Wild Hunt Rider Should Be Balanced ASAP

[rrc]

I see, so you say, given that the faction is monsters the card should be burned up untill the point of being completely unusable, given that all other Wild Hunt bronze units are either mediocre (and honestly bad) or straight up unplayable.
And all for the sole reason that monsters cannot have a similar Duo card like Nilfgard and Scoiatel.

Other Duo cards don't bring 8 points on the table. If WHR were to bring only 6, this topic wouldn't have been created. BSC is an order unit. It can be locked or removed and denied the thinning. The only issue is MO has a duo unit which bring 8 points to the table with no condition at all for the same provision as NG. It is just unfair.

That's such a demanding condition it would eliminate them from the game. It is not a good idea.

OK. It may be demanding condition. Or may be not. In a Wild Hunt archetype deck, it can fit. People can use Hedious Feast to get more values for the wild hunt bronzes and then get WHR. It will need some efforts. It wont kill the card (Unless MO players are so inherently lazy that they can't plan a deck which needs any condition or strategy), it just makes it hard to get such a power swing with no condition.

I think that makes it utterly unplayable at the moment. Sorry.

If it is a hard condition, then CDPR may have to find the sweet spot. In the current state it is a lame horrible unfair card.

 

[C7Racehead]

Just a slight tweak such as others have suggested will render the Riders balanced I believe.

Not having the unit consider itself as the tallest and making sure another unit's power is strictly higher than any other on the board is sufficient.

To be honest though... I don't feel like WHR is that oppressive in its current state. It provides good tempo but it's not broken.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

OK. It may be demanding condition. Or may be not. In a Wild Hunt archetype deck, it can fit. People can use Hedious Feast to get more values for the wild hunt bronzes and then get WHR. It will need some efforts. It wont kill the card (Unless MO players are so inherently lazy that they can't plan a deck which needs any condition or strategy), it just makes it hard to get such a power swing with no condition.

Can I just ask what rank you are because like, honestly the math just doesn't work. You absolutely cannot play this and the tempo / thinning that you get from the WHR would be absolutely nullified and killed by trying to use the other wild hunt cards basically at all. There's a reason I have literally never seen anything approaching a wild hunt deck and that's because it would be beyond straight garbage. hound isn't horrible and can be slotted into a deck but it's probably going to be your worst card in hand but it can kill an engine which is great. navigator I've seen used a handful of times ever. warrior I have litearlly never seen. And the only situation you would use warrior is AFTER WHR. the wild hunt cards are all fairly cheap and don't scale at all really. you can't build an archetype around that at all. The deck needs to be build around your golds with bronze to support.

 

[rrc]

Can I just ask what rank you are because like, honestly the math just doesn't work. You absolutely cannot play this and the tempo / thinning that you get from the WHR would be absolutely nullified and killed by trying to use the other wild hunt cards basically at all. There's a reason I have literally never seen anything approaching a wild hunt deck and that's because it would be beyond straight garbage. hound isn't horrible and can be slotted into a deck but it's probably going to be your worst card in hand but it can kill an engine which is great. navigator I've seen used a handful of times ever. warrior I have litearlly never seen. And the only situation you would use warrior is AFTER WHR. the wild hunt cards are all fairly cheap and don't scale at all really. you can't build an archetype around that at all. The deck needs to be build around your golds with bronze to support.

Should I be in Pro Rank to point out what I feel is a bad card and suggesting balances? If such change would make the card rendered useless, then there should be a balance. I don't want to see an 8 point opener with thinning for such a low provision penalty (with Gernichora it is a bloddy 10 point opener). Whenever I face any MO, this the card that is played first. Always. (in one of the rounds, that is, I assume, if the opponent didn't draw the card in R1)

Control two Wild Hunt is too harsh for MO, I agree. But just play this card first and get a very good tempo is too harsh for everyone else. It should be put in a place where if it is going to bring 8 points on table with thinning, either the condition should be made that such play is deserved or the provision should be increased to justify it.

Currently I am in Rank 11 I believe. I installed after a month long break (only because I was kind of addicted and uninstalled to put a break for myself) and started at R15. I am currently playing Francesca and have a decent winning rate of 60+% (mainly to achieve her Mastery to get RP to unlock TB leaders). I believe that if I blindly netdeck, I believe I can reach a higher rank. So, my current rank seems irrelevant to this discussion IMHO.

If you are really curious, just open GwentUP and filter based on MO and see some random 50 decks. I am sure WHR will be all 50 decks (except for Shupe decks) or at least 48 decks. It is not healthy for the game, and that is my opinion. Like @4RM3D pointed out, there are 4 points bronze cards which are in 95+% decks which doesn't mean they are broken or strong. Like Nauzicaa Sergent in NG, Skirmisher in SK, Dragoon in ST, Arbalist/CursedMage in NR, Archepores in MO (which is broken and a new thread may come for that soon ). But giving 8 point swing and thinning is not like that. It is broken. If MO players think it is absolutely fine, I will understand it and will expect it. But I want CDPR to have a look at this card and make it fair.

 

[Randy-Lahey]

No you don't need to be at a certain rank to have an opinion but I would take someone at a higher rank's opinion more seriously since it shows a better understanding of the game. Even if you get there through netdecking you still learn decks and the meta through netdecking. Also some people through netdecking still can't break rank ~8 or so.

Also I don't think opening with riders is correct at all except maybe against other MO where you're worried about being able to get highest unit. Most matches I'd rather get one of my other thrives going before it can be shut down.

 

[InkognitoXI]

Should I be in Pro Rank to point out what I feel is a bad card and suggesting balances? If such change would make the card rendered useless, then there should be a balance. I don't want to see an 8 point opener with thinning for such a low provision penalty (with Gernichora it is a bloddy 10 point opener). [...]

The issue with your arguments is:
i) You pretend that once people actually show evidence of the missbalances in terms of factions being represented those do
not mean anything because this does not backup your claims, the argument does not hold for only as long as it supports
your claims.
ii) You put it like every card in Monsters is 8 points/only monsters can do these things, while other factions can do these
things in their own way.
iii) You apparently still do not get the rock-paper-scizzors balance in the game, but to make it easier for you to get:
a) engines beat pure points
b) pure points beats control
c) control beats engines
If you want to beat pure points with control and then cry because that does not work most of the time that is not an issue
with balance.
Monsters are mostly pure points, if monster decks do not tech control they get murdered by engines.
iv) If someone uses evidence from a higher rank, in which players do not start crying because they cannot mindlessly slam
down and win with unoptimized decks and let us face it, in higher ranks players on average are better at playing their
factions, that evidence is better at representing the state of balance.
From my experience players in higher Ranks play more different factions, given that some are more difficult to pilot and
to build, which at some point is not really a virtue lack in is overrepresented.

 

[rrc]

but I would take someone at a higher rank's opinion more seriously since it shows a better understanding of the game.

Fair Enough. I never said I am pro. I see cards and the value they bring and find that it is unfair in comparison with every other factions.

Also I don't think opening with riders is correct at all except maybe against other MO where you're worried about being able to get highest unit

Isn't it even more of a problem with WHR? It synergizes with Thrive too and bring a huge value for absolutely naught of a condition.

The issue with your arguments is:
i) You pretend that once people actually show evidence of the missbalances in terms of factions being represented those do
not mean anything because this does not backup your claims, the argument does not hold for only as long as it supports
your claims.

I didn't pretend. When people simply have a blind eye and justify broken cards (that is as far as I can comprehend this game), I don't want to argue with them.

ii) You put it like every card in Monsters is 8 points/only monsters can do these things, while other factions can do these
things in their own way.

I am not talking about factions here. Every other faction has cards which can bring huge value. But all these cards need some condition on board. While this WHR brings 8 point swing with thinning for a very less provision points in comparison with other factions.

iii) You apparently still do not get the rock-paper-scizzors balance in the game, but to make it easier for you to get:
a) engines beat pure points
b) pure points beats control
c) control beats engines
If you want to beat pure points with control and then cry because that does not work most of the time that is not an issue
with balance.
Monsters are mostly pure points, if monster decks do not tech control they get murdered by engines.

I know this cycle. (controlling myself not to get personal ). I hate it when MO cries foul that they don't have fking engine cards. All their 4 point bronzes are bloody engine cards. Do you even realise that? You are talking as though MO only plays pure point cards on table. They have bloody engines which take away the very less penalty MO has for tall cards.

iv) If someone uses evidence from a higher rank, in which players do not start crying because they cannot mindlessly slam
down and win with unoptimized decks and let us face it, in higher ranks players on average are better at playing their
factions, that evidence is better at representing the state of balance.
From my experience players in higher Ranks play more different factions, given that some are more difficult to pilot and
to build, which at some point is not really a virtue lack in is overrepresented.

More different freaking faction my a**e. Just open the leaderboard and see Global leaderboard. 7 out of top 10 are MO. It has been the case in HC from the beginning. MO players dominate the global leaderboard. And if anyone jumps and says in pro ladder it is different, not everyone is pro and not everyone is playing for becoming pro. In casual 6-18 rounds a day players, MO is disgusting. And WHR is one of the factors for that.

 

[Archpriest]

If it is a hard condition, then CDPR may have to find the sweet spot. In the current state it is a lame horrible unfair card.

I specifically referred to your proposal. CDPR's job is to balance the game, yes.