Balancing Or Nerfing?
■The Nilfgaard Riddle
Some of us liked NG even when it wasn't mainstream. I play NG almost religiously during CBT and when OBT started i had no second thoughts, i would go all NG regardless if they were proven to be good or bad. Apparently they now are quite efficient, they have good synergies, cards are working well together.
So then, should we say kudos to the ppl. designed these cards? I heard a rumor that Devs are going to basically nerf NG. Nerf Emissaries and Vicovaro Novice. If it is true i ask myself (and i hope others ask themselves), "Why would you nerf something that is -finally- working, instead of making all Faction be on the same level. Give them the same tools, they have different archetypes right?" I am not defending NG, i want the game to be balanced overall. I'm talking from this perspective because i have the experience with them.
■It Is Not Depth, It Is Unnecessity
That being said, what is the point of adding Imperial Golems? NG lack the thinning options? No. Then they are unnecessary at best. A total overkill if you ask me. Personally i think deployable Leaders and Order units are unnecessities the game not only will do better without, but it'll be easier to balance in the long run.
The game already has an absurd amount of consistency with 25 limit decks, the more thinning, the more consistency. Yes, less RNG but there's a balance we may miss. The total lack of RNG will make it more predictable, less exciting. I think that threshold has been passed now.
I do think there's a huge difference between balancing and nerfing and in gaming nerfing is the easy step. Not the reasonable one. Nevertheless i just want to test my thought process, perhaps there are things i am missing. The only thing about this meta for me, is the acknowledgement by the Dev team that Weather is not working as they want.
The only thing that makes me think i may be wrong here, is chess. It's pure brilliance. the only depth it needs lies in the minds of the opponents. It is highly sophisticated, yet incredibly simple. There's no RNG, there ar pawns that always function in the same way, yet the possibilities are endless.
■The Weather Card Game
Weather is the only special card that has that effect. It is, permanent, if you haven't noticed. Thunder deals damage and gone, Lacerate deals damage and gone. Weather? Only First Light to counter (and some weak Units now). Why? Why is it important to be permanent? Of course there's an improvement compared to CBT, but still it is an OP soft/hard removal imo. Have you decided if you want it to be Neutral or not? Have you decided if you want it to be hard/soft removal or something else?
I don't know, perhaps it's ok, but i do think there's a difference between balance and nerfing and they should be careful and consider things before acting.
■The Nilfgaard Riddle
Some of us liked NG even when it wasn't mainstream. I play NG almost religiously during CBT and when OBT started i had no second thoughts, i would go all NG regardless if they were proven to be good or bad. Apparently they now are quite efficient, they have good synergies, cards are working well together.
So then, should we say kudos to the ppl. designed these cards? I heard a rumor that Devs are going to basically nerf NG. Nerf Emissaries and Vicovaro Novice. If it is true i ask myself (and i hope others ask themselves), "Why would you nerf something that is -finally- working, instead of making all Faction be on the same level. Give them the same tools, they have different archetypes right?" I am not defending NG, i want the game to be balanced overall. I'm talking from this perspective because i have the experience with them.
■It Is Not Depth, It Is Unnecessity
That being said, what is the point of adding Imperial Golems? NG lack the thinning options? No. Then they are unnecessary at best. A total overkill if you ask me. Personally i think deployable Leaders and Order units are unnecessities the game not only will do better without, but it'll be easier to balance in the long run.
The game already has an absurd amount of consistency with 25 limit decks, the more thinning, the more consistency. Yes, less RNG but there's a balance we may miss. The total lack of RNG will make it more predictable, less exciting. I think that threshold has been passed now.
I do think there's a huge difference between balancing and nerfing and in gaming nerfing is the easy step. Not the reasonable one. Nevertheless i just want to test my thought process, perhaps there are things i am missing. The only thing about this meta for me, is the acknowledgement by the Dev team that Weather is not working as they want.
The only thing that makes me think i may be wrong here, is chess. It's pure brilliance. the only depth it needs lies in the minds of the opponents. It is highly sophisticated, yet incredibly simple. There's no RNG, there ar pawns that always function in the same way, yet the possibilities are endless.
■The Weather Card Game
Weather is the only special card that has that effect. It is, permanent, if you haven't noticed. Thunder deals damage and gone, Lacerate deals damage and gone. Weather? Only First Light to counter (and some weak Units now). Why? Why is it important to be permanent? Of course there's an improvement compared to CBT, but still it is an OP soft/hard removal imo. Have you decided if you want it to be Neutral or not? Have you decided if you want it to be hard/soft removal or something else?
I don't know, perhaps it's ok, but i do think there's a difference between balance and nerfing and they should be careful and consider things before acting.