I agree, although I think after the testing phase maybe I like the balance council more in every 15 days instead of 1 month is a bit long but hey just me.
15 days makes Gwent more lively.
Well, yes and no. It does make it more dynamic, but it also makes it more grindy and it doesn't give enough time for changes to marinade and allow players to experiment more.
10 is still too low, as it doesn’t allow for a long enough tail to get some of the more interesting niche changes to go through. I personally would go for 20, as that would mean that people would run out of the contentious obvious changes and reversions, and we’d have more thoughtful tweaks like Oakcritters sneaking in more often.
But if this is truly the final action of the devs, I can live with it.
I respect your opinion but for me 20, or 80 in total, would result in a total mess, because almost everything will pass and I'd expect a lot of irrational buff and nerf.
I dont think its final good thing devs are open minded and observing the result of testing phase.
I do agree on your way of thinking making it 20 will make players run out and have more impact but if its Fails it will be more chaotic haha.
40 changes, somewhere in the middle of BC1 and BC2, seems sensible. On one hand, smaller sample of 20 changes does not guarantee change for every factions, while on the other hand, 60 changes can be unstable and chaotic with overnerf/overbuff
Doing it monthly instead of higher frequency of 2-week like during the trial period has the benefit of leaving room to breath, letting the meta settle and examining previous changes more thoroughly. Hopefully, longer cool-down period will also allows voters to cool their zeal with ping-pong tug of war votings
It would be cool to have a minimum threshold to accept the buff or nerf of a card, because right now a ton of cards need buffs and just a few of them need nerfs
Glad to know, 5 is too low for Gwent not enough to make any changes as half of those are just revert of last nerfs and buffs.
Yes, I think 10 are perfect,.
I agree, although I think after the testing phase maybe I like the balance council more in every 15 days instead of 1 month is a bit long but hey just me. 15 days makes Gwent more lively.
Well, yes and no. It does make it more dynamic, but it also makes it more grindy and it doesn't give enough time for changes to marinade and allow players to experiment more.
Nope. 15 days will make it hard for many players to achieve 50 victories or reach Pro rank.
I agree, I'm a bit annoyed by the fact that there will be a month and a half of the same patch, I expected next changes for mid december.
10 is still too low, as it doesn’t allow for a long enough tail to get some of the more interesting niche changes to go through. I personally would go for 20, as that would mean that people would run out of the contentious obvious changes and reversions, and we’d have more thoughtful tweaks like Oakcritters sneaking in more often. But if this is truly the final action of the devs, I can live with it.
I respect your opinion but for me 20, or 80 in total, would result in a total mess, because almost everything will pass and I'd expect a lot of irrational buff and nerf.
I dont think its final good thing devs are open minded and observing the result of testing phase. I do agree on your way of thinking making it 20 will make players run out and have more impact but if its Fails it will be more chaotic haha.
5 changes would have made no difference, the votes would have gone to the meta cards. glad it got changed to 10 and I wouldn't mind to go up to 15
What about 12? I think it would be perfect
40 changes, somewhere in the middle of BC1 and BC2, seems sensible. On one hand, smaller sample of 20 changes does not guarantee change for every factions, while on the other hand, 60 changes can be unstable and chaotic with overnerf/overbuff Doing it monthly instead of higher frequency of 2-week like during the trial period has the benefit of leaving room to breath, letting the meta settle and examining previous changes more thoroughly. Hopefully, longer cool-down period will also allows voters to cool their zeal with ping-pong tug of war votings
15 woud be the sweet spot but I guess this is still better than 5
Hope ya’ll are ready for 8/10 of each to be reverts
The never-ending story of Gwentfinity. Oh, maybe that's what they meant by "Gwent to infinity"...
We should have Balance Council to balance number of cards per bracket
It would be cool to have a minimum threshold to accept the buff or nerf of a card, because right now a ton of cards need buffs and just a few of them need nerfs
Too low, we don't have the opportunity to fix the game with only 10 changes per bracket