Was there really a need to increase Ball's cost?

[uber_croupier]

Hello,

Haven't been here for ages due to health problems and had no time to ask.

Was there really a need to inrease Ball's cost if it can't be played twice anymore?

 

[Morph3uXD]

I agree, I hope they revert to 14 points of provision, 15 points is a very high cost for any card, and it makes it really difficult to build a good deck including it.

 

[Slizzl]

I disagreed with that change as well at first but the more I've been thinking about it the more I find it justified. This is still an amazing card, in a situation where you poison a subpar target like a 8 point unit you could still easily get 22 points if Dame survives. It's just that NG has been overall very weak for a long time and has relied singlehandedly on this one scenario to stay afloat, but a faction really shouldn't work like that. I think this is a great spot to leave it at. It's definitely still a consideration maybe even an autoinclude. The only issue is the risk of Heatwave but there are ways to bait it out like forcing it with defender.

For the record I think Passiflora should've been 15 provisions as well instead of just making it awkward to play by making the order it spawns feel unnatural. I find that a way worse way to nerf things. Imagine if their Ball nerf was to have Ball start with Fang and end with Dame or something nonsensical like that. Just strange.
I think Haunt should be 14 provisions, just a very strong scenario as well.

I agree, I hope they revert to 14 points of provision, 15 points is a very high cost for any card, and it makes it really difficult to build a good deck including it.

Nilfgaard just lacks good bronzes and is overall weak, but I wouldn't blame this on 15 provision Ball. It's the strongest scenario and if you look at it in a vacuum 15 provision seems to be the correct price to pay for such a strong effect. I'd rather they buff other NG cards and leave it as it is.

 

[uber_croupier]

The only issue is the risk of Heatwave but there are ways to bait it out like forcing it with defender.

~40% of decks I encounter plays Heatwave - ST, SK, MO, even NR or NG.

Defender is providing the biggest success rate for bait, but Purify or Move are still popular counters to them. You will not use Heatwave after you see one poison played by your enemy, he will keep it until you play ball.

Nilfgaard just lacks good bronzes and is overall weak, but I wouldn't blame this on 15 provision Ball. It's the strongest scenario and if you look at it in a vacuum 15 provision seems to be the correct price to pay for such a strong effect. I'd rather they buff other NG cards and leave it as it is.

"Vacuum"?
raw numbers:
Gedy 13P plays 15P
Haunt 13P plays 14P
Passi 14P plays 15P
Siege 14P plays 15P
Ball 15P plays 13P

Highest cost, lowest combo - and poison isn't that strong since Veil.

 

[Slizzl]

~40% of decks I encounter plays Heatwave - ST, SK, MO, even NR or NG.

Defender is providing the biggest success rate for bait, but Purify or Move are still popular counters to them. You will not use Heatwave after you see one poison played by your enemy, he will keep it until you play ball.



"Vacuum"?
raw numbers:
Gedy 13P plays 15P
Haunt 13P plays 14P
Passi 14P plays 15P
Siege 14P plays 15P
Ball 15P plays 13P

Highest cost, lowest combo - and poison isn't that strong since Veil.

Why bother creating a discussion topic if you're just gonna conveniently ignore card effects when it suits you? I'm not dumb enough to play along with your ridiculous notion that Ball is somehow a 13 point card.
Enjoy your echo chamber. Looks like some NG fanatics are loving it, I'm a NG main too btw.

 

[ya1]

Well... the most popular NG leader for Ball decks got around 46% winrate across ranks and never broke even beyond rank 26. That pretty much answers the op question. To cite Minuano from TLG, "textbook example of beating a dead horse."

Obviously this was supposed to fit the narrative of "the Grand Heaver Removal" which in itself was questionable, disconected with the meta and totally misplaced in timeline.

 

[Slizzl]

Well... the most popular NG leader for Ball decks got around 46% winrate across ranks and never broke even beyond rank 26. That pretty much answers the op question. To cite Minuano from TLG, "textbook example of beating a dead horse."

Obviously this was supposed to fit the narrative of "the Grand Heaver Removal" which in itself was questionable, disconected with the meta and totally misplaced in timeline.

Again, this is a sign of a larger problem than just Ball. If they had actually delivered on some proper NG buffs overall the Ball nerf wouldn't feel off-putting.
I fear making a big fuss over this would only give CDPR the idea that lowering Ball provisions again will somehow save NG. There's so much more to it.
I think Ball is the strongest card in the entire game that's just stuck in the weakest faction.
Just looking at NG winrates and going "Well, this one card in a 25 card deck mustn't be that strong after all then since it couldn't single-handedly carry the entire faction." leads to autoincludes thus less variety.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Should have been 16 prov, and if you're getting only 13 points of value out of it then you're either doing it wrong or you're bad at math.

 

[rrc]

"Vacuum"?
raw numbers:
Gedy 13P plays 15P
Haunt 13P plays 14P
Passi 14P plays 15P
Siege 14P plays 15P
Ball 15P plays 13P

Highest cost, lowest combo - and poison isn't that strong since Veil.

what? WHat? WHAATT???? How did you arrive at those number? Lets do it correctly now.

Gedy: 6 (4+2) + 6 + 6 = 18 (the first card gets +1 for each alchemy and for the sake of getting the minimum value, lets assume it is not bonded, otherwise, it is 8 + 6 + 6 = 20)
Haunt: 6 (4+2) + 5 + 7 = 18 (the first card gets +1 for each DW units and lets not calculate the DW points they get for free, otherwise, it gets complicated and much more, which it actually is)
Passi: 5 (4+1), 6 + 4 = 15 (but puts two engines on board. I am giving only +1 since lets assume Peaches get triggered after Chapter 2)
Seige: 4+7+6 = 17 (puts an engine which can be played around in most cases)
Feign Death: 6+6+3 (+3 if DB is managed) = 15 or 18 (puts one engine on board, like ever other Scenario, and I would say this is the second weakest engine spawned by scenario, haunt being the first)
Ball: 6+4+4+KillsTheHighestUnit = 14+HighestUnitKilled (puts one of the strongest engines by any scenario). So, even if we assume it only kills a 4 power unit (but it is usually more than that), it is 18 points. But it comes with a removal, the only scenario which can remove the highest unit.

So, Ball's price is justified. What is not justified is Gedy and Haunt being criminally under provisioned.

No bloody scenario should be 13 provisions. And Gedy and Haunt should not be cheaper than any other scenario, as they are equally or even stronger then Seige and FeignDeath. Make all bloody scenarios 15P and I will be happy with that, but keeping a couple of Scenarios which are actuall stronger than others at 13 provisions makes no [..] sense to me.

 

[quintivarium]

No single card should be able to generate the point values scenarios do —every one should be eliminated from the game.

 

[ya1]

I think Ball is the strongest card in the entire game that's just stuck in the weakest faction.

I don't think so. I think Heatwave is now pound-for-pound the most powerful card. Anyways, Ball value is reactive - dependent on the opponent - and can be denied. If poison is denied, Ball doesn't even pull its weight being 14 for 15. (Semi-)proactive synergies are limited to standing Dames with +2 points per Dame. In comparison, Gedy with Turtle synergy is fully proactive 24 points with +6 per standing Crow druid.

But it doesn't even matter. Provision nerfs target deck strength directly, they don't change the card strength. This nerf was really really bad. Vabjorn-grade material but the other way - nerf to the weakest instead of buff to the strongest.

Ball's price is justified.

It doesn't matter. You can't balance the game by spreadsheets of pure ceiling values. By that logic, Vysygota should be 25p and Dracoturtle 35p.

 

[Bleach25]

I would leave It as It Is for now. Though I hope they are going to buff the faction in the next months...

 

[uber_croupier]

Why bother creating a discussion topic if you're just gonna conveniently ignore card effects when it suits you?
Looks like some NG fanatics are loving it, I'm a NG main too btw.

what? WHat? WHAATT???? How did you arrive at those number? Lets do it correctly now.

I am not ignoring card effects. I am telling you that poison is much weaker in current meta cause of Veil. I have stated "raw numbers", meaning I did not count effects. Yes, Ball gets more than 13 points, but so is other scenario...

I am not NG main, I recently made Soldier Ball deck, playing it often and I'm now proving myself that cringing about that change was right reaction. It would make sense when Ball was played twice a game, but it can't be anymore.

I think Heatwave is now pound-for-pound the most powerful card. Anyways, Ball value is reactive - dependent on the opponent - and can be denied. If poison is denied, Ball doesn't even pull its weight being 14 for 15. (Semi-)proactive synergies are limited to standing Dames with +2 points per Dame.

That's right. Plus poison can be easily denied or played around.

 

[judgecsk]

Again, this is a sign of a larger problem than just Ball. If they had actually delivered on some proper NG buffs overall the Ball nerf wouldn't feel off-putting.
I fear making a big fuss over this would only give CDPR the idea that lowering Ball provisions again will somehow save NG. There's so much more to it.
I think Ball is the strongest card in the entire game that's just stuck in the weakest faction.
Just looking at NG winrates and going "Well, this one card in a 25 card deck mustn't be that strong after all then since it couldn't single-handedly carry the entire faction." leads to autoincludes thus less variety.

I agree with what @Slizzl said.

Scenarios are pretty strong eitherway, NG should've been properly conpensated with buffs to it's units to make it even out a lil bit.

I agree that Vail has made things a lot harder for NG to find "proper" targets and the same can be said about the whole vampire archetype.

NG needs buffs or new cards to help it gain more flavour, more variety instead of boosting a scenario.
Same can be said about other factions aswell, if we all truely want less binary action/duilt decks that's what we have to ask from the devs, i believe that we can all agree that one is harder to do than the other.

 

[ya1]

I don't know what NG needs. I guess it needs a serious rehash of the whole game. It seems to me that people are quitting and devs react by nerfing to the ground the most complained about faction. But the real reason people might be quitting is all that binary crap and toxic gameplay. All the non-games with zero player agency where there's nothing you can do but helplessly watch as they destroy you - or do the same to the other guy - just because someone a) got rock to your scissors and/or b) drew more golds. NG and Double Ball and poison were never the problem. The whole game is a problem. The way poison decks took advantage of outdrawing the opponent was very explicit but just about every deck does exactly the same thing: crush you no matter what you do if they draw well and you don't.

 

[Damashiuchi]

I play NG almost exclusively these days... And you know what? I have never even bothered to craft Ball... I did tinker a bit with poison decks in the past but never used Ball...I always found scenarios pretty annoying so stayed away from using them. I'm all about the lockdown... Then it's just your deck v my deck!

 

[ShinAkira00]

I play NG almost exclusively these days... And you know what? I have never even bothered to craft Ball... I did tinker a bit with poison decks in the past but never used Ball...I always found scenarios pretty annoying so stayed away from using them. I'm all about the lockdown... Then it's just your deck v my deck!

Well it's more like my deck not built around a leader ability vs your deck built around a leader ability. Not exactly equal footing, Not every faction can do that.

I think Scenarios as a whole should never be a thing, it was the worst thing the devs could have added to an already imbalanced game. They are only now realizing all scenarios aren't created equal but its a little too late for that. I've stopped playing the game now because I'll have to use a scenario to win and I refuse to do that. It's not fun or interesting in the least and there's now only one way to counter. Doesn't make any sense to keep playing

 

[Damashiuchi]

it's more like my deck not built around a leader ability vs your deck built around a leader ability

Touche... But to me faction abilities are more annoying than scenarios. Don't have to worry about sheildwall tomfoolery if they can't use sheildwall . I'm off the opinion that the game needed something like lockdown ever since faction abilities became so spam-tastic. I truly miss early beta abilities.

However I would not say that lockdown creates unequal footing. Just because it's not 'meta' doesn't mean it's not out there and you shouldn't account for it in your decks. Trust me, I lose plenty

 

[Slizzl]

Touche... But to me faction abilities are more annoying than scenarios. Don't have to worry about sheildwall tomfoolery if they can't use sheildwall . I'm off the opinion that the game needed something like lockdown ever since faction abilities became so spam-tastic. I truly miss early beta abilities.

However I would not say that lockdown creates unequal footing. Just because it's not 'meta' doesn't mean it's not out there and you shouldn't account for it in your decks. Trust me, I lose plenty

The Lockdown player is the one playing with a handicap really, you sacrifice so many provisions just to have leaders be even. It forces people to change strategies a little that's all. More leader reliant decks like Overwhelming Hunger, Ursine Ritual and Shieldwall all have ways to overcome this matchup even without their leader ability.
I find it fun trying to overcome the low provisions Lockdown has by including stuff like Assire, YenInvo and Bribery in hopes that they can give me expensive units for R3. But same as you, I lose plenty.

 

[ShinAkira00]

The Lockdown player is the one playing with a handicap really, you sacrifice so many provisions just to have leaders be even. It forces people to change strategies a little that's all. More leader reliant decks like Overwhelming Hunger, Ursine Ritual and Shieldwall all have ways to overcome this matchup even without their leader ability.
I find it fun trying to overcome the low provisions Lockdown has by including stuff like Assire, YenInvo and Bribery in hopes that they can give me expensive units for R3. But same as you, I lose plenty.

I won't even argue that point because I'm you've been playing the game long enough to know that's not even remotely true.

You can select the leaders doing well currently to prove your point which is shortsighted given there are several leaders to consider. Let's use one from your very same faction....imprisonment, tactical decision. Both of which relies on the leader ability for a necessary point swing and has added specific units that rely on that. What then? Is that even? More often than not Lockdown is accompanied by Ball (not saying the op does) but I've rarely encountered one without the other. Against those leaders or even Shield wall you're almost assured a win with the added cheap removals at NG's disposal. Do SW players deserve it, yes..... Is that healthy for the game No.