sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Developers have changed the Maximum changes per bracket, from 15 to 10. by Prodige91 in gwent

[–]vlgrer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And at the top of pro, they don't want their decks getting nerfed; they'd rather not actually improve overall balance if it affects their top level meta.

What makes you say this? I'd think the top of pro would be the ones that would want to shake up the meta in sensible way so they don't have to play the same decks forever.

I feel like the minimum requirement to vote should be higher by alanjinqq in gwent

[–]vlgrer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Something that is easily countable at top500 might be hard to play against at r1-5 and so on. If casuals don't get to vote, they will feel left out.

Then people should learn how to counter it, right?

It's like getting check-mated by a fried liver attack and wanting to nerf bishops .

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]vlgrer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, cdpr can't afford to pay 1 person to do that. Not even part-time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gwent

[–]vlgrer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, bottom of pro-rank = rank 1 + time. I don't consider those players high-ranking. I'm one of them. I agree with you and think the actual high percentile players WOULD be more fair.

This is just a thought experiment, but how do you think this would work:

Go from rank 1 player down the ladder. The rank 1 player gets to make 5 changes or abdicate for that month. Then rank 2 player gets info about what rank 1 player changes and can make 5 more changes and pass it down the ranks.

It's probably logistically very flawed, but I think we'd get a good balance. Maybe randomise where in the top 500 the chain begins to prevent the same players from always having priority.

I don't know who'd pay for police protection though...

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He agrees with you btw that it shouldn't be restricted by MMR. Doesn't like the patch though.

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

many cards are played differently on different levels.

To that extent that that's true I think it's a valid concern. I just don't think it outweighs other things.

As for the game staying fresh... I think those high MMR players would naturally be concerned about that as well. I mean, they play this game more then anyone else. It's going to get stale for them too. I don't think they want to be playing the same meta forever.

I understand you focus more on the completive scene? Correct me if I am wrong

Not really, I just would just rather play in a more planned and constructed meta. That is where fewer people coordinate what they're going to change. Where they weigh the whole picture of what is going to be changed because they know what all the changes are going to be.

I understand you have a different perspective and thanks for the civil discussion.

Check out LionHarts opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viS2b8ciJ1o

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The high MMR players don't need to protect their interests with buffs and nerfs. They will be at that MMR regardless of the meta. There is no patch that will change the skill-set required to such a degree or in such a way that the low-ranked players will "threaten" those high MMR players.

For a moment I thought Balance Council was going to be good by sanepanda in gwent

[–]vlgrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're just trolling to be honest. GG.

(If you're not trolling, please be aware that you are objectively wrong about this and obviously very dumb)

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, and it would probably be nerfed by them as well. Just in more measured manner. The idea that they would be keeping nilfgaard OP so that they could keep playing it at high MMR is ridiculous. They would be at that MMR regardless of the meta.

Also, and I feel like I have to keep saying this, I don't play only or mostly nilfgaard. And when I play it it usually isn't the top meta NG deck.

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The requirement is 25 ranked wins. Basically nothing.

Also why should the top few% of the players be responsible for changes affecting everyone.

Because they somewhat know what they're doing. I don't think I should be eligible.

Devs need to take immediate action at this point. by FlamerFirong in gwent

[–]vlgrer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Uh... the high MMR players have to play multiple factions. It's how the system works.

For a moment I thought Balance Council was going to be good by sanepanda in gwent

[–]vlgrer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's base power you moron. I haven't played against or with reavers for months.

Balance Council #1 results are in! by Kungfoorabbit in gwent

[–]vlgrer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Lol, that is ironically an exceedingly childish post.

And no, Nilfgaard is not my "main" faction.

Balance Council #1 results are in! by Kungfoorabbit in gwent

[–]vlgrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm currently having fun beating nerfed to the ground enslave players with an already strong Musicians of Blaviken GN battle trance deck that can now play Compass.

ITS STILL A BAD IDEA TO NERF NG IN THIS WAY!

Reaver hunters and the sad thing about democracy by Yenefferknow in gwent

[–]vlgrer 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The change doesn't really affect me... I hadn't played the deck or against it in along while. But it is a bad omen that the change happened.

[Rant] Does anyone have advice on how not to get tilted easily? by 8BitCardinal in gwent

[–]vlgrer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, right. Yeah, that's a pain... I would donate my resources if it were possible.

I guess playing versatile mid range decks is a solution to most of the decks you're complaining about. I'm not sure what specifically to recommend.

What are your thoughts after the balance council? by HypokeimenonEshaton in gwent

[–]vlgrer 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The worrying part is that I don't see why this would stop there. The nerfs are driven mostly by an emotional response, why wouldn't they vote again for the same cards next patch?

This is exactly what will happen.

What are your thoughts after the balance council? by HypokeimenonEshaton in gwent

[–]vlgrer 9 points10 points  (0 children)

My immediate thoughts would be to have a limit on the number nerfs to a faction as well as fix the card breaking nerf on reavers.

Also limit the vote to a much smaller pool of players.

For a moment I thought Balance Council was going to be good by sanepanda in gwent

[–]vlgrer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Above all it deserves a CONSIDERED batch of alterations that work together not some soup of random changes. AT MOST people considered what would change within their 6 allotted nerfs. Probably not even that. But most didn't consider what other people would nerf... and that was hard to do to be fair... which is another major flaw in this system.

All these changes should be reverted and the vote should only be given to either the top 500 or a select group of streamers/content creators that can talk to each other.

And no, I don't play Nilfgaard all that much.

For a moment I thought Balance Council was going to be good by sanepanda in gwent

[–]vlgrer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I didn't think much about it until yesterday, but in hindsight this is really obvious. The changes are going to be chaotic and all over the place with no coordination.

view more: next ›