Hearthpwn

Quote from HearthstoneDailyQuests >>

My biggest point about the nerfs (see video in my signature) is that, while sometimes Blizzard makes reasonable nerfs that allow a card to still be played (Soulfire, Spreading Plague), quite often they nerf cards so hard that the cards are never played, effectively banning them (Starving Buzzard, Warsong Commander, Arcane Golem) in both Wild and Standard. I would prefer, instead of nerfing, Blizzard to just HoF or otherwise ban these cards from standard, but allow them into Wild unchanged, so the cards and the decks they enabled can still be played. To me, that's what Wild is about -- being able to play powerful cards and decks that are no longer allowed in standard (due to rotation or power level issues).  I'm OK with Wild being comparatively high power to standard. 

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true fanboy.

 There are always going to be strong cards within any card game

Bonemare is not a strong card. It is a OP-card. Now it is nerfed. Why was it put there in the first place? If Devs are as good as you imply, they would have seen that coming. So they knew it was OP. They print it on purpose. Why? Pack selling stimulant for an easy and aggressive win-fix. Who is naive here?

counterplay

Result of railroaded decks: a stale and polarized meta. Respons to exodia mage; higlander priest: An aggressive meta. So much for diversity.

Not everyone wants to play slow decks, people like pressuring opponents rapidly.

This is not what everyone wants. Not everybody likes the dominance/imbalance aggressive decks organize. This dominance is not a natural part/given of the game. It is a design choice. More balance, resulting in a slower meta, means different disign choices. There is no reason why the aggro-aggressive player should be the target audience, except for revenue reasons. Look at the upcoming  'balance' changes. It is expected (even by Beeeerad who wrote his article) to slowdown the meta a bit. Much needed. So what is the problem?

People who have even a bit of notion how psychology of the marketing behind card design works, understand why the meta is continuesly broken as it is, while it follows the principle: Print OP-aggressive cards - Increased pack selling because easy win-fix - Rising discontent because of resulted staleness and polarization - Nerf.

This is the principle at the heart of current card design phylosophy. Understandable that things like balance, diversity and skill are continuesly problematic.

 

Quote from scorpyon >>

I completely agree with the comment about Wild. It was intended to be power-mad and full of crazy cards and combos.

I seriously can't believe there are people actually complaining about Wild being unfair and unbalanced - and forcing Blizzard to change cards that should never have been changed in the first place. Relegating to HoF is such a better idea than makling the cards unplayable anywhere.

Quote from Haussenfuss >>

Quote from HearthstoneDailyQuests >>

My biggest point about the nerfs (see video in my signature) is that, while sometimes Blizzard makes reasonable nerfs that allow a card to still be played (Soulfire, Spreading Plague), quite often they nerf cards so hard that the cards are never played, effectively banning them (Starving Buzzard, Warsong Commander, Arcane Golem) in both Wild and Standard. I would prefer, instead of nerfing, Blizzard to just HoF or otherwise ban these cards from standard, but allow them into Wild unchanged, so the cards and the decks they enabled can still be played. To me, that's what Wild is about -- being able to play powerful cards and decks that are no longer allowed in standard (due to rotation or power level issues).  I'm OK with Wild being comparatively high power to standard. 

Congrats on posting a perfectly well-developed opinion on hearthpwn - there should be an achievement for folks who don't mindlessly complain on these forums.

I've played MtG since The Dark, and have never really played a single game that wasn't Vintage or Legacy. I quite enjoy older formats with well-developed "pillars" - there are decks in Vintage which have dominated that format for well over twenty years. But Wild won't be a genuine, independent format for many years - currently, the two formats differ by fewer than 400 cards.  Ten years from now, a card like Patches won't be problematic in Wild - but it currently dominates the format, and determines the build of virtually every aggressive deck. The same goes for Raza - there will be plenty of 2TK control decks over the next ten years, and the format will learn how to deal with them. But the combo currently pushes every other kind of Priest deck, and plenty of non-Priest control decks, out of the format. I would have been happy either way - I want Wild to ultimately have its own "Power Nine," and if Wild had gained its identity in part as the "Aggro = Patches" format, there really wouldn't be a problem in the long term. But HS releases less than half as many cards each year as IRL card games - MtG Standard typically peaks with a card pool between 1600-1900 cards prior to rotation. Wild won't have a similarly-sized card pool until the end of this year, five years after the open beta. It would take years and years for the format to truly come to grips with Patches, and Raza, if they weren't future-proofed now. Wild won't begin gaining its own identity until the Wild-only card pool is considerably larger than the shared card pool - 19 of the 20 most-played decks in Wild are currently "up-graded" Standard decks. So I understand why Patches and Raza were nerfed, and don't really criticize the decision - it will be interesting to watch Wild mature over the next five to ten years . . .

FWIW - I suspect that Patches will still see play in Pirate decks, given its synergy with Ship's Cannon. Raza remains good enough to see play as well, but the nerf opens up space for non-combo Reno Priest - during Un'Goro, Quest Priest was the most common Reno variant in Wild, and the Raza nerf might open up enough room for Quest Priest to return.

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

I played some old MTG the other day with a friend.  My god, cards in those decks were a thousand times more op than any of these cards that are being nerfed.  It felt like there was no way to deal with certain aggro decks my friend had.  There are ways to deal with Bonemare.  Yes, it was a strong, borderline-OP card.  But, there are answers to it, just like there are really answers to everything else in this game I've found.  Granted I'm not a completely F2P player, so I can't truly understand the plight of f2p players, but there are answers.

As far as aggro decks are concerned, Bonemare is essentially a 7 mana neutral Blessing of Kings, really.  The card design is actually not super bad.  

I will add that it is much more "balanced" and less strong at 8 mana, but it wasn't as bad as you say it is.

People don't seem to realize that we can actually afford to tech in spellbreakers and other tech cards now that the stupid creeper and patches package decks that were in pretty much EVERY DECK ON LADDER are  gonna be destroyed.

Warlock is gonna be easier to deal with now. 

Though I will admit the 1 mana, heal 8, cube activator is not the best designed card.

That would make 

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

 Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prevent any of the 5 doomguards in the cubelock combo from attacking face.

Doomguard is pretty OP but if cubelock is the reason it gets a nerf, I think it’d be a simple stat change thing

 Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Laytown >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true fanboy.

 There are always going to be strong cards within any card game

Bonemare is not a strong card. It is a OP-card. Now it is nerfed. Why was it put there in the first place? If Devs are as good as you imply, they would have seen that coming. So they knew it was OP. They print it on purpose. Why? Pack selling stimulant for an easy and aggressive win-fix. Who is naive here?

counterplay

Result of railroaded decks: a stale and polarized meta. Respons to exodia mage; higlander priest: An aggressive meta. So much for diversity.

Not everyone wants to play slow decks, people like pressuring opponents rapidly.

This is not what everyone wants. Not everybody likes the dominance/imbalance aggressive decks organize. This dominance is not a natural part/given of the game. It is a design choice. More balance, resulting in a slower meta, means different disign choices. There is no reason why the aggro-aggressive player should be the target audience, except for revenue reasons. Look at the upcoming  'balance' changes. It is expected (even by Beeeerad who wrote his article) to slowdown the meta a bit. Much needed. So what is the problem?

People who have even a bit of notion how psychology of the marketing behind card design works, understand why the meta is continuesly broken as it is, while it follows the principle: Print OP-aggressive cards - Increased pack selling because easy win-fix - Rising discontent because of resulted staleness and polarization - Nerf.

This is the principle at the heart of current card design phylosophy. Understandable that things like balance, diversity and skill are continuesly problematic.

 

 "If Devs are as good as you imply, they would have seen that coming. So they knew it was OP." - This alone proves how naive you truly are and how little you understand about card games and their development. "They would have seen it coming" - Do you realize how egotistical you sound? They realized it was a strong card of course but only by allowing it to be played alot can they determine what may or may not need to be altered. They've then altered it by 1 mana, which shows how fine a line it is..... 

"They print it on purpose. Why? Pack selling stimulant for an easy and aggressive win-fix. Who is naive here?" - You clearly are naive and ignorant to your own point. Bonemare is a common unless you didn't notice??.... it's not exactly a pack selling stimulant is it??!

 

"Result of railroaded decks: a stale and polarized meta. Respons to exodia mage; higlander priest: An aggressive meta. So much for diversity." - All decks including aggro have a response, so your point is mute. Not only mute but shows that you have a personal agenda based away from fact.

"This is the principle at the heart of current card design phylosophy. " - For one, it clearly isn't, there are a multitude of control decks that have been present in recent years. You're just claiming once again. You previous post read by any intelligent adult shows how completely naive and single minded you are and that you have an agenda...... 

Once again, Why are you on these forums or playing the game if it's everything you make it out to be???

 Hiding behind a so called innate, inferential state of 'card games and their development' is like looking in the mirror and seeing oneself to be naive. 'They realized it [Bonemare] was a strong card of course but only by allowing it to be played alot can they determine what may or may not need to be altered.' You can't print a card and see what it does in the meta, wait too long before nerfing and let people pay for it. Even so you wouldn't accept an update on your computer if it is not checked that it not corrupts existing software. That is exactly what Bonemare and other now nerfed cards did to the meta: it caused major imbalances, staleness and polarization. Well that seems fine with you. Not with me. You can't justify that saying: this is how card games work. It is unacceptable car design, morally repulsive, simply not the right thing to do. By the way you don't need to check Bonemare in the first place to conclude that it would be used in virtually every aggressive OP-deck.

 

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Anatak89 >>

I played some old MTG the other day with a friend.  My god, cards in those decks were a thousand times more op than any of these cards that are being nerfed.  It felt like there was no way to deal with certain aggro decks my friend had.  There are ways to deal with Bonemare.  Yes, it was a strong, borderline-OP card.  But, there are answers to it, just like there are really answers to everything else in this game I've found.  Granted I'm not a completely F2P player, so I can't truly understand the plight of f2p players, but there are answers.

As far as aggro decks are concerned, Bonemare is essentially a 7 mana neutral Blessing of Kings, really.  The card design is actually not super bad.  

I will add that it is much more "balanced" and less strong at 8 mana, but it wasn't as bad as you say it is.

 The funny thing is. It always seem to look good on you if you state the card isn't really that bad...maybe a little. If you don't 'whine' about it but have the 'strong' attitude: Whatever OP is thrown at me, I'll find away around. There is always a way. I'll make that happen. It makes you look knowledgeable of the game. It makes you look a hero because 'whining' is for losers. 

I just don't buy it.

 

Quote from captram77 >>

That would make 

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

 Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prevent any of the 5 doomguards in the cubelock combo from attacking face.

Doomguard is pretty OP but if cubelock is the reason it gets a nerf, I think it’d be a simple stat change thing

 That would make a huge difference, not being able to attack face .....there is a reason devilsaur is not played much.

I still don't get why people refer the Murloc Paladin as nerfed to dead because of the Warleader. Not that it's still kinda Tier 1/High Tier 2 with the overall highest winrate in all ranks combined (which means nothing for the 5-legend ranks, but even there they are alive and healthy).

You should not forget why they nerfed a lot of things until they were dead. Warsong commander for example was clearly stated it became that way because of the following expansions. What we got was Adapt. With that it would have limited the design space extremely.

Raza and Patches had to be nerfed because they are moving into wild.....sounds wierd, but have you ever played Wild since the last two expansions? Its far more cancerous than standard because of pirates and Highlander priests. Even though the game mode should be "wild" Blizz keeps an eye on the playability of the mode. You simply couldn't play wild if you didn't play those decks and then almost only faced mirror matches.

Quote from Velrun >>

Quote from captram77 >>

That would make 

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

 Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prevent any of the 5 doomguards in the cubelock combo from attacking face.

Doomguard is pretty OP but if cubelock is the reason it gets a nerf, I think it’d be a simple stat change thing

 That would make a huge difference, not being able to attack face .....there is a reason devilsaur is not played much.

 You misunderstand him. He wrote “Can’t attack heroes this turn.” about the Doomguard. And currently there is absolutely and precicely only one way to make that sentence work on a Hearthstone card and that is with a battlecry. Battlecry: Doomguard can’t attack heroes this turn. Exactly like the Devilsaur that you were talking about.

And if that is the case, then the nerf won’t change CubeLock since the battlecry never triggers. It won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the weapon, it won’t trigger if Doomguard is recruited and it won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the Cube.

Lastly: It actually works on Devilsaur. There is a Druid deck who runs Cube + Devilsaur for the same combo as Doomguard but with a bigger charge minion. And Deathwing to kill off the cubes.

 

First thing, Ben brode not a card design guy, anymore. Front Man. He should not take heat from op cards. 

Secondly, cube Warlock was never and probably won't be Top deck. 

Thirdly, kingsbane did destroy me, when I played cube lock. So did other decks, which those decks might see more play now. 

Fourthly, cubelock is only good half the time vs aggro, half the time vs control or combo decks, so why people thinking it needs nerf or hall of fame is beyond me.

Quote from captram77 >>

Quote from Velrun >>

Quote from captram77 >>

That would make 

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

 Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prevent any of the 5 doomguards in the cubelock combo from attacking face.

Doomguard is pretty OP but if cubelock is the reason it gets a nerf, I think it’d be a simple stat change thing

 That would make a huge difference, not being able to attack face .....there is a reason devilsaur is not played much.

 You misunderstand him. He wrote “Can’t attack heroes this turn.” about the Doomguard. And currently there is absolutely and precicely only one way to make that sentence work on a Hearthstone card and that is with a battlecry. Battlecry: Doomguard can’t attack heroes this turn. Exactly like the Devilsaur that you were talking about.

And if that is the case, then the nerf won’t change CubeLock since the battlecry never triggers. It won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the weapon, it won’t trigger if Doomguard is recruited and it won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the Cube.

Lastly: It actually works on Devilsaur. There is a Druid deck who runs Cube + Devilsaur for the same combo as Doomguard but with a bigger charge minion. And Deathwing to kill off the cubes.

 

 If you put it as card text, and not battlecry, ..... would that work?

Quote from captram77 >>

First thing, Ben brode not a card design guy, anymore. Front Man. He should not take heat from op cards. 

Secondly, cube Warlock was never and probably won't be Top deck. 

Thirdly, kingsbane did destroy me, when I played cube lock. So did other decks, which those decks might see more play now. 

Fourthly, cubelock is only good half the time vs aggro, half the time vs control or combo decks, so why people thinking it needs nerf or hall of fame is beyond me.

 

Quote from captram77 >>

Quote from Velrun >>

Quote from captram77 >>

That would make 

Quote from LGP747 >>

Quote from captram77 >>

But I do believe that if they did nerf a warlock card, it would be Doomgaurd, to maybe cant attack heros this turn. 

 Unfortunately, that wouldn’t prevent any of the 5 doomguards in the cubelock combo from attacking face.

Doomguard is pretty OP but if cubelock is the reason it gets a nerf, I think it’d be a simple stat change thing

 That would make a huge difference, not being able to attack face .....there is a reason devilsaur is not played much.

 You misunderstand him. He wrote “Can’t attack heroes this turn.” about the Doomguard. And currently there is absolutely and precicely only one way to make that sentence work on a Hearthstone card and that is with a battlecry. Battlecry: Doomguard can’t attack heroes this turn. Exactly like the Devilsaur that you were talking about.

And if that is the case, then the nerf won’t change CubeLock since the battlecry never triggers. It won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the weapon, it won’t trigger if Doomguard is recruited and it won’t trigger if Doomguard is summoned from the Cube.

Lastly: It actually works on Devilsaur. There is a Druid deck who runs Cube + Devilsaur for the same combo as Doomguard but with a bigger charge minion. And Deathwing to kill off the cubes.

 

 If you put it as card text, and not battlecry, ..... would that work?

I got around 11000 wins and I don't even know what im talking about - discussing subjects got nothing to do with the amount of wins.

Quote from Hooghout >>

they just wanted to harvest the pack selling frenzy from the mindless fanboy first