⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Real wild players don't really complain all that often. The only issues the format has had have been Naga Sea Witch, Barnes to an extent and now Juicy Psychmelon.
Those are the only really unfair cards at the moment. Wild is not the problem, it's the casuals that play it and decide to judge it based on a day's worth of playtime.
While I do respect your right to your opinion. Allow me to ask you this? How many people complained about any of the Druid Combo decks before Juicy Psychmelon? If you are not sure, I can basically tell you almost none. They were fair combo decks which relied on your drawing your combo pieces organically like any combo decks should.
The new spell allows you to tutor the combo pieces directly. The spell is the problem not the combo enablers.
I agree on almost everything, mainly, I wish Priest could get rid of Big archetype and prevail with more interesting stuff.
On the other hand, the issue could be turned upside-down: why, as designers, provide Priests with interesting new stuff if they can live on with Big Priest and be happy? The existence of Big Priest and the fact it secures a position in high tiers for Priest slows down any pressing need for serious development of the class.
I disagree with Big Priest being strong because of paladins: probably paladins are there because they are strong against something else? I mean, that is how meta tiers are built up, decks with favourable and unfavourable matchups.
---
On my own, I will repeat myself as others kinda did in similar threads: bare tier ranking and the existence of counters is not a sufficient reason for the prevalence of Big Priest (because otherwise how do you explain the nerfs of Naga or even the double nerf of Quest Rogue?), that is the presence of an extreme highroll deck in t1.
Highroll decks such as Big Priest should obviously exist in Wild, but their consistency should be bad enough to keep their tier ranking at t3, and their population consequently low.
Just play kingsbane rogue, you'll see what "broken" is big priest. Same kind of broken is any aggro deck against kingsbane.
The meta is not healthy that's why big priest seems broken to you, too much brainless aggro.
I will crush you!
Lol non wild players completey uninformed opinion on wild. Wild IS mostly balanced. There were 2 cards wild players complain about. 1 was naga sea witch. That card was broken because of a stupid rules change blizzard made. Once it was nerfed everything become much more balnced balanced and has been ever since. Barnes is the only other card that wild players agree is broken and that is because of big priest turn 4 which that the deck is basically built around it's busted, but not much more so than everything else.
As decent policy on life one should be carful about there opinions in regards to things they do not fully understand.
Even shaman is worse
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/221458-here-is-a-new-game-format-i-propose-a-middle-point
Here is the thread I wrote that suggests how to fix wild, kinda. I would appreciate if you guys could read it and post a reply there with what you think.
Hi everyone, this is my 1st ever thread here. I am going to explain a new game mode that I think would be good for the game. Let's get to it.
So, I think that wild is a good game format, I do not play it too much because there is simply no room for certain types of deck. I want to play the game, win and have fun, losing obviously is not fun. Like I said, I don't play wild because there is no room for certain decks. HS has sooo many cards that are so interesting but unfortunately very few are used. I mean when is the last time you played wild and saw maexna, trade prince galowix, foe reaper 4000, Voljin, Kelthuzad, any of the Elises... you get my point, wild is a clown fiesta with only the very very top of the powerful viable decks used.
My proposal? Have a format for each meta that we had on the past. What do I mean by that? Well basically have a "standard year mode". For example if I wanted to play the Standard year of 2015, I would have available to use cards from: Basic, classic, Naxx, GvG, Blackrock, TgT & League. If I wanted to play the Standard year 2016, I would have available to use cards from: Basic, classic, Blackrock, TgT, League, Whispers, Karazhan & Gadgetzan. If I wanted to play Standard year 2017, I would have available to use: Basic, classic, Whispers, Karazhan, Gadgetzan, Ungoro, KoTFT & Kobolds. You get my idea. Each new expansion makes the power level generally go up in Wild, because you can just pick the most powerful new cards that have a home in some deck. This expansion for example, I mean some cards are ridiculous in power level.
The way the game is set up right now is simply ALL or NOTHING, it's either clown fiesta or P2W ish in standard. I am not complaining because of the P2W, that's another subject. I am complaining about the ALL or NOTHING aspect. I mean I honestly hope the game can keep going for as long as possible. But if there is only Wild or Standard, imagine the Wild format when there are 18 sets released (we are not far from that btw).
So what do you think? Is my idea good? I don't recall seeing any suggestions like this anywhere. If you've seen it please tell me so I can check it out. I'd appreciate all replies very much. Thanks all.
I am not only talking about Juicy Psychmelon, I am also talking about cards like Ultimate Infestation, Oaken Summons, Ferocious Howl, Jasper Spellstone ... i.e "the core druid package". None of these cards are overpowered on their own but together they give so much card draw, removal and instant armour gain that druids can easily survive easily till they find their combo.
Aviana is an old card, she never caused any trouble in either wild or standard until druid got this insane card draw and armour gain, now she suddenly is centre of all the controversy.
ah poor muffin
This thread is turning from Big Priest rant to Aviana Kun rant and I saw someone mentioned Wild Even Shaman too lol. People will never stop complaining. People will ignore that there are counterplays. People just want their deck that they play to be superior.
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
Many Big priests decks do not include Barnes anymore because when you pull Barnes out from Shadow Essence or resurrect him at the wrong time, you can get punished hard.
But no, in the eyes of people who only complain about Big priest, Barnes is this all powerful card that priest always draws before turn 4. Plays it on turn 4, which then makes a 1/1 Y'Shaarj, Rage Unbound that pulls out a Ragnaros.
Team 5 needs to show at least a little support for wild. It's incredible to me that they've all but turned their backs on the format and declared that they won't attempt to fix any problems.
Eh, my Giants Hunter consistently pulled off boards like that on turns 5-6 since day 1 of the deck being showcased with double Stitched Tracker, double Tracking, and multiple card draw for turns 2-4. That enabled large boards that were well before AoE capable turns even for some classes that did have access to higher mana cost answers. With Big Priest you aren't getting a wide board earlier than turn 7, but coming from experience playing the deck you usually aren't wanting to use your first spellstone on turn 7. This means you have a relatively high chance of drawing into one of your answers to spellstone swing turns.
Mage actually does well against Big Priest if you are Burn or Reno. With the Reno match-up I tech in Polymorph & Polymorph Boar to double my chances of mulliganning into an answer. If you are smart about what you are okay with transforming and what you aren't then it makes getting to 10 mana for 4+ Kazakus potions that much easier. Priest is a bit harder, but can deal with spellstone boards with Anduin, Lightbomb, & Psychic Scream (to break the threatening board up into individual threats instead of facing everything all at once), and druids have Poison Seeds to answer spellstone boards. Heck, pallies also have double Equality combos or even Enter The Colosseum (which is a very underrated board clear for control paladin when you are behind).
The deck does play itself but I'm of the opinion that almost all decks do that once you pilot them long enough (especially control decks). The point of yours I disagree with is that the deck is not interactive (It really is quite interactive when playing classes that counter it pretty well). For example, when playing with warlock I always teched in double Doomsayer & double Treachery to interact with massive Giant and BIg Priest boards. In the case of the priest that combo very much interacts with them; spellstone boards are threatened with instant removal if the priest doesn't SWP or silence the Doomsayer, same thing with Resurrect, & their discover options are reduced by 1 if they hit Doomsayer as an option. With Reno Mage, or any mage/shaman with transform effects you interact with Big Priest by not instantly transforming whatever first comes out in a panic. Obsidian statue is the perfect example to this, you don't transform that since it only deals 4 damage per turn, but instead save it for things like Rag, Y'Sharjj, and maybe LK so that they never enter the pool and the priest's burst/reach is drastically reduced. Bad players will go for getting rid of the statue and then wonder why they are losing to a board with Rag, Y'Sharjj, and/or copies of those minions.
They do show support for wild. The thing is that there is no one objective definition for what that would actually entail. Plenty of people don't like nerfs, not because they want to play powerful decks and go uncontested as some HS god, but because Blizzard is very well known for what I term "pendulum nerfs" (ie Nerfs that don't gradually test small changes at a time to see what is a good balance a card or deck in question should be capable of, but the nerfs often seek to outright kill and/or make the deck non-competitive). Additionally, some of us don't like nerfs because it doesn't increase the amount of decks you can play but ultimately decreases them (Note that I am not saying that nerfs don't change up which decks are taking turns being tier 1/2 decks on ladder, but I am saying that nerfs don't create decks, but they certainly have potential to destroy them if a card is too fundamentally changed). I for one like the flexibility of using whatever deck I want to play whenever I want to play just because I feel like or I miss playing a deck I haven't played in a while and/or couldn't afford.
Plus, and this is something I still can't grasp why many players don't understand this, wild is a non-banned list format (a term for Magic fans would an "eternal format"). More popular physical card games like Magic and Yu-Gi-Oh generally do not change cards within that format, with some card erratas here and there as occasional exceptions. Hearthstone following this formula that more successful card games when looking at the wild format is not T5 abandoning or ignoring wild.
Big priest i gone from wild. Seen some playing a variant of it with maly and velen and emperor to pull otk. But between transform effects going around kingsbane even shaman etc etc and the druids otks AND poison seeds just kills big priest.
I laugh every time i see a kingsbane rogue cause that deck is made to kill big priest and there isnt big priests around no more. Wake up Rogue players!!! Either play odd rogue or be left out to dry
Honestly we didn't have nearly as many complainers in wild until a couple expansions after the rotation (or more). Once more players started switching from standard to wild to play decks that rotated out or to find enjoyment after the standard meta got stale we started getting all of these players suddenly complaining about every OTK/combo deck under the sun and/or bringing in all of these expectations that wild is supposed to be a format that is wider than standard but not taller (ie They felt wild was not supposed to have crazy big turns/decks). Things weren't like this in the earlier stages of wild after the initial format split.
Because Wild was not so powerful in the earlier stages of the format split.
Personally, I am all in for crazy stuff and big turns, as long as they are tuned to appropriate turns: tutoring (deck and graveyard) and mana cheats (ramps and summons) are what's putting the mode in danger.
Most importantly, let's face it: we can say players are lazy and complainers as much as you wish (and it is certainly not false), but if the mode gets increasingly mad synergies, players will simply leave it - and Wild is not famous to be popular already.
Is hardcore more valuable than some decent popularity of the mode (which incidentally helps with variety and meta balance)? I don't think so.
I have told ya fan boys, Aviana Kun combo is the problem.
Not exactly. Aviana Kun is what team5 thinks (or hopes) the problem is.
I keep my mind about Big Priest being an important part of the problems in Wild (not the only one ofc).
Actually, Druid nerf will possibly give more room to Big Priest in Wild population...
Yeah, time for Big Priest return :D
p.s. i hate BP