I think upping the starting health to 40 for everyone would fix everything. So many games end turn 5 or 6 before anyone has a chance to play anything big and bad. Just a thought.
There's quick and then there's so quick it's not even fun. I agree Alex would have to be brought in line to 20 or even 25 health then. Other than that I think it'd be fine. I've played games where my opponent or myself have 50+ total health with armor and it still ends before cards run out. 10 extra damage in most cases is a turn or 2, or a turn or 2 for the opponent to get back in the game. Either way I would love to be able to set health to different values at least for casual games, like pick if you want to play 20,30,40, it could be a fun and interesting test if nothing else.
I think upping the starting health to 40 for everyone would fix everything. So many games end turn 5 or 6 before anyone has a chance to play anything big and bad. Just a thought.
Well, that's not the aim of Hearthstone, games are meant to be quick and fun.
And that would completely destroy the Aggro Archetype while transforming Alextraza into an overpowered card ^^
why even bother making cards that cost more than 6 then?
hmm where I'm at it's 80% hunter... Also making it past turn 6 does not mean you win. Like I said I have my own Hunter variant that I play when I'm sick of playing against hunters over and over and just want some cheesey hunter vs hunter revenge, with a half decent hand it's really, really hard to lose.
i also think calling the ladder meta is incorrect. people can switch decks whenever. its not like a tournament format where people are bringing 1 deck. the meta isnt "always changing" its the fact that theres no tournament format to prevent people from constantly changing decks. i swear at high ranks 1 hour you play against priest majority of the time, the next hour warrior control, the next hour zoo, the next hour hunter mid range etc etc.
in say magic, a tournament happens 1 weekend the results are shown, you then adapt to the meta of that tournament through the week and come up with a build that you think will be suitable for the following weekend. in hearthstone i can play against 4 hunters, 2 zoo, 1 war control and 1 priest control in an hour adapt my deck to be mostly geared against zoo and hunter and then the next hour play against 3 paladin, 2 priest, 2 hunter, 1 zoo. you cant even metagame for that crap, it just feels like you are literally rolling the dice. and because of this, you're better off just playing whatever is fotm and hoping you outdraw the mirror match.
I don't want to see hunter nerfed again - They don't need to be nerfed again - but I feel that they will be, anyway, because that seems to be the general handling of the class as a whole.
So, yes, I expect a nerf, needed or not. People cry about warlocks, nothing happens. Cry about hunters? Best bring down the hammer!
I don't want to see hunter nerfed again - They don't need to be nerfed again - but I feel that they will be, anyway, because that seems to be the general handling of the class as a whole.
So, yes, I expect a nerf, needed or not. People cry about warlocks, nothing happens. Cry about hunters? Best bring down the hammer!
I guess they would probably say that because it's really only one Warlock deck - zoo - that's the problem, they don't want to implement a nerf that will hit other decks. Also zoo uses mostly neutral cards which makes it trickier to single out for a nerf.
Hunter, on the other hand, is strong across a range of decks and uses almost entirely Hunter cards and neutral beasts that are hardly used by other classes. A Savannah Highmane or Hunter's Mark nerf is less likely to have unintended consequences.
That said, I still think zoo is more broken than Hunter, even though Hunter is the current flavour of the month.
I don't want to see hunter nerfed again - They don't need to be nerfed again - but I feel that they will be, anyway, because that seems to be the general handling of the class as a whole.
So, yes, I expect a nerf, needed or not. People cry about warlocks, nothing happens. Cry about hunters? Best bring down the hammer!
I guess they would probably say that because it's really only one Warlock deck - zoo - that's the problem, they don't want to implement a nerf that will hit other decks. Also zoo uses mostly neutral cards which makes it trickier to single out for a nerf.
Hunter, on the other hand, is strong across a range of decks and uses almost entirely Hunter cards and neutral beasts that are hardly used by other classes. A Savannah Highmane or Hunter's Mark nerf is less likely to have unintended consequences.
That said, I still think zoo is more broken than Hunter, even though Hunter is the current flavour of the month.
I still contend that the only reason Hunter is as popular as it is is because of how cheap it is to build.... you want to play zoo? ok, you're probably using 8ish rares or more. You want to play hunter? All you need are 2 Highmane and maybe a stampeding Kodo and Flares (but those are not required) so 2-5 rares and the build I am playing only has 6 or 7 commons outside of Naxxramas cards... so for the low low price of leveling up hunter, Naxxrama wings, 5 rares and half a dozen commons I was able to make a deck that got me to legendary.
That is why the deck is so popular. Why build most of Control Paladin and sub cards for legendarys when I can build all of the hunter deck? In essence the power of the cards is not the problem, if anything the "problem" is the rarity of the cards.
Hunter is pretty clearly too good (decks that beat Hunter don't beat much else, eg Tauntadin), but the answer isn't to nerf Starving Buzzard or Highmane (the class might as well not exist without Buzzard). To fix Hunter Mad Scientist and/or Tracking should be hit. The best card draw minion and the best card draw spell both work in one deck? No wonder it's so good; it always draws what it needs!
Hunter is pretty clearly too good (decks that beat Hunter don't beat much else, eg Tauntadin), but the answer isn't to nerf Starving Buzzard or Highmane (the class might as well not exist without Buzzard). To fix Hunter Mad Scientist and/or Tracking should be hit. The best card draw minion and the best card draw spell both work in one deck? No wonder it's so good; it always draws what it needs!
And what rank are you playing at that makes you think Tauntadin is the only thing that beats hunter? I have a difficult matchup against Miracle Rogue and Token Druid as well as priest. Control Warrior can be tough as well. The better matchups for me were Zoo, Taunt Druid, traps hunter, mages.... Honestly I never had much trouble with Paladins, but I didnt see them much. I just hit legendary last night with Midrange hunter (no traps).
The true issue is what the 2nd poster, Teal, cited. There's way too much cheap, efficient card draw in this game - not just UTH.
But it's a fundamental decision they made, I don't see how they can go back on letting a hero power exist that does this. They can't really nerf Auctioneer/UTH that bad so long as one class can draw cards literally at will every turn.
I'm more of a fan of things like Mana Tide Totem, Northshire Cleric, or even Ancient of Lore's health v. cards decision. There's some gameplay element involved that allows you to cycle, instead of it jut being almost automatic like in the case of Lock hero power, UTH, Auctioneer. And it takes sloppy gameplay on the part of your opponent to allow a Sham or Priest's card draw to snowball out of control.
A future card game to compete with this one could use this lesson. It's probably too late for this one.
Limit Buzzard to 1 draw or Change it to draw when a beast dies
The latter would be more fair in general. It would force them not to rely on the combo and draw a ridiculous amount of cards from just summoning the hounds. It would also still keep a decent draw mechanic for the class. It also makes way more sense from a logical standpoint: buzzards feast on the dead or dying.
Hunter really isn't that bad, it just sometimes requires more thought to play against than "dur, all my current minions have 2 health and he's got a secret up, let me attack his face!" And yes, I'm sorry to say, but you may need to tweak 1 or 2 cards in your deck to improve against this matchup. And yes, sorry again, there may not be a guide online for what changes are most ideal for you, you may have to figure it out yourself.
The main problem with hunters its the damage by HP, spells in combo with traps make u have fear to atk sometimes, and for me the actual meta its 80% hunter, 15% priest and 5% warrior, and its so boring face the same class over and over again.
except everyone knows the buzzard is their draw mechanic so they kill it instantly. there is nothing wrong with hunter. if they nerf it again they may as well remove the entire class from the game. Hunter is the direct counter for decks like shaman and zoo, and you get beat by them easily with sunshine or since all these nerfs.
this game is not going to die, youre crazy. its going to continue to grow, and blizzard will figure out ways to fine tune it. UTH is not that powerful, if youre encountering mass card draw from a Hunter it is your own stupid decisions that allow it to happen. I do agree that i like the decision making draws moreso than cards on command, but i dont feel UTH should be considered that. I dont think the Auctioneer is that bad either, because usually Rogue has to waste a large amt of their spells to keep the board clear, and the body is a 4/4 and easy to deal with. Even if they conceal it, most classes have a way to deal with it, or you just have to be smart enough to play around it.
again, as i mentioned with zoo, as annoying as it may be, youre only noticing that youre losing to Hunter more because youre playing them more often. Theyre still a 50/50 deck too. As Ive played this game more, Ive pretty much realized they kind of force the 50/50 thing onto you. Every time i get on a huge streak winning, I start getting terrible hands even after mulligans and such. The game is built to be 50/50 to keep things fair IMO. I still have more problems with healadin than I do any other class. So, basically in short, stop sucking and you wont have a prob with these classes. And remember that getting mad makes you tilt & that YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my decks & feel free to make suggestions!
The true issue is what the 2nd poster, Teal, cited. There's way too much cheap, efficient card draw in this game - not just UTH.
But it's a fundamental decision they made, I don't see how they can go back on letting a hero power exist that does this. They can't really nerf Auctioneer/UTH that bad so long as one class can draw cards literally at will every turn.
I'm more of a fan of things like Mana Tide Totem, Northshire Cleric, or even Ancient of Lore's health v. cards decision. There's some gameplay element involved that allows you to cycle, instead of it jut being almost automatic like in the case of Lock hero power, UTH, Auctioneer. And it takes sloppy gameplay on the part of your opponent to allow a Sham or Priest's card draw to snowball out of control.
A future card game to compete with this one could use this lesson. It's probably too late for this one.
IMO Auctioneer is better card design than Mana Tide, it's cheesy 0-cost spells that are the real problem. But no, erring on the side of too much/too cheap card draw is definitely preferable, especially in a card game designed to last only a few minutes and be really fast-paced, than to err on the side of you play A I play B you play C I play D 1-card turns with slower draw.
The true issue is what the 2nd poster, Teal, cited. There's way too much cheap, efficient card draw in this game - not just UTH.
But it's a fundamental decision they made, I don't see how they can go back on letting a hero power exist that does this. They can't eally nerf Auctioneer/UTH that bad so long as one class can draw cards literally at will every turn.
I'm more of a fan of things like Mana Tide Totem, Northshire Cleric, or even Ancient of Lore's health v. cards decision. There's some gameplay element involved that allows you to cycle, instead of it jut being almost automatic like in the case of Lock hero power, UTH, Auctioneer. And it takes sloppy gameplay on the part of your opponent to allow a Sham or Priest's card draw to snowball out of control.
A future card game to compete with this one could use this lesson. It's probably too late for this one.
IMO Auctioneer is better card design than Mana Tide, it's cheesy 0-cost spells that are the real problem. But no, erring on the side of too much/too cheap card draw is definitely preferable, especially in a card game designed to last only a few minutes and be really fast-paced, than to err on the side of you play A I play B you play C I play D 1-card turns with slower draw.
Erring on more draw is fine, but it needs to be based on something your opponent has some chance to mitigate - or something you have to execute a clever strategy upon in order to achieve. Like whirlwind into an Acolyte is another example of what I think it should be. Watching your opponent draw 3-4-5 cards in a single turn, or an extra card every turn, and they didn't even do anything special to earn that reward - it's infuriating.
It contributes to HS having such a high percentage of games where you either auto-win or auto-lose. The games where tough decisions decide who wins - while there's enough to separate the bad/good/great players - are the best games you play, and they're too few in number. I'd trade match speed for match quality any day of the week.
Like I still love HS, I'm not going to quit or anything, but it could be so much more if Miracle card draws took more strategy/luck/planning to achieve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think upping the starting health to 40 for everyone would fix everything. So many games end turn 5 or 6 before anyone has a chance to play anything big and bad. Just a thought.
There's quick and then there's so quick it's not even fun. I agree Alex would have to be brought in line to 20 or even 25 health then. Other than that I think it'd be fine. I've played games where my opponent or myself have 50+ total health with armor and it still ends before cards run out. 10 extra damage in most cases is a turn or 2, or a turn or 2 for the opponent to get back in the game. Either way I would love to be able to set health to different values at least for casual games, like pick if you want to play 20,30,40, it could be a fun and interesting test if nothing else.
why even bother making cards that cost more than 6 then?
So they can sit in your hand and look pretty when you die on turn 6 :)
actually as of yesterday.... the meta is like 50% hunter 20% lock 30% control. but that is at rank 1. i dont know what rank you play
hmm where I'm at it's 80% hunter... Also making it past turn 6 does not mean you win. Like I said I have my own Hunter variant that I play when I'm sick of playing against hunters over and over and just want some cheesey hunter vs hunter revenge, with a half decent hand it's really, really hard to lose.
i also think calling the ladder meta is incorrect. people can switch decks whenever. its not like a tournament format where people are bringing 1 deck. the meta isnt "always changing" its the fact that theres no tournament format to prevent people from constantly changing decks. i swear at high ranks 1 hour you play against priest majority of the time, the next hour warrior control, the next hour zoo, the next hour hunter mid range etc etc.
in say magic, a tournament happens 1 weekend the results are shown, you then adapt to the meta of that tournament through the week and come up with a build that you think will be suitable for the following weekend. in hearthstone i can play against 4 hunters, 2 zoo, 1 war control and 1 priest control in an hour adapt my deck to be mostly geared against zoo and hunter and then the next hour play against 3 paladin, 2 priest, 2 hunter, 1 zoo. you cant even metagame for that crap, it just feels like you are literally rolling the dice. and because of this, you're better off just playing whatever is fotm and hoping you outdraw the mirror match.
I don't want to see hunter nerfed again - They don't need to be nerfed again - but I feel that they will be, anyway, because that seems to be the general handling of the class as a whole.
So, yes, I expect a nerf, needed or not. People cry about warlocks, nothing happens. Cry about hunters? Best bring down the hammer!
I guess they would probably say that because it's really only one Warlock deck - zoo - that's the problem, they don't want to implement a nerf that will hit other decks. Also zoo uses mostly neutral cards which makes it trickier to single out for a nerf.
Hunter, on the other hand, is strong across a range of decks and uses almost entirely Hunter cards and neutral beasts that are hardly used by other classes. A Savannah Highmane or Hunter's Mark nerf is less likely to have unintended consequences.
That said, I still think zoo is more broken than Hunter, even though Hunter is the current flavour of the month.
I still contend that the only reason Hunter is as popular as it is is because of how cheap it is to build.... you want to play zoo? ok, you're probably using 8ish rares or more. You want to play hunter? All you need are 2 Highmane and maybe a stampeding Kodo and Flares (but those are not required) so 2-5 rares and the build I am playing only has 6 or 7 commons outside of Naxxramas cards... so for the low low price of leveling up hunter, Naxxrama wings, 5 rares and half a dozen commons I was able to make a deck that got me to legendary.
That is why the deck is so popular. Why build most of Control Paladin and sub cards for legendarys when I can build all of the hunter deck? In essence the power of the cards is not the problem, if anything the "problem" is the rarity of the cards.
Hunter is pretty clearly too good (decks that beat Hunter don't beat much else, eg Tauntadin), but the answer isn't to nerf Starving Buzzard or Highmane (the class might as well not exist without Buzzard). To fix Hunter Mad Scientist and/or Tracking should be hit. The best card draw minion and the best card draw spell both work in one deck? No wonder it's so good; it always draws what it needs!
And what rank are you playing at that makes you think Tauntadin is the only thing that beats hunter? I have a difficult matchup against Miracle Rogue and Token Druid as well as priest. Control Warrior can be tough as well. The better matchups for me were Zoo, Taunt Druid, traps hunter, mages.... Honestly I never had much trouble with Paladins, but I didnt see them much. I just hit legendary last night with Midrange hunter (no traps).
Balance is such a delicate act.
If you nerf buzzard + unleashed Hunters will have worse card draw than shamans. If you nerf highmane what kind of mid to late game will a hunter have?
There are decks that do well against hunter. Miracle for one.
I'll agree it does get old playing the same class 4/5 times though.
The true issue is what the 2nd poster, Teal, cited. There's way too much cheap, efficient card draw in this game - not just UTH.
But it's a fundamental decision they made, I don't see how they can go back on letting a hero power exist that does this. They can't really nerf Auctioneer/UTH that bad so long as one class can draw cards literally at will every turn.
I'm more of a fan of things like Mana Tide Totem, Northshire Cleric, or even Ancient of Lore's health v. cards decision. There's some gameplay element involved that allows you to cycle, instead of it jut being almost automatic like in the case of Lock hero power, UTH, Auctioneer. And it takes sloppy gameplay on the part of your opponent to allow a Sham or Priest's card draw to snowball out of control.
A future card game to compete with this one could use this lesson. It's probably too late for this one.
Easy fixes to buzzard + unleashed:
Limit Buzzard to 1 draw
or
Change it to draw when a beast dies
The latter would be more fair in general. It would force them not to rely on the combo and draw a ridiculous amount of cards from just summoning the hounds. It would also still keep a decent draw mechanic for the class. It also makes way more sense from a logical standpoint: buzzards feast on the dead or dying.
Hunter really isn't that bad, it just sometimes requires more thought to play against than "dur, all my current minions have 2 health and he's got a secret up, let me attack his face!" And yes, I'm sorry to say, but you may need to tweak 1 or 2 cards in your deck to improve against this matchup. And yes, sorry again, there may not be a guide online for what changes are most ideal for you, you may have to figure it out yourself.
The main problem with hunters its the damage by HP, spells in combo with traps make u have fear to atk sometimes, and for me the actual meta its 80% hunter, 15% priest and 5% warrior, and its so boring face the same class over and over again.
except everyone knows the buzzard is their draw mechanic so they kill it instantly. there is nothing wrong with hunter. if they nerf it again they may as well remove the entire class from the game. Hunter is the direct counter for decks like shaman and zoo, and you get beat by them easily with sunshine or since all these nerfs.
this game is not going to die, youre crazy. its going to continue to grow, and blizzard will figure out ways to fine tune it. UTH is not that powerful, if youre encountering mass card draw from a Hunter it is your own stupid decisions that allow it to happen. I do agree that i like the decision making draws moreso than cards on command, but i dont feel UTH should be considered that. I dont think the Auctioneer is that bad either, because usually Rogue has to waste a large amt of their spells to keep the board clear, and the body is a 4/4 and easy to deal with. Even if they conceal it, most classes have a way to deal with it, or you just have to be smart enough to play around it.
again, as i mentioned with zoo, as annoying as it may be, youre only noticing that youre losing to Hunter more because youre playing them more often. Theyre still a 50/50 deck too. As Ive played this game more, Ive pretty much realized they kind of force the 50/50 thing onto you. Every time i get on a huge streak winning, I start getting terrible hands even after mulligans and such. The game is built to be 50/50 to keep things fair IMO. I still have more problems with healadin than I do any other class. So, basically in short, stop sucking and you wont have a prob with these classes. And remember that getting mad makes you tilt & that YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE
Check out my decks & feel free to make suggestions!
IMO Auctioneer is better card design than Mana Tide, it's cheesy 0-cost spells that are the real problem. But no, erring on the side of too much/too cheap card draw is definitely preferable, especially in a card game designed to last only a few minutes and be really fast-paced, than to err on the side of you play A I play B you play C I play D 1-card turns with slower draw.
Erring on more draw is fine, but it needs to be based on something your opponent has some chance to mitigate - or something you have to execute a clever strategy upon in order to achieve. Like whirlwind into an Acolyte is another example of what I think it should be. Watching your opponent draw 3-4-5 cards in a single turn, or an extra card every turn, and they didn't even do anything special to earn that reward - it's infuriating.
It contributes to HS having such a high percentage of games where you either auto-win or auto-lose. The games where tough decisions decide who wins - while there's enough to separate the bad/good/great players - are the best games you play, and they're too few in number. I'd trade match speed for match quality any day of the week.
Like I still love HS, I'm not going to quit or anything, but it could be so much more if Miracle card draws took more strategy/luck/planning to achieve.