Hey guys, this issue has been on my mind for a while now and I thought it might be a good idea to make a thread about this so people could give their feedback (and hopefully so CDPR can see this); particularly becuase apart from Emhyr, no leader had their provisions touched in this latest patch. Even though a few more changes were required.
So the main idea is leader provisions should be adjusted according to their ability and how easy it is to make it work (secondary factors are synergy with cards in the faction and play rate), that is what makes sense and it is what CDPR have lead us to believe. There is an assumption that big single use leaders with powerful abilities like Harald and Calveit should have fewer provisions than 'long round' leaders or round refresh leaders, that is what CDPR said in the first developers stream when they introduced leader provisions and that is largely how they have approached the leader provision system.
And that is fine, if that is the approach you are going to take then thats great. But at least be fair in how you treat different leaders with the same balancing guidelines in place. There are some leaders that are getting more/fewer provisions despite that being contradictory to this policy. With that in mind these are my suggestions for provision changes to bring all leaders in line and bring some fairness to deck building.
**I know this won't completely bring balance to Gwent and that is not my point, but at least some institutionalised bias will be corrected so that certain leaders dont start with an unfair advantage in deckbuilder**
Crach and Meve need to lose a provision --> go from 167 down to 166 (Not necessarily unbalanced but this is suggested because of the extremely high synergy they have with strong cards in their factions and their high play rates)
Adda and Woodland Spirit need to lose a provision --> go from 166 to 165 (Two very strong consistent 8 point, single-use leaders, no idea why they are higher than Calveit/Filavanderal)
Morvran needs to lose a provision also --> go from 168 to 167 (Unnecessarily high provision cap, ability not weak enough to justify it and insanely high play rate)
Emhyr needs to gain a provision --> go from 164 to 165 (With his nerfed ability he can rarely get 8 points or more with his ability, no need to keep him below other strong single use leaders)
Eldain needs to gain a provision --> go from 166 to 167 (The charges were not the problem, maybe an increase in provisions will make him viable, although this may not be what this leader needs to be fixed though)
Arnjolf needs to lose a provision --> go from 166 to 165 (High synergy, single use enabler, should only happen if nerf to Crach happens)
Usurper needs to gain a provision --> go from 160 to 161
Filavanderal needs to gain a provision --> go from 165 to 166
Eredin needs to lose a provision --> go from 165 to 164 (Extremely strong ability, prone to game-breaking abuse and should not be the same as other single use leaders)
(debatable) Harald the Cripple needs to gain a provision --> go from 163 to 164
So the main idea is leader provisions should be adjusted according to their ability and how easy it is to make it work (secondary factors are synergy with cards in the faction and play rate), that is what makes sense and it is what CDPR have lead us to believe. There is an assumption that big single use leaders with powerful abilities like Harald and Calveit should have fewer provisions than 'long round' leaders or round refresh leaders, that is what CDPR said in the first developers stream when they introduced leader provisions and that is largely how they have approached the leader provision system.
And that is fine, if that is the approach you are going to take then thats great. But at least be fair in how you treat different leaders with the same balancing guidelines in place. There are some leaders that are getting more/fewer provisions despite that being contradictory to this policy. With that in mind these are my suggestions for provision changes to bring all leaders in line and bring some fairness to deck building.
**I know this won't completely bring balance to Gwent and that is not my point, but at least some institutionalised bias will be corrected so that certain leaders dont start with an unfair advantage in deckbuilder**
Crach and Meve need to lose a provision --> go from 167 down to 166 (Not necessarily unbalanced but this is suggested because of the extremely high synergy they have with strong cards in their factions and their high play rates)
Adda and Woodland Spirit need to lose a provision --> go from 166 to 165 (Two very strong consistent 8 point, single-use leaders, no idea why they are higher than Calveit/Filavanderal)
Morvran needs to lose a provision also --> go from 168 to 167 (Unnecessarily high provision cap, ability not weak enough to justify it and insanely high play rate)
Emhyr needs to gain a provision --> go from 164 to 165 (With his nerfed ability he can rarely get 8 points or more with his ability, no need to keep him below other strong single use leaders)
Eldain needs to gain a provision --> go from 166 to 167 (The charges were not the problem, maybe an increase in provisions will make him viable, although this may not be what this leader needs to be fixed though)
Arnjolf needs to lose a provision --> go from 166 to 165 (High synergy, single use enabler, should only happen if nerf to Crach happens)
Usurper needs to gain a provision --> go from 160 to 161
Filavanderal needs to gain a provision --> go from 165 to 166
Eredin needs to lose a provision --> go from 165 to 164 (Extremely strong ability, prone to game-breaking abuse and should not be the same as other single use leaders)
(debatable) Harald the Cripple needs to gain a provision --> go from 163 to 164
