To answer my own question, looking at the MMM1 Google sheet, 4 of 15 match-ups were not completed (Red vs Black, Red vs Purple, Blue vs White, and Black vs Purple)
Balance-wise, the worst offenders were Black vs Blue (10-0), Purple vs White (10-0), Blue vs Purple (9-1), White vs Green (7-3), and White vs Blue (6-1; unfinished).
It’ll be a headache to balance, considering some colors are very strong in certain match-ups and very weak in others.
This is really cool to put in perspective! Thanks for pointing this out. This game is so good 
It is impossible to balance every matchup in a game. If you balance mono, mulit colour is unbalanced. If you balance 1vs1, 2vs2 is unbalanced. And all the map cards are anyway unbalanced.
So we should focus on the most played style, which is multicolor. And even that is not possible you would need to run hundreds of simulations. So nerf the strongest decks a bit. If other ones are overpowered they need to be weakened in a second step. And buff some cards, which brings new possibilities on the table.
Multicolour is, arguably, played so much more than monocolour to begin with because enough of the monocolour matchups are out of whack, making some of the six decks unviable for a moncolour tournament. Blue is clearly in this position, I’d say that Green is too. Player skill obviously counts for more, but multicolour has a larger top-tier group than the intended format.
I think I lost my point there. It seems odd to justify balancing around multicolour by it being the most played, when the current balance is what makes it played so much to start with.
It’s possible that blue is disfavored just because of its awful matchup vs black (which itself is favored because it doesn’t have any really bad matchups). So maybe the nerfs to black would, as a knock-on effect, encourage more blue (which does already have a positive matchup vs purple)?
Regarding the “what are we balancing for?” / “what is the goal?”, I don’t think we have sufficient data to claim much of any justification around “balancing for monocolor”. We don’t play it enough and haven’t tested the changes against mono color (I am up for doing that! Let’s take MMM2 conversations to a separate thread).
I think everyone’s suggestions have been considerate of what the monocolor effects of changes might be, and we do have some data on justifying the changes in multicolor play.
So for the purposes of driving a decision for CAMS22, let’s focus the discussion on what’s in and out for changes.
I’m going to decide as TO we have consensus on the list Zhav posted, and so far not too much discussion on Purple/Peace and Bashing. I’d like to ask everyone to keep the conversation for right now focused on discussing the remaining undecideds.
I’ve heard a maybe yes on Battle Suits changes from Zango and a “probably but better save it for later” from Zhav. Let’s hear some more voices. Anyone else for or against the Battle Suits change? Anyone strongly lobbying for Garrison/DS changes?
Radio silence on this one, is that apathy, dislike for the changes, or just distracted w/ other conversation? If folks are interested in playtesting on this one, Penatronic and I are playing them out here.
TL:DR; is so far, I’ve played The Boot in one of the three games, and it’s actually an interesting card now. Kind of has a Surprise Attack feel to it, high cost but high potential for a game-changing play between the (situational) double unit kill and the anti-hero stall. That’s really fun to have as a now Bashing player, Penatronic didn’t seem to feel it was too strong (I lost the game I played it in) but I want to hear from folks on this.
I think I’ve said most of this upthread, but for tidiness’ sake:
*I’m against changes to Garrison or Drill Sergeant.
*I’m down to test changing Battle Suits to “purple Soldiers and Mystics”.
*I’m in favor of the changes to Troq himself.
*I’m in favor of adding “or an upgrade” to The Boot. I’m against other changes to it.
Good point Frozen, I second Dreamfire’s statement word for word.
Yes for battle suit, of course.
I’m open for all buffs. I want to see more cards played and more opportunities to build a strong deck. If too strong after playing, just remove it again.
But I will not be able to join the summer tournament.
I’m also thinking very similar to Dreamfire here.
Can we get a little more rationale behind the opposition to The Boot buffs? I understand the desire not to shake things up too hard, but I don’t know how the “or an upgrade” + Troq buffs make bashing viable. I feel like a stronger buff is warranted. CMV I want to know why I’m wrong
Would we be willing to quick test Battle Suits changes? I feel strongly they are warranted but again am wide open to being wrong. I’m concerned not addressing it devolves into PPA or FPN becoming dominant meta. Start a thread w/ me for whatever matchup you wanna try with it, I’m game to play with the Suits change or against it on any deck
My opposition: too much too quickly.
We don’t know how strong it will be in practice. I’m open to it down the road, after testing.
In addition to what Bomber said, to me, these changes to The Boot don’t feel like a balance change, they feel like a new card. All the other changes we’re discussing are much more transparent about where they’re coming from.
I also don’t like the Swiss Army Knife approach in the changes to The Boot. In fact, it feels kinda antithetical to the way the game is played? It’s an answer to anything, there’s no opportunity cost in teching it.
Compare it to any other upgrade removal (including the card which literally has “versatile” in its name). If you tech them and your opponent never plays an upgrade, you wasted a tech. You got Yomi’d. Just adding “or an upgrade” to The Boot makes it a safer tech than all of these. Adding hero hate on top of that? Absolute overkill.
(By the way, letting The Boot destroy upgrades is a stealth nerf to other upgrade hate, which are already getting stealth nerfed by the changes to MoLaC and Battle Suits. I’m guessing this is the sort of thing Bomber is warning against)
I disagree with this statement; the use cases for weanie unit or hero hate on it are unique and weak enough that it could easily be a dead draw, and at 4 gold cost + a tech choice, it’s a pretty big opportunity cost teching it. 4 gold + troq out is a big opportunity cost.
It doesn’t answer tech 2 or 3, it doesn’t answer buildings or ongoing spells, it doesn’t answer strong combat heroes so much like Grave or Cala or Vandy, and it’s expensive.
It is a Versatile Style type card in this form and doesn’t have versatile in the name, but the existence of Versatile Style IMO shows a little swiss army knife can be warranted in a spec. Bashing is the “little bit of everything but the bad version of it” spec, this fits tonally
I think it’s transparent enough where this comes from: Bashing is a trash spec in the base game. It’s still trash w/ the changes we proposed to Troq and the upgrade removal. Something needs appeal bringing Bashing to the table.
I don’t actually think it is much of a stealth nerf. It’s expensive for what it does
I will willingly concede, however, we haven’t had nearly enough playtesting to know if this is straight busted good, just kinda good, or still not enough to make bashing viable, and we don’t fully understand knock-on effects. That I agree with. I just don’t think it’s worth buffing bashing at all if we aren’t seriously looking at making it viable, and I don’t think the minor tweaks to troq or randomly adding upgrade removal to the existing The Boot get us near scratching viable
Honestly, look at the 4 choices Versatile Style gives you, and then look at the 3 choices this version of The Boot gives you. You can play an entire game without any of the options on VS ever being relevant (hell, you can play an entire tournament like that). I can’t imagine a game where a player doesn’t have either a tech 1 unit or a levelled hero for you to Boot.
Yeah, I don’t see this at all. You don’t buff a card by raising its cost and giving it a completely different functionality. If you want to discuss changes to The Boot, IMO they should start out much more subtle, or at the very least more related to its original functionality.
Edit: here are a few buffed versions of The Boot which still retain its card identity, in decreasing order of subtlety:
I think even with the changes no one will play Troq. And no one will play disease and no one will play law (maybe mouse)…
Maybe the person who is willing to play one of those specs is coming with a proposal which changes are needed. If Troq wins the tourney due to too strong changes, then they can still be adjusted afterwards. Just my perspective…
I think something needs to be done to make bashing more playable, so buffing torq himself and something else seems necessary. My original idea was to add ongoing spell/upgrade hate somewhere to give another hate option, since there are not actually that many in the game. As it is now it is a big fat Leatherman multi tool but it also cost you $200. It seems fair enough as is. I don’t know if these changes alone makes the spec playable but they seem fair enough so far.
I personally would prefer a cleaner buff to torq instead of the 3 small changes you’ve proposed, just from a simplicity perspective. Unless someone wants to update the codexcdb or something 
It will just be easier to have less total changes.
I think the first 2 buffs to the boot @Dreamfire mentioned are worth considering.
I’m wary of the version of the boot that costs 4 gold. Bashing is a defensive spec, with the Boot as an expensive spell to push tempo and/or discourage bigger units from the opponent. Making it more like surprise attack is interesting, but it’s not clearly thematic.
I lost my last game against [Bashing]/Balance/Necromancy, btw, because Final Smash works.
I’d rather not scroll around looking for the specifics of the buffs being discussed, as a point of order. I like many of dreamfire’s alternatives to The Boot. However, I’d like a much more direct change: The Boot costs 2g. It being 3g is just completely overkill. The only thing that is a good trade against is Twilight Baron. Literally every other thing is even or terrible. And it STILL cant hit nullcraft. To which I say “make it a burn spell instead.”
Thematically, Bashing is supposed to be the big strong spec, and Finesse the small fast spec. Finesse getting discord for weanie clearing seems a bit off in that theme. And discord can hit nullcraft! For one thing, Bashing doesn’t make any weanies, so why is this here? But leaving finesse alone, I agree Bashing needs more oomph.
Discord’s primary intent is to let you attack without losing your attackers, not for killing weenies outright. It’s only in multicolour that the latter becomes important.