With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Only if we stop the whining and bitching in every other thread.
Not going to stop that? Okay, then no. We can't stop with anything.
Exactly my thoughts. I also found out the argument from every pro razakus player in various posts. Even Mike Donais mentioned it on reddit. Despite Razakus priest not having the same an rate as tempo rogue and other meta decks, players still complain about razakus and not the other decks. The reason for this is because it sucks losing to razakus. I feel like I am playing against the AI who just attacks on my face after they pop their DK.
As for the argument, just because priest was shit tier for a lot of time, why does it deserve God like cards in KnC? Look at their cards revealed compared to paladins and hunters. And also, priests have been in the meta for over a year. Dragon priest in gadgetzan, miracle in Ungoro, and tier 1 razakus and big priest in KFT. But still they deserve more broken cards? Come on, that's a stupid argument. Psychic scream just shuts down entire archetypes down. Why do the even push dude paladin or totem shaman with such a broken card. Anyway, we will see tonight.
It's the erroneous belief that one mistake justifies another.
Priest was piss poor for the longest time, so dedicated priest players who endured the "suck times" feel entitled to OPness now. It's how shamans felt during Shamanstone era.
Although I really don't feel they are that cancerous tbh.
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Only if we stop the whining and bitching in every other thread.
Not going to stop that? Okay, then no. We can't stop with anything.
How are those two related to eachother, and how is this a ''whining and bitching thread'', if that's what you're implying?
This happens because there is a lot of "thisismyclass" stupid people, who don't care if their deck is broken / unhealthy to the game, they're just happy cause "my favorite class has a meta deck"
The developers have said themselves that they want other classes to be stronger and that a class can be bad while another one can be over powered. That's their design philosophy. They know they can't balance all 9 classes, so while at one point shaman might be dominiating the meta with the most overpowered 1 drop in the game and spirit claws, now all they play is evolve shaman which isn't even super great, and even worse coming up in light of duskbreaker. I don't agree with this, but that's how the game is and how team 5 justifys making such overpowered cards for some classes while others get completely shafted.
The developers have said themselves that they want other classes to be stronger and that a class can be bad while another one can be over powered. That's their design philosophy. They know they can't balance all 9 classes, so while at one point shaman might be dominiating the meta with the most overpowered 1 drop in the game and spirit claws, now all they play is evolve shaman which isn't even super great, and even worse coming up in light of duskbreaker. I don't agree with this, but that's how the game is and how team 5 justifys making such overpowered cards for some classes while others get completely shafted.
Have they actually said it's in their design philosophy that one class can be overpowered while another one is bad? If that's the case I think that's really poor decisionmaking on their side. Ofcourse you can't perfectly balance the game, but that doesn't mean you can't bring both ends of the spectrum closer to the middle.
You should not have complained about Purify last year. They always design an expansion one year before release. Next year might be HunterStone at this rate (hello On My Side) and everyone would scream : "Nerf Huntard"
When priest was bad? Since I play Hearthstone priest was good. It wasn't crazy but it was in a good spot. I don't remember priest bad I remember always priest with a deck up to tier 3.
Even worst in wild. Priest was never been shitty in wild.
If we also consider the average quality of the priest cards is very high. Which card has priest that is a total garbage? Compare the priest card with the hunter first, and after with rogue and warlock cards. (there is a ton of garbage in hunter, rogue and warlock cards)
By the way. Now it is totally broken. In standard and even worst in wild.
You saying Priest was good in Karazhan meta? What a joke.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On the third day before Witchwood, Blizzard gave to me,
When priest was bad? Since I play Hearthstone priest was good. It wasn't crazy but it was in a good spot. I don't remember priest bad I remember always priest with a deck up to tier 3.
Even worst in wild. Priest was never been shitty in wild.
If we also consider the average quality of the priest cards is very high. Which card has priest that is a total garbage? Compare the priest card with the hunter first, and after with rogue and warlock cards. (there is a ton of garbage in hunter, rogue and warlock cards)
By the way. Now it is totally broken. In standard and even worst in wild.
There have been periods where priest was bad (I believe prior to Karazhan was one for example), but it's definitely not likepriest has always been the underdog. And I definitely aggree with your last sentence
lol why do people forget so quickly? Before MSoG Priest was totally bad. Remember Aggro Shaman, Huntard and Miracle Rogue last year? And the Purify hate lmao
Reno priest was not bad. It was very bored but no bad. Purify priest was not bad.
Reno Priest only really became strong with MSoG and Purify was an absolute meme. There was even the joke about a "Unicorn Priest" that according to Ben Brode had not been discovered by the mainstream and had a good winrate. No one ever found that deck, though, if it even existed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
On the third day before Witchwood, Blizzard gave to me,
On a side note, people should also stop using the argument "Card X isn't as broken as card Y is" in threads complaining about card X. I remember a thread about how Drakonid Operative should get nerfed and roughly 25% of the comments were along the lines of "How can you complain about Drak OP when Shaman has Tunnel Trogg, Totem Golem and 0 mana 5/5?!"
And yes Razakus is bullshit. I don't know how but they always have the right answer when they need it, despite only running one-ofs.
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Only if we stop the whining and bitching in every other thread.
Not going to stop that? Okay, then no. We can't stop with anything.
how is this a ''whining and bitching thread'', if that's what you're implying?
Because it is.
You are complaining about a deck that is "broken" but isn't even the best deck in the game. It's not even in the Top5 best decks to play at legend at the moment.
You are also complaining about a supposed broken deck in a metagame that doesn't exist. We haven't seen the full set. We don't know how good (or not) certain decks will be. We barely know anything about what will happen after the 7th.
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Only if we stop the whining and bitching in every other thread.
Not going to stop that? Okay, then no. We can't stop with anything.
how is this a ''whining and bitching thread'', if that's what you're implying?
Because it is. You are complaining about a supposed broken deck in a metagame that doesn't exist. You are complaining about a deck that is "broken" but isn't even the best deck in the game. It's not even in the Top5 best decks to play at legend at the moment.
This is just a giant hissy fit.
No, this thread is about an argument often brought forward by the pro-razakus side. Where did I whine? I voiced my opinion on razakus twice: ''I'm definitely against razakus'' and ''(not that I aggree with them, obviously)''. Which one do you consider whining? If you label every threat discussing a relatively sensitive issue ''whining'', then I'm not surprised you are so annoyed.
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Only if we stop the whining and bitching in every other thread.
Not going to stop that? Okay, then no. We can't stop with anything.
how is this a ''whining and bitching thread'', if that's what you're implying?
Because it is. You are complaining about a supposed broken deck in a metagame that doesn't exist. You are complaining about a deck that is "broken" but isn't even the best deck in the game. It's not even in the Top5 best decks to play at legend at the moment.
This is just a giant hissy fit.
No, this thread is about an argument often brought forward by the pro-razakus side. Where did I whine? I voiced my opinion on razakus twice: ''I'm definitely against razakus'' and ''(not that I aggree with them, obviously)''. Which one do you consider whining? If you label every threat discussing a relatively sensitive issue ''whining'', then I'm not surprised you are so annoyed.
"I'm definitely against razakus "
This is just a complaint thread masquerading as something legitimate.
It's the erroneous belief that one mistake justifies another.
Priest was piss poor for the longest time, so dedicated priest players who endured the "suck times" feel entitled to OPness now. It's how shamans felt during Shamanstone era.
Although I really don't feel they are that cancerous tbh.
I never actually understood this logic, I personally enjoy playing sub-optimal decks. I tend to avoid Razakus priest merely on principle, and because playing "broken" or "OP" decks simply isn't fun. I'm 10x more likely to play Quest Priest, or Control Hunter. But thats coming from my biased opinion as a Johny player reeling against a meta with so many Spikes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the recent discussion about razakus priest being broken, and the upcoming expansion which does not seem to change that statement, the community seems to pretty much be split into two sides: pro-razakus and anti-razakus.
I'm definitely against razakus (which should not come as a surprise to some) but I wanted to address a smaller detail of this issue. Namely, a common argument from the 'pro-razakus priest' side. On every active thread with a substantial amount of comments about this issue, there seems to be someone bringing the following up as an argument:
''Priest deserves to be strong after being bad for so long'' or something along those lines. I feel like it shouldn't have to be brought up that that does not qualify as an excuse for razakus priest. Yet, I consistently see this ''argument'' popping up. People are not complaining about razakus being strong but about it being broken or in other words unbalanced.
Another, slightly altered version of this argument is: ''There is always going to be a strongest deck''. Tomayto Tomahto, strongest should not be synonymous with broken.
There are plenty of arguments to conjure up as the pro-razakus side (not that I aggree with them, obviously) but can we all just aggree that the above is not a good argument?
Fuck cubelock
Exactly my thoughts. I also found out the argument from every pro razakus player in various posts. Even Mike Donais mentioned it on reddit. Despite Razakus priest not having the same an rate as tempo rogue and other meta decks, players still complain about razakus and not the other decks. The reason for this is because it sucks losing to razakus. I feel like I am playing against the AI who just attacks on my face after they pop their DK.
As for the argument, just because priest was shit tier for a lot of time, why does it deserve God like cards in KnC? Look at their cards revealed compared to paladins and hunters. And also, priests have been in the meta for over a year. Dragon priest in gadgetzan, miracle in Ungoro, and tier 1 razakus and big priest in KFT. But still they deserve more broken cards? Come on, that's a stupid argument. Psychic scream just shuts down entire archetypes down. Why do the even push dude paladin or totem shaman with such a broken card. Anyway, we will see tonight.
FOR THE HORDE!
It's the erroneous belief that one mistake justifies another.
Priest was piss poor for the longest time, so dedicated priest players who endured the "suck times" feel entitled to OPness now. It's how shamans felt during Shamanstone era.
Although I really don't feel they are that cancerous tbh.
Fuck cubelock
This happens because there is a lot of "thisismyclass" stupid people, who don't care if their deck is broken / unhealthy to the game, they're just happy cause "my favorite class has a meta deck"
The developers have said themselves that they want other classes to be stronger and that a class can be bad while another one can be over powered. That's their design philosophy. They know they can't balance all 9 classes, so while at one point shaman might be dominiating the meta with the most overpowered 1 drop in the game and spirit claws, now all they play is evolve shaman which isn't even super great, and even worse coming up in light of duskbreaker. I don't agree with this, but that's how the game is and how team 5 justifys making such overpowered cards for some classes while others get completely shafted.
Fuck cubelock
You should not have complained about Purify last year. They always design an expansion one year before release. Next year might be HunterStone at this rate (hello On My Side) and everyone would scream : "Nerf Huntard"
On the third day before Witchwood, Blizzard gave to me,
three Handlock decks,
two Molten Giants
and a winstreak to Legend Rank #3
Disclaimer: This is a fictional poem and this didn't actually happen to me.
Fuck cubelock
On the third day before Witchwood, Blizzard gave to me,
three Handlock decks,
two Molten Giants
and a winstreak to Legend Rank #3
Disclaimer: This is a fictional poem and this didn't actually happen to me.
On a side note, people should also stop using the argument "Card X isn't as broken as card Y is" in threads complaining about card X. I remember a thread about how Drakonid Operative should get nerfed and roughly 25% of the comments were along the lines of "How can you complain about Drak OP when Shaman has Tunnel Trogg, Totem Golem and 0 mana 5/5?!"
And yes Razakus is bullshit. I don't know how but they always have the right answer when they need it, despite only running one-ofs.
I'm not sure which one I am more tired of seeing. The "we deserve this", or the "just play around it" argument.
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland
I wanna write her, name in the sky
I wanna free fall, out into nothin'
Gonna leave this, world for awhile
Fuck cubelock
I honestly haven't had much trouble out of Razakus priests. You just have to burn down their deck so they can't keep hitting you in the end.
Quest Mage is completely unfair when they get their combo. That's a lot worse, I think.
play mill rogue and quit bitching
Overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer