Alright, I'm gonna be really concise. After much play through many decks and a long time, I think nerfing Soulfire from 4 damage to 3 would take that slightly overbearing edge away from Zoo. It would still be very strong obviously, but I think this is a good way to investigate the ever-strong Zoo issue and see where it goes. Basically, I think weakening this deck archetype would open up more possible variety in different decks. BUT JUST A LITTLE! This is no Starving Buzzard nerf.
Interestingly enough after playing against zoo for a long time and thinking wow that card is sort of unfair. I decided to play the deck myself just to get a feel for what is happening there.
And what I realized is that the card itself, along with doomguard, is the drawback of discarding a card should not be seen as a penalty for playing it. But as a reward for skillful play, in such a way that you you have an empty hand and do not discard a card or two. Many many times, the cards do take a card or two simply because the opponent plays well and forces them to have to use it early. Also it is almost impossible to drop a doomguard on turn five without losing one card. And if you draw into either at the same time, you always will lose one.
So really the best way for an opponent to play against them, is to force the player to make a premature play and use one forcing the card loss.
What makes zoo so powerful and so consistent is the Warlock heropower. In my opinion soul fire is an okay card but its drawback that makes it balanced; again is the Warlock hero power because you know you can just get another card back for 2 mana.
I hate zoo, but do not support a nerf at this time--there's not enough evidence that it is currently needed. That being said, I do think that both soulfire and doomguard are a bit OP. Unlike what Travalisfox said, in my experience, it seems like those cards are almost played without the discard cost. Most of the time when there is a discard it is only because the other player was unlucky to have draw multiple discard cards. ANYWAY, based on my experience, I think a good change would be to make it not "discard" but "skip next draw." This seems like a balanced change to me: the card is better immediately but the only chance for "no downside" is if you win that turn (making it slightly worse, in most instances, over time). Of course, the "skip next draw"s would stack so that doomguard means two skipped draws, not just one. Equally obviously, the begin turn/nat pagle/hero power/etc. draws would all be treated equally, so you can't just get around it with hero power. I'm not sure if that would actually make me hate zoo any less, but in my head it seems more fair that way. But, to reiterate, I don't think we need a nerf right now. Though I, too, am a little concerned about the potential zoo-mania that will return once hunter inevitably loses some user base.
Unlike what Travalisfox said, in my experience, it seems like those cards are almost played without the discard cost.
That may be true - but if it is true, it may well be because they are sitting dead in people's hands because they don't want to wear the discard cost of playing them.
I agree with SonofLoke that it's the warlock hero power that SYNERGIZES too well with soulfire. You don't worry too much about running out of cards to gain a tempo play, you don't even worry about if you draw it late(unlike innervate, zombie chow, or other tempo cards) which makes soulfire consistent.
It's just that life tap can trade tempo for cards, which is has a "positive inner product" with the card mechanism as an equalizer. Similar cases include warrior's weapons+armor up(less consistent tho, life for value), pally's buffs/equality+dudes(even less consistent tho, just synergy+luck). The poor examples include priest's (*typically)slow style and most-useless-early-on hero power.
I dont know what all the complaints are about. I think that zoo is fine where it is at the moment. I am a miracle and priest player and i have about a 70% win rate vs zoo. If zoo really was op and needed a nerf, you would see it being played in all the tournaments. As it stands, zoo is rarely run in tournaments, and is a perfectly balanced deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drink your school stay in sleep don’t do milk and get eight hours of drugs
I dont know what all the complaints are about. I think that zoo is fine where it is at the moment. I am a miracle and priest player and i have about a 70% win rate vs zoo. If zoo really was op and needed a nerf, you would see it being played in all the tournaments. As it stands, zoo is rarely run in tournaments, and is a perfectly balanced deck.
I was waiting for this post. Of course you think it's fine if you are playing only a few deck types. Also, this isn't about your personal win rates, but the community in general. I just ask you think about a few things: (1) When you design a deck, one of the first things you have to ask yourself is if it passes the Zoo test, IF you want it to be a competitive deck. Why shouldn't I think, does this pass the priest test, for example? Or how about warrior? No, it's because Zoo is everywhere and drives a LOT of the meta. (2) Zoo is excluding a lot of the other deck types. I encourage you to play around some more with other classes. The reason why Zoo hasn't been in tournaments lately is Hunter. Prepare to see a reversal. (3) Nothing is ever "perfectly balanced." No, nothing! But that's okay. Zoo, in my opinion, is just a tad too overwhelming at the moment (and especially after Hunter nerf). I'm not talking about any really wide margin, but just enough to make it lethal at all ranks. I played Zooe'rs all the way up in the top 100 Legend NA... it never goes away. Again, this is okay! I just think it needs to be looked at.
Zoo is not that dominate in the current meta... Its still a very solid deck but i dont think it packs the same punch it use to. i dont agree with the idea to nerf soulfire either believe it or not, the discard a card is a very very very relevant draw back. Zoo only has so much reach. when playing against top competition with a zoo deck it generally take casting a combination of multiple doomguards and soulfires just to edge out a win. So if a combination of doomguard/soulfire is in your hand around turn 4-7 you're already at a extremely bad disadvantage.
everyone will complain about "free spells" being broken but guess what? they generally are! Even in the history of MtG things that don't cost mana have generally been insane! Look at this game... Soulfire, Hunter's Mark, Back Stab, Innervate, etc. are all insane cards, why? because they dont cost mana. its tempo advantage.
Zoo, in my opinion, is just a tad too overwhelming at the moment (and especially after Hunter nerf).
I think you just fear that it will be zoo again after the nerf. It might be, however zoo is not op at all at the moment. In EU at rank 3-5 where I'm at, I barely see any and they are usually the easier games. I do not understand why people want to change anything about it. I think priest is the most powerful class at the moment.
Also, this isn't about your personal win rates, but the community in general.
And the "community in general" is not a good indicator for anything. Yes zoo is played often, but not only because some card is overpowered. The deck is cheap, fares quite well against multiple decks, it is an fast aggro-control deck, it doesn't require too much skill to get started as cards synergise and the mulligan is simple, and many more factors.
When you say zoo test then you describe a deck type which is minion based control and early tempo, priest is a class and descibes nothing. If referend to control priest, then it is not much different compared to other control decks and yes you would want to ask if the deck is able to deal with late game threats and has a finisher for drawn out games. (You would start with aggro decks instead of control because losing to early aggression means not being able to use whatever great late game options you have.)
Does zoo shut out some deck types? Certainly, but that has more reasons than zoo itself. Mainly there are not enough cards to synergise well enough for some archetypes and with the current card pool and state of the game, the "best" decks are more or less found. The hunter nerf will shake up the state of the game allowing both aggro and control decks back into the meta. As of now hunter counters both too well and the rock-paper-scissors balance of aggro-midrange-control is off.
To nerf zoo you need more than a nerf to one card that synergises well with the rest of a synergising deck.
I think someone gave the Lock designers too much playroom in the designing phase :P
Which is funny as both pre-Naxx and post-Naxx zoo decks have only a fraction of warlock cards and the rest are neutrals that synergise well and are in the sweet spot to fill the board with the hero power.
Also, this isn't about your personal win rates, but the community in general.
"And the "community in general" is not a good indicator for anything."
"To nerf zoo you need more than a nerf to one card that synergises well with the rest of a synergising deck."
I think you bring up some good points, but respectfully I disagree with the two quoted above. The community is a VERY important indicator about the state of the game. Now, whether that translates to balance or not, is a better question. I think the community should always be taken into consideration when looking at cards/decks, but not be the sole force behind decisions related to buffing/nerfing/creating cards.
I think that lightly nerfing one card is the best place to start when nerfing Zoo (and by Zoo I mean warlock specifically). I don't want Blizzard to pull another Starving Buzzard with the Warlock class. If they nerfed any neutrals, other classes and matchups would be impacted. By sticking with one class nerf, they are more sure to only impact that deck type. Of course, Handlock and any other Warlock variants would be weakened as well, so that's something to take into consideration when looking at any card.
Zoo is fine right now and doesn't deserve nerfing. It's a strong deck, and that's how it is. It wouldn't be just to nerf a deck because It's strong... Other decks aren't destroyed by it right now either and actually sometimes are favored against zoo. (Priest, Warrior, Handlock) Soul fire is also a fine card, 4 damage, lose a card (which could easily be your Doomguard). I think everything is just fine with zoo right now. Not too strong, not too weak.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alright, I'm gonna be really concise. After much play through many decks and a long time, I think nerfing Soulfire from 4 damage to 3 would take that slightly overbearing edge away from Zoo. It would still be very strong obviously, but I think this is a good way to investigate the ever-strong Zoo issue and see where it goes. Basically, I think weakening this deck archetype would open up more possible variety in different decks. BUT JUST A LITTLE! This is no Starving Buzzard nerf.
OKAY! Rage, support, what do you guys think?
I played Hunter before it was cool.
Interestingly enough after playing against zoo for a long time and thinking wow that card is sort of unfair. I decided to play the deck myself just to get a feel for what is happening there.
And what I realized is that the card itself, along with doomguard, is the drawback of discarding a card should not be seen as a penalty for playing it. But as a reward for skillful play, in such a way that you you have an empty hand and do not discard a card or two. Many many times, the cards do take a card or two simply because the opponent plays well and forces them to have to use it early. Also it is almost impossible to drop a doomguard on turn five without losing one card. And if you draw into either at the same time, you always will lose one.
So really the best way for an opponent to play against them, is to force the player to make a premature play and use one forcing the card loss.
What makes zoo so powerful and so consistent is the Warlock heropower. In my opinion soul fire is an okay card but its drawback that makes it balanced; again is the Warlock hero power because you know you can just get another card back for 2 mana.
You have to compare soulfire with backstab. I think it is a balanced card. It's a tempo card.
Zoo has already taken a huge hit since Naxx with all the taunts out there. No need to nerf it. (I'm a longtime zoo player)
I hate zoo, but do not support a nerf at this time--there's not enough evidence that it is currently needed. That being said, I do think that both soulfire and doomguard are a bit OP. Unlike what Travalisfox said, in my experience, it seems like those cards are almost played without the discard cost. Most of the time when there is a discard it is only because the other player was unlucky to have draw multiple discard cards. ANYWAY, based on my experience, I think a good change would be to make it not "discard" but "skip next draw." This seems like a balanced change to me: the card is better immediately but the only chance for "no downside" is if you win that turn (making it slightly worse, in most instances, over time). Of course, the "skip next draw"s would stack so that doomguard means two skipped draws, not just one. Equally obviously, the begin turn/nat pagle/hero power/etc. draws would all be treated equally, so you can't just get around it with hero power. I'm not sure if that would actually make me hate zoo any less, but in my head it seems more fair that way. But, to reiterate, I don't think we need a nerf right now. Though I, too, am a little concerned about the potential zoo-mania that will return once hunter inevitably loses some user base.
Brawl wrecks me 100% of the time.
That may be true - but if it is true, it may well be because they are sitting dead in people's hands because they don't want to wear the discard cost of playing them.
"Free" discards are THE number-1-with-a-bullet thing that irritates me about Hearthstone.
"Skipping the next draw" and the like is in my view too much and probably too clunky a mechanic.
I would be perfectly satisfied if playing a discard on an empty or "insufficient" hand merely discarded from the deck until the condition was met.
I agree with SonofLoke that it's the warlock hero power that SYNERGIZES too well with soulfire. You don't worry too much about running out of cards to gain a tempo play, you don't even worry about if you draw it late(unlike innervate, zombie chow, or other tempo cards) which makes soulfire consistent.
It's just that life tap can trade tempo for cards, which is has a "positive inner product" with the card mechanism as an equalizer. Similar cases include warrior's weapons+armor up(less consistent tho, life for value), pally's buffs/equality+dudes(even less consistent tho, just synergy+luck). The poor examples include priest's (*typically)slow style and most-useless-early-on hero power.
I dont know what all the complaints are about. I think that zoo is fine where it is at the moment. I am a miracle and priest player and i have about a 70% win rate vs zoo. If zoo really was op and needed a nerf, you would see it being played in all the tournaments. As it stands, zoo is rarely run in tournaments, and is a perfectly balanced deck.
Drink your school stay in sleep don’t do milk and get eight hours of drugs
I was waiting for this post. Of course you think it's fine if you are playing only a few deck types. Also, this isn't about your personal win rates, but the community in general. I just ask you think about a few things: (1) When you design a deck, one of the first things you have to ask yourself is if it passes the Zoo test, IF you want it to be a competitive deck. Why shouldn't I think, does this pass the priest test, for example? Or how about warrior? No, it's because Zoo is everywhere and drives a LOT of the meta. (2) Zoo is excluding a lot of the other deck types. I encourage you to play around some more with other classes. The reason why Zoo hasn't been in tournaments lately is Hunter. Prepare to see a reversal. (3) Nothing is ever "perfectly balanced." No, nothing! But that's okay. Zoo, in my opinion, is just a tad too overwhelming at the moment (and especially after Hunter nerf). I'm not talking about any really wide margin, but just enough to make it lethal at all ranks. I played Zooe'rs all the way up in the top 100 Legend NA... it never goes away. Again, this is okay! I just think it needs to be looked at.
I played Hunter before it was cool.
Zoo is not that dominate in the current meta... Its still a very solid deck but i dont think it packs the same punch it use to. i dont agree with the idea to nerf soulfire either believe it or not, the discard a card is a very very very relevant draw back. Zoo only has so much reach. when playing against top competition with a zoo deck it generally take casting a combination of multiple doomguards and soulfires just to edge out a win. So if a combination of doomguard/soulfire is in your hand around turn 4-7 you're already at a extremely bad disadvantage.
everyone will complain about "free spells" being broken but guess what? they generally are! Even in the history of MtG things that don't cost mana have generally been insane! Look at this game... Soulfire, Hunter's Mark, Back Stab, Innervate, etc. are all insane cards, why? because they dont cost mana. its tempo advantage.
I think you just fear that it will be zoo again after the nerf. It might be, however zoo is not op at all at the moment. In EU at rank 3-5 where I'm at, I barely see any and they are usually the easier games. I do not understand why people want to change anything about it. I think priest is the most powerful class at the moment.
that's so strange... I see it all over NA ladder. Hmmm, I wonder if there is a big regional difference.
I played Hunter before it was cool.
I wrote some suggestions in this OP a few weeks ago:
http://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/19235-very-sensible-warlock-and-hunter-card-change
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
1 mana still 4 damage is the change i wanna see if it gets nerfed.
And the "community in general" is not a good indicator for anything. Yes zoo is played often, but not only because some card is overpowered. The deck is cheap, fares quite well against multiple decks, it is an fast aggro-control deck, it doesn't require too much skill to get started as cards synergise and the mulligan is simple, and many more factors.
When you say zoo test then you describe a deck type which is minion based control and early tempo, priest is a class and descibes nothing. If referend to control priest, then it is not much different compared to other control decks and yes you would want to ask if the deck is able to deal with late game threats and has a finisher for drawn out games. (You would start with aggro decks instead of control because losing to early aggression means not being able to use whatever great late game options you have.)
Does zoo shut out some deck types? Certainly, but that has more reasons than zoo itself. Mainly there are not enough cards to synergise well enough for some archetypes and with the current card pool and state of the game, the "best" decks are more or less found. The hunter nerf will shake up the state of the game allowing both aggro and control decks back into the meta. As of now hunter counters both too well and the rock-paper-scissors balance of aggro-midrange-control is off.
To nerf zoo you need more than a nerf to one card that synergises well with the rest of a synergising deck.
Which is funny as both pre-Naxx and post-Naxx zoo decks have only a fraction of warlock cards and the rest are neutrals that synergise well and are in the sweet spot to fill the board with the hero power.
I think you bring up some good points, but respectfully I disagree with the two quoted above. The community is a VERY important indicator about the state of the game. Now, whether that translates to balance or not, is a better question. I think the community should always be taken into consideration when looking at cards/decks, but not be the sole force behind decisions related to buffing/nerfing/creating cards.
I think that lightly nerfing one card is the best place to start when nerfing Zoo (and by Zoo I mean warlock specifically). I don't want Blizzard to pull another Starving Buzzard with the Warlock class. If they nerfed any neutrals, other classes and matchups would be impacted. By sticking with one class nerf, they are more sure to only impact that deck type. Of course, Handlock and any other Warlock variants would be weakened as well, so that's something to take into consideration when looking at any card.
Thanks for responding! =)
I played Hunter before it was cool.
Zoo is fine right now and doesn't deserve nerfing. It's a strong deck, and that's how it is. It wouldn't be just to nerf a deck because It's strong... Other decks aren't destroyed by it right now either and actually sometimes are favored against zoo. (Priest, Warrior, Handlock) Soul fire is also a fine card, 4 damage, lose a card (which could easily be your Doomguard). I think everything is just fine with zoo right now. Not too strong, not too weak.