I'm the kind of guy who is always excited when new cards release. I'll be positive about every card, dreaming up magical scenarios where they could shine. Example of what I've been living these past couple of weeks:
- Blizz releases a new card
- (Me) AWESOME!!! Could be so cool in "so and so" decks!
- (Random guy) Garbage card.
- (Me) What a negative looser
- (Smarter random guy) It's not a great card and here's why: *Insert paragraphs of smart explanations backing his claim*
- (Me) Oh shit, that guy may be right. Probably not the best card in the game right now.
This is very crude mock up of what I mostly go through when some cards are revealed. But there's always something that I have in the back of my mind when I'm REALLY taking the time to evaluate a new card, but that I never see anyone mention in their analysis. It's something Blizzard's HS creative team probably have to consider when they're making decision about creating new content, especially since they implemented Standard: They have to consider future releases. In Magic the Gathering the creative team would play "Future League games" where they would play-test decks using the cards from unreleased sets, sometimes 2-3 years in advance, in order to shape a better and more balanced meta. It was even more important for them as they couldn't "nerf" a card since millions were already printed, but I digress.
Back to Hearthstone...
So when we see a new card, our immediate reaction is to analyze it using today's current meta-game, which is perfectly normal. However, Brode and his team are probably already working on the 2017 expansion or maybe even the 2018 one. So they have an idea of what is coming to future metas. Lets use a card for a quick example. Take Herald Volazj. Right now it looks pretty underwhelming, especially in today's Standard format (without knowing the rest of the WOG cards), so it's somewhat normal for people to think it's a bad card. However, in a Standard meta where cards like Belcher or Nerubian Egg or Shredder would be legal, this card could be something pretty awesome in a mid-range deck.
My point is that this card was created a long time ago, and then more cards were created for future sets. If Brode and his team created good, sticky minions in the 2017 expansion or adventure for example, maybe they kept that in mind when releasing Herald Volazj, knowing it would be a force from then on, until it rotates out of standard. So a card released today might seem very bad in standard today, but Brode might be biting his tongue because he can't say "wait for the next set! there will be some crazy shit to be done with that card!".
Some of you will say: "Why the hell are they making cards early that will only be "good" in a year from now? Waste of card space!". Something else to consider is when is a card released, and how close is it from rotation, as it makes a huge impact to the meta. Let's use the same example of Herald Volazj and some crazy sticky priest minions in the 2017 expansion. Knowing the kind of crazy, borderline too-strong combos that it could create, introducing Volazj early would ensure that it would rotate out of standard after 1 year of being "maybe too good" and so they would risk less having to nerf anything. If they think the combinations would be even better and they wouldn't want it to impact Standard's meta for a full year, they could choose to introduce the "great sticky minions" in the 2018 adventure, only months before the 2016 sets rotate out of standard. This gives them the possibility of introducing powerful combinations in the Standard meta, while controlling the amount of time if will affect said meta.
Obviously the routine of adventure/expansion per year is subject to change, and the logic I'm explaining here will only become even more of a reality once Standard's rotations are in full motion, but my point with all of this is that there might be reasons why a card such as Herald Volazj seems weak now, but could be freaking nuts in a year from now.
Well, I certainly don't see forward thinking very often from the community, kudos!
Herald Volazj is certainly a good example of a card that makes minions with passive effects really strong. However, as always, I think the more meta defining ones will be neutral cards. N'zoth the Corruptor means that every deathrattle minion for the next 2 years will be that much more viable, and therefore probably less powerful (on it's own) than they would otherwise make them.
I doubt most people will really pay attention to this. People prefer to think that the designers don't know what they're doing.
Well... cards like The Boogeymonster don't really help their case, haha. But in general it looks like they're taking the game in a very healthy direction.
I doubt most people will really pay attention to this. People prefer to think that the designers don't know what they're doing.
Well... cards like The Boogeymonster don't really help their case, haha. But in general it looks like they're taking the game in a very healthy direction.
Yeah I have to admit [card]The Boogeymonster[/card] is hard to swallow but in general I am super psyched about where things are going!
Many people who complain about reveals on these boards seem to think that every new card should be auto-include levels of awesome.
Having too many auto include cards leads to a stale meta where there are very few viable decks. It seems to me that the whole point of standard is to get rid of the piloted shredders, Dr booms, and sludge Belchers so that other cards that cost the same mana actually get used, decks become more diverse, and games become more interesting.
I had a streak last week where I played 7 paladins in a row- 6 secrets and 1 murloc just to spice it up. Win or lose, it's boring. Maybe they are having fun playing a perfect curve topping out with Dr boom the turn after MC, but patterns like that don't bode well for the longevity of the game.
Admittedly, I prefer playing control decks ,so that informs what I view as fun- but so far I think the new expansion looks promising in terms of creating a more diverse ladder. I really hope that is how it turns out.
I don't mind if some cards are weak or probably won't see play, but I just wish they would use more old godsy stuff in card art than doing just corrupted versions of something. Or coming up with something like The Boogeymonster. At least we should get Ozumat, it is the year of the kraken after all.
As someone who mostly plays ladder just to have cardback and play the arena more due love of randomness in the games, I don't really get to this whole card hype thing like the ladder lovers. I find the new cards interesting but not something that makes me pre-order especially since my card collection doesn't factor in the arena mode that much.
I have to agree with the op on this one, I like that you talked about the reasoning behind why cards are being released as what seems 'underwhelming' by some people of the community. I don't get negative about the cards that are announced because the whole set isn't even out yet... I just don't understand why people can be so harsh on this website when new cards are revealed... I mean isn't well known that the meta is not as fun as it used to be? How can Team5 make cards as strong as GvG level if the meta will just do the same thing that it has done over the years?
Sure The Boogeyman isn't a good card, but there should be some bad cards to show which ones are good to players who don't know. I mean the card is like Hemet Nesingwary of this expansion, but that's okay.
I have to agree with the op on this one, I like that you talked about the reasoning behind why cards are being released as what seems 'underwhelming' by some people of the community. I don't get negative about the cards that are announced because the whole set isn't even out yet... I just don't understand why people can be so harsh on this website when new cards are revealed... I mean isn't well known that the meta is not as fun as it used to be? How can Team5 make cards as strong as GvG level if the meta will just do the same thing that it has done over the years?
Sure The Boogeyman isn't a good card, but there should be some bad cards to show which ones are good to players who don't know. I mean the card is like Hemet Nesingwary of this expansion, but that's okay.
For sure some cards will forever feel unde underwhelming or plainly bad, but with the new rotation system, other things could impact the decisions behind their creation. I like to keep an open mind.
Problem is most people will just dust bad cards immediately, we live in an instant gratification society. The autoinclude looks to be N'zoth this expansion and people will also craft Sylvanas and Cairne to go with that God.
Problem is most people will just dust bad cards immediately, we live in an instant gratification society. The autoinclude looks to be N'zoth this expansion and people will also craft Sylvanas and Cairne to go with that God.
When opening packs from a new expansion, I'll onky dust the extra copies of cards but will keep at least 2 of each in the set. I want all of them to experienment with new fun decks! :)
Honestly, I dont even see the issue with volajz. He seems fairly strong in PRIEST where generally minions are played for effect (double up your cardraw from a girl? Double Brann? Double Emperor? Rag? Ysera? Velen?) and could lead to some SUPER SCARY shenanigans with soulpriest combos on 10 mana (lets say you play him on a board that consists of the other 'bad' card we got, corrupted healbot... or like, you had a sylvanis in play) and in wild I can see him being utterly broken...
Really, barring the bogeymonster EVERYTHING seems playable in the right situation, and thats pretty cool.
I get that Blizzard can create cards that combo with other cards to make them better. However, there are times when you can tell that no matter what Blizzard does, the card will probably be bad, for example:
- Another card already exists in standard that you would rather play than the new card.... I'd rather play faceless manipulator than faceless shambler or a variety of reasons. Id rather play Assasin's Blade than Poisoned Dagger because I can spend less mana to get a decent weapon.
- How are the stats versus what you pay? It would be hard to make a card that causes Tentacles for Arms to be worth the price you pay for it. Also, Boogeymonster. Why?!
- Does the card have to survive through your opponent's turn to be worth what you paid? This is where many Inspire cards fall flat. Most need you to use the hero power twice for them to really pay off. They rarely survive so long. Boogeymonster for some reason only recieves buffs when attacking. He'll die first. WHY BOOGEYMONSTER? WHY U SO BAD?
- Another card already exists in standard that you would rather play than the new card.... I'd rather play faceless manipulator than faceless shambler or a variety of reasons. Id rather play Assasin's Blade than Poisoned Dagger because I can spend less mana to get a decent weapon.
True, but the logic I am describing really applies more to this coming set and the ones after that as it starts the Standard rotation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey guys!
I'm the kind of guy who is always excited when new cards release. I'll be positive about every card, dreaming up magical scenarios where they could shine. Example of what I've been living these past couple of weeks:
- Blizz releases a new card
- (Me) AWESOME!!! Could be so cool in "so and so" decks!
- (Random guy) Garbage card.
- (Me) What a negative looser
- (Smarter random guy) It's not a great card and here's why: *Insert paragraphs of smart explanations backing his claim*
- (Me) Oh shit, that guy may be right. Probably not the best card in the game right now.
This is very crude mock up of what I mostly go through when some cards are revealed. But there's always something that I have in the back of my mind when I'm REALLY taking the time to evaluate a new card, but that I never see anyone mention in their analysis. It's something Blizzard's HS creative team probably have to consider when they're making decision about creating new content, especially since they implemented Standard: They have to consider future releases. In Magic the Gathering the creative team would play "Future League games" where they would play-test decks using the cards from unreleased sets, sometimes 2-3 years in advance, in order to shape a better and more balanced meta. It was even more important for them as they couldn't "nerf" a card since millions were already printed, but I digress.
Back to Hearthstone...
So when we see a new card, our immediate reaction is to analyze it using today's current meta-game, which is perfectly normal. However, Brode and his team are probably already working on the 2017 expansion or maybe even the 2018 one. So they have an idea of what is coming to future metas. Lets use a card for a quick example. Take Herald Volazj. Right now it looks pretty underwhelming, especially in today's Standard format (without knowing the rest of the WOG cards), so it's somewhat normal for people to think it's a bad card. However, in a Standard meta where cards like Belcher or Nerubian Egg or Shredder would be legal, this card could be something pretty awesome in a mid-range deck.
My point is that this card was created a long time ago, and then more cards were created for future sets. If Brode and his team created good, sticky minions in the 2017 expansion or adventure for example, maybe they kept that in mind when releasing Herald Volazj, knowing it would be a force from then on, until it rotates out of standard. So a card released today might seem very bad in standard today, but Brode might be biting his tongue because he can't say "wait for the next set! there will be some crazy shit to be done with that card!".
Some of you will say: "Why the hell are they making cards early that will only be "good" in a year from now? Waste of card space!". Something else to consider is when is a card released, and how close is it from rotation, as it makes a huge impact to the meta. Let's use the same example of Herald Volazj and some crazy sticky priest minions in the 2017 expansion. Knowing the kind of crazy, borderline too-strong combos that it could create, introducing Volazj early would ensure that it would rotate out of standard after 1 year of being "maybe too good" and so they would risk less having to nerf anything. If they think the combinations would be even better and they wouldn't want it to impact Standard's meta for a full year, they could choose to introduce the "great sticky minions" in the 2018 adventure, only months before the 2016 sets rotate out of standard. This gives them the possibility of introducing powerful combinations in the Standard meta, while controlling the amount of time if will affect said meta.
Obviously the routine of adventure/expansion per year is subject to change, and the logic I'm explaining here will only become even more of a reality once Standard's rotations are in full motion, but my point with all of this is that there might be reasons why a card such as Herald Volazj seems weak now, but could be freaking nuts in a year from now.
Food for thought :)
Cheers!
Well, I certainly don't see forward thinking very often from the community, kudos!
Herald Volazj is certainly a good example of a card that makes minions with passive effects really strong. However, as always, I think the more meta defining ones will be neutral cards. N'zoth the Corruptor means that every deathrattle minion for the next 2 years will be that much more viable, and therefore probably less powerful (on it's own) than they would otherwise make them.
Thanks mate,
Indeed same logic can be applied to [card]N'Zoth the Corruptor[/card]. Super excited about that card BTW! :)
Hell, I've been staying positive about the cards, and I've only been thinking as far as the current standard, but you make a lot of good points.
But I doubt most people will really pay attention to this. People prefer to think that the designers don't know what they're doing.
Many people who complain about reveals on these boards seem to think that every new card should be auto-include levels of awesome.
Having too many auto include cards leads to a stale meta where there are very few viable decks. It seems to me that the whole point of standard is to get rid of the piloted shredders, Dr booms, and sludge Belchers so that other cards that cost the same mana actually get used, decks become more diverse, and games become more interesting.
I had a streak last week where I played 7 paladins in a row- 6 secrets and 1 murloc just to spice it up. Win or lose, it's boring. Maybe they are having fun playing a perfect curve topping out with Dr boom the turn after MC, but patterns like that don't bode well for the longevity of the game.
Admittedly, I prefer playing control decks ,so that informs what I view as fun- but so far I think the new expansion looks promising in terms of creating a more diverse ladder. I really hope that is how it turns out.
I don't mind if some cards are weak or probably won't see play, but I just wish they would use more old godsy stuff in card art than doing just corrupted versions of something. Or coming up with something like The Boogeymonster. At least we should get Ozumat, it is the year of the kraken after all.
gvg spoiled people. What we really want is cards that are strictly better than our current cards, but what we don't want is power creep. We're dumb.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
When I do judgements of cards, I do them based on current trends and Blizzard statements.
I won't get excited over a Hunter card over 6 mana or that requires a combo until Hunter gets card draw or a comeback mechanic.
I don't trust the viability of any Rogue cards until the class no longer relies on spell shenanigans.
When I evaluate a card, I ask myself "is Blizzard willing to make the support cards for iti in the class and archetype it is in?"
As someone who mostly plays ladder just to have cardback and play the arena more due love of randomness in the games, I don't really get to this whole card hype thing like the ladder lovers. I find the new cards interesting but not something that makes me pre-order especially since my card collection doesn't factor in the arena mode that much.
http://i.imgur.com/kX4Liaq.jpg
I have to agree with the op on this one, I like that you talked about the reasoning behind why cards are being released as what seems 'underwhelming' by some people of the community. I don't get negative about the cards that are announced because the whole set isn't even out yet... I just don't understand why people can be so harsh on this website when new cards are revealed... I mean isn't well known that the meta is not as fun as it used to be? How can Team5 make cards as strong as GvG level if the meta will just do the same thing that it has done over the years?
Sure The Boogeyman isn't a good card, but there should be some bad cards to show which ones are good to players who don't know. I mean the card is like Hemet Nesingwary of this expansion, but that's okay.
Problem is most people will just dust bad cards immediately, we live in an instant gratification society. The autoinclude looks to be N'zoth this expansion and people will also craft Sylvanas and Cairne to go with that God.
Honestly, I dont even see the issue with volajz. He seems fairly strong in PRIEST where generally minions are played for effect (double up your cardraw from a girl? Double Brann? Double Emperor? Rag? Ysera? Velen?) and could lead to some SUPER SCARY shenanigans with soulpriest combos on 10 mana (lets say you play him on a board that consists of the other 'bad' card we got, corrupted healbot... or like, you had a sylvanis in play) and in wild I can see him being utterly broken...
Really, barring the bogeymonster EVERYTHING seems playable in the right situation, and thats pretty cool.
I get that Blizzard can create cards that combo with other cards to make them better. However, there are times when you can tell that no matter what Blizzard does, the card will probably be bad, for example:
- Another card already exists in standard that you would rather play than the new card.... I'd rather play faceless manipulator than faceless shambler or a variety of reasons. Id rather play Assasin's Blade than Poisoned Dagger because I can spend less mana to get a decent weapon.
- How are the stats versus what you pay? It would be hard to make a card that causes Tentacles for Arms to be worth the price you pay for it. Also, Boogeymonster. Why?!
- Does the card have to survive through your opponent's turn to be worth what you paid? This is where many Inspire cards fall flat. Most need you to use the hero power twice for them to really pay off. They rarely survive so long. Boogeymonster for some reason only recieves buffs when attacking. He'll die first. WHY BOOGEYMONSTER? WHY U SO BAD?
Remember everyone saying that Anyfin and Reno would suck? Well, about that...
True, but the logic I am describing really applies more to this coming set and the ones after that as it starts the Standard rotation.