Introduction: Foreword, a Note about "Data" etc.

Before you read this article please note that I have really thought about it from a few perspectives, and in GU even the data we get is flawed in and of itself. Mythic (if used as a judge) only judges the performance of a deck vs. Control BiS decks in a very polarized (hardly any different decks there) setting. That statistic ONLY tells you how that deck performs against those particular decks and it's own mirrors in that scenario (Likely numerous times). Using that and those WR stats to determine balance isn't great because it doesn't actually really display how that decks performs against the legions of aggro lights/wars and natures at other ranks (a lot of decks are very polarizing and might do well in mythic against mostly control opponent's but not perform nearly as well in an aggro scenario, or visa versa depending on the mythic polarization.

Sometimes a new combo deck emerges etc.). In whichever scenario this data isn't pervasive for the majority of the meta and is only in an isolated pool of matches. And doesn't account for pilot skill as a factor in a WR turning out the way it does either. Overall statistics also are tough to use for the same reason of pilot skill being a factor, there isn't a guarantee everyone will know what they are doing to the same degree. This conundrum I think could be solved by establishing a set mathematical calculation for cards and their generation and adhering to it, however due to the nature of various generation etc. a lot of this value is very hard to determine and thusly by nature will always be a moving target as tribes expand and other newer cards are created. And another equally important part of this will be adding restrictions to justify them that are fair.

This process is incredibly difficult to think about and I understand why the team has a hair pulling time with it. Especially with numerous folks having a mixture of takes with various personal motives, opinion, and facts (money, collection, frustration at the same decks being played repeatedly, a desire to have their deck still do well, genuine balance, attempting to have the game be more friendly for onboarding etc.). Either anecdotal or derived from the same inherently flawed data due to the nature of the meta due to the errors of people who have long since left and the devs then have to make NEW cards to fix those mistakes. I genuinely appreciate all the work they do and their continued effort with this game and actually trying to work with us. As complainy as I get I know it's an Aegean stable to deal with and appreciate the developers shoveling every damn day.

That said, Without further or do on to the rest of this writeup. Just keep in mind this is meant to address some of the issues with the data itself and trying to pick apart the reasons behind why the meta "is what it is" and what data ACTUALLY means and if it's usable, this is not meant to say anyone is wrong or "all data is bad" or anything like that.

Mythic Data, And Why it isn't enough

Mythic data is in and of itself an incomplete representation of meta dynamics for the game and mostly represents how a deck pairs into a small handful of control decks (on average), additionally using this sort of data to interpret how strong a card is also is inherently flawed because this offers no account for how pilot skill plays a factor and additional teching or counter-teching to deal with the small concentration of decks/cards you will find the higher you climb in ranked (ie hortuk everywhere etc.) and how the player built the deck with additional cards around it to counter SPECIFIC expectations knowing BiS control in advance (Ie during inital Aza weekend teching in one dearly departed was quite nice even in aggro decks, there was the occasional random bugslayer getting a high winrate to the same effect etc.). Those sort of things shouldn't be indictive of "Bugslayer being too strong" despite having a high winrate that weekend and is part of the issue with why mythic statistics are a difficult pool of data to pull from. Especially so for WR where even less deck variety is likely. This data typically only is a good place to draw how a deck may perform into other control decks, HRD and the very occasional aggro, not neccesarily overall (against aggro and other builds that have a harder time getting higher in rank on average). Alternatively the inverse can also be true if an "Extra fast aggro or bomb" deck is trending how teching against aggro or that specific deck can inversely cause a higher winrate not because of a cards overall strength but it's ability to counter or work against certain builds. It's polarizing data and using it to effect a cards viability overall EXLUSIVELY has the potential to lead to overnerfing etc. when data is viewed from a purely numerical sense. Which brings us to the next section....

Overall Data, And Why it isn't reliable either

Overall data includes card use and very novice piloting error skewing statistics leading to cards not attaining their "optimal winrate" during each match, or their ideal and most streamlined builds and value trading etc. not being reached. This includes control saving tech pieces as answer for later, proper pip management, etc. However this data needs to be taken into account aswell (despite us not having the largest playerbase to pull data from): because somewhere in between this data, Mythic data, and pure WR statistics there is an indecipherable factor .... pilot skill. If a card is winning games regardless of pilot skill it is an issue, however at what point is a player using a card to win with pilot skill making a card become deemed "Broken". And this is where GU discord balance chat can be seen churning night and day with anecdotal evidence and using whichever of these numbers to justify whichever stance one might have. All all this data is up for interpretation and use to support arguments in either direction for most cards typically (on average). What it ends up coming down to at the end of the day is value logic and the "Genesis Evergreen Agreement" which is a shadow rule that goes something like "Thou shalt not powercreep genesis". Which brings us to out next topic

Genesis Evergreen, LV, WW, and the Meta Aftermath

So for those who aren't aware there are NUMEROUS cards in these sets that define the meta (too many to go in depth with all of them in just this post but we will show a few as an example of how they have effected/defined the meta). Cards are also supposed to not surpass cards from the "Genesis" set as part of the "Evergreen" promise. A few of which still are the strongest cards in the game.

The first card to be discussed is the infamous neutral known as the Demogorgon, a low print pricey card that is a control staple (or was for QUITE a long time, more on that later) and effected the meta for such a prolonged amount of time it lead to the release of various cards with DEMOGORGON IN PARTICULAR in mind.

Cards such as Atlant regulator, illusionist outlaw, Wavebreaker etc. all have anti-sleep effects mostly expecting this bad boy. Additionally this card and it's late game impact was SO strong it justified the creation of Ember Oni. The BiS BotW card that nearly every control deck now carries.

Ember Oni himself has effected the meta and effectively "upped the standard" of what a common 7 drop can look like in an expansion set (poor howler golem lol). While not directly power creeping demogorgon it did significantly increase the power standard of the average control card. Our next card is a harder to define with it's value standard as it addresses generation....

A card that effected the standard of VALUE generated from cards is of course none other than Thaeriel himself. This card generates the best value options in the game at 7 mana and can effectively win games by himself, his only drawback being he fills up your hand (which is typically not much of a draw back). For 7 mana he generates 9 mana worth of 3 instances of specialized tech with bodies attached (including godblitz hand disruption, overkill etc.), pretty insane. Due to this cards existence and constant presence in the meta the perception of value obtained through generation is held to a different standard than the days of yore. Not everything should be as strong as thaeriel persay (for the sake of the game), but the precedent for generation to be less "random" is certainly there. Shards are a nice attempt at this so far, and I hope are tweaked to be the tactical generation intended. Sadly any and all of this generation can be slotted in with thaeriel, so it makes things tough to balance or justify additional tacitcal generation in a manner similar to thaeriel (ie delving a dragon that can fit what I need in the moment etc).

Currently draka gatherer is an endless font of value for war, but has to stay on board to achieve said results and the current discussion and what will be drawn on in the future for "tactical generation" similar to ember oni effecting the standard of "accessible" 7 drops. But we wouldn't be covering power standards shifting and how cards have effected that if we didn't talk about the next card: Blade of Whiteplain.

Blade of Whiteplain offering card draw and hard spot removal for all gods at 5 mana with a 3/3 body has changed the meta. All cards created since Blade of WP are always since created with the thought "does it die to blade" in mind, it has become so meta relevant at higher ranks and is slotted into nearly every deck in some iteration. This "does it die to blade" rule includes modern cards like the most recent "Draka gatherer" and "Harvest Guardian" in tides of fate, every card was created with this card in mind at the apex of the meta and how it will be played into it. This essentially covers the "control and value generation" section, now on to the "bombs and aggro" section.

Woodcutter Imp is an insane 2 cost godblitz card with a phenomenal 3/3 in stats for 2 mana. It's downside is hardly noticeable most of the time and tends to lead to value trade in every scenario when traded into creatures, frequently ran with great hall to completely negate the negative effect. This bomb/body has a place in EVERY war deck, this card is definitely a year round resident on BiS boulevard and is almost always stacked with other blitz creatures in some manner, additionally war's new gp almost always makes imp a favorable trade aswell. In fact that gp makes almost any bitz creature a favorable trade by essentially being a ping at 1 mana. Which brings us to our next section: God powers.

Gods Power Changes and the Meta Reprecussions

God powers have also changed, currently the only gods with "pings" are of course mage and War's infamous slayer has been replaced by a 1 mana deal 1 to a damaged creature (fracture). This new god power is debatably the best in the game. It's a 1 mana ping that makes most aggro trades favorable for war in most scenarios. Incredibly strong and easy to use, essentially a 1 mana mage bolt that can't be used on it's own as removal but combined with ANYTHING. It also enables control and not just aggro, but as is these changes have noticeably effected the meta. Many cards that were previously unusable (had 1 hp) have become usable in more scenarios. This shift in strength and ability to remove has been a huge factor in the current meta.

There have been other god power changes that have altered the way gods work. Deception now delves instead of pulls a random card with "thievery" and "orfeos deception" costs 3 but no longer deals 1 point of damage. Nature has lost Selena's Mark (one of GU's "Pings" that eliminated 1 hp units from the meta) to get create at 3 mana which grants it a random nature spell. In control mirrors and certain scenarios create is devastating. However nature has noticeably changed without Selena's mark. All of these factors and alterations have also lead to the power concentrations around mage (that runs as it used to for the most part) and war (with it's new ping and always relevant aggro package). This is without discussing specific cards beyond as examples of power standard changes.

In Closing: Thoughts on Balance

Overall I think balance is a tough thing to achieve in a game like this that "locks" (locking being when cards can no longer be changed no matter what), but one thing that I do notice is that none of the decks that can reach the top of the ladder run only "new cards" from the most recent sets. This doesn't look favorable when trying to entice new players to play your card game. Additionally there is talk of the entire meta being balanced around cards being a certain way and then suddenly changing them at the end of these "Skirmishes" (Zaskia and Glinn) meanwhile having other cards nerfed due to said cards powerlevel. I certainly hope that will not be the case. There are various card balance choices and directions I don't necessarily agree with, but the one thing I liked about the new set was leaning away from chase neutrals that will appear in EVERY deck. There are cards that are "strong" but have tribal restrictions to achieve said strength, in my opinion a lot of these cards were nerfed quite hard due to an overreaction to a new VALID aggro that had a similar win percentage next to other aggros overall (but then again we get into data as mentioned above and it gets really hard to discern anything, truly). But I think people were "salty" seeing a new card and new wincon emerge out of nowhere for a week or two regardless. However these thoughts and the thoughts on new cards are another post. Overall this new set has been "refreshing" and a step in the right direction with some balance still left to be achieved but I am hopeful for the future as the set isn't locked yet. Not every card made was made perfectly, but the current team is trying to correct past errors with the direction in this and future sets I hope.

Thanks for stopping by and sticking with me through this balance thoughts rant, if you like what you see don't hesitate to follow like comment or do whatever other social things you do. Have a lovely week out there in Eucos folks! Until next time.