The underlying problem with Priest is its lack of class identity and weak evergreens. This means it's always going to need strong cards from a new expansion because too many of their base core cards are too slow or situational.
Well, ppl have been complaining about the state of the meta game for years and priest never had a meta defining deck in the history of this game.... so maybe what we need is less "me go face" and more "do me trade"? :P
Priest has had meta-defining decks but not due to any synergy with their core evergreens e.g. Undertaker Priest, Shadowreaper Razakus & Dragon Priest. Blizzard always has to give Priest stronger cards in new expansions to retain its relevance. I think they should instead improve their basic and classic sets or give them a stronger class identity altogether.
Well, ppl have been complaining about the state of the meta game for years and priest never had a meta defining deck in the history of this game.... so maybe what we need is less "me go face" and more "do me trade"? :P
Big Priest
Raza Priest
Dragon Priest
Gallery Priest
Any Otk Priest
And no i do not play only smorc, i am known as a control player (handlock mostly) and i still hate priest more than any other class since beta. It's the only class which more boring than warrior and that says a lot. Plus in my experience it has the most toxic playerbase in ranked. Heck, even lich king had to silence anduin lol!!!
Actually we lose all cards for almost all archetypes... so all classes need some good fresh cards :D
I personally like this, because finally we can get some fresh air. I personally am thinking to play some sort of Mech/Dragon/Armor Warrior, and I can't wait it.
Meta defining deck = Meta DEFINING. A deck so strong that FORCES all other decks to play around or adapt/tech against it. Examples of meta-defining decks: Cube lock, Dr 6 paladin, Face hunter, Patron Warrior, Pirate Warrior, Jade Druid, etc.
Tier 1 decks <> Meta defining ones. Some decks you listed are not even tier 1 decks.
Argument still stands, Priest has definitely had at least 1 meta-defining deck within the history of Hearthstone, and it will continue to get them if Blizzard tries too hard to make them relevant.
The question is not if this class gets this, or that class gets that, but if in light of big core set shuffle card designers are willing to diversify win conditions, slow down the game as to skill becoming a more decisive factor of winning games by curbing the mindlessness of burn, buff and chargers, which by itself is - unfortunately - the main mindless win condition off all classes.
The unwillingness of curbing aggression is the main problem. As the unwillingness to balance in such a way that all classes have viable skill-based archetypes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The question is not if this class gets this, or that class gets that, but if in light of big core set shuffle card designers are willing to diversify win conditions, slow down the game as to skill becoming a more decisive factor of winning games by curbing the mindlessness of burn, buff and chargers, which by itself is - unfortunately - the main mindless win condition off all classes.
The unwillingness of curbing aggression is the main problem. As the unwillingness to balance in such a way that all classes have viable skill-based archetypes.
I fully agree with your statement thou i think some level of sheer agression is necessary to prevent games from being exessively long.
The question is not if this class gets this, or that class gets that, but if in light of big core set shuffle card designers are willing to diversify win conditions, slow down the game as to skill becoming a more decisive factor of winning games by curbing the mindlessness of burn, buff and chargers, which by itself is - unfortunately - the main mindless win condition off all classes.
The unwillingness of curbing aggression is the main problem. As the unwillingness to balance in such a way that all classes have viable skill-based archetypes.
I fully agree with your statement thou i think some level of sheer agression is necessary to prevent games from being exessively long.
Not argueing with that.
Balance, balance, balance….. it seems to be an art not fully learned yet…. if it ever want to be learned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Meta defining deck = Meta DEFINING. A deck so strong that FORCES all other decks to play around or adapt/tech against it. Examples of meta-defining decks: Cube lock, Dr 6 paladin, Face hunter, Patron Warrior, Pirate Warrior, Jade Druid, etc.
Tier 1 decks <> Meta defining ones. Some decks you listed are not even tier 1 decks.
Most of the decks he listed CAN'T be played around, much less in Standard, though. It would be meta-defining if it was possible to tech against it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health. - Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
And no i do not play only smorc, i am known as a control player (handlock mostly) and i still hate priest more than any other class since beta. It's the only class which more boring than warrior and that says a lot. Plus in my experience it has the most toxic playerbase in ranked. Heck, even lich king had to silence anduin lol!!!
When I started playing Hearthstone, paladin was my main class and I hated facing priest even more than hunters. Also, I agree the class is boring as f...k to play. I believe the problem lies in the few decision making the class has to offer every turn and, especially, on its little flexibility to adapt to different circumstances during a match, which is the main difference with, for example, a class like warlock when playing control.
I remember a long time ago I used to like playing with priest, but that was only because it was something new for me and it felt a bit refreshing. Obviously, it didn't last too long. :P
And no i do not play only smorc, i am known as a control player (handlock mostly) and i still hate priest more than any other class since beta. It's the only class which more boring than warrior and that says a lot. Plus in my experience it has the most toxic playerbase in ranked. Heck, even lich king had to silence anduin lol!!!
When I started playing Hearthstone, paladin was my main class and I hated facing priest even more than hunters. Also, I agree the class is boring as f...k to play. I believe the problem lies in the few decision making the class has to offer every turn and, especially, on its little flexibility to adapt to different circumstances during a match, which is the main difference with, for example, a class like warlock when playing control.
Most priest decks are control-combo, which is as flexible as decks can be without being completely broken. As far as decision making goes, Priest decks have as much decision making as any other control deck.
And no i do not play only smorc, i am known as a control player (handlock mostly) and i still hate priest more than any other class since beta. It's the only class which more boring than warrior and that says a lot. Plus in my experience it has the most toxic playerbase in ranked. Heck, even lich king had to silence anduin lol!!!
When I started playing Hearthstone, paladin was my main class and I hated facing priest even more than hunters. Also, I agree the class is boring as f...k to play. I believe the problem lies in the few decision making the class has to offer every turn and, especially, on its little flexibility to adapt to different circumstances during a match, which is the main difference with, for example, a class like warlock when playing control.
Most priest decks are control-combo, which is as flexible as decks can be without being completely broken. As far as decision making goes, Priest decks have as much decision making as any other control deck.
Donais: There's lots of other candidates. We talked about cards like Malygos, which we talk about every year. We decided not to go with Malygos again, because of all the new decks that he creates. An important thing in card games is to have different types of decks. Not every type of deck should be medium-sized minions fighting. There needs to be small minions, big minions, and there needs to be some Malygos decks and other tricky decks that have different game plans. That's what makes card games interesting.
'There needs to be some Malygos decks.' For what reason? Doesn't there need to be Alexstraza decks, or Ysera decks? That Malygos stays is prime example of catering into the wishes of the target audience, demanding besides aggression, easy fix OTK. Card design politics circles around keeping the meta polarized.
That means Wall priest will remain viable which denotes bleak perspective for new viable archetypes in the priest department. Therefore, don't see any ' very good' priest cards cards coming in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No priest do not need anything. Let that class die, it's a class for douches and any meta where it's good, it's a shitty meta. :P
The underlying problem with Priest is its lack of class identity and weak evergreens. This means it's always going to need strong cards from a new expansion because too many of their base core cards are too slow or situational.
That'll do, Huffer. That'll do.
Well, ppl have been complaining about the state of the meta game for years and priest never had a meta defining deck in the history of this game.... so maybe what we need is less "me go face" and more "do me trade"? :P
Objection!!!
Priest has had meta-defining decks but not due to any synergy with their core evergreens e.g. Undertaker Priest, Shadowreaper Razakus & Dragon Priest. Blizzard always has to give Priest stronger cards in new expansions to retain its relevance. I think they should instead improve their basic and classic sets or give them a stronger class identity altogether.
That'll do, Huffer. That'll do.
Big Priest
Raza Priest
Dragon Priest
Gallery Priest
Any Otk Priest
And no i do not play only smorc, i am known as a control player (handlock mostly) and i still hate priest more than any other class since beta. It's the only class which more boring than warrior and that says a lot. Plus in my experience it has the most toxic playerbase in ranked. Heck, even lich king had to silence anduin lol!!!
Priest always received the op cards which polluted the wild meta. Just no.... Enough already.
Actually we lose all cards for almost all archetypes... so all classes need some good fresh cards :D
I personally like this, because finally we can get some fresh air. I personally am thinking to play some sort of Mech/Dragon/Armor Warrior, and I can't wait it.
The synergies with the Rajasthan Rumble cards introduced have enormous potential. Some cards to support these could create something beautiful.
Meta defining deck = Meta DEFINING. A deck so strong that FORCES all other decks to play around or adapt/tech against it.
Examples of meta-defining decks: Cube lock, Dr 6 paladin, Face hunter, Patron Warrior, Pirate Warrior, Jade Druid, etc.
Tier 1 decks <> Meta defining ones. Some decks you listed are not even tier 1 decks.
Objection!!!
Argument still stands, Priest has definitely had at least 1 meta-defining deck within the history of Hearthstone, and it will continue to get them if Blizzard tries too hard to make them relevant.
That'll do, Huffer. That'll do.
The question is not if this class gets this, or that class gets that, but if in light of big core set shuffle card designers are willing to diversify win conditions, slow down the game as to skill becoming a more decisive factor of winning games by curbing the mindlessness of burn, buff and chargers, which by itself is - unfortunately - the main mindless win condition off all classes.
The unwillingness of curbing aggression is the main problem. As the unwillingness to balance in such a way that all classes have viable skill-based archetypes.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I fully agree with your statement thou i think some level of sheer agression is necessary to prevent games from being exessively long.
Objection!!!
Not argueing with that.
Balance, balance, balance….. it seems to be an art not fully learned yet…. if it ever want to be learned.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Most of the decks he listed CAN'T be played around, much less in Standard, though. It would be meta-defining if it was possible to tech against it.
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health.
- Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Well, I must feel proud then. It's is my least played class, followed by Shaman, hehe. :D
When I started playing Hearthstone, paladin was my main class and I hated facing priest even more than hunters. Also, I agree the class is boring as f...k to play. I believe the problem lies in the few decision making the class has to offer every turn and, especially, on its little flexibility to adapt to different circumstances during a match, which is the main difference with, for example, a class like warlock when playing control.
I remember a long time ago I used to like playing with priest, but that was only because it was something new for me and it felt a bit refreshing. Obviously, it didn't last too long. :P
Most priest decks are control-combo, which is as flexible as decks can be without being completely broken. As far as decision making goes, Priest decks have as much decision making as any other control deck.
LOL, yeah, sure, bro, tell that to Gul'dan...
Malygos doesn't HoF. How predictable.
'There needs to be some Malygos decks.' For what reason? Doesn't there need to be Alexstraza decks, or Ysera decks? That Malygos stays is prime example of catering into the wishes of the target audience, demanding besides aggression, easy fix OTK. Card design politics circles around keeping the meta polarized.
That means Wall priest will remain viable which denotes bleak perspective for new viable archetypes in the priest department. Therefore, don't see any ' very good' priest cards cards coming in.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.