Hearthpwn

Quote from ManticoreCommand jump

I didn't see to many Magma Rager's on the ladder but I guess that he was a lot of people's favorite card from the uproar of him getting shit on.

Okay.

They made art for Magma Rager. They put it into the core set.
They had it in the Beta.
They spent time making the card.
People spent time evaluating the card.

I like the card art -- and I'd like to play a fire-themed deck based on high attack minions and burst spells, one day.

"Fuck you"
-Blizzard

...
"Why?", I respond, in bewilderment.
"WHY does Blizzard figuratively tell me to fuck off?"
"Profit!" Activision-Blizzard replies.

Okay.
Magma Rager can't be buffed -- because this card makes Activision-Blizzard all of 10$ compared to fixing Magma Rager and putting another card in this cards' place.

They can take that "some cards needs to be bad, because... profit" argument -- also known as "some cards needs to be bad because *excuses that sound valid because it was Mark Rosewater said this*" and shove it:
No card needs to be bad.

It's an absurd statement, and the only valid argument for cards being bad is:
Development screwed up.
And the only non-okay but still valid answer to why they don't buff cards when they're not prevented from retconning is:
We want to screw you over for profit to our shareholders.

You see:
Cards are spells, allies and abilities -- like those in a roleplaying game.
Magic the Gathering and Hearthstone are in fact roleplaying games in their hearts.
There should be a reason for each card existing -- even if it's completely dependend on a vague synergy bonus from another card.

"They need to be bad because of limited -- or; Arena, in Hearthstone": Because, if all cards were balanced for constructed -- the variance would be greater in Arena, HOW, exactly? It's completely absurd: Arena would be BETTER if there were no completely OP "I win" cards -- and/or if at the very least you had a chance to combo cards like Magma Rager with some other cards to make it worthwhile.

"They need to be bad because new players needs to be screwed over":
Well... Technically, the argument goes: "There needs to be different power levels so that good players have the ability to build more powerful decks thanks to their knowledge about game mechanics" -- but that is the same as "They need to be bad because new players needs to be screwed over", because that's exactly what purposefully created differences in power levels artificially inflates: The difference between skilled players, who already have an advantage, and less experienced players, who already were disadvantaged.

"Different cards appeal to different players." -- Okay. I am one of the different players. I wanted to play with Demonlord of Ashmouth -- in Magic the Gathering, while Falkenrath Aristocrat existed. You know:
While I loved Demonlord of Ashmouth, the power level difference caused me to stop playing the card, and play Falkenrath Aristocrat instead -- despite LOVING Demonlord of Ashmouth. I LOVED THAT CARD. And Wizards of the Coast chose to make a strictly better card in the same format. The very idea of Wizards of the Coast PURPOSEFULLY making my favorite card bad because they knew I'd like to play it despite it's lower power level, losing games because they purposefully made it bad -- causing other players to win over me because of my choice of flavor... Well. I'm not happy. I *loathe* this argument.

Quote from floodhorse jump

wtf? it doesnt really matter but i dont like the idea having this obvious powercreep.

The thing is, magma rager should've always been 5/2 anyway since the vanilla stats for a 3 drop should equal 7.

I appreciate your viewpoint and can see how someone might be more into the flavor/roleplaying aspect of card games than others, however I don't see Blizzard as hostile as some people are.  I don't think that the design team is as wrapped up in profits as you are indicating.  That isn't to say that I don't think that Blizzard isn't profit focused, this is evident in the custom hero portraits, crafting system instead of trading, promo card backs, ect. 

I feel that making Ice Rager was a tongue and check joke from the design team.  When they went to make Magma Rager I think that they felt that it was viable, it didn't meet vanilla stats because it was so aggression focused, much like Dust Devil.  With large scale testing of the game, Beta/Launch, it was proven that this card was not viable.  Why wasn't it buffed?  The design team was working on the next set, more evidence of profit mongering I guess, and the time that could be spent fixing cards was spent on putting out fires like unleash, Leeroy and Tinkmaster.  I guess with the understanding that there is finite resources available to team 5 I would rather them produce new content then try to figure out Magma Rager and Goldshire Footman. 

So after nearly 2 years of life the designers figured out that a 5/1 for 3 can be a 5/2 without breaking the game.  I don't think that they would have even thought twice about it except for the very vocal community saying that Magma Rager sucks.  I see Ice Rager as a humorous response to this and acknowledging that they have learned  something since they designed Magma Rager, it wasn't intended to offend.

agreed