getting too much value" - CDPR

Dropping one 23 point bronze after another is "too much value". Pointing at other factions doesn't change that.

Dave you speak for CDPR now? Congrats, didn't know you were on the team!

I may not speak for them, but I understand what they say better than you do, at least. I'm baffled that you struggle to correctly interpret basically anything to do with this topic, like the only thing you can see is something that supports your argument on the surface, but you miss all the other facts that destroy it. Your own evidence has repeatedly shown that you're wrong, yet you ignore it and carry on anyway.

You act as if there's no set up required for those 23 pt bronzes, as opposed to 3 whole TURNS setting them up. I concede; if they were flat 23 pt bronzes, played on turn 1, they would be broken.

They aren't. They're the result of a combo that consists of at least one gold, the leader, two bronzes and a silver (Emhyr, Vesemir, Nilf Knight/Manticore, Mandrake, and alchemist/other reveal card).

Your inability to see the difference between these two states says a lot about how little you understand about the deck, and why nobody is taking your QQing seriously. The fact you've now resorted to 'well let's buff it' as a retort is just further demonstration of this. The deck would need to be nerfed if it was too competitive because it would be format-warping. But it's not and it isn't and so it doesn't need to be.

My challenge stands: Build this deck yourself, pilot it to top 100. It's easy to play, and those 23 point bronzes are broken. You say it so many times. Nobody can possibly beat this deck. It is impossible, according to you. So go on. PROVE IT.

Or listen to the people who've actually played the deck and know that it doesn't work out like that most of the time, and isn't reliable enough to be a staple deck in GWENT, even when it's not up against a deck that can just flat out counter it by killing the Knight.

But you won't prove it. Because you can't, and you don't know what you're talking about, and you never did.

 

[1990BW]

If you look at the statistics the winning rate of spotters isn't that great and they are not popular:



If you can't counter them they are indeed hard to beat.
With some factions it's just difficult to make an allround deck AND give it synergy at the same time for ranked play.

 

[Void_Singer]

At my own detriment (since I do play a variation of this deck on the ladder), if you want to know every way to beat it, simply play it yourself for a dozen rounds. Seriously I don't think it's even a 50% deck at top tier, and too often it just beats itself by bricking. There's only about 3 leaders* that are (barely) actively played that you'll look at and go "Oh hey, I should win this"... the rest are "Dear RNGesus, please let me get a much better draw than my opponent"

*wanna know which 3? think of the 3 leaders on the ladder that EVERYONE thinks they can crush.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

"Those bronze units were just getting too much value" - CDPR

Dropping one 23 point bronze after another is "too much value".

 

[NomanPeopled]

Sure you can say that...if you completely ignore the two videos mentioned in this thread that show it competing in the top hundred world wide and winning. But don't mind me, let's buff it since it doesn't generate "sufficient value". What would you like it to generate, 30? Sounds about right for a bronze...

You have not shown they got there with the deck. You have not shown that they compete. Two games were won with the deck in the top 100. You. Have. A. Sample. Of. Two. Literally everybody who chimed in on the subject in has a larger one.

Sorry for being unclear; that power bit was supposed to be tongue-in cheek. They could be 150 for all I care; if they saw as much success as they do now, they'd still be no issue.

You get way too hung up on one single word in a phase made by CDPR. "Value" does not have to mean power.
But if it does, it would hardly be surprising if I or anyone disagreed with CDPR reasoning regarding the Dwarves nerf. There shouldn't be a design rule that cards should be nerfed because they can reach power X with synergies. A metagame's health depends on the showings of tier 1-3 decks, not "but it's a 23!".

 

[Hellsmoke77]

You have not shown they got there with the deck. You have not shown that they compete.

And you haven't shown anything at all other than denial along with the rest of those on your side who all admit to playing the deck. Dave lied and got exposed, the deck is very viable in the top ranks and is op, end of the discussion. I don't care how many use it, those that do need to be stopped from getting a free ride to gm.

I don't agree with the dwarf nerf either, Ithlenne and I:M needed to be nerfed, nothing else. That said CDPR obviously has a set bronze value in mind and it aint 23. Skirmisher was only so strong due to combos as well with res etc. Even after that he wasn't bringing 23 to the table and you are resurrecting 2 at most with decoy while the opponent has a turn to reduce that to one. With shield and ointment this garbage deck has the potential to drop 6 or more of these and if you can't see the issue with that there's something wrong with you, period. Go make excuses to someone else, you wont talk me out of my common sense.

Bottom line is dwarfs got neffed for a lot less and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[iamthedave]

And you haven't shown anything at all other than denial along with the rest of those on your side who all admit to playing the deck. Dave lied and got exposed, the deck is very viable in the top ranks and is op, end of the discussion. I don't care how many use it, those that do need to be stopped from getting a free ride to gm.

I don't agree with the dwarf nerf either, Ithlenne and I:M needed to be nerfed, nothing else. That said CDPR obviously has a set bronze value in mind and it aint 23. Skirmisher was only so strong due to combos as well with res etc. Even after that he wasn't bringing 23 to the table and you are resurrecting 2 at most with decoy while the opponent has a turn to reduce that to one. With shield and ointment this garbage deck has the potential to drop 6 or more of these and if you can't see the issue with that there's something wrong with you, period. Go make excuses to someone else, you wont talk me out of my common sense.

Don't you dare call me a liar without back up. Where did I lie?

And all your whining has failed to get past the central point: YOU. ARE. WRONG.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

They sacrifice playing a deck that rarely wins and isn't viable above a certain ranking. There's no talking around this. The deck you are talking about simply isn't good or competitive.

Here is your lie and there are a number of videos proving it, add one from the Oceanmud stream from last night. The deck IS viable and it IS played at the highest ranks.

 

[iamthedave]

Here is your lie and there are a number of videos proving it, add one from the Oceanmud stream from last night. The deck IS viable and it IS played at the highest ranks.

That isn't a lie. The deck's win and play rates drop off dramatically in the higher ranks. Somebody playing the deck now and again doesn't mean it's played at the higher ranks much, it means someone occasionally has a go with it. All you've got are individual examples that prove nothing. But of course you'll ignore that because you're fixated, despite everything you say having been proven to be false or exagerrated over and over.

And why haven't you got top 100 just using this deck again?

 

[Hellsmoke77]

That isn't a lie. The deck's win and play rates drop off dramatically in the higher ranks. Somebody playing the deck now and again doesn't mean it's played at the higher ranks much, it means someone occasionally has a go with it. All you've got are individual examples that prove nothing. But of course you'll ignore that because you're fixated, despite everything you say having been proven to be false or exagerrated over and over.

And why haven't you got top 100 just using this deck again?

That's not what "viable" means Dave, the deck is viable at top 100 and can win agains the top players, 3 of which I have provided video of. I keep hearing how bad the deck is yet I have zero videos of said "counters".

Yes I have 3 examples of top players losing to this in the top 100, you have provided nothing but denial along with the admission of playing the deck yourself. Nothing more to be said here Dave, good day to you sir.

 

[iamthedave]

That's not what "viable" means Dave, the deck is viable at top 100 and can win agains the top players, 3 of which I have provided video of. I keep hearing how bad the deck is yet I have zero videos of said "counters".

Yes I have 3 examples of top players losing to this in the top 100, you have provided nothing but denial along with the admission of playing the deck yourself. Nothing more to be said here Dave, good day to you sir.

Where's your top 100 with this deck, Hellsmoke? Why won't you play it and prove us wrong?

 

[Hellsmoke77]

Where's your top 100 with this deck, Hellsmoke? Why won't you play it and prove us wrong?

What are we 12? I don't have the time nor the desire to grind to top 100 with any deck much less Nilfgaard. I mill all my NG cards, thats how much I resent the damn faction. Balance the game and maybe more players will be inclined to climb to the top, as is now I can't force myself to play more than five or so games a day. That is the result of decks like this or op Nilfgaard in general.

No thanks I'll pass, not worth my time or my scraps.

 

[iamthedave]

What are we 12? I don't have the time nor the desire to grind to top 100 with any deck much less Nilfgaard. I mill all my NG cards, thats how much I resent the damn faction. Balance the game and maybe more players will be inclined to climb to the top, as is now I can't force myself to play more than five or so games a day. That is the result of decks like this or op Nilfgaard in general.

No thanks I'll pass, not worth my time or my scraps.

Uh-huh. Then I'm done here, too.

Your arguments are in tatters, and nobody from CDPR who sees this thread could possibly believe the deck is OP or needs to be nerfed. If you can't even be bothered to learn how to play against and beat a beatable deck, you deserve to lose to it. Have fun doing that, while the rest of us chalk a W and move on with our days.

 

[Hellsmoke77]

Uh-huh. Then I'm done here, too.

Your arguments are in tatters, and nobody from CDPR who sees this thread could possibly believe the deck is OP or needs to be nerfed. If you can't even be bothered to learn how to play against and beat a beatable deck, you deserve to lose to it. Have fun doing that, while the rest of us chalk a W and move on with our days.

Still waiting for a single bit of footage from you, your lies and denial aren't going to throw my arguments in tatters lol but you can take your imaginary "W" and run with it if that makes you happy. Now excuse me while I go on with my day..

 

[NomanPeopled]

And you haven't shown anything at all other than denial along with the rest of those on your side who all admit to playing the deck.

We did not all "admit" to playing it.
Also, some said they ditched it for its inconsistency.

Denial?
You have chosen not to comment on the fact that anyone can enter a ranked match with whatever pile they choose.
Or the smorgasboard of more representative samples, except to brush them aside with no reason given beyond repeating your initial notions.
Or the objections to your idée fixe that "value X = nerf".

Dave lied and got exposed, the deck is very viable in the top ranks and is op, end of the discussion. I don't care how many use it, those that do need to be stopped from getting a free ride to gm.

Iamthedave did not lie, he stated his opinion.
If it is viable, iamthedave is wrong.
Note that iamthedave and I are two distinct people. I never said it wasn't viable, although given the numbers I would have a hard time showing that it is. My view was and is that it's not necessary to nerf a deck unless it's overrunning the metagame.

The free ride to GM does not exist. You would know that if you had bothered to actually play the deck. Or asked a GM.
Are you metagaming for it, btw?

I don't agree with the dwarf nerf either, Ithlenne and I:M needed to be nerfed, nothing else. That said CDPR obviously has a set bronze value in mind and it aint 23.

For singletons and easy synergies, yes. For major setup, I'd say that since Consume and Handbuff NG have been around for a while now, CDPR does not have a hard rule on that. (And if they did, I could still disagree with it ...)

I did not state I disagreed with the Dwares nerf. I said that I disagree with the notion that it was (or should have been) nerfed simply because its bronzes put out too much power.

Go make excuses to someone else, you wont talk me out of my common sense.

Yes, that is a good summation of your posts thus far.

Bottom line is dwarfs got neffed for a lot less and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Dwarves got nerfed because it put out high power extremely consistently and overran the metagame as a result.
No comparison.

 

[Sunsibar]

Are we still having a polite and respectful discussion here? Without personal attacks and accusations? That's what we should have.

Be nice, everyone.

 

[NomanPeopled]

Here's the new gwentup meta report that was cited earlier: https://gwentup.com/report/18/8

Emhyr's popularity is 2%. Win rate below 50%. He's the third most frequently played of the four NG leader, outshining only The Usurper.
Win rates for 3300mmr and beyond:

Leo Bonhart 52.2%
Vesemir 51.7%
Mandrake 51.1%
Peter 51.6%
Glorious Hunt 52.2%
Nilf Knight 51.7%
Magne Division 51.5%
Shield 51.6%
Spotter 52.2%
Ointment 48.4%

Spotter is at 81.8% popularity, Shield at 79.2%, Magne at 81.1%.
As a point of comparison, Harald the Cripple has 1.3% popularity and 50.4% win rate. Axeman has 100% popularity with Harald for the same ranks as above.
Which would leave us with 1.3% of decks beyond 3.3k being Axeman and at most 1.6% being Handbuff NG, am I reading that right?