End-Game "Balance"

Splitting this off from the other thread to keep it on-topic

You'd think it was insane if WOTC balanced paper MTG for casual players but not for competitive players, wouldn't you?

I was trying to put my thumb on why this didn't seem quite right, or why it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. I realized that it's because PQ has never been structured or intended to be "balanced" the way that paper considers balance.

Paper MTG bans/rebalances when an archetype either wins too often or stifles exploratory gameplay (or both). If a deck type starts winning at a 60-65% clip or more, that's when calls for bans/rebalancing take place, so that the meta isn't so dominant. But that still means the dominant deck loses ~1/3 of the time, and the general intention of rebalancing is that playing that same deck type would lose more.

To some degree this game does the opposite - it's so easy to generally win that the incentive structure is built around winning often, and progression through the game is built to win more, not just face harder opponents. We have a thread here celebrating 20 people in a coalition all going perfect, and the scoreboard implies many many others that were as well. There is skill at work, but when that many people can win so often, it's clear that this game isn't about being "balanced", but winning.

This seems reductionist, but this game is not paper MTG, it's Candy Crush with an MTG skin. The incentives at work here aren't to continue challenging players throughout the difficulty curve - they're to build up your card base so that winning is easier/faster. There's a sense that this game should be "beatable" like most other video games, not "balanced" with varying deck types countering others like paper MTG.

I've been on record that there should be more losing at the top-end of the game, and there are ways for that to happen outside of the cards themselves. To name a few: bring back Smart Greg's gem-matching, don't have Greg just prioritize creatures, randomize who plays first, track losses when your deck loses in Greg's hands, and likely many others. I do think there is a place for nerfing cards when there is an outsized impact on the game. But without those other structural/incentive changes, calling for "balance" by simply nerfing/not printing individual cards only makes the game more grindy.