What percentage of GWENT in a year is it theoretically Balanced?

+
Hi all.

Just for fun and giggles.

How many days in a year is GWENT balanced, or near balanced?

Since we have major updates like every couple of months. Right after the month, like for a month it's usually not balanced.
(last update with the hotpatches is evidence that they are not very good at it lol)
Then after a month they do some changes. And then a bit more.
Then they release another update with new cards.
About 2/3rd of the year is GWENT theoretically "balanced" ?
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting question. Unfortunately, because “balanced” can mean many different things, it is probably unanswerable.

If you interpret balanced to mean is is possible to choose two decks such that both players have an equal chance of winning, I think the game is almost always balanced — about the only way this would fail is if the coin flip was often decisive in every match-up.

If you interpret balanced to mean that the best deck of every faction is competitive against the best deck of every other faction, it is very rare the game is balanced.

If you interpret balanced to mean that every faction has some deck viable in some matchups against other good decks, I again think the game is usually balanced.

If you interpret balanced to mean that all leaders are equally likely to win, the answer is that the game is never balanced.

If you interpret balance as many different archetypes are viable, the game is probably balanced except after new card drops.

If you interpret balanced as bronze and gold cards playing for proportional power, the game has not been balanced in the past year or more.

If you interpret balanced as all cards being playable, the game has never been balanced.

If you interpret balanced as meaning a game outcome is determined by quality of play, the game is probably balanced in about 20% of all matches (much less at higher levels of play). I think this proportion has been dropping steadily since I started play.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
We have monthly updates/ patches, so if Gwent is balanced in a day, its balanced for that whole month.
What im implying is that it makes more sense to discuss how many seasons in a year (on average) is Gwent well-balanced, rather than in days.

The answer is the same to both questions though... Its 0.
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
Well it seems that they are very consistent, and seems that is their aim to do so, in introducing "broken cards."
And I am not trying to just write diatribes, "Broken cards" because they seem to notice that usually 2 weeks after the release of new cards and then "hot patch" it. This seems... to be the usual pattern. That, or "fix" the broken cards by the next balance patch.
 
If they release cards like golden nekker and renfri, balancing is not a concern.
Game-changing rng is always bad for healthy and competitive environment.
 
How about Jan Calviet.

8 Power, 10 provision,
Makes game very very... consistant with the nauzicaa sergeant finish.

or
Spotter
Wtf is this 5 provision card?
It has ability to see other people's decks,
AND get armor,
AND boost for 9 without almost NO consequences or set up.
LOL
 
Last edited:
How about Jan Calviet.
I have even heard people complain about Oneiro being OP. The fact people would even think so only goes to show how incredibly impactful and stupid the randomised card draws are. There's nothing wrong with Calveit, there is something very wrong with the fact that not every faction has one.

And also he makes deck building a pain because of the tactic requirement, I've seen people say the weakness is getting value bled in R2, but I find you almost always come out on top of that, the biggest issue is if you don't find him R1 and your opponent tries to 2-0 you because he knows your deck is full of garbage cards like double ointments etc because of this tactic requirement.
Spotter was one of the most hilarious cards ever, and now it's been reduced to another brainless pointslam card, it's a real shame. At the very least give the old ability back to Viper Witcher Alchemist then. What's even the point of Warrit anymore?
 
I have even heard people complain about Oneiro being OP. The fact people would even think so only goes to show how incredibly impactful and stupid the randomised card draws are. There's nothing wrong with Calveit, there is something very wrong with the fact that not every faction has one.

Oneoromancy is a horrible card for the game. With the current card set, it may be a necessary evil — but make no mistake — it badly damages gameplay.
  • It promotes use of extremely high provision cards which makes games more draw dependent. Highly polarized decks are also highly binary.
  • It is echo, which makes its balance very unstable. Not being able to use it twice is a big disadvantage (caused strictly by draw order). Not drawing it at all is an even bigger disadvantage — again highly binary.
  • By reducing the need to actually play cards that are drawn, it reduces strategic variety — if card levels were closer between best and worst draws we wouldn’t need high provision tutoring and strategy would be much more interesting.
  • Deck building would actually matter (as opposed to simply packing in the most powerful cards). If you can’t count on one big synergy, you have to actually use cards that are effective and interchangeable — decks can no longer revolve around an inflexible plan.
I do agree that Calveit is fine, although I would prefer him to be lower tempo (say 6 power). The disadvantages of a fully sorted deck are significant.
 
Oneoromancy is a horrible card for the game. With the current card set, it may be a necessary evil — but make no mistake — it badly damages gameplay.
  • It promotes use of extremely high provision cards which makes games more draw dependent. Highly polarized decks are also highly binary.
  • It is echo, which makes its balance very unstable. Not being able to use it twice is a big disadvantage (caused strictly by draw order). Not drawing it at all is an even bigger disadvantage — again highly binary.
  • By reducing the need to actually play cards that are drawn, it reduces strategic variety — if card levels were closer between best and worst draws we wouldn’t need high provision tutoring and strategy would be much more interesting.
  • Deck building would actually matter (as opposed to simply packing in the most powerful cards). If you can’t count on one big synergy, you have to actually use cards that are effective and interchangeable — decks can no longer revolve around an inflexible plan.
I do agree that Calveit is fine, although I would prefer him to be lower tempo (say 6 power). The disadvantages of a fully sorted deck are significant.
I don't think you are wrong in the difference in best and worst cards being too big but in my mind that is a different topic even if they are somewhat related. I see nothing wrong with combo decks, they can be interesting and anyways most good decks pack more than one win-con since you need to win two rounds, not one.

If anything it makes the game less draw dependent since now there are two cards that can get you the card you actually want to play, in some decks I even play lady of the lake, making it 3 cards, and STILL sometimes you miss all three in all three rounds. I don't see how the tutors are at fault here when it clearly is the dice roll of card draws that can completely win you or lose the game.

I'd be fine with deleting the card, then instead give every deck an Oneiro ability for every round by default. I am fine with losing because I messed up, I am even fine with losing because I was countered, I am not fine with losing because I threw a dice and lost the bet, if I wanted that I'd go to a casino.
 
Top Bottom