People will just realize after rotation how much "vanilla" HS feels if they haven't got their DK's anymore and that's why they started to rotate new hero's in like Hagatha and Zul'djin. I wonder what is next as i don't think they will make hero's for all other classes in the next expansion. When they are all gone, so are the indentations of 2 years worth of oppression...Me like
I Just can't understand people hating on powerful cards (e.g. DKs) with strong effects ,rexxar Is honestly the only One i Can (kind of) understand because that's not high Power level,that's infinite value aka the Worst mechanic introduced to the game (everyone LOVED Jade druid before geist right?) But even rexxar Is (kinda) slow and (semi) inconsistent (exept not really) wich keeps him in check
You can't understand people that hate on DKs and in the next breath go on to say how terrible Rexxar is?
Every other DK (whatever you May want to Say) even the ever so hated Jaina and gul'dan are really strong but can always be played around/beaten/outvalued
Every card can be beaten given the right circumstances. Ultimate Infestation becomes utter garbage when it's one of the last 2 to 3 cards in your deck for example. That doesn't diminish a card's worth or whether it is considered too strong overall, etc.
(i Will aknowledge raza anduin was a problem
You acknowledge that cards are problematic (given situations that they become so), but your post questions why people complain about powerful cards like this.
taunt druid, It was REALLY obnoctious and REALLY strong i'll give you that and It could highroll you into oblivion
So there you have the reason that people hated the deck. But the deck wasn't because on just one or two cards - Hadronox alone is a fairly mediocre card. It required a selection of particularly difficult to beat synergies (namely Witching Hour, Carniverous Cube, etc
but you Always had a chance to beat It
Every deck can be beaten - hence why you don't see decks with 95-100% win rates out there. Just because a deck CAN be beaten, doesn't mean that the deck is fine.
the Key Is that whatever happens you MUST Always have a realistic way of stopping your opopponent that doesn't involve SMORCing him to death)
This is simply nonsensical. You are simply attempting to ignore smORCing as an acceptable means to beating your opponent, when in fact this game revolves heavily around this concept. Combo and Control decks are actually the antithesis to the game, and not the core. They are just as acceptible and viable, but doing damage to your opponent's face in order to reduce his life to 0 is the be all and end all of the game's intent.
I Just can't understand people hating on powerful cards (e.g. DKs) with strong effects ,rexxar Is honestly the only One i Can (kind of) understand because that's not high Power level,that's infinite value aka the Worst mechanic introduced to the game (everyone LOVED Jade druid before geist right?) But even rexxar Is (kinda) slow and (semi) inconsistent (exept not really) wich keeps him in check
You can't understand people that hate on DKs and in the next breath go on to say how terrible Rexxar is?
Every other DK (whatever you May want to Say) even the ever so hated Jaina and gul'dan are really strong but can always be played around/beaten/outvalued
Every card can be beaten given the right circumstances. Ultimate Infestation becomes utter garbage when it's one of the last 2 to 3 cards in your deck for example. That doesn't diminish a card's worth or whether it is considered too strong overall, etc.
(i Will aknowledge raza anduin was a problem
You acknowledge that cards are problematic (given situations that they become so), but your post questions why people complain about powerful cards like this.
taunt druid, It was REALLY obnoctious and REALLY strong i'll give you that and It could highroll you into oblivion
So there you have the reason that people hated the deck. But the deck wasn't because on just one or two cards - Hadronox alone is a fairly mediocre card. It required a selection of particularly difficult to beat synergies (namely Witching Hour, Carniverous Cube, etc
but you Always had a chance to beat It
Every deck can be beaten - hence why you don't see decks with 95-100% win rates out there. Just because a deck CAN be beaten, doesn't mean that the deck is fine.
the Key Is that whatever happens you MUST Always have a realistic way of stopping your opopponent that doesn't involve SMORCing him to death)
This is simply nonsensical. You are simply attempting to ignore smORCing as an acceptable means to beating your opponent, when in fact this game revolves heavily around this concept. Combo and Control decks are actually the antithesis to the game, and not the core. They are just as acceptible and viable, but doing damage to your opponent's face in order to reduce his life to 0 is the be all and end all of the game's intent.
Ok then
1 i was talking about powerful cards that are limited by something,i used DKs as i feel they are what people hate the most
2 You Can search All you want,you'll never see a single post where i complain about UI,it's really strong don't get me wrong but i don't hate the card,i hate (almost) All the decks that use It (99% of the time they are the ones that don't give a sheite about fatigue:otk combos and infinite value) it's Fair in (it's my prime example now) in taunt druid as they DON'T have a free win the Moment hadronox dies/Is resummoned,you Can Power through that,it's really hard but you can,back to the main point UI Is NOT a card you Can "outvalue" in the sense that that's not the card that's (directly) beating you to death,you have to stop what comes After UI,not the card itself,i'm generally fine with draw engines
3 aaaah i see you intenctionally cut the part where i say why It was a problem😜
That sinergy was a problem because you had no way of beating razanduin as soon as they played velen,they Just killed you from full hp,
That's not a powerful card or 2, that's anche uninteractive combo and that's why It got fixed
4 this...i don't get It
All i Can Read there Is that people (and you too i assume,correct me if i'm wrong) would rather get blown up from 30 hp (and x armor if you have It) without the ability to stop It than having to think about: yes my opponent has a board of 89 (random Number don't insult me)health Total,how Can i make it disappear (you know...interacting with what the other Is doing,this goes both ways of course but since someone pointed It out earlier i figured i should Say it) and that's what i don't get
5 by beaten i meant you Can stop what they are doing (outvalued was the more appropriate term i feel), the winrate should come from how both players interact with eachother and Who Plays his cards Better as an answer to what the other does (and slightly from bad/good matchups but nothing more than 5-10%
6 what's your most played deck?baku hunter?
Just kidding,anyway of course that's an option (i am fine with aggro decks even though i don't get how lobbing monsters at people until they stop moving Is fun) the issue Is more towards how there should be no decktype that forces any other to adopt that playstyle,of course you eventually have to kill your opponent but he must have a way of stopping you at any point,even After you got your combo going (again taunt druid comes to my mind,i've beaten so many triple/quadruple hadronoxes by dmhing 2 more brawls,polying lichking ,outlasting the guy with jaina and so on,but i've Also Lost a lot because he forced me to waste my answers and evenctually killed me because i could't stop his gigantic boards)
I understand your point about people being a bit whiny and complaining just because they personally don't like something and hope that blizzard nerfs it so they don't have to play against it. However, the fact that any card, slow or not, can potentially win you games by itself because its so outright powerful, and requires little to no build around is pretty awful design in general. The thing about games is they need to be fun, if there are cards or mechanics that make the game unfun, especially if it does so dramatically, like Jades in their heyday, it generally causes frustrated players to leave the game. Yes, some of these cards can be beaten or outvalued if you tech or just get lucky, but having to fight and claw for multiple turns to maybe eek out a win some small % of the time isn't fun. Cards that just directly wreck/ruin something also generally aren't the fun for players who like a deck. Reducing fun is a bad thing because when people stop having fun they stop playing. If that happens enough then the game dies. Extremely powerful cards that have actually ended up nerfed by blizzard are proof of this. They simply made the game unfun more often than they made it fun.
I think in general DK lean toward this, much like Dr. Boom before it rotated out. It was a card that wasn't strictly broken, but being able to play it on curve, and then also having good boombot RNG would make you feel great/terrible based on which side of the table you were on. The card never got nerfed, and might not even be that insane in the current standard, but it was a card that was often times very polarizing, and led to a lot of outcry and debate. And its also frustrating when you like a class with a bad DK. You feel a bit cheated by the fact that your class doesn't have one of these very strong game winning cards. I do think in general there is a bit too much crying, but that is also because Blizzard can and has nerfed cards, something most paper card games can't do, so they either have to ban the card or print answers to it.
Everyone tends to forget,it's a card game we're talking about,of course every single deck Can highroll you and there's nothing you Can Do (hell,i even won as a All 1 drop deck once because my opponent had nothing to answer,strong winconditions get picked on because people don't realize they are the best answers to other strong winconditions,but you Can still (barring some really rare cases) resist until you get tours,it's Just every e Is way too lazy to think of a way out other than topdecking your DK or whatever you May Need
Also at the start,the cards you were complaining about are infinite value/otk cards (WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT,THEY ARE THE ISSUE ONCE AGAIN) DKs and other stuff are not like that,as hard as it's going to be those are cards you Can still win against (or at least stall until you get yours)After they are played and have done their thing if you (of course it's a generic you,i don't mean to offend) are not too lazy to make a single neuron operate for One game
1 i was talking about powerful cards that are limited by something,i used DKs as i feel they are what people hate the most
Yes, that's why I used them as an example for you.
2 You Can search All you want,you'll never see a single post where i complain about UI,it's really strong don't get me wrong but i don't hate the card,i hate (almost)
You misunderstand. I used UI as an example of a card that many people have (and still do) complain about being horrendously overpowered. I didn't state that you specifically did. (It was to give an alternate example to the DK cards)
UI Is NOT a card you Can "outvalue" in the sense that that's not the card that's (directly) beating you to death,you have to stop what comes After UI,not the card itself,i'm generally fine with draw engines
That's somewhat irrelevant. It may not be the card that is directly "beating you to death" - aside from the 5 damage to the face and the spawned 5/5 that is literally beating you to death. But it's the combination of those last two points along with the insane ability to refill your hand almost to full most of the time.
3 aaaah i see you intenctionally cut the part where i say why It was a problem😜
Again, you appear to have missed the point I made here - your post served to question why other people complain about cards (like Anduin) being a problem. And have followed up with the statement that Anduin is a problem. You say there is a reason Anduin is a problem? If so then yuo have your answer to your thread right there. People have reasons why they complain about overpowered cards and synergies.
That sinergy was a problem because you had no way of beating razanduin as soon as they played velen,they Just killed you from full hp,
That's inherently incorrect. In fact I remember there were plenty of ways to outlast him. The most common being tanking up as Warrior or Druid or simply aggroing the priest down before they got a chance to get going. As I mentioned before, no deck so far has been unbeatable. But the nerf it received was justified in any case.
That's not a powerful card or 2, that's anche uninteractive combo and that's why It got fixed
It was literally 2 powerful cards. Anduin and Raza, the Chained. They were also a combo that was powerful.
4 this...i don't get It
Do you mean the point about the Taunt Druid deck? (I'm trying to follow the numbering) Sorry, I actually didn't write that very legibly, going back to look - my point was that Taunt druid is not incredibly powerful just because of one or two super strength cards, but due to the synergy and combination of a number of cards that make the deck what it is. On their own, however, those cards are actually very weak.
5 by beaten i meant you Can stop what they are doing (outvalued was the more appropriate term i feel), the winrate should come from how both players interact with eachother and Who Plays his cards Better as an answer to what the other does (and slightly from bad/good matchups but nothing more than 5-10%
There are two distinct parts to this which are very different. The first is an uninteractive deck - contrary to popular belief, there are in fact only a couple (if that) of this type of deck that would fit the "mold". For example, the original Quest Mage deck with Ice Blocks, etc where you could literally ignore your opponent for most of the game and see if RnG gave you the win at the end. And the opposite end of the spectrum is a deck like the original Pirate Warrior - again, most of the game involved ignoring the opponent's board and going face.
The second part (which I assume you are thinking about) are combo decks such as Malygos, Clone Priest or most druid decks, etc. These are not uninteractive decks, even though you might think getting OTK'd in one turn is. It's not. You have plenty of time usually to prepare for what is coming and find a way to avoid it / counter it / outsmart the opponent. This is what interactivity is.
More often than not, people like to think that the definition of interactivity is that they have a deck that they want to pull off some fancy combo or something with and their opponent wouldnt let them because they got killed before they pulled it off. Most of the time because they were actually ignoring what their opponent did, ironically.
6 what's your most played deck?baku hunter?
Depends on the meta. Of all time? Probably Dragon Priest. This meta? Evolve Shaman, or maybe Elemental Mage (which is awesome this expansion!)
i am fine with aggro decks even though i don't get how lobbing monsters at people until they stop moving Is fun
People like winning. Winning is usually fun. Lobbing monsters at the opponent to stop them pulling off a crazy OTK combo is usually fun. ^_^
the issue Is more towards how there should be no decktype that forces any other to adopt that playstyle,
I disagree. When you play any deck, then you are counting on the opponent to play a certain way that will allow you to win. When you are playing a combo deck, you don't want the opponent to be repeteadly beaning you in the face. And when you are playing an aggro deck, you dont want the opponent throwing up loads of taunts and control etc. That's the nature of how these games work.
You have to adapt to deck the opponent is playing. Don't expect him to change his playstyle to let you win...
Me personally, I like playing with low power cards. I loved playing when the game first came out and something about stringing together a bunch of cards that are not quite good enough to see play to beat an opponent is always really satisfying in my opinion.
I do think high powered cards have a place in the game, it is just that I feel right now there is too many of them and so the game becomes more about seeing who can play their game winning card first. When I first played Emperor Thaurissan, it is satisfying to do something so powerful. However, when people play so many of these types of cards turn after turn, it does not feel as satisfying as it used to.
In terms of balance, I feel like pretty much all of them are balanced right now, with the exception of Barnes and possibly DK rexxar. Otherwise the rest of these type of cards are really strong, but do have some way to counter them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
1 i was talking about powerful cards that are limited by something,i used DKs as i feel they are what people hate the most
Yes, that's why I used them as an example for you.
2 You Can search All you want,you'll never see a single post where i complain about UI,it's really strong don't get me wrong but i don't hate the card,i hate (almost)
You misunderstand. I used UI as an example of a card that many people have (and still do) complain about being horrendously overpowered. I didn't state that you specifically did. (It was to give an alternate example to the DK cards)
UI Is NOT a card you Can "outvalue" in the sense that that's not the card that's (directly) beating you to death,you have to stop what comes After UI,not the card itself,i'm generally fine with draw engines
That's somewhat irrelevant. It may not be the card that is directly "beating you to death" - aside from the 5 damage to the face and the spawned 5/5 that is literally beating you to death. But it's the combination of those last two points along with the insane ability to refill your hand almost to full most of the time.
3 aaaah i see you intenctionally cut the part where i say why It was a problem😜
Again, you appear to have missed the point I made here - your post served to question why other people complain about cards (like Anduin) being a problem. And have followed up with the statement that Anduin is a problem. You say there is a reason Anduin is a problem? If so then yuo have your answer to your thread right there. People have reasons why they complain about overpowered cards and synergies.
That sinergy was a problem because you had no way of beating razanduin as soon as they played velen,they Just killed you from full hp,
That's inherently incorrect. In fact I remember there were plenty of ways to outlast him. The most common being tanking up as Warrior or Druid or simply aggroing the priest down before they got a chance to get going. As I mentioned before, no deck so far has been unbeatable. But the nerf it received was justified in any case.
That's not a powerful card or 2, that's anche uninteractive combo and that's why It got fixed
It was literally 2 powerful cards. Anduin and Raza, the Chained. They were also a combo that was powerful.
4 this...i don't get It
Do you mean the point about the Taunt Druid deck? (I'm trying to follow the numbering) Sorry, I actually didn't write that very legibly, going back to look - my point was that Taunt druid is not incredibly powerful just because of one or two super strength cards, but due to the synergy and combination of a number of cards that make the deck what it is. On their own, however, those cards are actually very weak.
5 by beaten i meant you Can stop what they are doing (outvalued was the more appropriate term i feel), the winrate should come from how both players interact with eachother and Who Plays his cards Better as an answer to what the other does (and slightly from bad/good matchups but nothing more than 5-10%
There are two distinct parts to this which are very different. The first is an uninteractive deck - contrary to popular belief, there are in fact only a couple (if that) of this type of deck that would fit the "mold". For example, the original Quest Mage deck with Ice Blocks, etc where you could literally ignore your opponent for most of the game and see if RnG gave you the win at the end. And the opposite end of the spectrum is a deck like the original Pirate Warrior - again, most of the game involved ignoring the opponent's board and going face.
The second part (which I assume you are thinking about) are combo decks such as Malygos, Clone Priest or most druid decks, etc. These are not uninteractive decks, even though you might think getting OTK'd in one turn is. It's not. You have plenty of time usually to prepare for what is coming and find a way to avoid it / counter it / outsmart the opponent. This is what interactivity is.
More often than not, people like to think that the definition of interactivity is that they have a deck that they want to pull off some fancy combo or something with and their opponent wouldnt let them because they got killed before they pulled it off. Most of the time because they were actually ignoring what their opponent did, ironically.
6 what's your most played deck?baku hunter?
Depends on the meta. Of all time? Probably Dragon Priest. This meta? Evolve Shaman, or maybe Elemental Mage (which is awesome this expansion!)
i am fine with aggro decks even though i don't get how lobbing monsters at people until they stop moving Is fun
People like winning. Winning is usually fun. Lobbing monsters at the opponent to stop them pulling off a crazy OTK combo is usually fun. ^_^
the issue Is more towards how there should be no decktype that forces any other to adopt that playstyle,
I disagree. When you play any deck, then you are counting on the opponent to play a certain way that will allow you to win. When you are playing a combo deck, you don't want the opponent to be repeteadly beaning you in the face. And when you are playing an aggro deck, you dont want the opponent throwing up loads of taunts and control etc. That's the nature of how these games work.
You have to adapt to deck the opponent is playing. Don't expect him to change his playstyle to let you win...
:-)
first things first,you play elemental mage so you already have a point in my book (positively,idk if that was clear) :)
anyway
number 1 was my bad, i didn't explain myself that well: i was talking about DKs as an example of strong cards people hate and i don't although there is 1 in particular that's a little over the edge rn in my opinion,still i did say there are things keeping him from reaching jade druid levels of oppressiveness (that's a word right?) so i'm not bothered (looking back at it,yes i wasn't all that clear there)
number 2 is kinda pointless,i didn't get what you were saying was just an example
3 on this one i might have picked the wrong example (see i had just installed hearstone at the time so i go with vague memories and what i read),still the fact it was nerfed must mean something
4 yes,it was the taunt druid part and...i did get what you were saying earlier i just for some reason didn't think about it much,that's not A powerful card,it's many mediocre ones, so i will correct myself and say: why complain about strong sinergies that allow you to have time to stop them after they got their combo off
5 i agree on the first paragraph (this is going to be hell to piece together later,sorry) the second part,well looking back at it maly druid was the only other combo deck i felt as fair since it's burst is limited to 12 on the first turn and 30 ish afterwards barring him wasting damage spells to clear you board so you could armor trough it),the problem i have with clone priest is the stupidly insane higrolls (i said something similar on taunt druid but at least there you had somewhat of a chance even in the highroll) because apart from that,you have some (very few) ways of interacting,but you sure can't armor through 68 dmg of burst (20 dmg mindblas and 14 holy smite, times 2 each) with a 29/65 on board,plus any mecha'thun (idk about the winrate,just referring to the playstyle here),otk pally (horsemen and shirvalla for anything that's not odd warrior) are uninteractive to the max and mostly hang on a diceroll even more than how hs is
6 guess i am a weirdo then,nice
seriously though,there are decks that literally CAN'T adopt that playstyle,so they were given dirty rat compensate,i probably wouldn't be complaining if we had one in standard as well
Me personally, I like playing with low power cards. I loved playing when the game first came out and something about stringing together a bunch of cards that are not quite good enough to see play to beat an opponent is always really satisfying in my opinion.
I do think high powered cards have a place in the game, it is just that I feel right now there is too many of them and so the game becomes more about seeing who can play their game winning card first. When I first played Emperor Thaurissan, it is satisfying to do something so powerful. However, when people play so many of these types of cards turn after turn, it does not feel as satisfying as it used to.
In terms of balance, I feel like pretty much all of them are balanced right now, with the exception of Barnes and possibly DK rexxar. Otherwise the rest of these type of cards are really strong, but do have some way to counter them.
My issue with Deathknights is that, especially these 3, your deck depends on them so much, too much sometimes. In mirrors, against aggro, against other value decks. How many times you guys did everything fine, but still lost a mirror, cause your opponent got their Jaina, Gul'dan or Rexxar on their respective turn, and yours were hiding in the deck? How many times you practically threw the mirror, but still won, cause you got your DK, and your opponent is punching the keyboard or something? Same goes for Uther, but more recently I guess.
See, if your deck depends on finding like 6 or 7 cards, we call them a combo, and they can be pain in the ass every now and then. But most decks playing these DK's depend on them, and almost only them. And this is not fair. Like, other cards are only there to support them. You just try to get to Gul'dan safe and sound, he does the rest.
Hadronox is different, it requires more cards to work, like Naturalize, Cube, Witching Hour and etc. And it is finite value. Jaina and Rexxar are practically infinite. Gul'dan is a bit more tame compared to these guys.
DK's were well designed cards, with all the balance they lack, they were cool, and fun. But I think it is enough them we relied on them, therefore I can't wait for the rotation.
Aside from the fact that jaina Is NOT infinite value,like at All,you do have a point,still the things you said Can Be applied to every single game of Hearthstone ever,Just instead of relying on a DK imagine you really really Need that last boardwipe to Survive vs an aggro or you can't find your keleseth and you opponent has coin, keleseth,shadowstep keleseth,same goes for every tech card you put in your deck for a specific matchup, you Need to draw it (i made the example of skulking geist vs Jade druid as an Extreme but i Hope you see what i mean)
Those are factors that are frustrating but are not linked to DKs and High Powerlevel cards but instead it's because heartstone Is a card game and as such you Can get rekt by rng at any time
Cards like Keleseth and Barnes also fall into this category, true. But topdecking isn't exactly my point. What I meant, briefly, is, these 3 DK's make up all the late game for their classes, and the deck revolves around drawing them, and playing them as quickly as possible. Just wanted to support with some examples, but they might have been better put.
My issue with Deathknights is that, especially these 3, your deck depends on them so much, too much sometimes. In mirrors, against aggro, against other value decks. How many times you guys did everything fine, but still lost a mirror, cause your opponent got their Jaina, Gul'dan or Rexxar on their respective turn, and yours were hiding in the deck? How many times you practically threw the mirror, but still won, cause you got your DK, and your opponent is punching the keyboard or something? Same goes for Uther, but more recently I guess.
See, if your deck depends on finding like 6 or 7 cards, we call them a combo, and they can be pain in the ass every now and then. But most decks playing these DK's depend on them, and almost only them. And this is not fair. Like, other cards are only there to support them. You just try to get to Gul'dan safe and sound, he does the rest.
Hadronox is different, it requires more cards to work, like Naturalize, Cube, Witching Hour and etc. And it is finite value. Jaina and Rexxar are practically infinite. Gul'dan is a bit more tame compared to these guys.
DK's were well designed cards, with all the balance they lack, they were cool, and fun. But I think it is enough them we relied on them, therefore I can't wait for the rotation.
Aside from the fact that jaina Is NOT infinite value,like at All,you do have a point,still the things you said Can Be applied to every single game of Hearthstone ever,Just instead of relying on a DK imagine you really really Need that last boardwipe to Survive vs an aggro or you can't find your keleseth and you opponent has coin, keleseth,shadowstep keleseth,same goes for every tech card you put in your deck for a specific matchup, you Need to draw it (i made the example of skulking geist vs Jade druid as an Extreme but i Hope you see what i mean)
Those are factors that are frustrating but are not linked to DKs and High Powerlevel cards but instead it's because heartstone Is a card game and as such you Can get rekt by rng at any time
Cards like Keleseth and Barnes also fall into this category, true. But topdecking isn't exactly my point. What I meant, briefly, is, these 3 DK's make up all the late game for their classes, and the deck revolves around drawing them, and playing them as quickly as possible. Just wanted to support with some examples, but they might have been better put.
ok sure that's true but,i mean without a strong card glueing together a deck (just think of reno for singletons,jaina in elemental mage) it loses a bit of flavour,not to mention that you need a reward for building your deck a certain way,i actually like genn and baku,they did give us powerful decks while requiring extreme deckbuilding restrictions (i still like singletons more) their "problem" is the consintency which i find a really silly argument as everyone complains about draw rng and immediatly after starts whining because odd/even deck are consistent....WTF??
DK Jaina is not only very strong it is also stupidly unfair vs weapon classes, while there are already a lot of ways to counter weapons. The oozes are already borderline unfair. Harrison Jones is a thing. Water elemental is a 4 mana 3/6 that freeze characters that is borderline op.
I completely agree with you: Water Elemental perfectly represents the DK Frost Lich flavor, however, some classes have natural unfavorable matchup because of this
Every class needs to have an unfavorable match-up...
The goal isn't to make it so that every class has neutral or favorable match-ups.
Well in thta case i want blizzard to print powerful class cards that can punishes spells then Since other classes got punished solely because they wield weapons
DK Jaina is not only very strong it is also stupidly unfair vs weapon classes, while there are already a lot of ways to counter weapons. The oozes are already borderline unfair. Harrison Jones is a thing. Water elemental is a 4 mana 3/6 that freeze characters that is borderline op.
I completely agree with you: Water Elemental perfectly represents the DK Frost Lich flavor, however, some classes have natural unfavorable matchup because of this
Every class needs to have an unfavorable match-up...
The goal isn't to make it so that every class has neutral or favorable match-ups.
Well in thta case i want blizzard to print powerful class cards that can punishes spells then Since other classes got punished solely because they wield weapons
Ever hear of a card called Loatheb? One of the best anti-spell setups for lethal in just about every midrange and some aggro decks.
wth dude. That's wild and only lasts one turn. You FREQUENTLY respond to general or wide-scoped opinions with ONE (usual class specific) answer. A better answer would have been Nerubian Unraveler which doesnt see play because it costs too much. If that was a 3 or 4 cost card, it'd literally change META.
This comment is not an opinion on water elementals/DK Jaina, just your weak pigeonhole responses.
wth dude. That's wild and only lasts one turn. You FREQUENTLY respond to general or wide-scoped opinions with ONE (usual class specific) answer. A better answer would have been Nerubian Unraveler which doesnt see play because it costs too much. If that was a 3 or 4 cost card, it'd literally change META.
This comment is not an opinion on water elementals/DK Jaina, just your weak pigeonhole responses.
It doesn't matter that it is wild only because it used to be part of the main format. Plus Jaina is going to be wild only very soon.
The post also wasn't asking for spell-hate that lasted the entire game after playing it, but responding that there is really good spell hate effects. Plus, it should be noted that if Jaina is massively affecting a weapon wielding player's ability to use weapons and win a game (no earlier than turn 8 with the coin) then they probably haven't noticed that they have lost already (no aggressive weapon wielding class should be taken to the late game and still expect to win).
You MUST come to grips with the fact that many if not most of the people who use words like "broken", "imbalanced", "unfair", and my personal favorite, "polarizing", are simply looking for a way to express frustration and be taken seriously. Very few people can even give you an adequate working definition of game balance, much less truly understand how to evaluate individual cards.
It's a complicated subject, and to be fair to those who use these terms, it is NOT a correct definition to say "a card is balanced if there exists ANY counter play". A very shorthand but somewhat serviceable way to consider balance is to ask whether there are a reasonable number of options for competitive decks without one deck having a clear advantage over the entire rest of the field AND without including fringe decks that lose horribly to everything except the deck they are being evaluated against in this analysis.
In other words, if every deck except Shudderwock loses to Big Spell Mage, and Shudderwock loses to everything except Big Spell Mage, that would not be a balanced meta. I word the example in that way to illustrate that you have to be careful. People will couch their arguments in exactly those terms: "A beats everything except B, and B is worthless against the rest of the field". Trouble is, that is very rarely the case. You have to actually look at the numbers. The only time I can remember this truly being the case is the age of Midrange Shaman, and in that case, there wasn't even much of a "B" deck at all.
All of this is underpinned by a larger issue. Every time a mechanic is introduced in this game which breaks the normal mana:tempo or one card:one effect ratios of Hearthstone, someone will complain and cry imbalance. The Jade mechanic in Mean Streets of Gadgetzan has the potential to grow beyond the reach of normal tempo play and conceivably summon 40 stats for 1 mana. OVERPOWERED! Gul'dan can be a 30 mana tempo play for only 10 mana. IMBALANCED! Jaina and Rexxar can generate value in perpetuity. UNFAIR! And then their was the recruit mechanic . . .
I have played this game since beta. I remember the days where Cairne Bloodhoof was a wildly powerful card because it 2 for 1'ed. Sylvannas was included in all but the most aggro decks, no matter what other cards you used. But here's the thing. Hearthstone has to come up with new mechanics to grow and hold the player base's interest. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about mechanics which take the game out of the realm of pure tempo races. You have to do better than that if you're going to claim imbalance.
Unfortunately, this is going to continue. People can't differentiate between what they dislike and true problems to the game.
I respectfully submit that none of us want to play 5 more years of pure tempo racing. New mechanics are helpful to the game if they are well-designed, and power creep is always going to be a thing. Just my thoughts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
People will just realize after rotation how much "vanilla" HS feels if they haven't got their DK's anymore and that's why they started to rotate new hero's in like Hagatha and Zul'djin. I wonder what is next as i don't think they will make hero's for all other classes in the next expansion. When they are all gone, so are the indentations of 2 years worth of oppression...Me like
You can't understand people that hate on DKs and in the next breath go on to say how terrible Rexxar is?
Every card can be beaten given the right circumstances. Ultimate Infestation becomes utter garbage when it's one of the last 2 to 3 cards in your deck for example. That doesn't diminish a card's worth or whether it is considered too strong overall, etc.
You acknowledge that cards are problematic (given situations that they become so), but your post questions why people complain about powerful cards like this.
So there you have the reason that people hated the deck. But the deck wasn't because on just one or two cards - Hadronox alone is a fairly mediocre card. It required a selection of particularly difficult to beat synergies (namely Witching Hour, Carniverous Cube, etc
Every deck can be beaten - hence why you don't see decks with 95-100% win rates out there. Just because a deck CAN be beaten, doesn't mean that the deck is fine.
This is simply nonsensical. You are simply attempting to ignore smORCing as an acceptable means to beating your opponent, when in fact this game revolves heavily around this concept. Combo and Control decks are actually the antithesis to the game, and not the core. They are just as acceptible and viable, but doing damage to your opponent's face in order to reduce his life to 0 is the be all and end all of the game's intent.
Ok then
1 i was talking about powerful cards that are limited by something,i used DKs as i feel they are what people hate the most
2 You Can search All you want,you'll never see a single post where i complain about UI,it's really strong don't get me wrong but i don't hate the card,i hate (almost) All the decks that use It (99% of the time they are the ones that don't give a sheite about fatigue:otk combos and infinite value) it's Fair in (it's my prime example now) in taunt druid as they DON'T have a free win the Moment hadronox dies/Is resummoned,you Can Power through that,it's really hard but you can,back to the main point UI Is NOT a card you Can "outvalue" in the sense that that's not the card that's (directly) beating you to death,you have to stop what comes After UI,not the card itself,i'm generally fine with draw engines
3 aaaah i see you intenctionally cut the part where i say why It was a problem😜
That sinergy was a problem because you had no way of beating razanduin as soon as they played velen,they Just killed you from full hp,
That's not a powerful card or 2, that's anche uninteractive combo and that's why It got fixed
4 this...i don't get It
All i Can Read there Is that people (and you too i assume,correct me if i'm wrong) would rather get blown up from 30 hp (and x armor if you have It) without the ability to stop It than having to think about: yes my opponent has a board of 89 (random Number don't insult me)health Total,how Can i make it disappear (you know...interacting with what the other Is doing,this goes both ways of course but since someone pointed It out earlier i figured i should Say it) and that's what i don't get
5 by beaten i meant you Can stop what they are doing (outvalued was the more appropriate term i feel), the winrate should come from how both players interact with eachother and Who Plays his cards Better as an answer to what the other does (and slightly from bad/good matchups but nothing more than 5-10%
6 what's your most played deck?baku hunter?
Just kidding,anyway of course that's an option (i am fine with aggro decks even though i don't get how lobbing monsters at people until they stop moving Is fun) the issue Is more towards how there should be no decktype that forces any other to adopt that playstyle,of course you eventually have to kill your opponent but he must have a way of stopping you at any point,even After you got your combo going (again taunt druid comes to my mind,i've beaten so many triple/quadruple hadronoxes by dmhing 2 more brawls,polying lichking ,outlasting the guy with jaina and so on,but i've Also Lost a lot because he forced me to waste my answers and evenctually killed me because i could't stop his gigantic boards)
Everyone tends to forget,it's a card game we're talking about,of course every single deck Can highroll you and there's nothing you Can Do (hell,i even won as a All 1 drop deck once because my opponent had nothing to answer,strong winconditions get picked on because people don't realize they are the best answers to other strong winconditions,but you Can still (barring some really rare cases) resist until you get tours,it's Just every e Is way too lazy to think of a way out other than topdecking your DK or whatever you May Need
Also at the start,the cards you were complaining about are infinite value/otk cards (WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT,THEY ARE THE ISSUE ONCE AGAIN) DKs and other stuff are not like that,as hard as it's going to be those are cards you Can still win against (or at least stall until you get yours)After they are played and have done their thing if you (of course it's a generic you,i don't mean to offend) are not too lazy to make a single neuron operate for One game
a
Hey wait, no one hates DKs they are cool, even if they are underpowered or overpowered they are cool, never saw anyone who hates them.
Just go under the card "profile" Page and you'll see what i mean
Yes, that's why I used them as an example for you.
You misunderstand. I used UI as an example of a card that many people have (and still do) complain about being horrendously overpowered. I didn't state that you specifically did. (It was to give an alternate example to the DK cards)
That's somewhat irrelevant. It may not be the card that is directly "beating you to death" - aside from the 5 damage to the face and the spawned 5/5 that is literally beating you to death. But it's the combination of those last two points along with the insane ability to refill your hand almost to full most of the time.
Again, you appear to have missed the point I made here - your post served to question why other people complain about cards (like Anduin) being a problem. And have followed up with the statement that Anduin is a problem. You say there is a reason Anduin is a problem? If so then yuo have your answer to your thread right there. People have reasons why they complain about overpowered cards and synergies.
That's inherently incorrect. In fact I remember there were plenty of ways to outlast him. The most common being tanking up as Warrior or Druid or simply aggroing the priest down before they got a chance to get going.
As I mentioned before, no deck so far has been unbeatable. But the nerf it received was justified in any case.
It was literally 2 powerful cards. Anduin and Raza, the Chained. They were also a combo that was powerful.
Do you mean the point about the Taunt Druid deck? (I'm trying to follow the numbering)
Sorry, I actually didn't write that very legibly, going back to look - my point was that Taunt druid is not incredibly powerful just because of one or two super strength cards, but due to the synergy and combination of a number of cards that make the deck what it is. On their own, however, those cards are actually very weak.
There are two distinct parts to this which are very different. The first is an uninteractive deck - contrary to popular belief, there are in fact only a couple (if that) of this type of deck that would fit the "mold". For example, the original Quest Mage deck with Ice Blocks, etc where you could literally ignore your opponent for most of the game and see if RnG gave you the win at the end.
And the opposite end of the spectrum is a deck like the original Pirate Warrior - again, most of the game involved ignoring the opponent's board and going face.
The second part (which I assume you are thinking about) are combo decks such as Malygos, Clone Priest or most druid decks, etc. These are not uninteractive decks, even though you might think getting OTK'd in one turn is. It's not. You have plenty of time usually to prepare for what is coming and find a way to avoid it / counter it / outsmart the opponent. This is what interactivity is.
More often than not, people like to think that the definition of interactivity is that they have a deck that they want to pull off some fancy combo or something with and their opponent wouldnt let them because they got killed before they pulled it off. Most of the time because they were actually ignoring what their opponent did, ironically.
Depends on the meta.
Of all time? Probably Dragon Priest.
This meta?
Evolve Shaman, or maybe Elemental Mage (which is awesome this expansion!)
People like winning. Winning is usually fun. Lobbing monsters at the opponent to stop them pulling off a crazy OTK combo is usually fun. ^_^
I disagree. When you play any deck, then you are counting on the opponent to play a certain way that will allow you to win. When you are playing a combo deck, you don't want the opponent to be repeteadly beaning you in the face. And when you are playing an aggro deck, you dont want the opponent throwing up loads of taunts and control etc. That's the nature of how these games work.
You have to adapt to deck the opponent is playing. Don't expect him to change his playstyle to let you win...
:-)
Me personally, I like playing with low power cards. I loved playing when the game first came out and something about stringing together a bunch of cards that are not quite good enough to see play to beat an opponent is always really satisfying in my opinion.
I do think high powered cards have a place in the game, it is just that I feel right now there is too many of them and so the game becomes more about seeing who can play their game winning card first. When I first played Emperor Thaurissan, it is satisfying to do something so powerful. However, when people play so many of these types of cards turn after turn, it does not feel as satisfying as it used to.
In terms of balance, I feel like pretty much all of them are balanced right now, with the exception of Barnes and possibly DK rexxar. Otherwise the rest of these type of cards are really strong, but do have some way to counter them.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
first things first,you play elemental mage so you already have a point in my book (positively,idk if that was clear) :)
anyway
number 1 was my bad, i didn't explain myself that well: i was talking about DKs as an example of strong cards people hate and i don't although there is 1 in particular that's a little over the edge rn in my opinion,still i did say there are things keeping him from reaching jade druid levels of oppressiveness (that's a word right?) so i'm not bothered (looking back at it,yes i wasn't all that clear there)
number 2 is kinda pointless,i didn't get what you were saying was just an example
3 on this one i might have picked the wrong example (see i had just installed hearstone at the time so i go with vague memories and what i read),still the fact it was nerfed must mean something
4 yes,it was the taunt druid part and...i did get what you were saying earlier i just for some reason didn't think about it much,that's not A powerful card,it's many mediocre ones, so i will correct myself and say: why complain about strong sinergies that allow you to have time to stop them after they got their combo off
5 i agree on the first paragraph (this is going to be hell to piece together later,sorry) the second part,well looking back at it maly druid was the only other combo deck i felt as fair since it's burst is limited to 12 on the first turn and 30 ish afterwards barring him wasting damage spells to clear you board so you could armor trough it),the problem i have with clone priest is the stupidly insane higrolls (i said something similar on taunt druid but at least there you had somewhat of a chance even in the highroll) because apart from that,you have some (very few) ways of interacting,but you sure can't armor through 68 dmg of burst (20 dmg mindblas and 14 holy smite, times 2 each) with a 29/65 on board,plus any mecha'thun (idk about the winrate,just referring to the playstyle here),otk pally (horsemen and shirvalla for anything that's not odd warrior) are uninteractive to the max and mostly hang on a diceroll even more than how hs is
6 guess i am a weirdo then,nice
seriously though,there are decks that literally CAN'T adopt that playstyle,so they were given dirty rat compensate,i probably wouldn't be complaining if we had one in standard as well
THANK YOU
Cards like Keleseth and Barnes also fall into this category, true. But topdecking isn't exactly my point. What I meant, briefly, is, these 3 DK's make up all the late game for their classes, and the deck revolves around drawing them, and playing them as quickly as possible. Just wanted to support with some examples, but they might have been better put.
ok sure that's true but,i mean without a strong card glueing together a deck (just think of reno for singletons,jaina in elemental mage) it loses a bit of flavour,not to mention that you need a reward for building your deck a certain way,i actually like genn and baku,they did give us powerful decks while requiring extreme deckbuilding restrictions (i still like singletons more) their "problem" is the consintency which i find a really silly argument as everyone complains about draw rng and immediatly after starts whining because odd/even deck are consistent....WTF??
Well in thta case i want blizzard to print powerful class cards that can punishes spells then Since other classes got punished solely because they wield weapons
Ever hear of a card called Loatheb? One of the best anti-spell setups for lethal in just about every midrange and some aggro decks.
Or you know, Counterspell in pre-nerf Tempo Mage.
wth dude. That's wild and only lasts one turn. You FREQUENTLY respond to general or wide-scoped opinions with ONE (usual class specific) answer. A better answer would have been Nerubian Unraveler which doesnt see play because it costs too much. If that was a 3 or 4 cost card, it'd literally change META.
This comment is not an opinion on water elementals/DK Jaina, just your weak pigeonhole responses.
Fun > Meta
It doesn't matter that it is wild only because it used to be part of the main format. Plus Jaina is going to be wild only very soon.
The post also wasn't asking for spell-hate that lasted the entire game after playing it, but responding that there is really good spell hate effects. Plus, it should be noted that if Jaina is massively affecting a weapon wielding player's ability to use weapons and win a game (no earlier than turn 8 with the coin) then they probably haven't noticed that they have lost already (no aggressive weapon wielding class should be taken to the late game and still expect to win).
DK's were only unfair in Arena.
If you can't plan and play against them is mainly your lack of comprehensive plays.
Also, when we hit rotation all new decks will spawn. We will see the real powerlevel of the Raven expacs.
You MUST come to grips with the fact that many if not most of the people who use words like "broken", "imbalanced", "unfair", and my personal favorite, "polarizing", are simply looking for a way to express frustration and be taken seriously. Very few people can even give you an adequate working definition of game balance, much less truly understand how to evaluate individual cards.
It's a complicated subject, and to be fair to those who use these terms, it is NOT a correct definition to say "a card is balanced if there exists ANY counter play". A very shorthand but somewhat serviceable way to consider balance is to ask whether there are a reasonable number of options for competitive decks without one deck having a clear advantage over the entire rest of the field AND without including fringe decks that lose horribly to everything except the deck they are being evaluated against in this analysis.
In other words, if every deck except Shudderwock loses to Big Spell Mage, and Shudderwock loses to everything except Big Spell Mage, that would not be a balanced meta. I word the example in that way to illustrate that you have to be careful. People will couch their arguments in exactly those terms: "A beats everything except B, and B is worthless against the rest of the field". Trouble is, that is very rarely the case. You have to actually look at the numbers. The only time I can remember this truly being the case is the age of Midrange Shaman, and in that case, there wasn't even much of a "B" deck at all.
All of this is underpinned by a larger issue. Every time a mechanic is introduced in this game which breaks the normal mana:tempo or one card:one effect ratios of Hearthstone, someone will complain and cry imbalance. The Jade mechanic in Mean Streets of Gadgetzan has the potential to grow beyond the reach of normal tempo play and conceivably summon 40 stats for 1 mana. OVERPOWERED! Gul'dan can be a 30 mana tempo play for only 10 mana. IMBALANCED! Jaina and Rexxar can generate value in perpetuity. UNFAIR! And then their was the recruit mechanic . . .
I have played this game since beta. I remember the days where Cairne Bloodhoof was a wildly powerful card because it 2 for 1'ed. Sylvannas was included in all but the most aggro decks, no matter what other cards you used. But here's the thing. Hearthstone has to come up with new mechanics to grow and hold the player base's interest. There is nothing inherently unbalanced about mechanics which take the game out of the realm of pure tempo races. You have to do better than that if you're going to claim imbalance.
Unfortunately, this is going to continue. People can't differentiate between what they dislike and true problems to the game.
I respectfully submit that none of us want to play 5 more years of pure tempo racing. New mechanics are helpful to the game if they are well-designed, and power creep is always going to be a thing. Just my thoughts.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.