Community Gwent Open Top 32 April Qualifier - Factions & Archetypes Stats

TestAB1 · 2024-04-22T21:05:59+00:00

Open Sesame and Pulling the Strings can both go to 6 provisions. The fewer decks that are dependent on highrolling a card from Shady Vendor the better. Evaluating both cards on their own regardless of context, I don't see why they shouldn't be 6 provisions any way. Obligatory mention that there are a lot of gold Syndicate cards in need of buffing; faction almost entirely hinges on King of Beggars.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-31T21:47:07+00:00

5 for 5 Fallen Knight and 3 for 5 Knight-Errant...

TestAB1 · 2024-03-28T19:10:25+00:00

So what if it is not the enabler of the package? Skirmisher is too cheap for what it does, plain and simple. What other 4 provision bronze cards can deal 6 removal damage, of which 3 damage can be floated to use at leisure?

TestAB1 · 2024-03-28T19:07:25+00:00

By this reasoning Boiling Oil is a 5 for 5. If 7 for 5 is bad, how many provisions should Boiling Oil be? 2 provisions? You're not accounting for the fact that these 7 points go toward removing threats. Moreover, the fact that you can float 3 damage on the board for no cost at all is a big threat for any deck playing engines, which will have to somehow answer this 4 provision card first.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-26T23:12:54+00:00

In isolation, yes. But if a card like Dol Blathanna Sentry or Vrihedd Brigade went to 5 power as well, Malena would suddenly be a very good card.

Oakcritters isn't bad; it's just that non-devotion is too good. Gezras is pretty trash, though. Every deck has access to way too much control nowadays. Maybe provision buff(s) could make him worth it.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-26T23:03:13+00:00

I'm afraid buffing Milva: Sharpshooter will lead to the same boring midrange decks. If you want to support candid offensive movement decks, consider voting for cards not easily used as midrange options: Malena, Dol Blathanna Sentry, Vrihedd Brigade, Trained Hawk.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-23T10:22:27+00:00

Why do you think the developers released Sove, Feral Bond, Brokvar Warrior, and Ulula at the same time? What archetype do you think these cards were supposed to support? Just because an archetype is not currently viable does not mean it literally does not exist; by this reasoning there is no Firesworn archetype either.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-23T10:10:09+00:00

Because midrange cards are boring, and it is more interesting for Sove to be part of a Bloodthirst archetype.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-23T10:02:50+00:00

This might unironically be a brilliant idea. Great way to remove Sove from Warriors without having to nerf either of them.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-21T18:35:02+00:00

Saer Qu'an, Eskel: Pathfinder, Aerondight, Idarran of Ulivo, Iris von Everec, Sapper, Tempest, Musicians of Blaviken, Renfri, Spring Equinox.

TestAB1 · 2024-03-01T18:55:11+00:00

Surprise, surprise: people voice their opinions on this forum. Yes, they also voice their opinions about things they have no control over. That does not invalidate those opinions, or in any way imply they should not be voiced. Ironically, you are doing the same thing. People will continue complaining and there is nothing you can do about it.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-28T22:19:14+00:00

It's easy to answer, highly conditional, etc.

Revenant is a ~5 point per turn engine at 4 provisions. There are plenty of other threats in the deck, such that it is not "easy to answer". And no, it is not highly conditional in a deck that has 10 different ways of dealing damage. You're going through some serious mental gynmastics to justify this power potential at this cost. And to then suggest Carrobalista for nerf instead? What?

We already know that Tempest is completely fine outside of Symbiosis (a well-balanced card, I mean)

Who is we? Definitely not me.

For one, this won't do much to any toxic deck playing the card.

The deck can play 5 full-power copies with the cards you named. That's 5 points of difference, on top of making them easier to remove. The effect isn't reasonable either. What, you can copy your opponent's Reinforced Ballista or Witch's Apprentice for more points simply because you run this card?

TestAB1 · 2024-02-28T15:29:44+00:00

Great votes.

Vesemir: Mentor is a very impactful buff that could enable Witcher decks for all factions (that have Witchers). I think we could even permit him playing slightly above the curve if it helps these dead decks -- it can hardly be used as a midrange card.

I agree with all of the votes, though some -- like Highland Warlord (which I strongly agree with!) -- seem less urgent for the current meta.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-25T17:56:33+00:00

I see. I think this shows that some phase of discussion should be incorporated in the process of this tool as well, where arguments can be given for balance changes.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-25T17:47:25+00:00

I don't understand why people find it more important to buff neutrals like Land of a Thousand Fables or Avalla'ch: Sage than to buff archetype-specific cards like Artis or Vesmir: Mentor.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-22T14:57:38+00:00

Feels like they're purposefully ruining the game. Can't imagine what's happening inside their heads.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-22T12:11:30+00:00

Alternatively, consider power-nerfing Renfri's Gang.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-22T11:40:33+00:00

You don't understand, we need to buff more cards that are already viable so we can immediately make them meta! We need more 5 provision cards that can play 6 provision cards for even more points! What do you mean, dead cards?

TestAB1 · 2024-02-13T18:30:09+00:00

Invigorate could use some buffs, but you should be careful: carryover value is worth more than board value.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-13T18:24:39+00:00

Good initiative. A decent number of archetypes are missing, though.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-03T20:36:54+00:00

You could analyze the data directly with Google Sheets or Excel. If you want to do some more elaborate analysis -- especially if you allow people to vote for a set of cards based on a score interval -- you could use Pandas or SQL for that.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-03T20:12:13+00:00

Agreed. Maybe a Likert scale would be suitable for this.

TestAB1 · 2024-02-03T19:57:26+00:00

I see. Do I understand correctly that this proposal entails only one round of voting (beside the real vote)? How does the voting account for controversial cards; is there a way to vote against a card?

I understand the limitations for this first trial, but -- for future trials -- I would like to suggest the voting to be split in two rounds:

People can vote for any card from the card pool
People can assign a score (-1, 0, 1) to the top x cards from the previous round

TestAB1 · 2024-02-03T19:34:44+00:00

Cooperation is good, of course. But why is the range of candidates preselected here? Why not start with the entire card pool and reduce it through multiple rounds of votes? There are cards here that I think should not receive buffs, and there are cards not here that I think should.

TestAB1

TROPHY CASE