I was debating Lord Riptide and somehow he ended up off the list. I did lose an annoying number of Saskias now that she's back to 4 to these clowns highrolling him, but every now and then they'll hit that low roll bronze for a bit of joy
Overall, I kind of respect how the card is designed, and although I wouldn't be mad at a little provision nerf, I think maybe power reduction of 1 point is more appropriate.
The point is players don't like playing against certain decks, and because they can't figure out how to beat them they think they are unfair. Many people don't like playing against Reavers so they destroyed the card. It no longer works. Some cards will always have advantage over others in certain situations. Half this game is about matchups and draw. The problem here is not balance. Making 60 unrequired changes every month because you can is going to destroy what's left of this game. The number of changes should be limited and perhaps given a test period before finalized to see if the change screws something up. Also the individuals participating should be limited to the elite players. I have only been playing 10 months. How is it I'm able to participate in the balance council? I'm not even pro.
You mean Fortune Teller is the same as Riptide? I didn't simply compare a dead card with Riptide. I compared as they are both supposed to control cards. For 8P being able to destroy any first card that gets played with putting a lot of points on board is just OP.
You say it's fair for what it does but it enables most of the cards you listed because there's zero chance for these cards to misfire or brick when you are 100% certain you can play them. If you draw Caranthir without Queen...the combo doesn't work and the player has to improvise or not rely solely on Arachas Queen. The spam works because it's a guaranteed draw with cards like Oneiromancy. It isn't just MO but it enables that binary play in every faction.
Riptide seems pretty balanced, 90% of the time it doesn't play for more than 12 pts. The removal is situational because you can't even select a target and often he will just die because increasing armor mostly gets interrupted. SK has a similar card that can pretty much carry a few turns once it's played because of the amount of armor it can accumulate easily.
First of all, Oneiromancy doesn't guarantee anything. You spend 13 provision to significantly increase the probability of playing the card you need at the time you need it. And for that service, that is the fair price. Second, like I said before, some factions dont NEED Oneiro, because they can achieve consistency by cheaper and more convenient means, while others CANNOT, so by nerfing Oneiro further you will be nerfing only half of the playing field and effectively buffing the other half. Since there is basically zero way right now to address the consistency disparity between factions, neutral tutor should not be overnerfed.
Last year I would say it was, but now... I think the fact that it pretty much requires a leader charge and support cards to work puts it out of my personal "shit" tier.
My point is simply that comparison with one of the worst cards in Gwent can never establish that a card is OP. Comparison with Toruviel, Yaevinn, Stormmursson, Hjalmar: Seawolf, Terror of the Seas, Laredo, Moreelse, Whoreson Junior, or even Rockslide would be more convincing.
So you want to turn it into worse heathwave for the same provisions?
No, I want to turn it into a different Heatwave for the same provision.
When outcome is determined solely by match-up (before a single card is played); when outcome is determined by card draw (irrespective of how cards are played); the game is not in an OK state. And it doesn't have to be this way; it wasn't this way nearly four years ago when I started playing. The problem, in my opinion is that too many cards have become too powerful -- either you have answers or you lose -- and you can't have answers for everything. Moreover, with greater polarization between top and filler cards, missing one more top gold than an opponent often decides a match just on luck alone. These flaws can conceivably be corrected through balance council -- but it requires significant effort to equalize many cards, both over and under powered.
lol I think you're being a little too optimistic there my friend. [...] We still have players just turning off their internet connection when they lose a match. It's important to be realistic. The game will never be fully balanced using just provision and power adjustments because there are some cards that just have busted mechanics and there are dead cards that will never see any play because they need to be completely reworked.
Some1 would need to be insane to pick Yenvo over HW for the same provisions. Especially that NG doesn't support devotion in any meaningful way. You usually need to wait for r3 to snatch some valuable cards, you would potentially want to play yourself, cause that's when people normally play them. And that means you probably won't be ale to play it same round. So in most cases its plain removal like HW that can't get rid of mutagenerator r1 and scenarios.
NG supports Devotion in the same way as anyone else, and as great as that "strategic" aside was about the many hardships of the use of Yenvo, it really did nothing to take away the difference between the two cards and the fact that you can replay the card you remove. Nor has it done anything to prove that Yenvo must be cheaper than Heatwave. Or that you "can't powercreep a faction with neutral of the same cost." It's been done before (See Royal Decree vs Call of the Forest) and somehow the world (or even Gwent) has not ended.
Play a game in ranked match it will be fixed. I had that issue, but it got fixed after playing a ranked match.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'm not overly confident given the results of the first council--reavers broken, some NG metas destroyed. And I still think there are too many changes. Adjusting a few cards here and there I can see. Changing 60 every month is overkill. We all have the same cards to play (I'm still short quite a few) that's the definition of balance to me. I'd prefer to just work with what's available and only fix what's actually broken. However, I respect everything you are saying. I'm pretty new to this game and hope it sticks around for a while. I'm curious to see if the council will fix the mistake it made with reaver hunters last month. If it doesn't then I really don't have confidence in it. It's such a glaring mistake. From some of the comments on this forum, I don't think everyone even understands what was done to the card. The first day I didn't understand what happened until someone pointed out what the card reads. Changes take a lot of consideration. I hope things pan out well. Thanks for your feedback. I hope you're right about the council.
I agree with most of what you said, except for the point that he is part of a weak archetype.
