Proof that Nilfgaard (NG) is NOT overpowered

[lor1keet]

This is from the data provided by CDPR on the winning percentages in the pro-league for Gwent in last month's Season of the Griffin for each leader ability.

Leader Ability play rates and win rates in Season of the Griffin

Hello! Season of the Griffin is long gone, but we haven't forgotten about the Leader Ability play rates and win rates! Like last time we have the data sorted by rank (see image below). You can also download the data in .xlsx format here.

forums.cdprojektred.com

Below are the winning percentages for all NG leader abilities.

It definitively shows that NG is far from being overpowered. Its top performing leader ability only barely scrapes by with less than 1% above 50%.



Imposter 41.03

Strategic Withdrawal 42.74

Double Cross 42.76

Enslave 47.43

Tactical Decision 48.46

Lockdown 48.9

Imperial Formation 50.84

 

[Philido]

This thread's not gonna work, I have been trying for ages to point to the win rates. Almost always neglected because the play rate is so high and this apparently kills the whole statistics because of mirror matches, or so they say. Anyone knows how to take play rates into account to get the "real" win rates?

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Overpowered or not, what we should focus on is on cards or combos that effectively shut down strategies of other decks.

Since NG has about 25% play rate, there are some assumptions that NG prevents greedy decks from entering the meta.
However, this argument needs more support in form of examples. This isn't something that can be easily achieved, but should be the main point of discussion.

@Philido
If you encounter NG 25% of the time, while other factions 75% of the time, and your average win rate is 53%, given the assumption that you win rate is 50% against NG. Then the winrate of NG against other factions is 54%
=0.25*0.5+0.75*0.54=53%

 

[4RM3D]

Almost always neglected because the play rate is so high and this apparently kills the whole statistics because of mirror matches, or so they say. Anyone knows how to take play rates into account to get the "real" win rates?

But doesn't that apply to all the factions? I mean, if every faction is in the same boat, the numbers are still representative relative to each other. The adjusted win rates may be higher, but that also applies to all top factions. Either way, NG doesn't suddenly jump to the top. The exception could be if NG is played a lot more, but that isn't the case.

 

[Barracuda88]

But doesn't that apply to all the factions? I mean, if every faction is in the same boat, the numbers are still representative relative to each other. The adjusted win rates may be higher, but that also applies to all top factions. Either way, NG doesn't suddenly jump to the top. The exception could be if NG is played a lot more, but that isn't the case.

Except, uh, that's exactly the case

 

[4RM3D]

Except, uh, that's exactly the case

Play rates:
NG: 25.96%
Mo: 22.59%
SK: 19.24%

NG is only played marginally more than Mo and SK is still played a lot. With this little difference, Mo and SK also have "misrepresented" win rates. I don't think the gap is big enough to make an actual difference for NG.

 

[Barracuda88]

Play rates:
NG: 25.96%
Mo: 22.59%
SK: 19.24%

NG is only played marginally more than Mo and SK is still played a lot. With this little difference, Mo and SK also have "misrepresented" win rates. I don't the gap is big enough to make an actual difference for NG.

They do. Generally, everything "north" of the median will have higher "real" rates than listed. This why "combined" winrates listed on sites like Elder Bloods are misleading, where NG has the same winrates at ST, except NG is played 25% of the time vs ST 10%. It's pretty obvious the power levels are not the same at all at the moment.

 

[Philido]

Overpowered or not, what we should focus on is on cards or combos that effectively shut down strategies of other decks.

Since NG has about 25% play rate, there are some assumptions that NG prevents greedy decks from entering the meta.
However, this argument needs more support in form of examples. This isn't something that can be easily achieved, but should be the main point of discussion.

@Philido
If you encounter NG 25% of the time, while other factions 75% of the time, and your average win rate is 53%, given the assumption that you win rate is 50% against NG. Then the winrate of NG against other factions is 54%
=0.25*0.5+0.75*0.54=53%

That means Imperial Formation, the best leader of the faction, has a win rate of roughly 51 %. Not really impressive

 

[lor1keet]

This thread's not gonna work, I have been trying for ages to point to the win rates. Almost always neglected because the play rate is so high and this apparently kills the whole statistics because of mirror matches, or so they say. Anyone knows how to take play rates into account to get the "real" win rates?

I think CDPR knows what's up.

They don't nerf NG because they know that NG is not OP.

 

[Philido]

I think CDPR knows what's up.

They don't nerf NG because they know that NG is not OP.

Let's hope so, other than being very prevalent there's no evidence of NG being overpowered compared to the best leaders of the other factions. In certain match-ups it even feels underpowered, especially Deadeye Ambush.

 

[4RM3D]

[...] where NG has the same winrates at ST, except NG is played 25% of the time vs ST 10%.

Yes, versus the lower tier, but in my example, I was talking about SK and MO.

 

[Hegemonkey]

I think people dislike NG because it feels unfair. CDPR nailed this class thematically in my opinion. So it kinda makes sense everyone hates on the baddies.

The class is based around control and control decks usually feel frustrating to play against because their gameplan is to shut down yours instead of a more proactive approach. But NG cards on average have very low stats. They are reliant on having good targets to poison, yenvo etc. in order to make any kind of big tempo plays.

The only thing I think is out of line is Masquerade Ball and that is more an issue of scenarios being too strong in general.

 

[lor1keet]

But doesn't that apply to all the factions? I mean, if every faction is in the same boat, the numbers are still representative relative to each other. The adjusted win rates may be higher, but that also applies to all top factions. Either way, NG doesn't suddenly jump to the top. The exception could be if NG is played a lot more, but that isn't the case.

This is spot on!

 

[ya1_]

I'm not a professional statistician so idk about the play rate win rate theory... But even if it was correct, then according to the latest data reveal, NG would still probably be number 4 in pro. It'd just be ahead of ST by a somewhat larger margin. Formation is still the third most played leader and ahead of Fruits only slightly. However, there is relatively a big gap in win rate between Formation and Uprising (which according to the theory would be even bigger because Uprising had much bigger play rate).

 

[Slizzl]

This whole obsession purely with statistics and balancing the game solely around them hasn't worked out.
Both players and the devs should play the game more instead of relying so much on these. It's why we get so many nonsensical changes.
Game knowledge is far more important than looking at the current best leader ability and just nerfing it to the ground with no deeper understanding of why. Or a card that sees little play like old Vabjorn and just changing it entirely because it's unpopular.
Maybe not the best thread to go on this tangent but I see so many of these where people discuss only percentages instead of why those percentages are the way they are.

 

[Guest 4368268]

I think people dislike NG because it feels unfair. CDPR nailed this class thematically in my opinion. So it kinda makes sense everyone hates on the baddies.

The class is based around control and control decks usually feel frustrating to play against because their gameplan is to shut down yours instead of a more proactive approach. But NG cards on average have very low stats. They are reliant on having good targets to poison, yenvo etc. in order to make any kind of big tempo plays.

The only thing I think is out of line is Masquerade Ball and that is more an issue of scenarios being too strong in general.

Yep, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say 'change Nilfgaard' but 'nerf Nilfgaard' just gives off the wrong impression.
It can be frustrating when you play against a package like Vincent/Yennefer and so forth that have a philosophy of "hope my opponent plays heavily into this" but it's not necessarily 'too strong' by any means.

I agree with you about Masquerade Ball. The notion of putting an engine on the board and then in conjunction with your scenario shutting down several of your opponents' (lock+poison in one turn) feels very oppressive. NG gets away with it for now just because the faction is otherwise underwhelming. But it's one of those things that's automatically a huge problem if NG gets stronger. We saw what happened with SK when you leave certain cards/leaders untouched just because the faction isn't that strong atm.

 

[Slizzl]

Yep, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say 'change Nilfgaard' but 'nerf Nilfgaard' just gives off the wrong impression.
It can be frustrating when you play against a package like Vincent/Yennefer and so forth that have a philosophy of "hope my opponent plays heavily into this" but it's not necessarily 'too strong' by any means.

I agree with you about Masquerade Ball. The notion of putting an engine on the board and then in conjunction with your scenario shutting down several of your opponents' (lock+poison in one turn) feels very oppressive. NG gets away with it for now just because the faction is otherwise underwhelming. But it's one of those things that's automatically a huge problem if NG gets stronger. We saw what happened with SK when you leave certain cards/leaders untouched just because the faction isn't that strong atm.

Spot on. For me it completely kills deckbuilding as well. I like Nilfgaard but I don't care much for the vampire stuff, from a lore perspective I much prefer the cavalry and whatnot. But if I were to try to build a deck without those cards I'd be at a huge disadvantage they are that autoinclude.
This is why I keep arguing for the devs to even out certain cards in various factions. Flexible deckbuilding should always be number one priority to strive for.

 

[SuperiorSaturn]

Lot of silly posts ITT. Problem isn't NG, it's specific cards and interactions. Vincent and dames are silly. Scenario is also a bit too silly. They'll definitely be addressed sooner or later and NG wr won't noticeably change but the play rates probably will. And greedier decks will be slightly more viable. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

[Philido]

In my opinion Nilfgaard can be changed to more of a control-soldier hybrid instead of almost only control, would probably make it better and less frustrating to play against. Then again even more will be like "NG has it all".

 

[Anciluart]

I don't know if "touched" means that his condition will be changed or he will simply be sexually abused. Memories of Sihil

Spoiler: Meanwhile...

I guess it wouldn't be wrong to give NG some less miserable way to play, promoting a theme "just annoys other people" is ridiculous, and I'm not talking about playing control, because NG is not even control, it's just a desperate attempt to annoy the opponent. There is more control in ST than in NG.