Hearthpwn

That the suggestion is unnecessary was and is, from most people, referring to the situation even previous to the nerf of patches. People have posted plenty about why that is without referring to the nerf at all including the person you're saying isn't adding anything meaningful to the proposal. But you don't want to hear anything but people agreeing with you I guess. Maybe you could make a thread that asks people to just complement you, instead of trying to make one with an actual topic, that might reach more success.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Example 1: Yes, it's actually a direct nerf to the card. For all for all intents and purposes previously it's card text said "Whenever an enemy minion dies, summon a 2/1 minion with Deathrattle: Deal 2 damage to the enemy hero" and was changed to "Whenever an enemy minion dies, summon a 1/1 minion with Deathrattle: Deal 2 damage to the enemy hero". It was literally directly nerfed without compensation and blizzard sucks for doing that.

Example 2: No, although this sorta sucks and blizzards policy of nerfing the less expensive cards of a deck when it's problematic instead of the expensive cards that are what's actually the problem is pretty offensive, it's too complex to determine what card should count. Any card that's ever been played in the same deck? That obviously doesn't work. You can say there's obvious things like the DK and Raza, but that's not a hard rule, and although it'd be nice for blizzard to offer a refund in such cases, I don't think they are super wrong if they don't, and I understand their reasons for not doing so.

Quote from scorpyon>>

And now you're just going around in circles, dude. :-S
Your whole argument keeps changing, every time. You need to stick to one idea. 

This is really only because you keep moving the goalposts on the discussion, I know it's somewhat foolish to keep engaging in some who does that, but luckily I don't really expect any actual understanding here, just enjoying typing I guess!

Quote from scorpyon >>

Like I said - you managed to find one deck that didn't run the Captain. (Like I said you would try and do).
So, we can effectively change your original statement, from being that Captain was a "sometimes" card to : The Captain was a "Most of the time" card. As we have proven, there are rare cases where he isn't included.

Quote from scorpyon >

As for the pirate decks, I was using your very own criteria for the examples - which is probably why you've now veered away from that.

Quote from scorpyon >>

Anyway, I'm still not going to allow this to be sidetracked with pointless arguments about whether Patches needs the Captain, or vice versa. Please stop trying to hijack the thread this way.

The topic was looking at how the changes I suggested being made to the Captain would effect both him and his interaction with other pirate cards and how the balance would change.
Virtually nobody so far has even mentioned this - instead, there's just been a slew of soapboxers about Patches. 

I'll just. Take a look at a little number 1 legend pirate deck back from MSOG: Cursed Pirate Warrior Oh! No captain!?!?

Quote from scorpyon >>

Nope, you're right. Southsea Captain is a sometimes card. If by "sometimes" you mean "always"....
I'm sure if you scoured hard enough, you could probably find maybe one or two weird homebrew versions that didn't run him. But I think it's probably safe to say calling the Captain a "sometimes" card is preeeeeetty wrong on that one. :-)

Quote from scorpyon >>

How many Pirate-specific Decks out there don't use the Captain out of interest?  (Not counting Token Druid, which isn't one)

I just had a pretty spectacular finish to a game of Exodia mage. I was playing against spiteful priest. I was winning the game quite handily although I wasn't drawing the combo very quickly, I had enough freeze and ice blocks left over to draw the remainder of my deck. Suddenly he drakonid operatived a coldlight from me and played it when I had nine cards in hand. Out of the two cards this burned, one of them happened to be my archmage antonidas! The one card thats loss could have hurt me! I thought to myself "woe is me, am I to be laided low, this game which was in the bag lost because of a twist of fate!" But no, wait! He's a spiteful deck, minions and two spells that give him minions only, and that coldlight was the seventh minion he placed on the board! I threw down all my sorcerers apprentices, babbling books, and Arcanologists that I had and timewarped. I hit him in the face for a bunch and then froze his board with a frost nova. I passed the turn to him. He paused as he realized he couldn't play Duskbreaker, or crack open a free from amber for taunt, or anything. He went though a Cabalist's tome and a ruby spellstone (from the tome) trying to find an answer, but he didn't find enough, and died to my board. Turns out that sometimes you don't need the archmage to exodia people after all!

Quote from B4timer >>

I find this kinda amusing asking when will the nerf announcement be and an few hours later there it is.

Quote from scorpyon >>

I have to respectfully disagree, since you also appear to also be lacking in memory here. 
The real problem with the original Pirate package was the Small-Time Buccaneer. This combined with patches was insane, especially since the STB health was an issue - and if you recall, it was nerfed to death. Blizzard knew that Patches isn't / wasn't the problem even back then.

Quote from scorpyon >>

Bloodsail Corsair has never been cause for concern with regards to Patches. Sure, it's been used in decks to pull Patches out, but mostly is laughed at as a general card and certainly not complained about by any serious degree (aside from people who just generally hated Patches and were looking for any possible reason to whine about him). It sees some vague play in Token Druid these days, but only as an afterthought more than anything. 
In any case, this thread isnt' about the Corsair, so I don't want to sidetrack down that road to talk about that card.

Quote from scorpyon >>

As you so neatly surmise, the Captain is one of the prime reasons that Patches is strong. Not the other way around. The Captain would still be the same without Patches. But Patches would be much worse without the Captain.

Oh ye of little memory, just because the current best patches puller the captain doesn't mean that was always the case. Before it was nerfed in pirate warrior you wanted to pull patches most often on turn one, ideally with Nzoths first mate. In aggro druid you also wanted to pull patches early, often with, that's right, Bloodsail Corsair. And that was absolutely a thing people complained about. 

The captain is the ideal patches puller right now because pretty much because of keleseth, who has such high synergy with patches you often want to pull him on exactly turn 3, (and also because rogue runs less 1 drop pirates the warrior did) which just so happens means you want a 3 mana pirate to pull him, which is exactly the captain (at least, outside of warrior, but with the fwa nerf the other 3 mana pirate is much less often a good turn 3 play). That the captain is also highly synergistic with patches certainly helps. But... No, the basic premise here that the captain is what makes patches op is not only flawed, but shows a pretty shocking lack of memory. The captain is no more then a good patches enabler, it allows the overly strong card to shine, but isn't in of itself the issue. 

I think this is a bad idea. The ranked ladder should be "competitive" (by hs standards) and the only thing it should reward is playing the best deck for whatever decks you're facing. This does mean that the fact that it also rewards aggro decks the most is somewhat problematic, but that's just such a fundamental thing within the game (quick decks play more games) that I'm fairly sure there's not really an appropriate answer. (Most peoples answer is to make it unfairly favor some other type of deck, but really that's just as problematic as making it favor aggro decks.) 

I actually think the fundamentals of ranked mode are fine. For most players it's an easy to understand ranking system that they can engage with competitively, for those who put in the time and effort it turns into a somewhat more appropriate mmr system. The issues come with the details of it, how the reset works, how unrewarding hs in general is to play (which isn't an issue only in ranked mode...) 

I also think casual wouldn't benefit from this change obviously. It'd just make bad decks loose more there.

So, overall, I don't think this change really has a place in hearthstone. It might be  (as most otherwise bad suggestions are) fitting to have it's own mode. But hs doesn't really need or want more modes that don't offer something really interesting. A slightly differently working ladder is probably not worth it's own mode slot.

No. There hasn't been a change, that's how it's always been, because that's how randomness distribution (in this case if you win or lose) works. If you're winning 50% of your games (and on average everyone is) then you'll expect that to come in clumps and streaks of wins and losses.

Yeah. Ideally They'd have to come up with some sort of compromise. Either allowing one to buy cards on a card by card basis, or splitting up expansions into packages of series of cards together (Grimy goons set, Jade set, Cabal set) or releasing more but much smaller expansions. Like, an adventure sized expansion a month for 20 bucks or something. At least, those are the three ideas I came up with off the top of my head, I'm sure there's lots of ways, probably ones better then those. I think it's possible, although I don't know if there's anything that would reach the same massive profitability of hearthstone as it currently stands. Which is of course why I wouldn't expect such a change without a lot of legislation forcing it.

I agree that for card games it feels different because it's a big part of the feeling of the game to open packs of randomized cards and make decks out of what you get.... I certainly have that feeling that that makes it different somehow. But I cant think of a way that it actually makes it different then any other system of semi-gambling that people are (rightfully in my opinion) hating on these days. And although that feeling of random cards is a big part of card game, I don't think it's actually required for card games, and I can't really think of a solid reason that if this type of gambling catches a ban collectible card games shouldn't go along with it and be replaced by living card games. 

I don't know if that's what should happen, I'm conflicted. But I kinda do think it'd be a reasonable outcome.

Got a Tirion out of my first gift. GGWP.

Really not my favorite brawl past that.

This would probably be better for the more... Discriminating players, who know what to craft and are pretty active using their dust to make powerful cards and decks. But I don't think it's something that will happen because, and it's always worth keeping this in mind in conversations like this, the majority of hearthstone players are very casual. They play casually, don't really know what they are doing competitively, and just play around very loosely. They'd probably struggle if just given a big pile of dust to figure out what to actually craft. If you don't know what to play, opening some cool looking cards can you give you ideas and you can throw them into a deck and see if they work. A big pile of dust, although something I'd prefer personally, is something I think would lead to some anxiety on people who wouldn't know what to craft, heck, I think a lot of casual players (and this is something I've heard personally so I know it's true for at least some people) only save up their dust to craft legendary cards, because those are the only cards cool enough to actually catch their attention. Sure, this way would help them get more legendaries, but it'd also make them much worse at the game because they wouldn't be forced to make actually somewhat balanced and reasonable decks with things like bonemare and scalebane in them :P. Which I think would probably be a net loss for their enjoyment to the game.