PLAY RATES AND WIN RATES IN THE SEASON OF THE CAT (OCTOBER 2021)

+
id always say each time some leader gets over 55% winrate, it should (or popular cards included) receive a nerf, also 10% playrate is exactly what plenty of ppl point out when talking about facing the same decks over and over again. Unfortunately with current power creep pointslam era nerfing one card can often influence other leaders as new cards are so powerful that often needed in other decks. Era of archetypes is long gone (unless you are Skellige)
 
Last edited:
Top ten in a competition can be quite an achievement, but people unsurprisingly talks about the "winner". And having a negative winrate hardly count as winning.

I mean, I get that. I also get that colors are pretty, but there's numbers there, too. And context. This was last season, which Nature's Gift "won" over Flurry by 0.37% To illustrate what that means, if both leaders played 300 games each, Flurry would get 168 wins, and Gift would get 169. That's the margin. Now, because of this margin, the Gift received a very significant nerf (no matter how dismissive some people are toward it being "oh, ONLY 2p"). Flurry, meanwhile - and SK as a whole, which had, once again 4 leaders with winning records that same season (to ST's 1 - how's that for margin?), received a single power point reduction to Fucusya and BUFFS. But ST players are the worst. All they do is pretend and complain.
 
I'm a bit surprised that Frost seems to be the strongest MO ability. Was the nerf to Relicts unjustified?
 
I mean, I get that. I also get that colors are pretty, but there's numbers there, too. And context. This was last season, which Nature's Gift "won" over Flurry by 0.37% To illustrate what that means, if both leaders played 300 games each, Flurry would get 168 wins, and Gift would get 169. That's the margin. Now, because of this margin, the Gift received a very significant nerf (no matter how dismissive some people are toward it being "oh, ONLY 2p"). Flurry, meanwhile - and SK as a whole, which had, once again 4 leaders with winning records that same season (to ST's 1 - how's that for margin?), received a single power point reduction to Fucusya and BUFFS. But ST players are the worst. All they do is pretend and complain.
My sense is that after the patch, ST and SK continue to play roughly equally --I think your complaint that SK got treated so much better than ST in the latest patch is unbased.

First, let's look at the one card for both factions that got nerfed. I would venture to say that both cards needed a nerf: they were played (and continue to be played) in virtually every competitive deck of their respective factions. But I don't think the nerf to either was significantly more impactful. A one power nerf to Fucusya does have a noticeable effect on its reach and tempo -- and for a faction that rarely boosts units, this does matter. As for Sorceress, a one provision nerf per card -- especially a bronze may impact decks that play them. But given the number of Sorceresses that are generated by Bountiful Harvest -- which doesn't pay the provision cost -- I think you exaggerate the hardship created.

As for the purportedly great buffs SK received, compared to virtually "none" for ST, again this is exaggerated. This is somewhat personal opinion, but for SK, I consider the buffs to Arnvald, Skjall, Primal Savagery, and Svalblod Ravager to be irrelevant, token adjustments to cards that are still never worth playing. I consider the buff to Blood Eagle to be horrible judgment -- all echo cards should be eliminated, never buffed. But at least I do not see a resurgence of use of this card. That leaves Dimun Smuggler, Drummond Villager, and Wild Boar of the Sea. Dimun Smuggler only sees use in pirate decks (and rarely there because of antisynergies with Dimun Warship) and even then is not really played for its order ability which now has zeal (but is generally not worth preventing). Not to mention that pirate decks are generally non-competitive. The Drummond Villager buff reverses a nerf that should never have occurred in the first place -- and the card only really has value in self-damage decks -- decks not in current use. Only Wild Boar has any real potential in current decks. But a one power buff on an already greedy card is not likely to change its effectiveness.

And the buffs to ST are not completely negligible either. War Dancer remains garbage. Vrihedd Brigade is significantly improved as its removal becomes less trivial. Of course, it only supports the movement archetype -- which I would put at the same level as pirates. Saov Ainmhi'dh is a potentially impactful card -- along the lines of the Flying Redanian. It is cheaper than Redanian and has a nice boost effect, but it does require an initial play rather than being automatically summoned without play. I believe that as more cards are developed, its potential will increase. Finally, I think Torque is significantly underestimated. Unlike any of the buffed SK cards, Torque is core to potential archetypes. I would consider a Torque deck no more meme than a Wild Boar deck -- but Torque would be much more central to that deck.

In summary, I do not accept the implication that SK has receive significantly better treatment than ST in the last patch. And I think my position is supported by both an analysis of the buffs and by observation of the current meta in which neither ST nor SK seems dominant over the other.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised that Frost seems to be the strongest MO ability. Was the nerf to Relicts unjustified?
I think the nerfs were more than justified, it's just that in the last part of the expansion some factions got insane cards were as relicts didn't. Playing a bit of frost myself, devotion with tasty unseen elder+a lot of control cards and the deck is performing way better than I first expected. It's a lot of fun and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes MO.
 
I don't know if these ratings are useful. I find them rather harmful. They SHOULD give players and devs an understanding of what factions currently perform better and what needs tweaking. But with how Gwent is being "balanced" currently, they just show the abilities with the most broken decks. So the majority of players just goes to the decklist, searches the top ability from the highest table (or, as an option, from the table for their rank) and downloads the first deck from the search result (often with instructions, I presume). This tilts and tilts what is left of the balance one way, until devs finally intervene (usually nerfing most used cards for those popular decks with power/provisions tweaks, sometimes it takes several iterations - almost like they're doing it blindly) and bonk the top ability (actually, the top broken deck) down, often making other decks of that faction unplayable as well. That's not balancing, that shoving more and more crutches to support the ever falling game core.
 
I mean, I get that. I also get that colors are pretty, but there's numbers there, too. And context. This was last season, which Nature's Gift "won" over Flurry by 0.37% To illustrate what that means, if both leaders played 300 games each, Flurry would get 168 wins, and Gift would get 169. That's the margin.
That SK can be rated equal to or slightly higher than ST in the current meta, I can understand. What I can't figure is how ST could possibly be in the fourth place, when the top NG ability has a winning rate of 51.26 and a playrate of 2.75.

The funny thing is, the entire top 10 is purple, blue and black
Purple can be compared to green. Maybe blue can be compared to purple. But black cannot be compared to the others, since
1) it is an achromatic color and 2) it has a pretty meh winrate.
 
That SK can be rated equal to or slightly higher than ST in the current meta, I can understand. What I can't figure is how ST could possibly be in the fourth place, when the top NG ability has a winning rate of 51.26 and a playrate of 2.75.
It's debatable, and that's why every time it's mentioned, it's referred to as "3rd/4th", but the basic idea is that NG has 2 leaders with the winning record and a third one within less that one percent of .500, and that when determining the hierarchy of FACTIONS, not decks, in the meta, the difference between having 2/3 leaders in "positive" win area (NG) and having 1 (ST) is greater than the 5% winrate difference between Enslave and Nature's Gift. In other words, the faction that has 2-3 competitive leaders/decks in the meta is stronger than the faction that has 1, even if that 1 deck performs 5% better than the former 3.
Purple can be compared to green. Maybe blue can be compared to purple. But black cannot be compared to the others, since
1) it is an achromatic color and 2) it has a pretty meh winrate.
The meh winrate is influenced by the fact that NG is the most popular faction by a fairly wide margin.
 
Nature Gift should be nerfed, this ability passively plays for a billion points. Gord is still a cheap and fat carryover card.
Fucusya - I hate this 20+ points Renew.
 
In other words, the faction that has 2-3 competitive leaders/decks in the meta is stronger than the faction that has 1, even if that 1 deck performs 5% better than the former 3.
I would still pick the deck with the highest winrate, if I were interested to climb. Even in a tournament setting, you can only bring a single deck for faction.
The meh winrate is influenced by the fact that NG is the most popular faction by a fairly wide margin.
The data are not shown aggregated by faction. If I compare Nature Gift (56.57 - 10.42) vs Imprisonment (49.87 - 9.13) which have roughly the same playrate, I should get a fair comparison.

Moreover, the players that choose to go with Nature Gift, have likely picked also SK Reckless Flurry and NR top decks. Since the MMR is based around 4 factions, I'd say also the playerbase if often shared in Pro Rank. So the player who is running Enslave /Double Cross, does not become worse when playing NG, and gets a way better winrate when playing Fucusya and Skellige.
 
I expect next month's winrates to be as follows, top to bottom:

- Assimilate Nilfgaard
- PURPLE DECKS
- Inspired Zeal
- Nature's Gift

I play control decks heavily... the nerf to Sorcerer of Dol Bol is quite steep and makes it much harder for ST players to engine overload their opponents. It's still good, but not tip top. Assimilation decks were always top tier, but it took players a bit to figure out how to use them. A good assimilate deck is ridiculously tough to beat right now.

All SK decks are flying high right now because Fucushya is too strong. Shouldn't be able to replay cards with 10 or more power. Neff Fucu and buff some of the other trash SK cards that never get used!
 
My last reply to this was removed as "hostile," so I'm going to try this again, hopefully staying within the boundaries of decorum.
My sense is that after the patch, ST and SK continue to play roughly equally --I think your complaint that SK got treated so much better than ST in the latest patch is unbased.
My complaint is not unbased. It is plain to see from the patch notes.
First, let's look at the one card for both factions that got nerfed. I would venture to say that both cards needed a nerf: they were played (and continue to be played) in virtually every competitive deck of their respective factions. But I don't think the nerf to either was significantly more impactful. A one power nerf to Fucusya does have a noticeable effect on its reach and tempo -- and for a faction that rarely boosts units, this does matter. As for Sorceress, a one provision nerf per card -- especially a bronze may impact decks that play them. But given the number of Sorceresses that are generated by Bountiful Harvest -- which doesn't pay the provision cost -- I think you exaggerate the hardship created.
I disagree with the reasoning here. 2 provision nerf to the Nature's Gift deck from last season is most definitely significantly more impactful that 1 power nerf to Fucusya. Fucusya's reach and tempo, even IF 1 point of power had a noticeable effect on it, does not matter, because the card is played in Round 3, where tempo is irrelevant. As for your argument about the Sorceresses generated from Harvest, it is also quite flawed, because Harvest is itself a 6-provision card and depends on RNG. The bottom line is, 2 provision nerf affects deck building and, therefore, the deck. 1 power nerf to 1 card, which gets most of its points from units it resurrects, does nothing, even in a faction that rarely boosts units.
As for the purportedly great buffs SK received, compared to virtually "none" for ST, again this is exaggerated. This is somewhat personal opinion, but for SK, I consider the buffs to Arnvald, Skjall, Primal Savagery, and Svalblod Ravager to be irrelevant, token adjustments to cards that are still never worth playing. I consider the buff to Blood Eagle to be horrible judgment -- all echo cards should be eliminated, never buffed. But at least I do not see a resurgence of use of this card. That leaves Dimun Smuggler, Drummond Villager, and Wild Boar of the Sea. Dimun Smuggler only sees use in pirate decks (and rarely there because of antisynergies with Dimun Warship) and even then is not really played for its order ability which now has zeal (but is generally not worth preventing). Not to mention that pirate decks are generally non-competitive. The Drummond Villager buff reverses a nerf that should never have occurred in the first place -- and the card only really has value in self-damage decks -- decks not in current use. Only Wild Boar has any real potential in current decks. But a one power buff on an already greedy card is not likely to change its effectiveness.
There was no exaggeration, because I didn't call the buffs great. But SK received 8 buffs, and at least 4 of them were significant. I'm not sure why they seem irrelevant to you, to be honest. Is it because they aren't part of the netdecks that are already dominating the meta? Because most buffs, from my experience, are given to "irrelevant," off-meta cards, to make them more popular. Isn't that the whole point? But anyway, regardless of whether or not they are relevant to you, 1 provision buff to Skjall is significant, 1 provision Savagery buff is significant (and in fact it made the card quite a bit more popular), Blood Eagle (and ravager) condition buff is significant, 2 power buff to Arnvald is significant. The rest are minor, but they are still buffs.
And the buffs to ST are not completely negligible either. War Dancer remains garbage. Vrihedd Brigade is significantly improved as its removal becomes less trivial. Of course, it only supports the movement archetype -- which I would put at the same level as pirates. Saov Ainmhi'dh is a potentially impactful card -- along the lines of the Flying Redanian. It is cheaper than Redanian and has a nice boost effect, but it does require an initial play rather than being automatically summoned without play. I believe that as more cards are developed, its potential will increase. Finally, I think Torque is significantly underestimated. Unlike any of the buffed SK cards, Torque is core to potential archetypes. I would consider a Torque deck no more meme than a Wild Boar deck -- but Torque would be much more central to that deck.
ST received 4 buffs total, which is half of what SK received. Which means SK received twice as many buffs last patch as ST. Out of the four, following the same methodology used to evaluate SK buffs above, one buff can be considered significant: to Saov. That is 1 significant buff to ST, vs 4 significant buffs to SK.
In summary, I do not accept the implication that SK has receive significantly better treatment than ST in the last patch. And I think my position is supported by both an analysis of the buffs and by observation of the current meta in which neither ST nor SK seems dominant over the other.
In summary, SK received 1 power nerf to Fucusya, 8 total buffs, (at least) 4 of which were significant. ST received 2 provision nerf to Nature's Gift deck via the Sorceress, 4 total buffs, out of which 1 can be called significant. I maintain - there's no implication here - that SK received significantly better treatment than ST in the last patch. The difference is quite obvious. One only needs to read the patch notes.

And now, with the data above, which shows that there was only 0.37% winrate difference between Nature's Gift and Flurry - not to mention 3 other SK leaders in the 50's - the difference in treatment is even more glaring.
 
Top Bottom