Hearthpwn

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.

Quote from szabozalan »

Quote from Hush_Hush »

Quote from whakka1 »

New weapon: Packleaders pilum 1 mana 1/3 throwing spear with "when you summon a beast draw a card and this looses 1 durability"

its another 1 drop since hunter has very few of them (only webspinner really) and not close enough to Eaglehorn bow to interfere with its turn of play. (you could attack and coin out webspinner turn 1 or attack turn 1 and play a beast turn 2 to be able to use it up before turn 3)

it gives hunter meaningful and strong early game and possibly some card draw. this way you can remove the draw from buzzard completely since its never again gonna see play.

thoughts?

thats incredibly powerful...

It's even better than Buzzard was with the 2 mana UtH :)

turn 2, ill draw a card and kill your X/1

Quote from whakka1 »

New weapon: Packleaders pilum 1 mana 1/3 throwing spear with "when you summon a beast draw a card and this looses 1 durability"

its another 1 drop since hunter has very few of them (only webspinner really) and not close enough to Eaglehorn bow to interfere with its turn of play. (you could attack and coin out webspinner turn 1 or attack turn 1 and play a beast turn 2 to be able to use it up before turn 3)

it gives hunter meaningful and strong early game and possibly some card draw. this way you can remove the draw from buzzard completely since its never again gonna see play.

thoughts?

thats incredibly powerful...

maybe murlocs can get a (2/1) for 2 mana that whenever you play a murloc, you can draw a card....
:P

Quote from unrealdustin »

Quote from Mordred1108 »

Quote from unrealdustin »

Personally I would rather see new cards come out before older ones get nerfed. Hunter has already seen a ton of nerfs in its short life span (buzzards is on its second nerf, amongst others). It's just sad to see my main and favorite class constantly nerfed when all we've gotten are Naxx cards and haven't seen any large expansions.

it had to be done, the way the cards were before was insane, and its still currently OP, to think its not is just unfathomable honestly...

One in every 10 think this and i still laugh every time, cards need balanced and coming out with new ones won't change the fact that 5 mana draw 2+ and get a board presence isn't OP...

Miracle rogue can do the same thing , but with a 4/4 body and a possible 5+ dmg. How is that anymore OP than hunter? Just because a class is budget efficient and popular does not make it OP, it's the opponents fault for not knowing how to play around widely known combos. And thinking that adding new cards won't effect previous decks is ridiculous. Look at how well sludge belcher and loatheb stops huntard in its tracks. Unstable ghoul is amazing in control decks vs. low rush aggro.

But that's besides the point. HT is still in its baby phase of design, with only one major expansion and many possible changes to come in the future. Instead of balancing the game through buffs and nerfs they should be focusing on releasing a more diverse meta through cards and new mechanics (more secrets for classes + neutral counters). Targeting certain classes is going to make a good player base upset (usually cheaper decks like zoo geared for new players).

We can sit here and debate the reasons why the hunter as a class is fundamentally flawed. the number 1 issue as pointed out by certain pros and which ive been saying all along is the hunter's hero power. classes that no ability to efficiently heal are helpless to hunter once they drop below a threshold life range. you can play around combos, and try to "control" the board all you want but it doesnt matter if youre getting punished for 2 life a turn no matter what. basically as a player you're forced into putting pressure on hunters which you immediately get punished by the combo.

None of the cards you listed really STOP a hunter in its tracks. decks that run those cards that are literally designed solely to beat hunter still only have a 50% win rate... That's not balance. Imagine paper rock scissors, where paper beats scissors 50% of the time.

This isn't blizzard abusing their right to nerf cards at will, this blizzard acknowledging a wrong in the checks and balances of the meta and this a correction that needs to be made. This is a perfect example of why digital card games will always have a leg up over their paper cousin. If this continues to frequently happen then yes it is a problem but like you said they are still in the infancy of design, these are necessary changes.

The power level of hunters really suffocated certain classes into obscurity. Most people are that hunter apologist really come off selfish because they dont want to change even if it comes at the expense of other people not being able to competitively play their favorite classes.

Quote from pilantra »

I see crying over paladins and priests very soon... /waves @ equality

the good thing about both of those decks is that there are decks that wreck both of those classes... mmmm balance to the force.

Quote from Mordred1108 »

Quote from Hush_Hush »

Quote from RavenousSix »

I started playing Hearthstonem, because I used to play Magic The Gathering. I used to actually buy the physical card packs and it wasn't online.

The coolest part about physical cards is once you buy a pack and get it, nobody can take it away from you and nerf it.

Whatever the card is, it's yours.

It's a bit disappointing that just because this game is online based they can just nerf or buff cards at will.

I think one of the most fun aspects of the game is to get and keep what you originally wanted. Either through a random card pack or by crafting. 

Does anyone else feel disappointed when Blizzard nerfs one of their favorite cards? Or do you agree with what they're doing in the name of balancing?

Personally I like to keep what I have and I'm against nerfs. Thoughts?

what deck do you play? miracle rogue or hunter?

honestly this is the greatest thing about digital card games. Look at MtG, cards literally get banned for being OP.  Meaning you CAN'T play it outside of casual play. That or you have to wait months for possible checks to OP cards,  leaving you stuck in a stale meta for months. I will give wizards their due, because they generally have a great system for checks and balances. Look at a card like Lingering Souls, amazing card!, but they instituted enough checks and balances that the card never destroyed the meta.

The ability to nerf or buff cards, allows them to maintain better balance for the meta. It allows for more creativity in deck construction, because it prevents decks and classes from getting choked out of the meta. When a deck still boast a 50% + win rate against decks that's specifically designed to counter it, there is an issue.

I do believe Blizzard should offer a limited period when users can DE their leeroys for 100% value, since some users will feel robbed.

They do offer full value DE next week on leeroy lol...

good deal :)

Quote from RavenousSix »

I started playing Hearthstonem, because I used to play Magic The Gathering. I used to actually buy the physical card packs and it wasn't online.

The coolest part about physical cards is once you buy a pack and get it, nobody can take it away from you and nerf it.

Whatever the card is, it's yours.

It's a bit disappointing that just because this game is online based they can just nerf or buff cards at will.

I think one of the most fun aspects of the game is to get and keep what you originally wanted. Either through a random card pack or by crafting. 

Does anyone else feel disappointed when Blizzard nerfs one of their favorite cards? Or do you agree with what they're doing in the name of balancing?

Personally I like to keep what I have and I'm against nerfs. Thoughts?

what deck do you play? miracle rogue or hunter?

honestly this is the greatest thing about digital card games. Look at MtG, cards literally get banned for being OP.  Meaning you CAN'T play it outside of casual play. That or you have to wait months for possible checks to OP cards,  leaving you stuck in a stale meta for months. I will give wizards their due, because they generally have a great system for checks and balances. Look at a card like Lingering Souls, amazing card!, but they instituted enough checks and balances that the card never destroyed the meta.

The ability to nerf or buff cards, allows them to maintain better balance for the meta. It allows for more creativity in deck construction, because it prevents decks and classes from getting choked out of the meta. When a deck still boast a 50% + win rate against decks that's specifically designed to counter it, there is an issue.

I do believe Blizzard should offer a limited period when users can DE their leeroys for 100% value, since some users will feel robbed.

Quote from ur2ezchaos »

so many hunter haters... its understandable because thats all you run into on ladder and it gets annoying but every single class has some kind of cheap mechanic that you can complain about. and in a few weeks you will be complaining just as hard about the next thing until the FoTM is a deck you play and then you defend it.

so much of the hearthstone community dosent understand empathy and logic -.-.  this nerf is obviously an overnerf no matter how you try to pitch it. i play every class and every deck evenly and i realize that hunter is overpowered but this is going to almost kill the entire class, making other things unbalanced with the absence of hunter in the meta. 

i was looking more for a 1 mana increase on buzzard flare and hunters mark so you wouldnt be able to wipe the board easily and draw at the same time until later turns. which would make the deck still playable but not 7/10 matches on ladder until legend. 

the hunter hate is about equal to amount of hunter apologist.

its not going to kill the class. there are plenty of hunter decks that run neither buzzard combo or leeroy and do just fine. all this means is that hunters are going to have to innovate and stop relying on a busted card. Blizzard decided to take off your training wheels.

You can still play the combo and drawing 3-5 cards will still be as good as it was before but now you're not able to rely on your combo and you'll have to time it instead of slamming it turn 5.

Quit over reacting and saying this is going to kill the class, when all it going to do is destroy the deck you're all use to playing. A deck that was suffocating the meta and choking out creativity. 

Quote from RJCarrot »

Lol x/4 makes me laugh, Even if they made it a 1/4 it would be wrong. 

If its a 3/2 it should cost 4

If its a 3/1 it should cost 3

 

That's about the fairness of it, but they went overboard.

right?! but you gotta remember hunters aren't use to what fair cards look like.

Quote from whakka1 »

what about making the buzzard more equal in power to other 5 drops because you´re going to want it to stick to next turn:

example 1 : making it like a gnomish but for 5 mana spawn a 2/4 Buzzard with "when you play a beast card draw a card" and a 1/1 Buzzard taunt/vanilla (beast) wich may or may not make you draw 1 card emmediatly when played, depending on how strong it would be.

example 2: like a rhino. for 5 mana summon a 2/5 buzzard with "when a beast dies draw a card"

example 3: make it like an Azure drake kind of. for 5 mana summon a 4/4 buzzard "for each friendly beast draw a card"

example 4: if you make it weak like blizzard is doing now it has to be either:
                     4 cost 3/2 or 2/3 with "when you summon a beast draw a card"
                     5 cost 3/3 or 4/2 or 2/4 with "when you summon a beast draw a card"

you balance the strenght of the stats with the power of the draw ability...

look at cult master (4/2) at 4 mana, then realize that cult masters draw ability isn't as strong as buzzards. i do think it may be a tad bit underwhelming but its understandable

Quote from JrRoman »

Any 3 mana 4/5 is probably going to be "OP" unless it has a battlecry of: "Battlecry: Your opponent wins the game"

why this is probably true, a fair change to buffing swords to a 4/5 would be to change its effect from a deathrattle to  a "battlecry: take 4 life, your opponent draws a card."  
the fact that swords doesn't initially have a draw back is a pretty huge deal.

Quote from MCFUser175154 »

When I posted this, I knew that a 4/5 would be incredibly strong, but I considered the types of deck that would actually run this card. This card will not most likely not be ran in control decks, but in aggro decks and tempo decks. These decks are pretty weak at the moment and need a buff. Consider fire elemental it's probably the best card in the game, but why do shamans have it? Because they need it to stay somewhat viable. A better example I think though would be priest. Their cards are incredibly good, it's just their hero ability, which is compensated for with strong cards. Most likely at best, dancing swords will get a 2 for 2 and negate its death rattle. A common problem across tempo decks is that they often run out of cards and their opponent will have a 3+ card advantage, which means tempo decks need to have card draw or high value cards. Since dancing swords gives your opponent card draw and does not get value since it's often a 2 for 1, it needs to make a significant impact for it to be viable. Consider why zoo is somewhat viable, it gets value by running high value cards and has the card draw to back it up.

if you buffed it to a 4/5 control decks would probably play it too. it would be a card that would literally crush mid range decks. think of it in the same vein as zombie chow to aggro decks.  i mean if you  buffed it to a 4/5 pretty much every deck would want to play it considering it would be one of the most powerful plays to make. a coined turned 2 4/5 with relatively no drawback would just crush. think of how hard it would be for zoo to get over that?

3/2 for 5 mana is completely unplayable...

a 3/3 for 4 mana is more reasonable

Quote from RubedoHawk »

Quote from Hush_Hush »

Quote from Jaraxle87 »

Agree, these decks do extremely well at the 25-10 ranks of play and even though people say they require little skill, you are still required to make good choices for the most optimal way to complete your turn(and at least consider plays for subsequent turns).  Once the higher ranks are reached you see a larger variety of decks showing up and these cheaper decks drop off a bit (not completely but most higher ranked players use some form of control deck that can shut down rush style decks) imo it helps newer players learn simpilar strategy until they start losing to complex decks and make changes.

 

*Disclaimer - this is my opinion and by no mean constitutes fact*

 

Quote from holiestgrail »

Yeah, effective zoolock decks are 1K-1200 dust and hunter decks can even be cheaper. It takes some skill to play these decks but you have to have a lot of experience to play control warrior or a lot of more expensive decks in general. Plus a CHEAP druid that will function on the ladder is about 6K+ dust to craft and it takes a lot of time and energy (or money) to get the cards you need. New or casual players need effective alternatives on their budget. Plus there are plenty of counter decks to both zoolock and hunter (including just building one of those decks of your own) so I just don't see those classes as OP or unfair at all.

Plus I've seen plenty of cheap decks be TOTALLY misplayed so I don't think I'm going to be convinced that they take no skill. Plus the way to know how to beat a class is to play it yourself to understand how it works. I'm guessing that 90% of people who complain about these classes haven't spent much time actually playing them or they'd know that little mistakes you make with either will generally cost you the game. -shrug-

The reason why people say the decks take little to no skills is because they are very, very forgiving of misplays. Nothing is better than watching high ranking legends playing against these decks pointing out all the misplays and still losing because their opponents decks carry them to victory. Where as the simplest misplay with control warrior, miracle rogue, or shaman ( probably the best example) will certainly end in defeat.

One misplay in any deck can mean the difference between victory or defeat, it is dependent on the severity and timing of the misplay. I also think it is ridiculous to say someones deck takes no skill because it is resilient. Having a resilient deck doesn't by default remove all choice and strategy from the game, I would call that good deck design.

that's why i said the decks are very forgiving of making a misplay. don't be quick to attribute it to good deck design as it could easily just be the culmination of very powerful cards and card combinations which is why there is this discussion about nerfing the class to begin with. There is such a small card pool that making deck decisions are nearly automatic. almost every deck type / class has a core group of auto includes where there are actually very few slots were individuals make actual decisions about preference cards. If a deck is "resilient" enough to allow a player to constantly misplay and still win then clearly there is an issue to address.

I think there is still something wrong with hunter (granted it has been hated out of the meta mainly by tempo priest), hunter still remains the benchmark deck to beat. Personally, I noticed how diverse the meta became when the meta tuned up for hunters and the popularity of tempo priest rose. I've played against more mage and paladin decks recently, than I did all last season.

Quote from Totemicfunk »

They're also very easy to climb a ladder if you've already hit legendary in previous seasons and don't have any ego tied up in the climb. A lot of top tier players will usually play Hunters/Lock in the early parts of a season to push into Legend earlier and get a head start on the grind, I don't mind playing the control V control matchup in the 3-Legend bracket but man, the time involved in doing control through 15-5 would be astronomical.

Plus Zoolock and Facehunter is stupidly fun to play

This is a failure of the ladder system in my opinion.

Quote from Jaraxle87 »

Agree, these decks do extremely well at the 25-10 ranks of play and even though people say they require little skill, you are still required to make good choices for the most optimal way to complete your turn(and at least consider plays for subsequent turns).  Once the higher ranks are reached you see a larger variety of decks showing up and these cheaper decks drop off a bit (not completely but most higher ranked players use some form of control deck that can shut down rush style decks) imo it helps newer players learn simpilar strategy until they start losing to complex decks and make changes.

 

*Disclaimer - this is my opinion and by no mean constitutes fact*

Quote from holiestgrail »

Yeah, effective zoolock decks are 1K-1200 dust and hunter decks can even be cheaper. It takes some skill to play these decks but you have to have a lot of experience to play control warrior or a lot of more expensive decks in general. Plus a CHEAP druid that will function on the ladder is about 6K+ dust to craft and it takes a lot of time and energy (or money) to get the cards you need. New or casual players need effective alternatives on their budget. Plus there are plenty of counter decks to both zoolock and hunter (including just building one of those decks of your own) so I just don't see those classes as OP or unfair at all.

Plus I've seen plenty of cheap decks be TOTALLY misplayed so I don't think I'm going to be convinced that they take no skill. Plus the way to know how to beat a class is to play it yourself to understand how it works. I'm guessing that 90% of people who complain about these classes haven't spent much time actually playing them or they'd know that little mistakes you make with either will generally cost you the game. -shrug-

The reason why people say the decks take little to no skills is because they are very, very forgiving of misplays. Nothing is better than watching high ranking legends playing against these decks pointing out all the misplays and still losing because their opponents decks carry them to victory. Where as the simplest misplay with control warrior, miracle rogue, or shaman ( probably the best example) will certainly end in defeat.