Like many others, I'm excited for the next standard rotation because of how much it'll shake up the meta game. For instance, no more infinite value DKs. I know it's still far off, but I think we can already look back on the Mammoth and Raven expansions.
The new standard rotation will only be good if Blizzard learns from their mistakes in the year of the Raven. Which begs the question: What do you think those mistakes were? From my perspective, the year of the raven has made these things abundently clear:
1) Infinite value cards should be avoided as much as possible unless it's powerlevel is relatively low. DK rexxar has high powerlevel infinite minions. DK jaina has psuedo-infinite value. DK warlock has infinite bash value. Kingsbane results in a snowballing infinite value card. On the other hand, Dead Man's Hand, as an infinite value card, basically works as a anti-fatigue tool, which I think is ok as a base infinite value power level. It is maybe the only infinite value strategy I'd like to see stay in the game. Infinite value cards sometimes also result in a "one card deck" situation, like DK rexxar being the only relevant card against odd warrior. That's, frankly, ridiculous. It makes games feel grindy and hopeless once you see it coming. There should be a more elegant ways to increase resources and grind out a game then simply giving classes infinite resources. Think Elise the Trailblazer, for instance.
2) Don't print early highroll cards that boost the winrate disportionately. Of course, I'm talking keleseth. Games are fun when decisions matter, but when your opponent drops keleseth on two and you know your chance of winning just dropped substantially without you being able to do anything about it, it's not fun. The fact that is has a deck building constraint is irrevelant; it's a early high roll card, like Barnes, and they're no fun. Highroll cards are ok, but they shouldn't be so important so early in the game. These highroll cards feel better when they are higher costed, like The Mistcaller or even Reno Jackson, so you can play out a game before they become a factor, and therefore plan around them or race to beat it.
3) Reduce mana "cheating" mechanics. They are supposed to be difficult to pull off, but they simply aren't given existing synergies. I'm talking stuff like cubing in taunt druid or deathrattle hunter and recruit in cubelock and with oakheart, which creates massive tempo swings. It's not fun playing against an opponent, who through a good hand, gets well over 10 mana worth of value for two cards and around 6 mana, sometimes less. Big priest is also commonly hated, mostly through it's ability to cheat out huge minions for cheap again and again. Again, mana discounting and tempo swings are something that should exist, but to a limit. Cubelock, in it's prime, was the master of both and should be a cautionary tale of how much mana discounting and tempo swing ability a class should be allowed in one deck.
4) Be careful with introducing start of game beneficial effects (I'm looking at Baku and Genn). The constraint, it turns out, was negligble for those decks for which the upgraded hero power was worth it. Even paladin, odd paladin, odd rogue, and even shaman have all been top tier in their own times. I'm not entirely against the mechanic, I just think it deserves some caution when designing this sort of thing.
5) Be careful with creating polarizing matchup decks. I'm talking about shudderwock combo, and quest rogue, which had an insanely lopsided winrate against any control deck. Another example is odd warrior against certain aggro decks, which is indicative of the issue with point (4) as well. The game is not fun if there are matchups that are that unwinnable (e.g. 80-20). Team 5 should make sure that matchups don't go much more lopsided than 70-30, and I think this is basically fine outside combo/quest rogue vs control, and odd warrior against aggro. I think a good way to solve this that would be popular with the community is introducing nuetral tech that helps these matchups, like Dirty Rat.
6) Last but not least, don't give classes a plethora of amazing general utility cards that become the core of basically any archetype of that class. Yes, I'm looking at druid. Druid is the only class where it takes up to 7 or more turns to even find out what they are playing. Oh, and while I'm at it, no combo should ever be tutorable (melon). The whole points of combo decks is that you need to survive and draw into your combo, and that is made way too easy when a single card finds everything you need. Combine that with ramping and it's busted.
These are just some of my ideas. Are there points you disagree with, and are there maybe some points I didn't address? Lemme know!
Infinite value in high cost cards is fine, the problem is this feature comes in the same pack with a battlecry who destroy aggro decks costing only 6 manas, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay far from the right cost, mage and warlock DK are very strong but a least they cost 9 and 10 manas, at this point aggro already win or lose anyway.
@Diamond, you raise good points, I guess I am biased in certain regards because I lean towards the control playstyle. Infinite strategies are a valid strategy. I still think they shouldn't be made too powerful, because being able to gain value infinitely in and of itself is already very powerful, so there should be caution in what that infinite value is.
I still think the mana cheating ability went too far. Yes, cube is just really strong, but that limits the type of cards you can design. For instance, taunt druid was possible in part because of cube. Cubelock. Deathrattle hunter. As a neutral card, it defines and single handedly allows so many archetypes to exist. Which is a good thing, but they should be wary of printing too many cards like that. Don't get me wrong, I like cube and what it enables. I'm just urging caution, because it is without a doubt one of the strongest and most archetype enabling cards in the meta.
You're right that polarized matchups have to and will exist given a large enough set of strategies in a game, and large amount of strategies is a good thing. I guess what I really want is them to introduce tech that make these games still worth playing. Like in wild, I will play against shudderwock shaman as BSM to the end because I know rat can save me. In standard, too many of those type of games simply makes the game unfun. And unfun is something that we want to prevent. In particular, when one entire archetype (combo) oppresses another entire archtype (control) by a huge margin, imo, that is not healthy. Aggro should be favored against combo, combo should be favored against control, and control should be favored against aggro, but it shouldn't be favored in a way that turns the meta into rock-paper-scizzors. Aggro can and has been able to beat control a long time. Control should be able to somwhat compete against combo in a similar fashion. Unfavored, yes, but a fighting chance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Like many others, I'm excited for the next standard rotation because of how much it'll shake up the meta game. For instance, no more infinite value DKs. I know it's still far off, but I think we can already look back on the Mammoth and Raven expansions.
The new standard rotation will only be good if Blizzard learns from their mistakes in the year of the Raven. Which begs the question: What do you think those mistakes were? From my perspective, the year of the raven has made these things abundently clear:
1) Infinite value cards should be avoided as much as possible unless it's powerlevel is relatively low. DK rexxar has high powerlevel infinite minions. DK jaina has psuedo-infinite value. DK warlock has infinite bash value. Kingsbane results in a snowballing infinite value card. On the other hand, Dead Man's Hand, as an infinite value card, basically works as a anti-fatigue tool, which I think is ok as a base infinite value power level. It is maybe the only infinite value strategy I'd like to see stay in the game. Infinite value cards sometimes also result in a "one card deck" situation, like DK rexxar being the only relevant card against odd warrior. That's, frankly, ridiculous. It makes games feel grindy and hopeless once you see it coming. There should be a more elegant ways to increase resources and grind out a game then simply giving classes infinite resources. Think Elise the Trailblazer, for instance.
2) Don't print early highroll cards that boost the winrate disportionately. Of course, I'm talking keleseth. Games are fun when decisions matter, but when your opponent drops keleseth on two and you know your chance of winning just dropped substantially without you being able to do anything about it, it's not fun. The fact that is has a deck building constraint is irrevelant; it's a early high roll card, like Barnes, and they're no fun. Highroll cards are ok, but they shouldn't be so important so early in the game. These highroll cards feel better when they are higher costed, like The Mistcaller or even Reno Jackson, so you can play out a game before they become a factor, and therefore plan around them or race to beat it.
3) Reduce mana "cheating" mechanics. They are supposed to be difficult to pull off, but they simply aren't given existing synergies. I'm talking stuff like cubing in taunt druid or deathrattle hunter and recruit in cubelock and with oakheart, which creates massive tempo swings. It's not fun playing against an opponent, who through a good hand, gets well over 10 mana worth of value for two cards and around 6 mana, sometimes less. Big priest is also commonly hated, mostly through it's ability to cheat out huge minions for cheap again and again. Again, mana discounting and tempo swings are something that should exist, but to a limit. Cubelock, in it's prime, was the master of both and should be a cautionary tale of how much mana discounting and tempo swing ability a class should be allowed in one deck.
4) Be careful with introducing start of game beneficial effects (I'm looking at Baku and Genn). The constraint, it turns out, was negligble for those decks for which the upgraded hero power was worth it. Even paladin, odd paladin, odd rogue, and even shaman have all been top tier in their own times. I'm not entirely against the mechanic, I just think it deserves some caution when designing this sort of thing.
5) Be careful with creating polarizing matchup decks. I'm talking about shudderwock combo, and quest rogue, which had an insanely lopsided winrate against any control deck. Another example is odd warrior against certain aggro decks, which is indicative of the issue with point (4) as well. The game is not fun if there are matchups that are that unwinnable (e.g. 80-20). Team 5 should make sure that matchups don't go much more lopsided than 70-30, and I think this is basically fine outside combo/quest rogue vs control, and odd warrior against aggro. I think a good way to solve this that would be popular with the community is introducing nuetral tech that helps these matchups, like Dirty Rat.
6) Last but not least, don't give classes a plethora of amazing general utility cards that become the core of basically any archetype of that class. Yes, I'm looking at druid. Druid is the only class where it takes up to 7 or more turns to even find out what they are playing. Oh, and while I'm at it, no combo should ever be tutorable (melon). The whole points of combo decks is that you need to survive and draw into your combo, and that is made way too easy when a single card finds everything you need. Combine that with ramping and it's busted.
These are just some of my ideas. Are there points you disagree with, and are there maybe some points I didn't address? Lemme know!
I disagree with all of your points.
I agree, but rotation isn’t until April 2019. That’s a long time. I sincerely hope that Blizzard considers a patch before then.
i dont mean to be picky but it is year of the mammoth that is rotating.
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
They have already unequivocally stated there will be no balance patch. No amount of QQ will change that.
Year of the mammoth was the reason that raven sucks. The truth hurts
I Bought All The Funnel Cakes
Infinite value in high cost cards is fine, the problem is this feature comes in the same pack with a battlecry who destroy aggro decks costing only 6 manas, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay far from the right cost, mage and warlock DK are very strong but a least they cost 9 and 10 manas, at this point aggro already win or lose anyway.
@Diamond, you raise good points, I guess I am biased in certain regards because I lean towards the control playstyle. Infinite strategies are a valid strategy. I still think they shouldn't be made too powerful, because being able to gain value infinitely in and of itself is already very powerful, so there should be caution in what that infinite value is.
I still think the mana cheating ability went too far. Yes, cube is just really strong, but that limits the type of cards you can design. For instance, taunt druid was possible in part because of cube. Cubelock. Deathrattle hunter. As a neutral card, it defines and single handedly allows so many archetypes to exist. Which is a good thing, but they should be wary of printing too many cards like that. Don't get me wrong, I like cube and what it enables. I'm just urging caution, because it is without a doubt one of the strongest and most archetype enabling cards in the meta.
You're right that polarized matchups have to and will exist given a large enough set of strategies in a game, and large amount of strategies is a good thing. I guess what I really want is them to introduce tech that make these games still worth playing. Like in wild, I will play against shudderwock shaman as BSM to the end because I know rat can save me. In standard, too many of those type of games simply makes the game unfun. And unfun is something that we want to prevent. In particular, when one entire archetype (combo) oppresses another entire archtype (control) by a huge margin, imo, that is not healthy. Aggro should be favored against combo, combo should be favored against control, and control should be favored against aggro, but it shouldn't be favored in a way that turns the meta into rock-paper-scizzors. Aggro can and has been able to beat control a long time. Control should be able to somwhat compete against combo in a similar fashion. Unfavored, yes, but a fighting chance.