Much rather face Hunters than Zoo or herp-a-derp Warrior (OTK b.s.), Even Face Shaman doesn't feel too bad nowadays honestly, at least they still don't have Crackle, right guys? Yogg Druid isn't even that good, I'm surprised why lots of people play that deck, I think Ramp is a lot stronger atm.
Midrange Hunter has almost always fared poorly against matchups that go faster than it (originally things like Face Hunter and Aggro Paladin, now Aggro Shaman). Last I checked, Aggro Shaman is still a very strong deck that can nuke a Hunter if the Hunter doesn't have ideal early draws. As long as Shaman exists in it's current state, I believe it will hold Hunter in check.
And I say: WHY is it a problem? In magic you have 5 colors, each has diferent options, but you know what you're getting as a core set of actions, red is the color of burn, you know you will get low costed, charge filled high damage minions and damage spells, sure, you get other stuff, but every single expansion red is the one that brings the burn, and nobody complains about it, why people complain all the time hearthstone red's version (hunter for creatures/spells, mage for spells) is "cancer" or "nobrainer"? Because they don't really know about card games and can't accept is needed for the rock-paper-scissor system of all board games.
Never said Hunter was neither cancer, nor nobrainer. Just saying that it can't really work as Control, even if that was what people wanted, because of its hero power which forces the class to go aggressively. Steamwheedle Sniper tried to fix that, but it didn't really work out as well as it was supposed to. If there was a Control Hunter, I might actually play the class, this way I just won't because I don't enjoy the aggressive playstyle.
The Priest hero power actually kind of suffers the other side of the problem - it forces you to go Control and no, Shadowform doesn't help.
Hearthstone is not MtG, so I don't understand how comparing the two is relevant.
Yes, while Hearthstone isn't the same as MTG due to the lack of different kinds of interactions (graveyard, other player's turn,etc) it still has the same core functionality and archetypes. there is no disputing that hearthstone (or at least the original wow tcg it was modeled after) was trying to be like MTG. Red is hunter. But red can still play control, and I believe hunter can too. Its just not as good b/c it doesn't really have the tools to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The best way to solve problems is to create more problems until you are dead
It all comes down to the fact that Call of the Wild is waaaaaaay above the normal power curve. For only 8 mana you're getting 13.5 mana's worth of stats and abilities.
It all comes down to the fact that Call of the Wild is waaaaaaay above the normal power curve. For only 8 mana you're getting 13.5 mana's worth of stats and abilities.
That is just inaccurate. You can't compared good cards with terrible ones and say that they are OP. Huffer is not worth 6 mana, nor is Misha 4. Leokk is worth at most 3. So it's 5+3+3=11, in theory at least. In practice, late game cards needs to have a lot more power than mid-game cards. I mean, just compare Lightlord to Healbot. +5/+5 for 3 mana.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
And I say: WHY is it a problem? In magic you have 5 colors, each has diferent options, but you know what you're getting as a core set of actions, red is the color of burn, you know you will get low costed, charge filled high damage minions and damage spells, sure, you get other stuff, but every single expansion red is the one that brings the burn, and nobody complains about it, why people complain all the time hearthstone red's version (hunter for creatures/spells, mage for spells) is "cancer" or "nobrainer"? Because they don't really know about card games and can't accept is needed for the rock-paper-scissor system of all board games.
Hmmm, I quit playing Magic more than 15 years ago but as far as I remember, you can combine your deck with other colors to not be framed by only one strenght/weakness. In HS you cannot combine hero strengths and as I understand, the neutral cards do not fill this gap better than you can do it in Magic.
Not a critic, I just cant wrap my mind around such comparisons to Magic most of the times. Care to elaborate your reasoning? Maybe I can learn something if you care to explain it a little more.
As a mostly control player, and a hunter main in WoW, I would really like to craft a control hunter (I saw some, but I've never been able because they are expesive as hell).
Yeah, I saw some of the new face hunters there. And let's be honest, even with blatant stupid behaviour (not killing a minion in a situation where I would've surely have lost tempo and maybe the whole game if the minion were killed), it's strong...
But I think you missed a point, midrange hunter, although it's called midrange, was already a face deck. Cancer hunter never died, it just became more uncommon, and delayed the lethal one or two turns. Core idea is still the same: rush, rush, play something sticky, crash remaining health with some Kill Commands or Call of the Wild or whatever.
You should be more worried about other bullshit decks like face shaman, rush zoolock, worgen warrior, tempo warrior, tempo face mage or C'Thun warrior.
And no, secret hunter is not secret paladin, because they lack secret paladin's megacurve from turn 1-8, ridiculous card draw vs anything that stacks cards (Divine Favor) or the amazing secret interaction that pally has (Mysterious fucker draws, plays, and erases the secrets from pally's hand, making it easier to draw useful stuff, Freezing Trap has anti-synergy with both Bear and Explosive Trap...). I'll end up getting tired of it, but for now I'm totally ok with face hunter, as long as it hurts other cancer populations.
It all comes down to the fact that Call of the Wild is waaaaaaay above the normal power curve. For only 8 mana you're getting 13.5 mana's worth of stats and abilities.
That is just inaccurate. You can't compared good cards with terrible ones and say that they are OP. Huffer is not worth 6 mana, nor is Misha 4. Leokk is worth at most 3. So it's 5+3+3=11, in theory at least. In practice, late game cards needs to have a lot more power than mid-game cards. I mean, just compare Lightlord to Healbot. +5/+5 for 3 mana.
You can compare any card to any other card. That's how you define a power curve.
A 5/2 Huffer is the exact same card (with a Beast tag!) as Rocketeer. Based on Blizzard's own design, yes, it's worth 6 mana, especially when compared to Leeroy at 5.
Would you prefer I say the 5/4 Misha is worth 5 mana to put it on track with Booty Bay Bodyguard?
You are also getting these 3 different effects in one card slot. That alone is worth at least 1 mana more. AND it's not a Legendary spell.
Comparing Lightlord to Healbot is an atrocious comparison. Lightlord is a legendary, class-specific, more expensive, and conditional, non-direct heal to your hero that is also unaffected by battlecry synergy. You might as well compare Darkshire Alchemist with Priestess of Elune.
The only reason that the Animal Companion beasts are strictly better versions of other cards is because they are random for the 3-mana spell. With CotW you get all 3 guaranteed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Building Quirky Decks Every Week, Loving Life at Rank 15!
Never said Hunter was neither cancer, nor nobrainer. Just saying that it can't really work as Control, even if that was what people wanted, because of its hero power which forces the class to go aggressively. Steamwheedle Sniper tried to fix that, but it didn't really work out as well as it was supposed to. If there was a Control Hunter, I might actually play the class, this way I just won't because I don't enjoy the aggressive playstyle.
The Priest hero power actually kind of suffers the other side of the problem - it forces you to go Control and no, Shadowform doesn't help.
Hearthstone is not MtG, so I don't understand how comparing the two is relevant.
Hunter is a DPS class in WoW, hunter units in warcraft are glass gannons (troll headhunter and nightelf archer), why would you build a control version of a class that historically has been a damage dealer class? Sure, some variance is great, that's why you see call of the wild an slow card, YET is still focused in the main theme of the class, or snipe, a creature-centric secret to maintain early board control because your tempo is "not wasting time in enemy actions, but dealing burn damage". It's a matter of understanding that you can't and SHOULDN'T be everything there is or else, what's the purpose of classes?
Same thing with priest, and yet you're a bit wrong, minor heal promotes recovering from tempo loss, so it's easiest way to play is control, but a midrange strategy is also good since you are able to remove treats while keeping yours alive, you don't have to heal yourself if your minions deal with the enemy damage that comes in. Again a magic reference, White color is pretty close to this, keeping several small and big minions alive while your enemy waste their removal ultimately wasting all the resources unable to stop the damage.
Hearthstone is not magic, but hearthstone:
1) Is a card game thats enough to compare it to the best card game in the enviroment.
2) one of the game designers (and imo, should be the lead) is an ex-wizards of the Coast card designer, and you can see from vanilla to naxx how much team5 assimilated from magic's basic strategies and design ideals, now is a mess in comparison, but that's to be expected when a game is just growing to it's maturity (same thing happened with vanilla wow isn't it? then reached it's peak with BC-transition-WotLK) but if you haven't played magic you wouldn't tell the inspiration references.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
Yes, while Hearthstone isn't the same as MTG due to the lack of different kinds of interactions (graveyard, other player's turn,etc) it still has the same core functionality and archetypes. there is no disputing that hearthstone (or at least the original wow tcg it was modeled after) was trying to be like MTG. Red is hunter. But red can still play control, and I believe hunter can too. Its just not as good b/c it doesn't really have the tools to do so.
The thing is that there are 9 classes in Hearthstone and only 5 colors in Magic. I think part of Red went to maybe Paladin or Rogue.
Also, aside from the smaller card pool for each class, multicolor helps facilitate more deck variety. In MTG, you could have Lightbomb in a Hunter deck.
Hmmm, I quit playing Magic more than 15 years ago but as far as I remember, you can combine your deck with other colors to not be framed by only one strenght/weakness. In HS you cannot combine hero strengths and as I understand, the neutral cards do not fill this gap better than you can do it in Magic.
Not a critic, I just cant wrap my mind around such comparisons to Magic most of the times. Care to elaborate your reasoning? Maybe I can learn something if you care to explain it a little more.
Sure, obvs you can still combine colors hehe, my point is, hearthstone is a lite version of magic, while in magic you have the freedom to made the archetypes combinations you want, in hearthstone the classes are already those combinations, mage is mono blue, blue/red even White/red (mechs) so "jeskai". and so on. The comparison is to tell him that it doesn't matter what card game you're playing, you're linked to the Rock-paper-scissors system that all board games (not only card games) needs to keep a sense of equilibrium, so hunter shouldn't be playing the control side of "red" since mage is already using it and it' part of its character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
to compare it to the best card game in the enviroment.
Subjectivity is a beauty, isn't it? ;)
As card game, magic is 4 times bigger, more complex and overall a better game than hearthstone, every single person that has ever played both games can tell how better designed is magic in comparison to hearthstone. HS is softer, easier and quicker to play than magic, and that's why it has a better appeal among people, specially young videogamers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
You can compare any card to any other card. That's how you define a power curve.
No you can't. You compare only it with good cards, not atrocious cards that Blizzard is going to power creep over. That's fundamentally the flaw of your whole logic. The rest of your points are irrelevant until you get this bit sorted out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Yes, while Hearthstone isn't the same as MTG due to the lack of different kinds of interactions (graveyard, other player's turn,etc) it still has the same core functionality and archetypes. there is no disputing that hearthstone (or at least the original wow tcg it was modeled after) was trying to be like MTG. Red is hunter. But red can still play control, and I believe hunter can too. Its just not as good b/c it doesn't really have the tools to do so.
The thing is that there are 9 classes in Hearthstone and only 5 colors in Magic. I think part of Red went to maybe Paladin or Rogue.
Also, aside from the smaller card pool for each class, multicolor helps facilitate more deck variety. In MTG, you could have Lightbomb in a Hunter deck.
there are 42 color combinations (ignoring the use of colorless as a new color, wich would increase that number by a lot) but that's exactly the complexity level team5 put aside when they decided to make classes and give a set of "colors" to those classes, those being, general core mechanics, that's why lightbomb shouldn't be in hunter, when hunter seems to be "temur" (green creature based, red damage dealer, blue for board sustenance, albeit not the most played theme) you can see alara's and tarkir's themes in the classes if you squint lol :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
there are 42 color combinations (ignoring the use of colorless as a new color, wich would increase that number by a lot) but that's exactly the complexity level team5 put aside when they decided to make classes and give a set of "colors" to those classes, those being, general core mechanics, that's why lightbomb shouldn't be in hunter, when hunter seems to be "temur" (green creature based, red damage dealer, blue for board sustenance, albeit not the most played theme) you can see alara's and tarkir's themes in the classes if you squint lol :P
I don't get how you ended up with 42. Shouldn't it be 2^(#colours) = 32?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Much rather face Hunters than Zoo or herp-a-derp Warrior (OTK b.s.), Even Face Shaman doesn't feel too bad nowadays honestly, at least they still don't have Crackle, right guys? Yogg Druid isn't even that good, I'm surprised why lots of people play that deck, I think Ramp is a lot stronger atm.
Midrange Hunter has almost always fared poorly against matchups that go faster than it (originally things like Face Hunter and Aggro Paladin, now Aggro Shaman). Last I checked, Aggro Shaman is still a very strong deck that can nuke a Hunter if the Hunter doesn't have ideal early draws. As long as Shaman exists in it's current state, I believe it will hold Hunter in check.
The best way to solve problems is to create more problems until you are dead
It all comes down to the fact that Call of the Wild is waaaaaaay above the normal power curve. For only 8 mana you're getting 13.5 mana's worth of stats and abilities.
Huffer (Reckless Rocketeer (6 mana)) + 5/4 Misha Taunt (Evil Heckler (4 mana)) + Leokk (2/4 version of Raid Leader (3.5 mana)) = 13.5
Building Quirky Decks Every Week, Loving Life at Rank 15!
if I use rage adds as a measurement, then Hunter is just fine. I get soooooooo many when I play pirate warrior or zoo. None when I play as Hunter :)
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
It's not that good.
As a mostly control player, and a hunter main in WoW, I would really like to craft a control hunter (I saw some, but I've never been able because they are expesive as hell).
Yeah, I saw some of the new face hunters there. And let's be honest, even with blatant stupid behaviour (not killing a minion in a situation where I would've surely have lost tempo and maybe the whole game if the minion were killed), it's strong...
But I think you missed a point, midrange hunter, although it's called midrange, was already a face deck. Cancer hunter never died, it just became more uncommon, and delayed the lethal one or two turns. Core idea is still the same: rush, rush, play something sticky, crash remaining health with some Kill Commands or Call of the Wild or whatever.
You should be more worried about other bullshit decks like face shaman, rush zoolock, worgen warrior, tempo warrior, tempo face mage or C'Thun warrior.
And no, secret hunter is not secret paladin, because they lack secret paladin's megacurve from turn 1-8, ridiculous card draw vs anything that stacks cards (Divine Favor) or the amazing secret interaction that pally has (Mysterious fucker draws, plays, and erases the secrets from pally's hand, making it easier to draw useful stuff, Freezing Trap has anti-synergy with both Bear and Explosive Trap...). I'll end up getting tired of it, but for now I'm totally ok with face hunter, as long as it hurts other cancer populations.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
Building Quirky Decks Every Week, Loving Life at Rank 15!
Same thing with priest, and yet you're a bit wrong, minor heal promotes recovering from tempo loss, so it's easiest way to play is control, but a midrange strategy is also good since you are able to remove treats while keeping yours alive, you don't have to heal yourself if your minions deal with the enemy damage that comes in. Again a magic reference, White color is pretty close to this, keeping several small and big minions alive while your enemy waste their removal ultimately wasting all the resources unable to stop the damage.
Hearthstone is not magic, but hearthstone:
1) Is a card game thats enough to compare it to the best card game in the enviroment.
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
No you can't. You compare only it with good cards, not atrocious cards that Blizzard is going to power creep over. That's fundamentally the flaw of your whole logic. The rest of your points are irrelevant until you get this bit sorted out.
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
because often hunter loss value when trade. so of course go face.
There is nothing left if you can not has the right to bear your arms - werebear 2016-eternity campaign
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.