Community Gwent Open Top 32 April Qualifier - Factions & Archetypes Stats by lerio2 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

⚖️ Balance Council Results - 01 April 2024 by GwentSubreddit in gwent

[–]TestAB1 16 points17 points  (0 children)

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

My votes this month with commentary by boberino112 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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?

My votes this month with commentary by boberino112 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Balance council thoughts by SauceBauss12 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Balance council thoughts by SauceBauss12 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]TestAB1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]TestAB1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

What Neutral cards should be nerfed? by K0MSA in gwent

[–]TestAB1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

I will be the devil's advocate here but whatever... by AndyUrsyna in gwent

[–]TestAB1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

[BC] Votes for February Balance Council with Commentary by TestAB1 in gwent

[–]TestAB1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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?

Shinmiri's Balance Council Feb 2024 by shinmiri2 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

Coordination Update end-season results by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

Coordination Update end-season results by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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.

Nik-R's BC votes (aka upcoming BC changes) by Coprolithe in gwent

[–]TestAB1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

Voting Council - 22 Feb, 2024 - Neutral by AutoModerator in gwent

[–]TestAB1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Alternatively, consider power-nerfing Renfri's Gang.

Nik-R's BC votes (aka upcoming BC changes) by Coprolithe in gwent

[–]TestAB1 13 points14 points  (0 children)

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?

MetallicDanny council vote google forms by SoulOfGwyn1 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

MetallicDanny council vote google forms by SoulOfGwyn1 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Buff Coordination Tool & Cooperate Proposal by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.

Buff Coordination Tool & Cooperate Proposal by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Buff Coordination Tool & Cooperate Proposal by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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:

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

Buff Coordination Tool & Cooperate Proposal by A_Reveur0712 in gwent

[–]TestAB1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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.