Wild Hunt Rider Should Be Balanced ASAP

[rrc]

Wild Hunt Rider is one of the cards which make me cringe every time I see it played. It gives a guaranteed 8 point swing and thinning for 12 provisions. It is an auto-include card for MOs. I checked manually in gwentup and find that it is included in almost all the decks (I would say more than 95% of the decks), except for Shupe decks or the decks that want to have less units on board (meme decks). The condition on which this is achieved is ridiculous where it will never EVER brick and gives a huge tempo and thinning for meagre provision cost. This should be balanced. It should be brought down to 3 power or the condition should change. One of the best conditions I can think of is, "If you control more than two wild hunt units, summon a copy from the deck", that would be a good condition to achieve such a big tempo and thinning.

I don't know what would be the correct fix, but something should be done about this abomination. What does the community think about this card?

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

I really dislike it too, because it seems far too effective for its downsides. In general, I think there shouldn't be any card that thins with less than 7 provisions.
Currently the Wild Hunt Rider is effectifly a 8 point swing for 5.5 provisions (the second summoned card is about half a provision point below the deck average and as long as it will always be summoned, it effectively increases the provision limit by half a point, thus reducing the provision cost of the first Rider by half a point). And as long as their provision cost stays below the deck average and the condition is easy enough that it won't brick too much, those cards will always be an autoinclude.

I think the best solution for most of them would be to just spawn a copy instead of summoning it from the deck, as that would be a major nerf, or increase their provision costs to 7 or above.

 

[Anciluart]

WHR fits well in the faction identity. Almost no condition, favorable balance, just vomit it to the ground and win.

The ST dwarves are 3 and you need a dwrarf in melee, you cant play them with a empty board like WHR.

 

[4RM3D]

A card being auto-included doesn't mean it's too strong. It does make decks more boring, but that's no immediate reason to nerf the card.

Let's compare it with other factions (in a vacuum, I know):

Wild Hunt Rider
12 provisions for 8 strength
efficiency: 66,7%

Blue Stripes Commando
12 provisions for 8 strength
efficiency: 66,7% (but has orders)

Mahakam Volunteers
10 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 60% (requires a dwarf, but also synergies with other dwarfs)

Skald & Skirmisher (actually not a duo card)
9 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 66,7% (requires both cards)

Drummond Shieldmaiden
12 provisions for 6 strength (8 strength - 1 for the damage and -1 for not hitting an enemy)
efficiency: 50%

Impera Brigade
12 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 50% (but doesn't have a condition)

Witcher Trio
21 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 42,9% (but thins two cards, instead of one)

Looking at the above list, Wild Hunt Rider isn't too exceptional, even though it's the best one.

EDIT: added the other factions too. Every faction has a "duo" card that summon a copy from the deck. Some have better synergies with their deck, while others can be triggered more easily.

 

[DRK3]

I agree, it should be nerfed, and even though i usually avoid OP strategies, specially Monster ones, i do use these guys in all my MO decks, since i usually run low tempo and the riders provide the catchup i need.

For possible nerfs, this might not be enough, but for starters, this (and ALL) units that have the condition to control the highest unit, should only work when you have the HIGHEST unit... same points is NOT highest, CDPR...

Also, only work when opponent has units on board, so it cant be used as an opener, like most (me included) do.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

tied for highest / best is still highest / best. if two people come in an exact tie in the olympics they both get golds not silvers.

 

[DRK3]

tied for highest / best is still highest / best. if two people come in an exact tie in the olympics they both get golds not silvers.

No, its not. Its logic, its math. If two or more are at the same points, none is the highest, its a tie. When both players in Gwent win 2 rounds, its a draw, would say that in such case both players are the winners?

Also, im not big on sports, but im pretty sure on the Olympics there are no ways to tie, never seen two 1st places, there's always a way to resolve the tie.

(PS - i know these problems in Gwent come from limited space in the card description, even awhile ago they tried to shorten the descriptions and names as much as possible, but then comes this type of small problems of semantics)

 

[Randy-Lahey]

Well your math is wrong. If you ask a statistician out of the set of numbers [3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 7] the min and max he will tell you 3 and 7. he won't say "there is no greatest or smallest number because they're tied". Also there have been several ties before at the olympics and they both get golds. The description is correct. If the card description actually said something like "if you control the sole highest unit with nothing tied with it..." your complaint would be valid. As it stands it is incorrect.

 

[StrykerxS77x]

You shouldn't be able to play them on an empty board.

 

[rrc]

A card being auto-included doesn't mean it's too strong. It does make decks more boring, but that's no immediate reason to nerf the card.

Dear @4RM3D, you have told this before (I think multiple times), but I disagree (every time ). If there is any card which is added in all possible decks irrespective of the archetype of the deck and/or the leaders, the card is broken (too strong). Otherwise, it wouldn't be an auto-include card. Even the developers and QA teams should feel uncomfortable if there is a card which is <whatever we want to call> so that it is included in all possible decks (a neutral card in all decks or a faction card in all decks of that faction). It just means that they have failed to properly access its strength. If I am in CDPR team and if there is a super broken card that every ST deck has it irrespective of the leaders, I would do my best to balance it so that it fits only in its archetype. I would feel uneasy if my game has such a card.

Now, we shouldn't say that it is because all the other cards are weak. People don't even want to try other cards/decks because nothing can match the tempo/thinning/consistency these cards provide. If such a card is present in all factions (I am not comparing orange to apple), every deck will have such cards. I call such cards broken and needs balance.

Theoretically, lets say Wild Hunt Rider has the condition such that "If you control two or more Wild Hunt units, summon a copy from the deck", it is still a very viable card. It still gives incredible tempo and thinning justifying the provision cost. People will add in the decks centered around Wild Hunt units. Since most Wild Hunt units work better if controlling highest unit, they will add Predatory Drive (again, another broken card which doesn't see any play as there are plenty of even more broken cards in MO) and will maintain the highest unit, use the Wild Hunt units and then use WHR. Then the 8 point swing for 12 provision is well deserved.

But, in its current state, it is just disgusting, that is IMHO.

 

[M3e0w]

A card being auto-included doesn't mean it's too strong. It does make decks more boring, but that's no immediate reason to nerf the card.

Let's compare it with other factions (in a vacuum, I know):

Wild Hunt Rider
12 provisions for 8 strength
efficiency: 66,7%

Skald & Skirmisher
9 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 66,7% (requires both cards)

Impera Brigade
12 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 50% (but doesn't have a condition)

Witcher Trio
21 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 42,9% (but thins two cards, instead of one)

Looking at the above list, Wild Hunt Rider isn't too exceptional, even though it's the best one.

So you think being 25% better than other factions's equivalent cards is nothing exceptional? Might not be if it was an isolated card, so that faction has the best thinning card, that would be fine.
But when every card the faction has is 25% better than what others have......

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

If you look post nerf, then witcher trio is going to be included in every monster deck. The riders provide flexibility to the monster faction, I.e where you can pass after playing 3 cards if going first, when you dont want to risk card disadvantage against tempo decks like SK, trust me, you want to pass.
Also if going second, your oponnent can prevent you from playing riders, if he wants to pass after 3 cards, by buffing his unit with Tactical Advantage.
As previoulsy mentioned, unless you want witcher trio to be auto included as thinning/tempo, then go ahead and nerf the riders

 

[rrc]

If you look post nerf, then witcher trio is going to be included in every monster deck.

Witcher Trio is included in every god damn deck which wants thinning. Why should MO be any special? That too MO!

The riders provide flexibility to the monster faction, I.e where you can pass after playing 3 cards if going first, when you dont want to risk card disadvantage against tempo decks like SK, trust me, you want to pass.

MO is in need of flexibility? treally?

Also if going second, your oponnent can prevent you from playing riders, if he wants to pass after 3 cards, by buffing his unit with Tactical Advantage.

This game has 3 rounds. If you don't want to use Riders on R1, you can always use it on R2 or R3 when going first. Have you ever got your Riders bricked? EVER?? Once?? No one can prevent MO from having the highest unit. Also, people use to play Witcher Trio in R2 after opponent passes for the thinning.

As previoulsy mentioned, unless you want witcher trio to be auto included as thinning/tempo, then go ahead and nerf the riders

Do you really think this will create sympathy empathy on MOs by other players? You are terribly mistaken.

But don't worry. These are just suggestions. It is highly unlikely that MO will be touched, after all, it is the favorite faction of Jason, the head of Gwent. But I believe if enough people raise concerns and put forth logical reasoning, may be, that too remotely may be, things will become fair.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Witcher Trio is included in every god damn deck which wants thinning. Why should MO be any special? That too MO!


MO is in need of flexibility? treally?


This game has 3 rounds. If you don't want to use Riders on R1, you can always use it on R2 or R3 when going first. Have you ever got your Riders bricked? EVER?? Once?? No one can prevent MO from having the highest unit. Also, people use to play Witcher Trio in R2 after opponent passes for the thinning.

Yes, not everyone runs ghoul package. Look at team-rankstars meta-update. When you play value, you want to save your best cards for last, implying that you want to pass with card advantage as early as possible, especially if you have a bad hand. Riders provide the necesarry flexibility in terms of tempo such that, as previously mentioned, you stand a chance against the majority which runs witcher package.
Also, round 2 is meaningless. No one with their right mind wants to push against MO in round 2 with card disadvatange, unless they suspect dragon-dream.

There is another disadvantage, atleast in the previous season, Gimpy Gerwin, the last card you want to see.

 

[M3e0w]

There is another disadvantage, atleast in the previous season, Gimpy Gerwin, the last card you want to see.

Is this a joke? Other factions have similar units, they're just as vulnerable to gimpy. Tge point is monsters guves 25% more points with no condition.

 

[FG15-ISH7EG]

A card being auto-included doesn't mean it's too strong. It does make decks more boring, but that's no immediate reason to nerf the card.

Let's compare it with other factions (in a vacuum, I know):

Wild Hunt Rider
12 provisions for 8 strength
efficiency: 66,7%

Skald & Skirmisher
9 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 66,7% (requires both cards)

Impera Brigade
12 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 50% (but doesn't have a condition)

Witcher Trio
21 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 42,9% (but thins two cards, instead of one)

Looking at the above list, Wild Hunt Rider isn't too exceptional, even though it's the best one.

While I agree that autoinclude doesn't necessary mean that a card is too strong, your calculation is flawed and doesn't represent their ingame strength at all.

As explained in a post above, Wild Hunt Rider is only 12 provisions for 8 strength, if both cards are played seperately, which happens in hardly any case at all. If the first one is used to summon the second one, you have to subtract the average card provision cost in the deck from their total provisions, which leaves us at about 5.4 provisions for 8 strength, which gives us an efficiencey of 148%.
This gives us the practical provision value of 12-AVG*P, with AVG being the average provision cost per card in the deck and P being the probability that both cards are played on their own. So as long as the player can play them together in more than 60% of his games, they will be worth it.

The same for the other cards. As long as they don't brick we will get:

Wild Hunt Rider
5.4 provisions for 8 strength
efficiency: 148%

Skald & Skirmisher
2.4 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 255%

Skald & Morkvarg
7.4 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 121%

Birna & 2 Skirmisher
2.8 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 321% (but extremly unlikely to achieve)

Impera Brigade
5.4 provisions for 6 strength
efficiency: 111%

Witcher Trio
7.8 provisions for 9 strength
efficiency: 115% (but thins two cards, instead of one)

Mahakam Volunteers
3.4 provisions for 6 strength
effiency: 176%

 

[4RM3D]

If there is any card which is added in all possible decks irrespective of the archetype of the deck and/or the leaders, the card is broken (too strong).

Since the introduction of the provision system, the above is no longer accurate. For example, Skirmishers can be found in most SK decks, but are they broken? We should stop talking about cards in terms of being broken or being too strong because those terms can no longer accurate reflect the situation because of their ambiguous nature. Simple put, efficiency is all that matters. It's actually more complicated, but to properly discuss this would derail the while topic. So, I might make a seperate thread about it soon. For now, I'll put the discussion on ice.

So you think being 25% better than other factions's equivalent cards is nothing exceptional? Might not be if it was an isolated card, so that faction has the best thinning card, that would be fine.
But when every card the faction has is 25% better than what others have......

The efficiency score didn't include extra conditions.

But when every card the faction has is 25% better than what others have......

That might very well be true, but we were talking about Wild Hunt Rider here, not the entire faction.

 

[Alexander_Volgin]

Is this a joke? Other factions have similar units, they're just as vulnerable to gimpy. Tge point is monsters guves 25% more points with no condition.

Why should it be a joke? If the riders are prevailent as you say, more people would be including gimpy in their deck, to have an advantage against them.

Also the riders ARE conditional, if you dont want to push the round against MO, if going first, then buff one of your units with tactical advantage.

Post automatically merged: Feb 5, 2019

That might very well be true, but we were talking about Wild Hunt Rider here, not the entire faction.

Care to elaborate why you think its the case that MO units are 25% better than every other faction?
Ghoul carry over can be countered, and if your opponent removes engines (thrive units), then big units will provide low value compared to their prov cost.

SK is a better example of a faction, with conditions, like MO, where you can outvalue your opponent by blood thirst units.

 

[4RM3D]

If the first one is used to summon the second one, you have to subtract the average card provision cost in the deck from their total provisions, which leaves us at about 5.4 provisions for 8 strength, which gives us an efficiencey of 148%.

So, the average provision costs of a card based on the baseline of a 165 provision deck is: 165 / 25 = 6.6 provisions per card. When you subtract that amount from the provision cost of the Wilder Hunt Riders, you'll get: 12 - 6.6 = 5.4 provisions.

What I don't understand is why you subtract that amount and why you compare it with the strength of the card: the 5.4 provisions for 8 strength, I still cannot quite grasp it.

Care to elaborate why you think its the case that MO units are 25% better than every other faction?

That's a discussion for another thread.

 

[C7Racehead]

To bring up a valid point that nobody has mentioned yet: there are some cards that are auto-included because the pool of cards is rather small right now.

There will still be auto-include cards after the expansion but it won't be as prevalent; archetypes will be more fleshed out.