I don't think there are many people who would manage to keep their face straight and say, "Gwent balancing is great." Despite really creative solutions when it comes to the synergy, fluidity and diversity of interactions within this very simple game system, the game is plagued by one gigantic problem: a handful of decks and card packages totally dominate over everything else and dictate how the game is played, effectively preventing the majority of content from seeing any competitive play at all. In my opinion, this is because the Gwent team prioritizes and embraces the wrong aspects of balancing.
First, the main focus of the balancing process is single cards and single decks, and how powerfully those cards interact within those decks. The big picture, however - the global perspective of how those decks interact with one another - seems to be lost to the decision makers. An example of this can be the Oneiromancy nerf. The reasoning is solid from the narrow perspective: every devotionless deck uses it therefore it's too strong, and must be nerfed. In this narrow perspective, it's absolutely true. But let's look at the global perspective. At least 2 (and debatably even 4) strongest decks achieving total ladder domination are devotion decks. So the Oneiromancy nerf only widens the gap between those decks and their weaker devotionless competition. From the global perspective, this is a major balancing error: buffing the stronger and nerfing the weaker. Ethereal was also a victim of this way of thinking. The card was destroyed because the idea of a 3/turn engine (with leader, though...) on this level of consistency still sounded too strong. But only in the the vacuum, in the narrow balancing perspective. In the global perspective, after the Caranthir change, Ethereal decks were not even top 4/5. There are many such examples.
Another problem is that the Gwent team embraces (/worships) the wrong principles of game design: symmetry and aesthetics of design. They aren't "wrong" per se. In fact, they are very important (here's a ted talk about it by Mark Rosewater from MTG
). However, when those principles take priority over the balance between factions - in a game whose sole focus is those factions competing with one another - they are VERY WRONG. Here is an example. Every faction has a tutor of faction specials. So according to the principle of symmetry, it might be aesthetically displeasing (or whatever...) if SK continued not to have a tutor for their Raids. And the fact that SK warriors had been dominating silly (and a big part it being the echo raid Blood Eagle) had been completely lost to the balancing team. So, in the first patch after the expansion (and one of the most ridiculous periods of skomegalul) the strongest by far card package got the biggest buff by the best card addition (Vabjorn). Other examples are aplenty: evolvers who play other units must be 5 power - symmetrically across the whole game - despite the Shieldwall-broken Viraxis being by far one of the two the strongest evolvers (with Harald), and Auberon is not even close (and Eithne not seeing play even in symbiosis decks lol but still getting the provision nerf unlike Viraxis).
There are other things that are also very perplexing. For example, why did the broken-strongest factions - SK and NR - get the very best, most synergistic leaders (shielded duel/engine, GS with rain), and even card changes boosting already broken packages (GS with Hjalmar)? While the already weak before the patch NG in addition to silly nerfs got anti-synergistic crap like Imprisonment which damages units you wanna seize or destroy, or Tactical which is a-okay but only synergizes with a niche package of hyperthin. I really want to believe those aren't just random seasonal moves to keep meta from getting stale, and there is an actual philosophy behind it. If there is one, whatever it is, it is imo very very wrong. You just don't buff the strongest and nerf the weakest. Thanks for reading.
First, the main focus of the balancing process is single cards and single decks, and how powerfully those cards interact within those decks. The big picture, however - the global perspective of how those decks interact with one another - seems to be lost to the decision makers. An example of this can be the Oneiromancy nerf. The reasoning is solid from the narrow perspective: every devotionless deck uses it therefore it's too strong, and must be nerfed. In this narrow perspective, it's absolutely true. But let's look at the global perspective. At least 2 (and debatably even 4) strongest decks achieving total ladder domination are devotion decks. So the Oneiromancy nerf only widens the gap between those decks and their weaker devotionless competition. From the global perspective, this is a major balancing error: buffing the stronger and nerfing the weaker. Ethereal was also a victim of this way of thinking. The card was destroyed because the idea of a 3/turn engine (with leader, though...) on this level of consistency still sounded too strong. But only in the the vacuum, in the narrow balancing perspective. In the global perspective, after the Caranthir change, Ethereal decks were not even top 4/5. There are many such examples.
Another problem is that the Gwent team embraces (/worships) the wrong principles of game design: symmetry and aesthetics of design. They aren't "wrong" per se. In fact, they are very important (here's a ted talk about it by Mark Rosewater from MTG
There are other things that are also very perplexing. For example, why did the broken-strongest factions - SK and NR - get the very best, most synergistic leaders (shielded duel/engine, GS with rain), and even card changes boosting already broken packages (GS with Hjalmar)? While the already weak before the patch NG in addition to silly nerfs got anti-synergistic crap like Imprisonment which damages units you wanna seize or destroy, or Tactical which is a-okay but only synergizes with a niche package of hyperthin. I really want to believe those aren't just random seasonal moves to keep meta from getting stale, and there is an actual philosophy behind it. If there is one, whatever it is, it is imo very very wrong. You just don't buff the strongest and nerf the weakest. Thanks for reading.
