Nilfgaardian Knight - Does CDPR even think twice before balancing cards?

[rrc]

I have no idea what kind of thought process even goes in CDPR team's mind. I mean, it is extremely ridiculous that they keep balancing/changing some cards and make them imbalanced. Nilfgaardian Knight was perfectly balanced before. He synergized with enemy-boosting archetype. Cahir, Nauzicaa Brigade, Black Blood, Leo Bonhart, Black Mirror, and Master of Disguise. He gives 2 points to the enemy only to take it back or kill it completely. If anyone wanted to use him first to cheat and get more value than the provision on deploy, they will be punished. It was perfectly fine.

Then CDPR drops this BS. Now, Nilfgaardian Knight will slowly be auto-included in many decks (or at least 90+% of the decks). He takes away Usurper's handicap and gives him +2 provision value. Is that an indirect boost to Usurper? Why the fk was it necessary to remove the condition? If someone doesn't want to use him on other decks, it is their choice. He fitted ONLY enemy-boosting archetype. Now, he can fit any decks and give 6 points value for 5 provision. He will be auto-included in Usuper's decks.

CDPR, please be reasonable. When there are sooo may cards that need proper balancing, don't make these kind of pathetic changes. Of all the 100s of Bronze cards, he was the one who bothered you? Was there no other Bronze cards in your radar which needed fix? This fix should be reverted or at least it should be like 'Boost an enemy by 2. If there are no enemy unit, deal 2 damage to self'.

[What is next? Griffin will not destroy if there are no units on the row? Please don't be ridiculous. Fix Nilfgaardian Knight, reverting back to his old state. Or balance him so that he doesn't give more value on deploy.]

 

[Imm0rtaleflame]

Wasn't there a thread about Nilfgardian Knight? I didn't read it, but maybe a dozen of player were angry at CDPR for Nilfgardian Knight being too weak so CDPR listened and balanced him... Idk

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2019

Also he fitted many decks before, eg. when you run Leo but opponent has removal-deck with highest unit 6 body.
Or when you have Leo anyways so you buff +2 the highest unit and get 6 body anyways.

Yet another example of usage
Scorch counters your deck so you protect yourself by buffing an enemy
Or you run Scorch so you improve vs removal deck
or Vilentemereth

Or you run AoE like Dragon's Dream, with a bunch of removal cards so it's probable that 3dmg will be dealt to 1hp unit, then you can include Knight for 6 body

Or he might have been used in an alchemy Calveit Tibor deck with Bekker's Mirror

... maybe that'd be enough of other usages of NON boosted Knight than just in a drain deck

 

[1nMemory]

Nilf Knight was played in nearly any competetiv Deck (very few Shupe List ran it), this is why CDPR buffed him a little bit and he still isn't broken, if you compare it to An Craite Marauder which is conditional (if you go second) a 6 points for 4 provision, Nilf Knight is now conditional (if you go first) a 6 points for 5 provision.

Another Reason may be that there a less Cards which are better if you go first than Cards which are better if you go second so i think its a pretty reasonable buff.

 

[rrc]

He was too weak? How the hell he was too weak? He was perfectly fine. May be he was too weak in other decks where he was not designed to be added. I can include Half-Elf hunter in all elf deck and complain that he bricks and doesn't get me value, but that would be a wrong argument. Half-Elf hunter can only be useful in traps deck. Similarly, Nilfgaardian Knight was useful only in enemy-boosting deck. If new players didn't understand it, it is fine. But CDPR itself doesn't understand what it originally planned or thought about that card seems ridiculous. Like it was the only bronze in the game that needed fixing.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2019

… if you compare it to An Craite Marauder which is conditional (if you go second) a 6 points for 4 provision...

We shouldn't compare one broken card with another broken card. An Craite Marauder is also an abomination. If you go first or if you go second you will get more value than the provision is a very VERY bad design. Or if it should be a thing, then every faction should have such a broken card. I am not comparing oranges to apples. If a particular condition is generic enough to be present in two factions, then let every faction have such a card. If you go first, or if you go second... just purely ridiculous IMHO.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2019

Also he fitted many decks before, eg. when you run Leo but opponent has removal-deck with highest unit 6 body.
Or when you have Leo anyways so you buff +2 the highest unit and get 6 body anyways.

Yet another example of usage
Scorch counters your deck so you protect yourself by buffing an enemy
Or you run Scorch so you improve vs removal deck
or Vilentemereth

Or you run AoE like Dragon's Dream, with a bunch of removal cards so it's probable that 3dmg will be dealt to 1hp unit, then you can include Knight for 6 body

Yes, exactly. Thank You. He was absolutely fine as it is. I had used him in my enemy-boosting decks. If he is going to be 4 value for 5 provisions in some cases, it is actually fine. A card doesn't (or shouldn't) always meet its perfect condition. It can be less efficient in some scenario.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

Completly agree. I had already argued against it in the suggestion thread.

 

[Iuliandrei]

Yes, exactly. Thank You. He was absolutely fine as it is. I had used him in my enemy-boosting decks. If he is going to be 4 value for 5 provisions in some cases, it is actually fine. A card doesn't (or shouldn't) always meet its perfect condition. It can be less efficient in some scenario.

He wasn't fine, just cause YOU used it in a deck it doesn't mean the card was fine. Despite the fact that in the worst case scenario it was 0 points cause it kills himself for no reason, why is it fine for cards to be less efficient in some scenarios, but not more efficient in others? which is the case for most cards.

 

[Seyfti]

I would agree the change was from one extreme into another. A much better change would have been something along these lines like you already suggested: If there is an enemy unit present boost it by two. If not damage self by two. That way it would keep approximately the same power level while adhering to the boost enemy and then steal boosts archetype.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

they would maybe get slotted into a deck with tall unit removal before (the enemy boost archetype with cahir isn't worth considering because it's totally unviable and was made worse with avallach's nerf). maybe they would have gotten a bit more play with the nerfs to rot tosser and magne division but not guaranteed. They're fine as is. if other cards are too weak start buffing them like this instead of just nerfing every card

 

[4RM3D]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. CDPR cannot please everyone.

Anyhow, Nilfgaardian Knight isn't even on top of the auto-include list, now. That honors goes to Magne Division, followed by Nauzicaa Sergeant. There are bigger problems here. The buff to Nilfgaardian Knight doesn't even make a dent in the existing pool of issue.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. CDPR cannot please everyone.

This is the same development team that made MC Spear and Wyvern Shield gain charges based on unit plays and proceeded to give MS a leader with a 1 pt thrive unit, without a CD, that counts as a unit play. Mind blown.

 

[rrc]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. CDPR cannot please everyone.

Anyhow, Nilfgaardian Knight isn't even on top of the auto-include list, now. That honors goes to Magne Division, followed by Nauzicaa Sergeant. There are bigger problems here. The buff to Nilfgaardian Knight doesn't even make a dent in the existing pool of issue.

Dear @4RM3D , Even you were defending that the card is good and useful and not broken in the thread you had linked. You know in your heart that this fix was totally unnecessary . While we are eagerly expecting CDPR to fix broken cards, they giving blind eye to such cards and changing a totally fine and a very interesting card to be lame a broken card was disheartening. It is ridiculous and I can't believe they had to fix that card like this. If you go first, get more value - what kind of a sick logic is that?

Why I am even more angry is, it was a very interesting card. It had fit very well with a lot of synergies. If someone tries to cheat the system and wanted to get more value, they were punished. Now, they have stripped off the interesting character and made it a pure lame get-more-value-on-deploy card.

If some new players complain that "Rainfarm didn't boost himself when I played first" and create a thread, will CDPR fix that card so that he will boost himself by 3 if played first? [Actually, I think it can even happen and this thought is going to give me nightmares]

 

[Sleeperko]

Isn't it the same issue as with marauder? The power-wise both these cards are completely same. Except marauder will kill opponents card and therefore, the player going the first vs SK can not play any engine without boosting it with TA. And then it becomes vulnerable to any tall unit destroyer...

Yeah, it was already mentioned. Sorry...

 

[TheNotoriousThree]

I dislike the fact that he killed himself previously. If he turns out to be too powerful a good balance would be:

Boost an enemy unit by 2, if there are no enemy units, damage self by 2

This way he is always 4 strength by himself with potential synergy value, but he's never zero value for no good reason.