So I think a cubelock type deck would be very healthy for the meta if it is toned down a bit!
My proposed change: give Carnivorous Cube the All minion type
This would add quite a bit of randomness to cubelock and taunt druid (but mostly just cubelock).
It would act as a nerf to Skull of Man'ari and Possessed Lackey since the Cube could be pulled with either of these negating the Cube's battlecry and limiting the mana cheating for that turn. Also could make Gul'dan worse by diluting your demon pool.
also worth mentioning it makes witching hour worse since it will no longer guarantee the Hadronox.
There are a million downsides to this as well im sure. For instance, its a flavor fail, its buffing an already great card, potential sacrificial pact synergy.
They should really buff Moorabi before anything else.
Never in my Hearthstone career have I seen that card played.
All they have to do is either add better supporting cards to the effect, or make him automatically destroy any enemy minions that are frozen.
As far as the Cube getting the 'All' tag, I think it would dampen the consistency of current decks, but it would greatly improve Dragon and possibly Murloc or Beast decks which rely on presence being the synergy to make other effects more powerful or happen at all. It's a Unique change I would be willing to see, but I'm worried it could make other decks get out of hand.
I would simply wait for the balance changes that were just announced on Twitter to hit and go from there. It's will be a couple weeks or so, but changes are indeed coming.
While buffing cards does help stir up the meta, I think the fear is that they will over-buff a card and people will backlash the buffs. To much of a headache.
Buff have a wider range of consequences when compared to nerf.You may want to buff Moorabi so that Freeze Shaman becomes a things but it may result in all Shaman decks playing a "Freeze Package" because it just worth it. We have seen packages been run only to enable oppresive cards (Patches and the pirate package most notably).
Also, is not always obvious which cards to buff, the cards that need nerfs are always very notorious. Buffing a card also may result in a reduction in design space (buffing a card that promotes certain a strategy may make it difficult to print new cards that have sinergy with that strategy without it taking over the game).
To help understand the design space limitation between nerfing versus buffing cards, let's presume our controlled variable is equivalent to the amount of cards changed. For the sake of this example, let's set the control variable to 5.
If a new design space centralizes around the 5 buffed cards to counter the current tier 1 decks, then the variety of new decks that can theoretically challenge the current tier 1 lists will almost always utilize a combination of these 5 buffed cards. The complementary cards will most likely stay the same since we're simply shifting 5 cards from playable, to overpowered/build around pieces. Also, the designers will essentially 'choose' which class to buff through their select, limited changes.
There's also a higher chance for the designers to receive more negative feedback if these 5 cards end up defining the meta (forcing archetypes) or failing to change the meta (useless balance patch, need of another patch, wasted time).
If a new design space centralizes around nerfing 5 overpowered, suppressive cards to reduce the power of current tier 1 decks, then the variety of new decks that can theoretically challenge the current tier 1 lists extends beyond shifting 5 cards from playable to overpowered. Why? Because moving 1 card from overpowered to playable generally opens up the room for at least 2-3 new cards to enter the meta AND gives players a chance to autonomously play test a variety of cards to figure out the new tier 1 decks.
There's also a lower chance for the game designers to receive backlash because at the very least, players will no longer lose to the same tier 1 decks even if another suppressive, tier 1 deck arise from the balance changes. That's more of a psychological factor, but a real marketing incentive nonetheless.
So I think a cubelock type deck would be very healthy for the meta if it is toned down a bit!
My proposed change: give Carnivorous Cube the All minion type
This would add quite a bit of randomness to cubelock and taunt druid (but mostly just cubelock).
It would act as a nerf to Skull of Man'ari and Possessed Lackey since the Cube could be pulled with either of these negating the Cube's battlecry and limiting the mana cheating for that turn. Also could make Gul'dan worse by diluting your demon pool.
also worth mentioning it makes witching hour worse since it will no longer guarantee the Hadronox.
There are a million downsides to this as well im sure. For instance, its a flavor fail, its buffing an already great card, potential sacrificial pact synergy.
Shaman can now pull it exclusively via their 'pull 2 murloc' card.
Thus while it solves some problems, it may cause others. And from what I heard, it takes Blizzard over a month to get a new patch approved AFTER they completed everything on their side. So any problems the buff causes are a MINIMUM of a month to fix if they solve the issue the next day. And blizzard is NOT a company that does ANYTHING on the next day.
I'll put it this way, the last buff I remember done was making Unleashed the Hound 4 to 2 mana. To ahead and ask anyone what that did to the first half of 2014 meta.
That said making Cube an 'all' IS an option as that's technically a nerf. But I'll want them to test it first.
Bruh that's kinda stupid. You're assuming buffing cards means making them god tier a buff just means making a card possibly playable. I would rather blizzard nerf Insanely op cards and buff insanely trash cards to create a balance in the meta. This would help newer players and the overall game experience. As the power level of cards go down the level and variety of decks increase.
Bruh that's kinda stupid. You're assuming buffing cards means making them god tier a buff just means making a card possibly playable. I would rather blizzard nerf Insanely op cards and buff insanely trash cards to create a balance in the meta. This would help newer players and the overall game experience. As the power level of cards go down the level and variety of decks increase.
In his defence. Buffs only do something if the card becomes better than the other cards in the same deck. And decks only become common if they are able to beat a good portion of others decks.
So any card buffs would be considered a failure by the community if both these conditions are not met.
Didn't even read anything, but the answer is power creep.
The power level of the game can't keep getting higher and higher without anything being done to it.
If you accept the power level of the broken decks and power up other cards to keep up with them or compete then you risk making another, even more degenerate deck while also raising the powerlevel of the whole game. Every new cards and set will then have to be at least as powerful or more than any of those to have any impact.
And we are kinda seeing that already. We didn't nerf Jade last year and took forever to nerf pirates and murlocs. So they had to make such oppressive cards with the DKs and Spiteful and what not that even after jade, barnes, old gods, etc left we saw little to no meta change whatsoever. Because the powercreep to keep up with Gadgetzan was so high and the cards that got printed in that game state were so bonkers that it's hard to justify using new cards or any fair cards for that matter.
We used to live in a world where 3 AoE's costing 6+ mana were enough for most control decks. We now live in a world where we have 6 AoE or more in some decks and you STILL get flooded and killed pretty easily.
Last year hearthstone got in a lot of power-level debt, let's say. KFT printed some of the most bonkers neutral cards this game has ever seen since piloted-shredder and Dr. Boom. In fart I'd say we should receive a lot more nerfs than we are going to see in order to put the game at a decent state again. But they will probably keep printing weak sets until the Year of the Raven is over to reset things.
I feel like the "All" tag was meant to be a unique effect for one card, Nightmare Amalgam, not meant to ever become a general class of any group of cards. Maybe a good solution to Carnivorous Cube problem would be that the copies he summons don't retain any of their effects?
Like instead of summoning 2 copies of a minion, it summons two "Cube Feces" that are just generic tokens that have the same stats as the monster the cube consumed. And maybe the cube's cost could be lowered to reflect this?
I always imagined the cube would eat the minion and digest it, not clone it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everybody, get in here!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I think a cubelock type deck would be very healthy for the meta if it is toned down a bit!
My proposed change: give Carnivorous Cube the All minion type
This would add quite a bit of randomness to cubelock and taunt druid (but mostly just cubelock).
It would act as a nerf to Skull of Man'ari and Possessed Lackey since the Cube could be pulled with either of these negating the Cube's battlecry and limiting the mana cheating for that turn. Also could make Gul'dan worse by diluting your demon pool.
also worth mentioning it makes witching hour worse since it will no longer guarantee the Hadronox.
There are a million downsides to this as well im sure. For instance, its a flavor fail, its buffing an already great card, potential sacrificial pact synergy.
They should really buff Moorabi before anything else.
Never in my Hearthstone career have I seen that card played.
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP
As far as the Cube getting the 'All' tag, I think it would dampen the consistency of current decks, but it would greatly improve Dragon and possibly Murloc or Beast decks which rely on presence being the synergy to make other effects more powerful or happen at all. It's a Unique change I would be willing to see, but I'm worried it could make other decks get out of hand.
This space is intentionally blank.
Not enough freeze effects for shaman
They could make Moorabi a 6/6
buffs restrict card design.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
inherently? Why is that?
While buffing cards does help stir up the meta, I think the fear is that they will over-buff a card and people will backlash the buffs. To much of a headache.
Buff have a wider range of consequences when compared to nerf.You may want to buff Moorabi so that Freeze Shaman becomes a things but it may result in all Shaman decks playing a "Freeze Package" because it just worth it. We have seen packages been run only to enable oppresive cards (Patches and the pirate package most notably).
Also, is not always obvious which cards to buff, the cards that need nerfs are always very notorious. Buffing a card also may result in a reduction in design space (buffing a card that promotes certain a strategy may make it difficult to print new cards that have sinergy with that strategy without it taking over the game).
To help understand the design space limitation between nerfing versus buffing cards, let's presume our controlled variable is equivalent to the amount of cards changed. For the sake of this example, let's set the control variable to 5.
If a new design space centralizes around the 5 buffed cards to counter the current tier 1 decks, then the variety of new decks that can theoretically challenge the current tier 1 lists will almost always utilize a combination of these 5 buffed cards. The complementary cards will most likely stay the same since we're simply shifting 5 cards from playable, to overpowered/build around pieces. Also, the designers will essentially 'choose' which class to buff through their select, limited changes.
There's also a higher chance for the designers to receive more negative feedback if these 5 cards end up defining the meta (forcing archetypes) or failing to change the meta (useless balance patch, need of another patch, wasted time).
If a new design space centralizes around nerfing 5 overpowered, suppressive cards to reduce the power of current tier 1 decks, then the variety of new decks that can theoretically challenge the current tier 1 lists extends beyond shifting 5 cards from playable to overpowered. Why? Because moving 1 card from overpowered to playable generally opens up the room for at least 2-3 new cards to enter the meta AND gives players a chance to autonomously play test a variety of cards to figure out the new tier 1 decks.
There's also a lower chance for the game designers to receive backlash because at the very least, players will no longer lose to the same tier 1 decks even if another suppressive, tier 1 deck arise from the balance changes. That's more of a psychological factor, but a real marketing incentive nonetheless.
Hope that helps!
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
lol
Bruh that's kinda stupid. You're assuming buffing cards means making them god tier a buff just means making a card possibly playable. I would rather blizzard nerf Insanely op cards and buff insanely trash cards to create a balance in the meta. This would help newer players and the overall game experience. As the power level of cards go down the level and variety of decks increase.
Because power creep.
Didn't even read anything, but the answer is power creep.
The power level of the game can't keep getting higher and higher without anything being done to it.
If you accept the power level of the broken decks and power up other cards to keep up with them or compete then you risk making another, even more degenerate deck while also raising the powerlevel of the whole game. Every new cards and set will then have to be at least as powerful or more than any of those to have any impact.
And we are kinda seeing that already. We didn't nerf Jade last year and took forever to nerf pirates and murlocs. So they had to make such oppressive cards with the DKs and Spiteful and what not that even after jade, barnes, old gods, etc left we saw little to no meta change whatsoever. Because the powercreep to keep up with Gadgetzan was so high and the cards that got printed in that game state were so bonkers that it's hard to justify using new cards or any fair cards for that matter.
We used to live in a world where 3 AoE's costing 6+ mana were enough for most control decks. We now live in a world where we have 6 AoE or more in some decks and you STILL get flooded and killed pretty easily.
Last year hearthstone got in a lot of power-level debt, let's say. KFT printed some of the most bonkers neutral cards this game has ever seen since piloted-shredder and Dr. Boom. In fart I'd say we should receive a lot more nerfs than we are going to see in order to put the game at a decent state again. But they will probably keep printing weak sets until the Year of the Raven is over to reset things.
If you have an idea for a buff to an existing card, why not make a new card? :)
Nerfing is also an indirect buff to make an underplayed card or oppressed deck played.
I feel like the "All" tag was meant to be a unique effect for one card, Nightmare Amalgam, not meant to ever become a general class of any group of cards. Maybe a good solution to Carnivorous Cube problem would be that the copies he summons don't retain any of their effects?
Like instead of summoning 2 copies of a minion, it summons two "Cube Feces" that are just generic tokens that have the same stats as the monster the cube consumed. And maybe the cube's cost could be lowered to reflect this?
I always imagined the cube would eat the minion and digest it, not clone it.
Everybody, get in here!