10 minutes? I'd say it's closer to 20 for a game that plays through to the end without forfeits.
Though forfeits would bring the average down, you also have to factor in time for matchmaking, and time spent in the UI (shop, deck builder etc.)
Not to mention the fact that the "correction" has been applied in the direction that's opposite of true. It was kind of an interesting effort to explain the data that's clearly wack.
I bet your own earlier explanation was spot on: the number of games is the total since the beginning of the season, no the two or three days they're listing. Of course, that likely means pre-nerf SK, so overall accuracy is down the drain I'd say.
10 minutes is being generous yes, but i'd hardly say it's 'the opposite of true'. If you start taking 20 minutes per match, you're looking at 9 hours per player per day? might be more realistic but it makes even less sense.
That's not what I was talking about.
I meant the correction of the guy who said there are two players per game. He decided that meant that number of games had to be divided by two, but it actually needs to be multiplied by that. See, my original quick average was based on the condition that none of the games those pros played were against each other, which is too simplistic, yes, but it helps arrive at the "minimum". His "correction", however, assumes ALL of the games those 2860 pros played were against each other, but if true, that does not decrease the original number at all.
Imagine 4 people sitting in a room playing gwent. A total of 20 games is played.
First, lets say they don't play each other at all (my original "average"). If so, they will average about 5 each to arrive at 20 games, right?
Now, imagine the room is locked and they ONLY play each other. We have the same twenty games, but now it's 2 pairs of players playing twenty games. Each pair will play an average of 10, but that means each player in the pair will ALSO play an average of 10 games, so instead of 4 people averaging 5 games each, we now have 4 people averaging 10 games each.
Therefore, instead of 82 games he proposed there, the actual number would be 164x2=328.
Though in reality, the number will of course be somewhere in between. My guess is closer to about 250ish, which is still very crazy.
Conclusion: the numbers are not from the three days, but most likely for the entire season up to that date.
I do get what you're trying to say, but i believe that even though we're using different methods, no matter how you look at it the data still looks plain insane
so we're basically banging our heads on figuring out the right way to calculate how wrong the data is lolAbout it being data for the whole season is harder to say, but i'm not seeing any more sensible suggestions so sure why not ^_^
Chill. I think it's just a typo or a punctuation/omission error. It was supposed to be 500k games THIS SEASON, and stats taken from those two days. Not implying anything but TEB website got quite a few typos.
This guy thought the numbers were taken from player stats and not from official games count. So if you and I play a game of gwent, both you and I will have 1 games played. I understood it as the sum of all players gamecounts. If it's the total number of games played you're right - 2 Players per game - double the numbers.
this might actually be the answer
It's less that NG is bad right now and more people aren't adapting well.
Devotion sucks, even for Spies. You give up too much to run it.
Poison package? Well, frankly, if you're running an actual poison engine and not just ball+aristocrats...yeah, Veil is going to make life suck.
Same with locks, too many Veil units that are threats.
The solution is don't over dedicate to a theme. NG can run a great, consistent mid range control with a little bit of everything deck but the moment you over commit to a specific theme is the moment NG fails.
And yes, NR right now is absurdly broken. Amphibious is too strong. Way, way too strong. Same with Oneiromancy.
Spy Ball is Tier 1 according to TLG with 4.5 stars second only to SK with 5 stars. They usually know what they're talking about. It's a hyper strong deck But I still think it's influenced by 1) the first weak in the ladder when everyone was playing devotion 2) being the only deck to potentially be able to play on more or less even terms with SK.
The results in this survey are puzzling, still.
Spy Ball doesn't need to run Devotion and in fact, running devotion means less consistency.
Spy ball can be many different variants. Devotion is trash, you give up too much consistency and removal to run it.
Yeah? So the top ladder players, the esport team members and the world tournament winners got all wrong then...
I'm pretty sure they still know more about the game than we do
xD
I'm pretty sure they still know more about the game than we do
If this was a game that took a crazy amount of skill, I'd totally agree - but as far as games go, Gwent doesn't take much skill. Just a little bit of planning and asking yourself questions like "Hmmm my opponent has played 3 gold cards, they have X total provision meaning in all likelihood my opponent only has Y left to play".
Actually, the biggest barrier to pro is just time. It takes a lot of time to grind due to how levels work in this game. I've been playing this game since pre HC.
Second Wind should work like Blessing(9p). Playing two Morks or Boars along with Freya's GS ressurection is very hard to deal with. I'm not surprised to see SK dominating, on the other hand NG performance shocked me. I recently saw Trynet reaching 146 points in 3rd round with Assymilate! I do not think ANY faction can produce so much value!
Kiki MO does that easily. And Vysogota NG.
But it is true that devs somewhat overdid it with all those new plays for NG that are fit for point slams not for a control faction.
Post automatically merged:
At this point, sure, why not? Though I think that ruining signature features contributing to the identity of different play styles - such as SK's "revive any unit" - is not the way to go. It is better to adjust the new things to the existing frameworks. But devs already failed to do so. The strongest cards in just about every provision range were given to the faction with the most volatile mechanics.
So at this point it's either rework all those cards or look for shortcuts such as ruining the leader. I'd hate to see the latter but it'd still be better than doing nothing or not doing nearly enough as in the hotfix.
However, Patricidal Fury warriors are also op. Ursine decks with the addition of some of the new package is also very strong. Idk if ruining SW will result in anything more than mass migration to other leaders, while SK remains uncontested.
Last edited by a moderator:
