60 is far too many. Not only that, but I pulled a few new elf cards yesterday, and to see them on this list is a shame. I didnt know they were hated that much, but I guess I haven't been around for as long as others have. Hopefully I can still make my "Go Elf Yourself" deck work lol Also you mentioned you wanted to change how Vesemir works, how would you change him? Thanks again for being awesome, and sharing all the best info and gameplay for Gwent!
I think 60 changes per month is far too many, as you said it may be the case that the maximum is not reached every month, but hopefully they will reduce the maximum to 10 in each category while the dev team is having a look at how it all works
Yeah, the nerf hammer here is a little ridiculous. And 60 is WAY too many changes. I had 30+ decks ready to play and EVERY SINGLE ONE now needs changes to make it playable. That's too much damn work just to have fun, especially if were gonna have to go through this shit every month.
I'd rather, we get more buff slots than nerfs.. Also reducing the amount of changes will mean, it will take longer to fix the shitshow we have in our hands right now I'm an NR main, but even I think siege should be 14 prov vilge was perfect at 9 prov, not killing reavers would be great even though it's not enjoyable To play aginst, compass to 10 prov etc So I don't think limiting the amount of changes is a good idea
I think there should be a secondary vote after the first. One vote decides how many get on the ballot, then we vote on which ones out of the ones selected actually end up going through. They could change the second vote to a simple yes/no or put a cap on how many changes go through.
Sounds good. In addition limit the combined nerfs , i.e. Limit nerfs per fraction. So group the first round votes by fraction and then select within this group
The devs *simply must* add Ciri/GN type safety nets for cards with abilities reliant on their base power… Besides reavers (which were easy to ruin bc it was only 1 power away from 1), _self-eater, chameleon, and sorceress of dol blathanna_ could all be destroyed by trolls 🤦♂️ Maybe something as simple as “at the beginning of the match set base power to ______”
The problem with Magic Compass is that in the 2nd form, it gives you to choose FROM ALL the legendaries that are not from your deck. And with the amount of thinning 1 have, especially with SK, you know how it is. I think a change would be if it gives you to choose 1 of 3 legendary cards that are not in your deck. (5 if you play earlier Runemage, duh)
Or maybe it's possible to make a system, where in each category it is available to change only per one card for each faction. So then it will 24 cards a month, and it will be not possible to destroy some archetype or to make something overpowered, by too many changes (how it was now with destroying of Nilfgaard)
For all the slack the game devs copped, it took only one fan-voted patch to show that the people complaining have even less of a clue on how to properly balance the game.
I guess, this will be complete chaos. People just vote because they hate or like this or that, not taking into account the whole picture. Some nerfs or buffs might be multiplying, and I kinda don't think that voters think about this too much. There should be a vote quota for every faction, not like half of the nerfs for one faction.
60 changes is far, far too many. I confess that I didn't read the Gwentfinity Q&A properly and thought it would only be 3 cards in each category getting changes (12 in total). Decks in Gwent only need a couple of provisions or points shaved off to get significantly weaker: what we've seen with some of these changes to NG and SY is utterly ridiculous.
This is not working. People are choosing cards for patch, because: "I'm losing, because of that card", without understanding how specific build is working. It's to much, it's mess.
What we need is tournamant-style vote. Since we can only vote 1 per patch, when people think they are nerfing 1 card from archytype, it ends up nerfing multiple card in single archytype.
After seeing the list, I think we might need to elect representatives to cast votes for fewer cards, instead of the pure democratic system we have currently. Trolls and people with blind rage should not be allowed to have so much control over the game, because hatred of an archetype is a much stronger emotion than love for a certain archetype. Only Viy and Revenants felt much love, I thought. Also, I'm pretty sure Dosen's followers were the ones behind the Vigo and Braathens buffs. I read his list and thought there were bigger fish to fry, but I didn't know there would SIXTY changes. That's madness
I really want to believe that the nerfs to Nilfgaard are the product of the community recognizing that the faction has several strong archetypes that in recent times have been Seen a little too often, but being unable to agree how to exactly address those issues, resulting in so many different NG nerfs going through, however from what I can see on the discord and Reddit communities, this feels more like a trolly attack on the entire faction in the name of jokes and memes, and if this is truly the community that we are stuck being, we won’t have a game left to play for very long. Mark my words.
60 changes per month are too much if the community is planning to ruin archetypes and cards, but 60 good changes can genuinely shift and balance the meta very well, so I'm hoping for less hate unlike the NG, Vice and Reavers treatment even tho i don't play them as much but it doesn't make any sense killing cards just for the sake of avoiding them
Honestly I woulds restrict voting to just pro ladder. Which is not even defficult to reach as long as you don't play troll decks. And the top 100 players should have thier votes counted x2. I would also reduce the amount of changes, andoerhaps clasify them to 2 max per archetype. That way, soldiers would not get 5+ nerffs, make it non existant.
First of all, love your work! I agree with you on your conclusions to why most of the votes happened. I think the developers should think of an oppurtunity to have an insight of what cards are voted most currently, so we can decide if we really wanna delete whole types. For example i voted for the Battle Stations nerf and the Slave Driver nerf, if i had a clue of what else got nerfed/buffed i might have taken different votes or only voted for one of the things.
def 10 changes per category is not only more likely to be reached but might only convince more people to vote since you've only so many changes in each category. Though that last point is the weaker of the two. Given however, your idea that some of the changes will be dedicated to reversing previous changes it might not be a weak a point as I think
Hello Mr lion i havent been active on your comments in a long time but i am here now to probably say goodbye like 80% of gwent players.. I cant belive this. all those hours wasted. i have 4 accounts and just logged on to my NG and all my decks have an X over them 30+ decks all needs to be changed. i dont even dare open the rest of my accounts and check.. i thought they would make max 5 change each month and they would take cards like field medic and herbalist to make them playable! I had no idea they would ruin gwent? i couldnt even imagine it could be this bad. i hope in a month they will take ALL the changes back and start again. Cause gwent is gone next year if they dont. I hope they do so we can all return to gwent again otherwise i dont see myself playing it anymore.
I feel like a lot of these over-nerfing problems could be solved if you could see what cards has been voted for in what categories, so people could coordinate better
Got to remember that a big majority of the playerbase are not English speaking and that they also have their own voting preferences in their communities which would explain some of the surprise changes we're seeing.
Completely! And I'm delighted to see that they're still around, organised and engaged too. I don't want the balance council to feel skewed to one community or other, I just think if we actually want the game not to fall apart in a matter of months we need to collaborate across all of us 😁👍 Thank you for the comment!
Hi Lion Hart. My own take is that the number of possible changes per month (i.e., those that meet a vote threshold) should stay large. Maybe not necessarily 60, maybe more buffs than nerfs (if possible), but definitely not an arbitrarily low number (like 5 per category). If Gwentfinity is going to succeed, players need to feel like their vote matters, like they can actually influence things. The smaller the number, the less influence we have. There are so many power crept cards players would love to see buffed to playability, and that becomes slower and more difficult (to organize) the smaller the number is-especially if (as looks likely) we have to spend a lot of slots each patch on reverting bad changes from previous patches. Players will lose interest and leave if the pace of change is too slow, or feel there’s no hope of seeing changes that aren’t widely popular to begin with. We have to accept the bad with the good. I’d rather deal with bad votes and trolling, but feel I can do something about it, then feel like the number of possible changes is so small that my vote has no real influence.
This scares me. Way too many cards - maximum 40 if not less, because if every month 60 cards change, so many things will break, you have to spend time rebuilding all the decks you liked to play, only for them all to change again a month later >< With 20-40, only the most agreed upon cards will get changed and it’ll be less likely to destroy a whole archetype in one go. I also wonder how many votes the lowest voted cards got and which those were - in the list they were listed just by provision and not by most voted, so to make up 15 cards per category perhaps those cards on the fringes had minimal votes in comparison and thus were perhaps not as well informed choices? (Or does a list exist with the highest>lowest votes?) Thanks for the video as always ^^
Due to the reaver scout buff, and siege prov buffs, there’s currently an absolutely insane siege reaver scout mutagenerator hybrid that can beat engine decks 2-0 while being down 2 cards r2
60 is a lot of changes. Also, we need a better tool to change cards, something that can use properly all the key words we have in gwent so we can actually do significant balances insted of just +1/-1 power/provisions changes
Do you know what the effect of changing the 25 wins threshold would be? My feeling is that it wouldn't be much different. Just fewer votes but about the same outcome.
In theory the less players voting, the less divergence there would be. That doesn't necessarily mean the smaller group of voters would actually have better ideas though.
I assume that the number of players voting will anyway go down from month to month. In few month we will see much less than 60 changes. Also I still believe that the results of the voting will become better with some experience. Also the proposed two rounds of voting would be very helpful. It could have avoided a lot of the current mess which we have to fix now with the next BC.
60 is just insane amount of cards per month. I assume that even 10 cards in each category is too many (40 all together). But 5 in each category will be perfect (20 in total)
That might be a little too little. Maybe let’s try 40 first before we press the trigger on going down that low. 60 might be too much if cards like black Rayla and nithral are getting in
To comment a second time. I think the fans are now seeing how difficult it actually is to fix perceived issues. So many of these nerfed archetypes weren’t at all suffocating. People must learn to reflect on their playing and realize that just because they fail to win against a deck doesn’t mean it is “cheap”. I almost think it should be limited to two cards in each section so people have to really think their choices through and can’t just emotionally destroy the game they love.
Did the devs not consider giving control of the game to a voluntary group of devs from the community eg youtubers, streamers well known pros etc. This might avoid the idiocy of the general community
It was at least briefly discussed but that had as many problems. Who? How do we know they'll stay? Why should only they get it? Other players will feel ignored and therefore not play or send hate to those players etc. I like the idea for actual balance don't get me wrong I just think it wouldn't have worked perception wise. 😔
I agree, the community is stupid and don't understand what balance is. It should only be a select few that truly understand all factions and are not petty.
My fave ST Control deck seems to have escaped changed apart from a tiny bit of power... But fuck it all if this just doesn't take out a lot of choice in Gwent
Personally no but it's on the edge of it. The extra waylay it spawns and value of that engine is under estimated in my mind. Haunt and Passiflora for me are 13p ATM but I could see the arguement
Hey man, you mentioned being able to pass on feedback to CDPR, and there's one last bug that needs to be fixed. We can't get seasonal cycle quests early (instead of waiting many hours) by paying 45 ore for them. It says you don't have enough ore even if you have thousands like me. If this isn't fixed it'll mean slower progression towards level 250 for the cardback.
Hey! Thanks for letting me know. It's a bug I'm also experiencing and that they're aware of. I know it's being looked at so hopefully it'll get resolved 🤞
@@LionHartCards Cool! Thanks for letting me know. I also just remembered that the wrong journey music nearly always plays. So that's another bug. It's weird hearing the gross siren sounds from Alzur's playing when you have say the Aretuza loading screen equipped for example. Oh, and they should fix the broken interactions Specimen was using last night for over 400 points in round 3. It involves a few cards, but some used were operator, haeymay protector, Dagur, and onslaught giving nearly 200 armour for Vlodimir and Iris: Shade.
60 cards is a reasonably good number. It allows for refreshing the meta and correcting oppressive decks. And since (after this last hurrah) we don't have to worry about the precious feelings of delicate pro players, a little jostling and elbowing can be a good thing. If anything, I'd call for MORE VOTES. Same setup, but one set of 12 for Bronze and one set of 12 for Gold and Leaders. This would make people seriously consider the under-powered cards at the bottom (Little Bird, Cursed Damsel, Pearl Diver, etc.) instead of only thinking about their favorite or most hated Golds. Look at the lists on the screen behind you. The changes are 80% fiddling with the nuances of mostly upper-level Golds. That does not lead to any useful balance, which is ostensibly the purpose of the Council. We need to get all of our 4p Bronzes into the same basic realm of 7/4. The more cards that we have that are viable, the more variety of decks and archetypes can be played. Another less ideal but less complicated solution would be keeping the 12-vote system, but mandating that at least 6 of the votes are for Bronze cards. This would make people stop and think about which Gold cards *really* need messed with, instead of hacking down entire decks and archetypes with a rusty machete.
I had all my Provision Increases by voting for the obvious (Uprising, Battle Stations and Slave Driver), yet I got none of my Provision Decreases (Yennefer: Conjurer, Braenn and Madoc) of which I'm surprised that Braenn didn't get it. My Power increases were Cutup Lackey, Vesemir and Crowmother and to no ones surprise only Cutup Lackey didn't make it. If not for Truzky, that Vesemir would have been 3 votes for Griffin Witcher Adept. My Power Decreases only worked for the single vote for Angus Bri Cri, as my other 2 votes were for Udalryk An Brokvar (3) and Knut The Callous (2), but thanks to the Sigvald provision nerf I am kind of reliefed that Knut didn't come through. Therefore I will simply repeat some votes (Braenn, Madoc and Udalryk) and give some extra power to the losing Bare Knuckle Brawler and Admiral Rompally. I somewhat view the Provision nerf to Bare Knuckle Brawler as a win if the Power Increase comes through, because I'm anxious to see Intimidate come back and it really misses good 5 Provision cards since Halfling SafeCracker lost it's Intimidate.
Lion, please keep making this series, it’s important to explain everything to people who clearly don’t know what they are doing. I’m sorry but those changes are ABYSMAL.
I totally agree with most of what you say and Im also a bit afraid of the amount of nerfs to archetypes and think 60 Changes is just too much. BUT im also happy to maybe not face Ng in more than every second match and also if i had a Button that said "Delete Reaver Hunters" i would ve pressed it so this change to make the card broken doesnt make me sad tbh :D
There are many things wrong with wha you are suggesting. If you are willing to delete cards that you find annoying where do you draw the line? It seems clear that for some people deleting an entire faction doesn’t count as crossing said line, and this will kill the game if it continues, in less than a year, no less.
@@er4din903 Yea I agree that this patch already pushed it really far in terms of nerfing a whole Archetype or even multiple at that, which has me worried about further nerfs. But maybe there are enough People that feel the same as me and just really want Cards like Traehorn and Reavers (and personally also cultists - fk them xD) gone and are fine with that. After my month of not seeing NG that much i would totally be okay with buffing a few Cards back or push alternative NG archetypes. Syndicate/Vice i also dislke but didnt vote to nerf it because it felt annoying to play against but not too op.
I have been playing this game since beta and its sad to see what people are doing to nilfgard when it isn’t even in an oppressive state. That being said, i think 20 changes is plenty per round. Really make people prioritize what they want changed. More chance of splitting the vote as well which will help keep trolls from overly affecting the polls. 😂
Most players in ladder myself included i only hit pro rank once and when i did hit pro ranked i didnt play as much but i see why they hammered NG hard this batch im currently on 4-5 all i play against before gwentfinity patch are NGs assimilates or statuses 80% of the time with my homebrew decks and its not fun
All in all I think it’s possible to salvage Nilfgaard in the next patch, by doing at least 3 of the 4 following things: Revert the Rompally change, Revert the stefan skellen change Buff nauzicaa to 5 prov Buff enslave leader up to 15 again. Keep everything else. The changes that remain would spread quite evenly across the archetypes. That way the lock package got more expensive and less power, the slave driver -> nauzicaa stayed equally expensive but has less power over all, enslave tactics has less power but still playable, and status is notably weaker still.
With all these frequent votings and changing makes the game so hassle to play now. Seeing 2-3 of your decks not able to use due to Provision requirements. And have to spend time again to rebuild the decks
Too many nerfs, not enough buffs, so I’d like for them allow more prov decreases & power increases but less of the other two. In regards to the changes, I’m fairly happy with them but some questionable ones. Personally hate anything golden nekker related so compass will be straight to the top of my provision nerfs next vote. The insane flexibility and the way it cheats the provision restriction of GN, I think is not good for the game. That ‘pirates’ GN list is just boring midrange nonsense imo - no theme or synergy between most of the cards (see random axel & unicorns in a ‘pirate deck’ as prime example) just whatever can slam the most points. Pirates has a proper archetype with scenario, Crach & Hjalmar etc. i don’t see why this list is a thing that people like it.
5 per category is fine, 60 is utter chaos AND possibility of somewhat biased crazy nerfs as we can see. In one patch bunch of deck was literally obliterated and now unplayable: Vices, Enslave 6, NG soldiers, aristocrats.
I think 60 changes is way too many but rather than destroying certain factions/archetypes can we not just have a leader banning voting system for a month and then whatever was banned for the month is immune for the next months voting?
overall I was happy with the changes, but yeah there were a couple I thought were ridiculous, Reavers, eternal eclipse and Viy are my biggest question marks, especially Reavers, an example of why letting people with no balancing experience just throw their weight around is asking for trouble. The fact we have the power to break cards is terrifying for the future. Also yeah I do think 60 changes per month is way too much.
60 is just too many, but the real problem is that half of those are nerfs. When there are many many times more cards that need a buff rather than nerf...
I like a lot of the buffs, but the nerfs went way overboard, I think that some were justified (battle stations, torres, calveit) but everything else went too far, it pretty much killed NG. Personally I think that gwent had more bad cards than good cards, so it'd be better if a maximum of 5 cards would get nerfed each patch, and no more than 2 from the same faction, and maybe like 15-20 buffs. This might be a little controversial but I think it would be better to limit the pool of people who can vote to pro players, and have an ability to see how many people are voting for what cards before voting ends.
In my opinion, 60 changes per month is way too many. You can have an archetype completely destroyed with just two or three provision or power changes,. It also doesn't allow for a smooth evolution of the game experience.
People seems to be buffing and nerfing I think from PTSD a few seasons ago. My most suprising things - No AQ, Sabbath changes despite 142 points in 4 turns. People calling for weavess buffs - Calm down. All the GN buffs xD. GN beasts is insane now.
Been watching a few of your videos of late but sheesh, what a weird time to start playing gwent... Level 42, only been playing about a month or so after not playing since launch but Gwentfinity has been a ride for an opener. Glad to be along for the ride though keep up your great stuff.
One of the few streaming personality in the gwent community that is well articulate and rounded with his thoughts on the balance of the game, I fully agree and support your points. Hats off to you sir, please continue making important videos like this calling out bad decisions and questionable changes.
I think some cards are just terrible for the game, trahearn being one of them, vilgefortz being another, these cards can win the game in one turn which makes playing the game pointless, therefore I don’t think they can be overnerfed if the majority of people feel the same way. Cultists didn’t really need another nerf imo but again it’s a deck that can feel hopeless to play against, as can reavers in some match ups so I think it’s overall healthy for the game, reducing binary decks and encouraging more variety into the meta is surely the best direction in balancing
This is going to devolve into a tit for tat battle of 'you ruined my faction, so I shall ruin yours' and kill the game. Democracy sucks the big cheesy one.
I just got back into this game after years, and everything is different. Now they are going to change everything again?....Maybe I shouldn't have started playing again, lol.
It is pity people who actively play the game want a whole archetype (reavers) gone just because they have a PTSD from it when it was competitive a while back. The pitchforks are drawn.
I see a lot of overreacting today. We got some expected changes, some unexpected and some weird ones. NG Enslave, NG Status and SY Vice obviously the looser of the first balancing council. NR seems to be on the other end. My perception of the day might be that Power and Provision changes will not satisfy me and I will really miss new cards and reworks. 😢
Rather than malevolence, i guess its disorganization that caused so big NG nerfs. I think philippe is the worst, i vote philippe. You think battle stations is the worst, you vote that. Bang, we have two nerfs where one wouldve sufficed. Reaver case was just stupid. And why is everyone talking about ng ball? Sy vice got hit much harder really. I for one am glad to see ball down in the mud. Theres too much of it, and its way too oppressive. Pretty much like playing against reavers if they were good. Some say at higher levels of play its not that good. Would be nice if somebody (you?😊) did a NG beating guide.
Among MANY others. This was inevitable in the first change.... Now our job is to remember to fix some of this and try to achieve some form of "balance". Even if it takes a while. :)
@@georgemengon8694 I understand your point of view. But I do believe that with 60 changes we will have plenty of votes that will be improvised and will have no sense. And that's not healthy, either.
Bailing on playing gwent now but I'll still tune into the streams. No point investing in an archetype if its going to get deleted. Rip reavers. Congrats on the wedding!
Too much focus on control decks in my opinion, too much focus on nilfgaard and meta decks. If they're expecting people to run only "chill" lists with no control at all in order to vomit points/have their same strategy working every game they're very, very wrong. Gwent is about adapting your strategy against an archetype that you know (predict moves, bait), not repeating the same strat over and over. Other thing is there are way too many changes on one patch. Reducing this number should save us some archetypes and point out real problems, but reducing too much won't allow us to buff cards that need to. Something like percentage rate of card use could help us a lot in taking decisions! On top of everything, I believe that this first patch was bad BUT it was the first time that we, the community, take decisions, and I think that it was a clumsy and new experience for us. No need to rush by saying "oh gwenfinity is bad" cause it's not, you'll see.
I mean you should share your own changes before and influence players changes if you want Gwent to more healthy. You have the power to do so but you didnt 😢. You guys with Shimiri, Mosh etc. Should unite and talk about it.
I agree I should have shared my votes here earlier and elsewhere too. I did on Twitch and discord alot but not visually like some did. I like the idea of a creators round table to discuss our thoughts each month going forward. I'll see what happens 🤔
Wow, I disagree with most this guy says lol . .I guess it's because I'm a casual player and not really care about the win rates of decks when it comes to top 10s, 50s and what have you...NR reavers, NG cultists, SK self-wound, NG status, SY vice, NR melitele temple and the SC heist are all in the category of most annoying decks to play against. Annoying, not fun, and central when it comes to shaping the meta because when you build a deck you always need to include cards that can answer them or else you have a miserable time, not just an auto-lose. No one likes losing but some losses like when you learn something or when you lose by the last card played by a margin of a couple of points can be cool, interesting and a good sport. Losing to a stupid cultist deck by a million points or to any of those aforementioned billion points/damage decks is neither educating or fun. The only card that I don't like seeing in the lists is magic compass getting a buff and I agree with the guys' suggestion (second form with adrenaline etc) but since we cannot change that, or Calveit triggering only if you have let say at least 7 tactics in your deck or something for that matter, a buff is asking for trouble I think. Overall I like the changes and I don't think any are stupid. If the community thinks that a card should not exist with its current text at least (reaver) - that is OK, destroying a card is not some sort of taboo anyway, admitting that a card should not exist in the first place is OK! Even the guy says this about Trahaern - although I again disagree with him on the particular card. Instead this should be considered as a message sent by the players to the developers to change the text of said card. Finally, I really like the idea of council voting and I think more games should take this as an example of how to balance a game like Gwent. I am only a little sad that it came this late, this together with the developers working on the cards after the suggestions/messages made/sent by the people (the council) since an earlier time would have been ideal in my view.
"I voted for this" in case of compass. good joke. Truzky showed you all WHY compass was never supposed to be in golden nekker list. This was the changed that destroyed everything
That's demonstrably untrue. The card is good. Great even. But it's significantly over performing right now ok patch day and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and I'll explain why. The vast majority of the meta decks were decimated to unplayability. The average player doesn't build decks we'll and especially not on patch day, even more so this kind of patch. The list is one that already existed and got buffed with Roach too. Losing provisions in the deck is a statement, but the deck quite literally WANTS to discard dead cards anyway. To claim it's the most busted thing ever because of that is just silly Trusky is also a brilliant player and would now through people on patch day usually too. It didn't "destroy everything". It became playable while everything else became unplayable. 🤷♂️
To be honest Im out of Gwent for like, 2 or 3 months. But in the last few weeks I have been following this new system and seeing different opinions cause I thought would be a interesting addition to the game. Now that I see the results, Im really disappointed with the mediocrity and total lack of basic knowledge of the game. I really hope they change the amount of changes available per patch and really really hope that people follow some of Geralt's most precious and basic teachings: Rationality and Neutrality
“This video should hopefully be 10-15 minutes” 😂
I can't believe noone else called me out on this 😂
"I want to keep this condensed" going strong at 19min 😂
60 is far too many. Not only that, but I pulled a few new elf cards yesterday, and to see them on this list is a shame. I didnt know they were hated that much, but I guess I haven't been around for as long as others have. Hopefully I can still make my "Go Elf Yourself" deck work lol
Also you mentioned you wanted to change how Vesemir works, how would you change him?
Thanks again for being awesome, and sharing all the best info and gameplay for Gwent!
I think 60 changes per month is far too many, as you said it may be the case that the maximum is not reached every month, but hopefully they will reduce the maximum to 10 in each category while the dev team is having a look at how it all works
I was thinking the same thing.
The number of buffs might even be okay. The amount of nerfs seem to be the problem.
Yeah, the nerf hammer here is a little ridiculous. And 60 is WAY too many changes. I had 30+ decks ready to play and EVERY SINGLE ONE now needs changes to make it playable. That's too much damn work just to have fun, especially if were gonna have to go through this shit every month.
This seems to be the most common opinion at the moment!
I'd rather, we get more buff slots than nerfs..
Also reducing the amount of changes will mean, it will take longer to fix the shitshow we have in our hands right now
I'm an NR main, but even I think siege should be 14 prov vilge was perfect at 9 prov, not killing reavers would be great even though it's not enjoyable
To play aginst, compass to 10 prov etc
So I don't think limiting the amount of changes is a good idea
I think there should be a secondary vote after the first. One vote decides how many get on the ballot, then we vote on which ones out of the ones selected actually end up going through. They could change the second vote to a simple yes/no or put a cap on how many changes go through.
This exactly, these 60 make it onto the ballot and then another round of voting for the best 5 in each category.
I wish the system was capable of this :(
Sounds good. In addition limit the combined nerfs , i.e. Limit nerfs per fraction. So group the first round votes by fraction and then select within this group
The devs *simply must* add Ciri/GN type safety nets for cards with abilities reliant on their base power…
Besides reavers (which were easy to ruin bc it was only 1 power away from 1), _self-eater, chameleon, and sorceress of dol blathanna_ could all be destroyed by trolls 🤦♂️
Maybe something as simple as “at the beginning of the match set base power to ______”
The problem with Magic Compass is that in the 2nd form, it gives you to choose FROM ALL the legendaries that are not from your deck. And with the amount of thinning 1 have, especially with SK, you know how it is. I think a change would be if it gives you to choose 1 of 3 legendary cards that are not in your deck. (5 if you play earlier Runemage, duh)
Or maybe it's possible to make a system, where in each category it is available to change only per one card for each faction. So then it will 24 cards a month, and it will be not possible to destroy some archetype or to make something overpowered, by too many changes (how it was now with destroying of Nilfgaard)
If I’m not mistaken a youtuber called dosen casual gamer who is a big assimilate player advocated for vigo and brathens changes
Thanks. I'll yell at him when I talk to him next 😉
For all the slack the game devs copped, it took only one fan-voted patch to show that the people complaining have even less of a clue on how to properly balance the game.
I guess, this will be complete chaos. People just vote because they hate or like this or that, not taking into account the whole picture. Some nerfs or buffs might be multiplying, and I kinda don't think that voters think about this too much.
There should be a vote quota for every faction, not like half of the nerfs for one faction.
60 changes is far, far too many. I confess that I didn't read the Gwentfinity Q&A properly and thought it would only be 3 cards in each category getting changes (12 in total). Decks in Gwent only need a couple of provisions or points shaved off to get significantly weaker: what we've seen with some of these changes to NG and SY is utterly ridiculous.
This is not working. People are choosing cards for patch, because: "I'm losing, because of that card", without understanding how specific build is working. It's to much, it's mess.
18 nerfs for Nilfgaard. Ridiculous!
Gwent is dead
@@shaunari Maybe! But I'm not gonna leave it any time soon. But these changes have blown my mind away, especially NG changes.
Your continuous struggle has grown amusing!
I agree
The peasants are revolting. Also, they hate Nilfgaard.
What we need is tournamant-style vote. Since we can only vote 1 per patch, when people think they are nerfing 1 card from archytype, it ends up nerfing multiple card in single archytype.
Sadly it's too late to make these kind of changes to the system. :( But I agree this would have been good!
It should become a tradition to buff Vesemir each time, it would be really funny to have him like 8-9 power
After seeing the list, I think we might need to elect representatives to cast votes for fewer cards, instead of the pure democratic system we have currently. Trolls and people with blind rage should not be allowed to have so much control over the game, because hatred of an archetype is a much stronger emotion than love for a certain archetype. Only Viy and Revenants felt much love, I thought.
Also, I'm pretty sure Dosen's followers were the ones behind the Vigo and Braathens buffs. I read his list and thought there were bigger fish to fry, but I didn't know there would SIXTY changes. That's madness
I really want to believe that the nerfs to Nilfgaard are the product of the community recognizing that the faction has several strong archetypes that in recent times have been Seen a little too often, but being unable to agree how to exactly address those issues, resulting in so many different NG nerfs going through, however from what I can see on the discord and Reddit communities, this feels more like a trolly attack on the entire faction in the name of jokes and memes, and if this is truly the community that we are stuck being, we won’t have a game left to play for very long. Mark my words.
60 changes per month are too much if the community is planning to ruin archetypes and cards, but 60 good changes can genuinely shift and balance the meta very well, so I'm hoping for less hate unlike the NG, Vice and Reavers treatment even tho i don't play them as much but it doesn't make any sense killing cards just for the sake of avoiding them
Honestly I woulds restrict voting to just pro ladder. Which is not even defficult to reach as long as you don't play troll decks. And the top 100 players should have thier votes counted x2.
I would also reduce the amount of changes, andoerhaps clasify them to 2 max per archetype. That way, soldiers would not get 5+ nerffs, make it non existant.
First of all, love your work! I agree with you on your conclusions to why most of the votes happened. I think the developers should think of an oppurtunity to have an insight of what cards are voted most currently, so we can decide if we really wanna delete whole types. For example i voted for the Battle Stations nerf and the Slave Driver nerf, if i had a clue of what else got nerfed/buffed i might have taken different votes or only voted for one of the things.
def 10 changes per category is not only more likely to be reached but might only convince more people to vote since you've only so many changes in each category. Though that last point is the weaker of the two. Given however, your idea that some of the changes will be dedicated to reversing previous changes it might not be a weak a point as I think
Hello Mr lion i havent been active on your comments in a long time but i am here now to probably say goodbye like 80% of gwent players.. I cant belive this. all those hours wasted. i have 4 accounts and just logged on to my NG and all my decks have an X over them 30+ decks all needs to be changed. i dont even dare open the rest of my accounts and check.. i thought they would make max 5 change each month and they would take cards like field medic and herbalist to make them playable! I had no idea they would ruin gwent? i couldnt even imagine it could be this bad. i hope in a month they will take ALL the changes back and start again. Cause gwent is gone next year if they dont. I hope they do so we can all return to gwent again otherwise i dont see myself playing it anymore.
I feel like a lot of these over-nerfing problems could be solved if you could see what cards has been voted for in what categories, so people could coordinate better
This could help solve some of the language barrier problems too
Got to remember that a big majority of the playerbase are not English speaking and that they also have their own voting preferences in their communities which would explain some of the surprise changes we're seeing.
Completely! And I'm delighted to see that they're still around, organised and engaged too.
I don't want the balance council to feel skewed to one community or other, I just think if we actually want the game not to fall apart in a matter of months we need to collaborate across all of us 😁👍
Thank you for the comment!
Hi Lion Hart. My own take is that the number of possible changes per month (i.e., those that meet a vote threshold) should stay large. Maybe not necessarily 60, maybe more buffs than nerfs (if possible), but definitely not an arbitrarily low number (like 5 per category).
If Gwentfinity is going to succeed, players need to feel like their vote matters, like they can actually influence things. The smaller the number, the less influence we have. There are so many power crept cards players would love to see buffed to playability, and that becomes slower and more difficult (to organize) the smaller the number is-especially if (as looks likely) we have to spend a lot of slots each patch on reverting bad changes from previous patches. Players will lose interest and leave if the pace of change is too slow, or feel there’s no hope of seeing changes that aren’t widely popular to begin with.
We have to accept the bad with the good. I’d rather deal with bad votes and trolling, but feel I can do something about it, then feel like the number of possible changes is so small that my vote has no real influence.
This scares me. Way too many cards - maximum 40 if not less, because if every month 60 cards change, so many things will break, you have to spend time rebuilding all the decks you liked to play, only for them all to change again a month later ><
With 20-40, only the most agreed upon cards will get changed and it’ll be less likely to destroy a whole archetype in one go.
I also wonder how many votes the lowest voted cards got and which those were - in the list they were listed just by provision and not by most voted, so to make up 15 cards per category perhaps those cards on the fringes had minimal votes in comparison and thus were perhaps not as well informed choices? (Or does a list exist with the highest>lowest votes?)
Thanks for the video as always ^^
Due to the reaver scout buff, and siege prov buffs, there’s currently an absolutely insane siege reaver scout mutagenerator hybrid that can beat engine decks 2-0 while being down 2 cards r2
60 is a lot of changes. Also, we need a better tool to change cards, something that can use properly all the key words we have in gwent so we can actually do significant balances insted of just +1/-1 power/provisions changes
Reavers should had a nerf like adding the tag barricade. Breaking the card is really idiotic
Do you know what the effect of changing the 25 wins threshold would be? My feeling is that it wouldn't be much different. Just fewer votes but about the same outcome.
In theory the less players voting, the less divergence there would be.
That doesn't necessarily mean the smaller group of voters would actually have better ideas though.
I assume that the number of players voting will anyway go down from month to month. In few month we will see much less than 60 changes. Also I still believe that the results of the voting will become better with some experience. Also the proposed two rounds of voting would be very helpful. It could have avoided a lot of the current mess which we have to fix now with the next BC.
@@LionHartCardsI'm not really looking for a way to give better ideas more power, just any ideas less chaos :)
15 prov on eclipse and 13 on siege just shows what this is going to be in the future. A complete disaster :D
60 is just insane amount of cards per month. I assume that even 10 cards in each category is too many (40 all together). But 5 in each category will be perfect (20 in total)
That might be a little too little. Maybe let’s try 40 first before we press the trigger on going down that low. 60 might be too much if cards like black Rayla and nithral are getting in
Even 5 is a lot
To comment a second time. I think the fans are now seeing how difficult it actually is to fix perceived issues. So many of these nerfed archetypes weren’t at all suffocating. People must learn to reflect on their playing and realize that just because they fail to win against a deck doesn’t mean it is “cheap”. I almost think it should be limited to two cards in each section so people have to really think their choices through and can’t just emotionally destroy the game they love.
Did the devs not consider giving control of the game to a voluntary group of devs from the community eg youtubers, streamers well known pros etc. This might avoid the idiocy of the general community
It was at least briefly discussed but that had as many problems.
Who? How do we know they'll stay? Why should only they get it? Other players will feel ignored and therefore not play or send hate to those players etc.
I like the idea for actual balance don't get me wrong I just think it wouldn't have worked perception wise. 😔
I agree, the community is stupid and don't understand what balance is. It should only be a select few that truly understand all factions and are not petty.
My fave ST Control deck seems to have escaped changed apart from a tiny bit of power... But fuck it all if this just doesn't take out a lot of choice in Gwent
About 13p scenarios, do you think Feign Death would also fit that provision?
Personally no but it's on the edge of it.
The extra waylay it spawns and value of that engine is under estimated in my mind.
Haunt and Passiflora for me are 13p ATM but I could see the arguement
Hey man, you mentioned being able to pass on feedback to CDPR, and there's one last bug that needs to be fixed. We can't get seasonal cycle quests early (instead of waiting many hours) by paying 45 ore for them. It says you don't have enough ore even if you have thousands like me.
If this isn't fixed it'll mean slower progression towards level 250 for the cardback.
Hey! Thanks for letting me know. It's a bug I'm also experiencing and that they're aware of.
I know it's being looked at so hopefully it'll get resolved 🤞
@@LionHartCards Cool! Thanks for letting me know. I also just remembered that the wrong journey music nearly always plays. So that's another bug. It's weird hearing the gross siren sounds from Alzur's playing when you have say the Aretuza loading screen equipped for example.
Oh, and they should fix the broken interactions Specimen was using last night for over 400 points in round 3. It involves a few cards, but some used were operator, haeymay protector, Dagur, and onslaught giving nearly 200 armour for Vlodimir and Iris: Shade.
60 cards is a reasonably good number. It allows for refreshing the meta and correcting oppressive decks. And since (after this last hurrah) we don't have to worry about the precious feelings of delicate pro players, a little jostling and elbowing can be a good thing.
If anything, I'd call for MORE VOTES. Same setup, but one set of 12 for Bronze and one set of 12 for Gold and Leaders. This would make people seriously consider the under-powered cards at the bottom (Little Bird, Cursed Damsel, Pearl Diver, etc.) instead of only thinking about their favorite or most hated Golds. Look at the lists on the screen behind you. The changes are 80% fiddling with the nuances of mostly upper-level Golds. That does not lead to any useful balance, which is ostensibly the purpose of the Council. We need to get all of our 4p Bronzes into the same basic realm of 7/4. The more cards that we have that are viable, the more variety of decks and archetypes can be played.
Another less ideal but less complicated solution would be keeping the 12-vote system, but mandating that at least 6 of the votes are for Bronze cards. This would make people stop and think about which Gold cards *really* need messed with, instead of hacking down entire decks and archetypes with a rusty machete.
Fewer changes, to answer your question.
I had all my Provision Increases by voting for the obvious (Uprising, Battle Stations and Slave Driver), yet I got none of my Provision Decreases (Yennefer: Conjurer, Braenn and Madoc) of which I'm surprised that Braenn didn't get it.
My Power increases were Cutup Lackey, Vesemir and Crowmother and to no ones surprise only Cutup Lackey didn't make it. If not for Truzky, that Vesemir would have been 3 votes for Griffin Witcher Adept.
My Power Decreases only worked for the single vote for Angus Bri Cri, as my other 2 votes were for Udalryk An Brokvar (3) and Knut The Callous (2), but thanks to the Sigvald provision nerf I am kind of reliefed that Knut didn't come through.
Therefore I will simply repeat some votes (Braenn, Madoc and Udalryk) and give some extra power to the losing Bare Knuckle Brawler and Admiral Rompally. I somewhat view the Provision nerf to Bare Knuckle Brawler as a win if the Power Increase comes through, because I'm anxious to see Intimidate come back and it really misses good 5 Provision cards since Halfling SafeCracker lost it's Intimidate.
Lion, please keep making this series, it’s important to explain everything to people who clearly don’t know what they are doing. I’m sorry but those changes are ABYSMAL.
I totally agree with most of what you say and Im also a bit afraid of the amount of nerfs to archetypes and think 60 Changes is just too much.
BUT im also happy to maybe not face Ng in more than every second match and also if i had a Button that said "Delete Reaver Hunters" i would ve pressed it so this change to make the card broken doesnt make me sad tbh :D
There are many things wrong with wha you are suggesting. If you are willing to delete cards that you find annoying where do you draw the line? It seems clear that for some people deleting an entire faction doesn’t count as crossing said line, and this will kill the game if it continues, in less than a year, no less.
@@er4din903 Yea I agree that this patch already pushed it really far in terms of nerfing a whole Archetype or even multiple at that, which has me worried about further nerfs. But maybe there are enough People that feel the same as me and just really want Cards like Traehorn and Reavers (and personally also cultists - fk them xD) gone and are fine with that. After my month of not seeing NG that much i would totally be okay with buffing a few Cards back or push alternative NG archetypes.
Syndicate/Vice i also dislke but didnt vote to nerf it because it felt annoying to play against but not too op.
The only change that I liked was that of the hidden old man, I wanted years ago a buff for him
I have been playing this game since beta and its sad to see what people are doing to nilfgard when it isn’t even in an oppressive state. That being said, i think 20 changes is plenty per round. Really make people prioritize what they want changed. More chance of splitting the vote as well which will help keep trolls from overly affecting the polls. 😂
Most players in ladder myself included i only hit pro rank once and when i did hit pro ranked i didnt play as much but i see why they hammered NG hard this batch im currently on 4-5 all i play against before gwentfinity patch are NGs assimilates or statuses 80% of the time with my homebrew decks and its not fun
Actually happy that I lost connection most of the games so that I don't need to suffer this bullshit.
All in all I think it’s possible to salvage Nilfgaard in the next patch, by doing at least 3 of the 4 following things:
Revert the Rompally change,
Revert the stefan skellen change
Buff nauzicaa to 5 prov
Buff enslave leader up to 15 again.
Keep everything else. The changes that remain would spread quite evenly across the archetypes.
That way the lock package got more expensive and less power, the slave driver -> nauzicaa stayed equally expensive but has less power over all, enslave tactics has less power but still playable, and status is notably weaker still.
With all these frequent votings and changing makes the game so hassle to play now. Seeing 2-3 of your decks not able to use due to Provision requirements. And have to spend time again to rebuild the decks
Too many nerfs, not enough buffs, so I’d like for them allow more prov decreases & power increases but less of the other two.
In regards to the changes, I’m fairly happy with them but some questionable ones. Personally hate anything golden nekker related so compass will be straight to the top of my provision nerfs next vote. The insane flexibility and the way it cheats the provision restriction of GN, I think is not good for the game. That ‘pirates’ GN list is just boring midrange nonsense imo - no theme or synergy between most of the cards (see random axel & unicorns in a ‘pirate deck’ as prime example) just whatever can slam the most points. Pirates has a proper archetype with scenario, Crach & Hjalmar etc. i don’t see why this list is a thing that people like it.
60 changes is great,honestly the more the better.
Haven't been this disappointed with Gwent from when the removed the old Draft mode.
Cleaver will be a problem in Syndicate.
5 per category is fine, 60 is utter chaos AND possibility of somewhat biased crazy nerfs as we can see. In one patch bunch of deck was literally obliterated and now unplayable: Vices, Enslave 6, NG soldiers, aristocrats.
I think 60 changes is way too many but rather than destroying certain factions/archetypes can we not just have a leader banning voting system for a month and then whatever was banned for the month is immune for the next months voting?
overall I was happy with the changes, but yeah there were a couple I thought were ridiculous, Reavers, eternal eclipse and Viy are my biggest question marks, especially Reavers, an example of why letting people with no balancing experience just throw their weight around is asking for trouble. The fact we have the power to break cards is terrifying for the future. Also yeah I do think 60 changes per month is way too much.
60 is just too many, but the real problem is that half of those are nerfs. When there are many many times more cards that need a buff rather than nerf...
I like a lot of the buffs, but the nerfs went way overboard, I think that some were justified (battle stations, torres, calveit) but everything else went too far, it pretty much killed NG. Personally I think that gwent had more bad cards than good cards, so it'd be better if a maximum of 5 cards would get nerfed each patch, and no more than 2 from the same faction, and maybe like 15-20 buffs. This might be a little controversial but I think it would be better to limit the pool of people who can vote to pro players, and have an ability to see how many people are voting for what cards before voting ends.
Omg Nilfgard is dead and NR will be busted this season.
Yeah, NR is going to go crazy now.
Maybe NG will come back in a couple months.
In my opinion, 60 changes per month is way too many. You can have an archetype completely destroyed with just two or three provision or power changes,. It also doesn't allow for a smooth evolution of the game experience.
People seems to be buffing and nerfing I think from PTSD a few seasons ago.
My most suprising things - No AQ, Sabbath changes despite 142 points in 4 turns.
People calling for weavess buffs - Calm down.
All the GN buffs xD. GN beasts is insane now.
Also NR seems to be setting up for insane spams in the future.
Been watching a few of your videos of late but sheesh, what a weird time to start playing gwent... Level 42, only been playing about a month or so after not playing since launch but Gwentfinity has been a ride for an opener. Glad to be along for the ride though keep up your great stuff.
Welcome to Gwent!
It'll always be my favourite card game and while it's a crazy time to join, there wasn't ever a sane one 😋😂
can someone explain to me why a provision increase on a leader ability is a buff? 23:53
The number is how many extra provs you get to spend for choosing that ability. So an increase is +1 prov cap for your deck
@@aufty Oooh thanks, i always thought its how many provisions get added to the deck 🤣
One of the few streaming personality in the gwent community that is well articulate and rounded with his thoughts on the balance of the game, I fully agree and support your points. Hats off to you sir, please continue making important videos like this calling out bad decisions and questionable changes.
I think some cards are just terrible for the game, trahearn being one of them, vilgefortz being another, these cards can win the game in one turn which makes playing the game pointless, therefore I don’t think they can be overnerfed if the majority of people feel the same way.
Cultists didn’t really need another nerf imo but again it’s a deck that can feel hopeless to play against, as can reavers in some match ups so I think it’s overall healthy for the game, reducing binary decks and encouraging more variety into the meta is surely the best direction in balancing
60 changes each time is too many. Cut that down to 40 at least
NG and SY overnerfed. Some NG cards deserved it though.
honestly, just give this man full control over the changes. I'd be fine with that
This is going to devolve into a tit for tat battle of 'you ruined my faction, so I shall ruin yours' and kill the game.
Democracy sucks the big cheesy one.
This is why there exists in the world no pure democracy but representational democracy. JFC, imagine if every bill was voted on by everyone....
I just got back into this game after years, and everything is different. Now they are going to change everything again?....Maybe I shouldn't have started playing again, lol.
It's a good time to start back in my mind! A lot of excitement and changes happening so everyone is constantly relearning! Welcome back
It is pity people who actively play the game want a whole archetype (reavers) gone just because they have a PTSD from it when it was competitive a while back. The pitchforks are drawn.
I see a lot of overreacting today. We got some expected changes, some unexpected and some weird ones. NG Enslave, NG Status and SY Vice obviously the looser of the first balancing council. NR seems to be on the other end.
My perception of the day might be that Power and Provision changes will not satisfy me and I will really miss new cards and reworks. 😢
60 changes is a lot every change will make you have to fix every single deck you own
at this point, bro sounds like Monica trying to sell Mockolate.
What are those NR troll buffs wtf hahha
Reaver, AA & Siege did not deserve those buffs. Maybe one of them, but the whole combo is just insane
Rather than malevolence, i guess its disorganization that caused so big NG nerfs. I think philippe is the worst, i vote philippe. You think battle stations is the worst, you vote that. Bang, we have two nerfs where one wouldve sufficed.
Reaver case was just stupid.
And why is everyone talking about ng ball? Sy vice got hit much harder really.
I for one am glad to see ball down in the mud. Theres too much of it, and its way too oppressive. Pretty much like playing against reavers if they were good. Some say at higher levels of play its not that good. Would be nice if somebody (you?😊) did a NG beating guide.
And really, most of the bitterness is more a result of their saturation on ladder rather than getting beaten
They completely killed the ball deck imo
Among MANY others. This was inevitable in the first change.... Now our job is to remember to fix some of this and try to achieve some form of "balance". Even if it takes a while. :)
30 changes should be good. More, I think it's too many in a single month.
And what exactly would you get from it? Killings of archetypes or even the whole fractions will progress, just at slower pace
@@georgemengon8694 I understand your point of view. But I do believe that with 60 changes we will have plenty of votes that will be improvised and will have no sense. And that's not healthy, either.
Bailing on playing gwent now but I'll still tune into the streams. No point investing in an archetype if its going to get deleted. Rip reavers. Congrats on the wedding!
Too much focus on control decks in my opinion, too much focus on nilfgaard and meta decks. If they're expecting people to run only "chill" lists with no control at all in order to vomit points/have their same strategy working every game they're very, very wrong. Gwent is about adapting your strategy against an archetype that you know (predict moves, bait), not repeating the same strat over and over. Other thing is there are way too many changes on one patch. Reducing this number should save us some archetypes and point out real problems, but reducing too much won't allow us to buff cards that need to. Something like percentage rate of card use could help us a lot in taking decisions!
On top of everything, I believe that this first patch was bad BUT it was the first time that we, the community, take decisions, and I think that it was a clumsy and new experience for us. No need to rush by saying "oh gwenfinity is bad" cause it's not, you'll see.
too many changes and some archetypes are completely dead
I like alot of the changes. I hope they nerf the hell out of defenders also.
I mean you should share your own changes before and influence players changes if you want Gwent to more healthy. You have the power to do so but you didnt 😢.
You guys with Shimiri, Mosh etc. Should unite and talk about it.
I agree I should have shared my votes here earlier and elsewhere too.
I did on Twitch and discord alot but not visually like some did.
I like the idea of a creators round table to discuss our thoughts each month going forward. I'll see what happens 🤔
У нас дурачок на МеталикДэнни зафорсил убить Нильфгард😢
Wow, I disagree with most this guy says lol . .I guess it's because I'm a casual player and not really care about the win rates of decks when it comes to top 10s, 50s and what have you...NR reavers, NG cultists, SK self-wound, NG status, SY vice, NR melitele temple and the SC heist are all in the category of most annoying decks to play against. Annoying, not fun, and central when it comes to shaping the meta because when you build a deck you always need to include cards that can answer them or else you have a miserable time, not just an auto-lose. No one likes losing but some losses like when you learn something or when you lose by the last card played by a margin of a couple of points can be cool, interesting and a good sport. Losing to a stupid cultist deck by a million points or to any of those aforementioned billion points/damage decks is neither educating or fun. The only card that I don't like seeing in the lists is magic compass getting a buff and I agree with the guys' suggestion (second form with adrenaline etc) but since we cannot change that, or Calveit triggering only if you have let say at least 7 tactics in your deck or something for that matter, a buff is asking for trouble I think. Overall I like the changes and I don't think any are stupid. If the community thinks that a card should not exist with its current text at least (reaver) - that is OK, destroying a card is not some sort of taboo anyway, admitting that a card should not exist in the first place is OK! Even the guy says this about Trahaern - although I again disagree with him on the particular card. Instead this should be considered as a message sent by the players to the developers to change the text of said card. Finally, I really like the idea of council voting and I think more games should take this as an example of how to balance a game like Gwent. I am only a little sad that it came this late, this together with the developers working on the cards after the suggestions/messages made/sent by the people (the council) since an earlier time would have been ideal in my view.
Nilfgaard players on suicide watch.
Some of these aren't great but imo Cultist deck ruins the game and need more fixing than what provision changes can do.
Nilgardians gg
Reavers made unplayable xD
"I voted for this" in case of compass. good joke. Truzky showed you all WHY compass was never supposed to be in golden nekker list. This was the changed that destroyed everything
That's demonstrably untrue.
The card is good. Great even.
But it's significantly over performing right now ok patch day and claiming otherwise is disingenuous and I'll explain why.
The vast majority of the meta decks were decimated to unplayability.
The average player doesn't build decks we'll and especially not on patch day, even more so this kind of patch.
The list is one that already existed and got buffed with Roach too.
Losing provisions in the deck is a statement, but the deck quite literally WANTS to discard dead cards anyway.
To claim it's the most busted thing ever because of that is just silly
Trusky is also a brilliant player and would now through people on patch day usually too.
It didn't "destroy everything". It became playable while everything else became unplayable. 🤷♂️
they ruined it damnnnn
They completely deleted a faction.. Reddit nerd rage took over, so dissapointing
To be honest Im out of Gwent for like, 2 or 3 months. But in the last few weeks I have been following this new system and seeing different opinions cause I thought would be a interesting addition to the game. Now that I see the results, Im really disappointed with the mediocrity and total lack of basic knowledge of the game. I really hope they change the amount of changes available per patch and really really hope that people follow some of Geralt's most precious and basic teachings: Rationality and Neutrality
Garbage comunist concil🤭R.I.P Gwent
NG needs more nerfs looking forward for the next batch
NOT OVER NERFED
get rid of 🧀 finally
Im so happy to see the downfall of toxic Filthgaard ❤️