Buff or Nerf?

[jed9653]

After seeing so many posts about nerf this, buff that, etc., I've become curious at to what the general mentality is when it comes to balancing. Would you prefer to nerf cards/factions/combos that are incredibly strong, or buff those that are weak?

Personally, I would rather see more buffs to weaker items, than I would nerfs. In my mind, I feel it would bring more diversity if every faction had multiple actually strong options like how SK Warriors and NR Shieldwall are.

 

[EduFerraz]

I dont care if they buf or nerf the atributes of the cards.

But what bore me its the increase of the provision cost.

 

[BlackSwan1092]

I'm also more in favor of buffs than nerfs. I would rather have 3 strong decks per faction, along with good meme decks, than what we have now. Seeing the same decks over and over again are easy wins (because you know exactly what they're gonna do) but they are also boring.

I think we as a community sometimes are too quick to call something broken because we just haven't figured out how to deal with it yet.

SK MM original release was indeed broken, some of the nerfs imo, were too much because I always felt that the main problem was Greatsword, which finally got addressed 7.2.

 

[Six-Sided-Prism]

Obviously both are needed (many redesigns as well). They shouldn't just buff every card to bring them up to the new norms (7 points for 4 provisions, 8 points for 5 provisions, etc.) because power creep is continual, and this would eventually make the game so unbalanced that it would just fall apart. I understand the need to make expansions appealing, but they shouldn't jeopardize the provision system to do so. There have to be limits. I think 4-provision cards should only play for an immediate 4-5 points or 5-6 points if conditions are met. I also think cards at the other end which produce far too many points need to be completely redesigned (mainly Scenarios); there probably should not be any card worth more than 12 or 13 provisions, and even those should only play for their provision costs (e.g. The Great Oak).

 

[BlackSwan1092]

Obviously both are needed (many redesigns as well). They shouldn't just buff every card to bring them up to the new norms (7 points for 4 provisions, 8 points for 5 provisions, etc.) because power creep is continual, and this would eventually make the game so unbalanced that it would just fall apart. I understand the need to make expansions appealing, but they shouldn't jeopardize the provision system to do so. There have to be limits. I think 4-provision cards should only play for an immediate 4-5 points or 5-6 points if conditions are met. I also think cards at the other end which produce far too many points need to be completely redesigned (mainly Scenarios); there probably should not be any card worth more than 12 or 13 provisions, and even those should only play for their provision costs (e.g. The Great Oak).

Good Point. I do feel that a lot of nerfs are knee jerk reactions to complaints rather than looking at the whole picture.

 

[M3e0w]

Maybe a lot of old cards could recieve a buff in terms of extra value with devotion.

 

[judgecsk]

I'm also more in favor of buffs than nerfs. I would rather have 3 strong decks per faction, along with good meme decks, than what we have now. Seeing the same decks over and over again are easy wins (because you know exactly what they're gonna do) but they are also boring.

I think we as a community sometimes are too quick to call something broken because we just haven't figured out how to deal with it yet.

SK MM original release was indeed broken, some of the nerfs imo, were too much because I always felt that the main problem was Greatsword, which finally got addressed 7.2.

- I mostly agree with what you are saying but SK is still pillaging and r@#$*g (60% win rate) others so...yeh, nothing changed really, they just don't win BiG and it took the devs almost 2 months to actually and effectively address the GS issue.

Obviously both are needed (many redesigns as well). They shouldn't just buff every card to bring them up to the new norms (7 points for 4 provisions, 8 points for 5 provisions, etc.) because power creep is continual, and this would eventually make the game so unbalanced that it would just fall apart. I understand the need to make expansions appealing, but they shouldn't jeopardize the provision system to do so. There have to be limits. I think 4-provision cards should only play for an immediate 4-5 points or 5-6 points if conditions are met. I also think cards at the other end which produce far too many points need to be completely redesigned (mainly Scenarios); there probably should not be any card worth more than 12 or 13 provisions, and even those should only play for their provision costs (e.g. The Great Oak).

Okay okay... let's be reasonable here.
For example, MOs have the 4p - 7power Conqueror, in order to use that you need to build with the *Devotion* concept in mind, it's not all nice and dandy.
Devotion decks miss really powerful neutral cards like *Oneiromancy* and *Korathi*.
As for the logic "prov should equall points" I bet that if they do that for all of the cards everyone would get bored of the game since it's going to be only a game of points from that point on.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that scenarios or cards should play for a ton of points, I'm merely saying that we should be mindful of what we wish for.

I understand what you're saying but let's not go on and talk about nerfing things when there are certain parameters one needs to meet to get to use such cards.

I aswell would want factions boosted rather than nerfed but...the devs need to have a solid plan and a timetable for it's completion before they start moving towards actions...else, you get things like the SK Greatswords and the Ethereal (RiP).

 

[Pacifixer]

I wan to see more buffs than nerfs, but they have to do both. At the end of every season, devs should nerf Tier 1 decks and buff off-meta decks.

 

[ya1]

Definitely nerf.

Drawing golds is number 1 "skill" in Gwent. Number 2 "skill" is matching up favorably. Autowins/autoloses resulting from the above plague this game and make it really toxic sometimes. And this is because top end cards and their abilities are too strong which makes drawing into them and drawing into answers to them the most important thing in Gwent.

Imo every card over 9 provisions should be looked at to see if their ceiling values can be lowered. This could decrease the frequency of situations where games are 100% unwinnable because they drew their A, B and C, and you drew your X, Y but not your Z.

This is imo the reason why Gwent will never ascend beyond obscurity in the major CCG league. Not many people are patient enough to deal with getting highrolled to helplessness time after time.

 

[Ulubey0]

Drawing golds is number 1 "skill" in Gwent. Number 2 "skill" is matching up favorably. Autowins/autoloses resulting from the above plague this game and make it really toxic sometimes. And this is because top end cards and their abilities are too strong which makes drawing into them and drawing into answers to them the most important thing in Gwent.

Imo every card over 9 provisions should be looked at to see if their ceiling values can be lowered. This could decrease the frequency of situations where games are 100% unwinnable because they drew their A, B and C, and you drew your X, Y but not your Z.

Yes, I think it's important to mention that Gwent didn't always used to be like this though. There were years in beta where the most powerful gold cards were only +50% stronger than the weakest bronzes. Bronzes were about 12 points (up to 18 with synergy) and golds were about 18 points. You always started deckbuilding with your bronze core. Drawing your golds wasn't a big deal either, since the power gap between cards was so small.

Nowadays cards like scenarios are about +300% stronger than the basic bronze card. You always start deckbuilding with these same superpower golds because they are too powerful not to include, then you add bronzes as filler to balance out the cost of your 13 provision cards. It makes the game's draw RNG so ridiculous because if you don't draw the strongest cards, you've lost not only the massive points, but also all the deckbuilding cost that came with those high provisions. Like you said, it's so binary.

I just wish CDPR would realize all this, and go back to the same power gap format that worked during the Beta game. The Gwent tournaments definitely felt more competitive back then, they had a ton more viewers and deck diversity aswell...

EDIT: Seriously, in 2017 Gwent was the undisputed 3rd place e-sports card game behind Hearthstone and Magic.

 

[DC9V]

After seeing so many posts about nerf this, buff that, etc., I've become curious at to what the general mentality is when it comes to balancing. Would you prefer to nerf cards/factions/combos that are incredibly strong, or buff those that are weak?

Personally, I would rather see more buffs to weaker items, than I would nerfs. In my mind, I feel it would bring more diversity if every faction had multiple actually strong options like how SK Warriors and NR Shieldwall are.

I feel like buffs and nerfs are either crucial or ineffective*. Imo, it would make balancing a lot easier if we had double the amount of points in the whole game:
Masquerade Ball: 30 provision costs
Thirsty Dame: 10 prov. ; 8 strength ; boost self by 2
Heatwave: 20 prov.
Alzur's Thunder: 10 prov. ; damage 10
etc...

*edit: I feel like buffs are mostly ineffective and nerfs are rather crucial.