The reasons are financially motivated. I think that buffing older cards would be an interesting way to bring to light some cards that don't get used. Or change cards that need changing to reflect new keywords in the game.
Warsong Commander should now read Rush minions get +1 attack. Why? Because its obvious that Charge is far too powerful and difficult to balance and I think that keyword is going away or will be on very few cards in the future. It's a buff that will probably not do much, but it shows that older cards can reflect the new direction of design.
Unstable Mutation should have Echo. Its the same effect, but its too wordy and it would interact with all the other cards that refer to Echo. It's a minor change that would be a buff.
How are the 2 above changes bad for the game? How are they hard to change? They aren't bad and they are easy changes. It's not worth their time and money to do so.
They will simply print a new card, that is better so you buy new packs.
When Hadronox was first brought in, it was considered a horrible card, too slow and not worth the effort. If you had brought up this post during Frozen Throne, people would declare that Hadronox would need a buff, perhaps Taunt or a lower cost.
Before release, Doomguard was considered a worthless card due to how much you have to give up to play it. If you had brought up this post before release, we would probably say to make it discard less cards or have more attack.
Raza wasn't considered a good enough card when it came out for priest. There wasn't much point to priests sacrificing so much for a 0 mana hero power. I'm not sure what we would've proposed back then. Perhaps have it work at the beginning of the game similar to the Odd-Even effects.
Lastly, Blizzard HAS buffed a card before. When they had to change Unleash the Hounds from giving charge to creating hounds it was deemed worthless at 4 mana. They wanted to see it used so they buffed it to 2 mana. Is there anyone around that remembers how it felt to fight against Hunter from Spring of 2014 to Fall when it was nerfed?
Inner Fire was considered a worthless card back in 2014 a trap for newbies to teach them what cards NOT to play. Nourish was considered far too expensive and not worth Druid's time. I DO remember calls to buff that card.
Can you IMAGINE what would've happened if Blizzard listened to us back then, and made changes to 'make them relevant'? Can you imagine what would've happened if, when they finally found their niche, were upgraded beyond what we have now?
If you can, you'll understand why buffing cards really isn't much of a 'thing'. On TOP of what's already said before.
That makes absolutely no sense. Nerfing cards gives players dust, with buffs more people would craft cards so they get more money.
Which one is more lucrative?:
1. Buffing a weak card that a customer has already purchased, or
2. Selling a new card that is a more powerful version of the weak card
Beyond joke ones like the Ragers and a few cards in standard (which we can't buff since we're trying to stop people using the same cards for 10 years via HoF), how often have we had new cards that were simply stronger versions of weaker ones?
That makes absolutely no sense. Nerfing cards gives players dust, with buffs more people would craft cards so they get more money.
Which one is more lucrative?:
1. Buffing a weak card that a customer has already purchased, or
2. Selling a new card that is a more powerful version of the weak card
Beyond joke ones like the Ragers and a few cards in standard (which we can't buff since we're trying to stop people using the same cards for 10 years via HoF), how often have we had new cards that were simply stronger versions of weaker ones?
Because bad cards aren't a problem and don't make the meta bad or lead to negative player experiences. Weird legendaries like Duskfallen Av are fine to have in the game when if they never see play, they at least encourage theory crafting and exploration of the game, and sometimes meme legendaries like Beardo or Toggwaggle find a home in a viable deck.
There's no way for all or even most cards to be competitive, so there's really no reason or economic incentive for Blizzard to buff bad cards. Also I love hearing roleplaying chumps complain about how Illidan deserves to be better in HS, buffing him would take this small pleasure away from me.
That makes absolutely no sense. Nerfing cards gives players dust, with buffs more people would craft cards so they get more money.
Not really: Many people have after a card pack flood at the beginning of an expansion often enough dust do craft some cards. And most of the money is done at the beginning of an expansion.
So why buff cards when they can simply create a buffed version in the next pack they release? It's always about $$$.
If they wanted to make 130 balanced cards every single expansion they'd have to rebalance and buff cards every single time a new expansion comes out. it's better to not buff and nerf all the time because its extremely hard to keep all cards on the same line.
If they buff cards they reduce their design space, they would rather print new cards than make current cards better since they release 400 new cards per year..
I do agree though that some basic cards should get a small buff (Ahem Warsong Commander ahem) but apart from that I agree with them.. what's the point in buffing a card? it will just make an old card popular and it won't feel good (like Naga Sea Witch* for example (800 dust*))
some old cards that were previously useless got some play thanks to new rotation and cards.. we recently saw Amani Berserker on a 61% win rate across the board deck (now I doubt that card will make the cut.. if that deck is even playable RN)
The reasons are financially motivated. I think that buffing older cards would be an interesting way to bring to light some cards that don't get used. Or change cards that need changing to reflect new keywords in the game.
Warsong Commander should now read Rush minions get +1 attack. Why? Because its obvious that Charge is far too powerful and difficult to balance and I think that keyword is going away or will be on very few cards in the future. It's a buff that will probably not do much, but it shows that older cards can reflect the new direction of design.
Unstable Mutation should have Echo. Its the same effect, but its too wordy and it would interact with all the other cards that refer to Echo. It's a minor change that would be a buff.
How are the 2 above changes bad for the game? How are they hard to change? They aren't bad and they are easy changes. It's not worth their time and money to do so.
They will simply print a new card, that is better so you buy new packs.
When Hadronox was first brought in, it was considered a horrible card, too slow and not worth the effort. If you had brought up this post during Frozen Throne, people would declare that Hadronox would need a buff, perhaps Taunt or a lower cost.
Before release, Doomguard was considered a worthless card due to how much you have to give up to play it. If you had brought up this post before release, we would probably say to make it discard less cards or have more attack.
Raza wasn't considered a good enough card when it came out for priest. There wasn't much point to priests sacrificing so much for a 0 mana hero power. I'm not sure what we would've proposed back then. Perhaps have it work at the beginning of the game similar to the Odd-Even effects.
Lastly, Blizzard HAS buffed a card before. When they had to change Unleash the Hounds from giving charge to creating hounds it was deemed worthless at 4 mana. They wanted to see it used so they buffed it to 2 mana. Is there anyone around that remembers how it felt to fight against Hunter from Spring of 2014 to Fall when it was nerfed?
Inner Fire was considered a worthless card back in 2014 a trap for newbies to teach them what cards NOT to play. Nourish was considered far too expensive and not worth Druid's time. I DO remember calls to buff that card.
Can you IMAGINE what would've happened if Blizzard listened to us back then, and made changes to 'make them relevant'? Can you imagine what would've happened if, when they finally found their niche, were upgraded beyond what we have now?
If you can, you'll understand why buffing cards really isn't much of a 'thing'. On TOP of what's already said before.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
They buffed Call to Arms obviously
Good arguments on both sides.
On one hand you do have lots of cards deemed worthless that became powerful when combined with cards from later expansions.
On the other, you have things like Moorabi, Prince Valanar, Runespear, etc...
I guess the main issue is that it would be unfair if you dusted a card and it gets buffed afterwards, we'd have a lot of complaints.
Also, not every card is supposed to be tournament material, and I think that's healthy for the game and useful for f2p.
Because bad cards aren't a problem and don't make the meta bad or lead to negative player experiences. Weird legendaries like Duskfallen Av are fine to have in the game when if they never see play, they at least encourage theory crafting and exploration of the game, and sometimes meme legendaries like Beardo or Toggwaggle find a home in a viable deck.
There's no way for all or even most cards to be competitive, so there's really no reason or economic incentive for Blizzard to buff bad cards. Also I love hearing roleplaying chumps complain about how Illidan deserves to be better in HS, buffing him would take this small pleasure away from me.
If they wanted to make 130 balanced cards every single expansion they'd have to rebalance and buff cards every single time a new expansion comes out. it's better to not buff and nerf all the time because its extremely hard to keep all cards on the same line.
That's Incredible!
If they buff cards they reduce their design space, they would rather print new cards than make current cards better since they release 400 new cards per year..
I do agree though that some basic cards should get a small buff (Ahem Warsong Commander ahem) but apart from that I agree with them.. what's the point in buffing a card? it will just make an old card popular and it won't feel good (like Naga Sea Witch* for example (800 dust*))
some old cards that were previously useless got some play thanks to new rotation and cards.. we recently saw Amani Berserker on a 61% win rate across the board deck (now I doubt that card will make the cut.. if that deck is even playable RN)