Hearthpwn

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

I really can't get behind this logic. Going by this line of thinking you could have a very convoluted combo deck that is quite difficult to pull off even in casual but nets a very good result when it does work (10% of the time it works 100% of the time!!). That doesn't mean the combo should be killed. Now I'm not saying Aviana combos were only achievable 10% of the time before psychmelon, but none of the decks were consistent enough to be tier 1 or higher in wild and I only play wild.

Why do you think they nerfed lackey in Cubelock instead of Doomguard or Voidlord? Lackey made the high tempo turns much more consistent to pull off and while the demons were and are still powerful it was the support card that made them more consistent. Same line of thought goes for melon tutoring out entire combos with Aviana & Kun. I almost never saw complaint threads about Aviana & Kun before melon, branching paths, etc. Why? It was because the slower draws/cycles/tutors were lacking & it was less consistent. The busted spells, that work in more than just combo druid mind you, was what completely changed everything.

70% of all statistics are made up.

And you missed the most important part of my posts: "Druid will continue to get more draw, more stall, and more removal because that's what happens in CCGs. Aviana was always going to be a problem at 9 mana."

If it were a standard problem? Maybe nerf melon. But it's an eternal problem. (Ignoring the fact that Blizzard shouldn't be trying to balance an eternal format). The card that will always complicate things is Aviana, not melon.

Also, Cubelock is an entirely different deck that had an entirely different set of complications. So the comparison doesn't work.

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 Hearthpwn stats are generally worse than other sites because there are less people using it. Odd Rogue is actually the 4th best deck atm according to HSReplay, it only has a 54% winrate.

Even if it did normally have a 63.5% winrate, your first two paragraphs were all about how stats didn't matter. Pick one.

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

I really can't get behind this logic. Going by this line of thinking you could have a very convoluted combo deck that is quite difficult to pull off even in casual but nets a very good result when it does work (10% of the time it works 100% of the time!!). That doesn't mean the combo should be killed. Now I'm not saying Aviana combos were only achievable 10% of the time before psychmelon, but none of the decks were consistent enough to be tier 1 or higher in wild and I only play wild.

Why do you think they nerfed lackey in Cubelock instead of Doomguard or Voidlord? Lackey made the high tempo turns much more consistent to pull off and while the demons were and are still powerful it was the support card that made them more consistent. Same line of thought goes for melon tutoring out entire combos with Aviana & Kun. I almost never saw complaint threads about Aviana & Kun before melon, branching paths, etc. Why? It was because the slower draws/cycles/tutors were lacking & it was less consistent. The busted spells, that work in more than just combo druid mind you, was what completely changed everything.

70% of all statistics are made up.

And you missed the most important part of my posts: "Druid will continue to get more draw, more stall, and more removal because that's what happens in CCGs. Aviana was always going to be a problem at 9 mana."

If it were a standard problem? Maybe nerf melon. But it's an eternal problem. (Ignoring the fact that Blizzard shouldn't be trying to balance an eternal format). The card that will always complicate things is Aviana, not melon.

Also, Cubelock is an entirely different deck that had an entirely different set of complications. So the comparison doesn't work.

My statistic was purposefully made up to prove a point. The end result being powerful matters very little if the deck is not consistent enough to then make the deck a meta curbstomper. I could dish out 56 damage with my Aviana/Rag/Majordomo/DW druid deck but with it being an 8 (now 9) card combo that doesn't mean it carries consistency to be viewed as an actual problem. Same thing with my Spectral Pillager Rogue, over 50 damage, but 8 card combo. With Dane's C'Thun Rogue I got an over 200 attack C'Thun against someone in casual but it required a lot of setup. End result doesn't matter as much as consistency.

As far as druid always having draw, removal, etc all I have to say is that not all removals/draws are equal. There is a reason Aviana & Kun were not actual competitive decks before melon, despite having things like Nourish, Wild Growth, Azure Drake, or Poison Seeds. The cards, while powerful, still weren't fast enough nor efficient enough to carry the combo. Sure, we'll card more cycling and removal but if it ends up being well thought out & designed (nstead of 1 mana fireball spellstones, extremely flexible draw/armor/board buffs, & tutors that draw your entire combo) then I don't think it would matter as much. The removal/stall/cycle that druid has gotten has been extremely power creeped. That is why those cards made the combo work so much easier.

Giving T5 the green light to nerf any druid or non-druid combo cards because more new cards can be released simply gives them the excuse to continue making power creep versions of draw/cycle/removal because "Hey, we can keep the power creep by putting the blame on OTKs that were made consistent because of our brokeback power creep spells! It must be okay to keep designing cards this way because we never have to balance the spells & can just nerf the combos instead."

I don't believe that you've never lost a game to Mana wyrm. Have you ever played a control deck and not had removal for it the first couple turns? You're just dead. Its happened to me a million times

Quote from danklesminky >>

I don't believe that you've never lost a game to Mana wyrm. Have you ever played a control deck and not had removal for it the first couple turns? You're just dead. Its happened to me a million times

 Turn 5, finally draw my fucking SW: Death.  

Oops!  That secret wasn't Explosive Runes, it was Counterspell.  Because I went first, it's my fault for not having an easy way to test for it.  I should have teched in Gilged Gargoyle, my bad. 

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

My statistic was purposefully made up to prove a point. The end result being powerful matters very little if the deck is not consistent enough to then make the deck a meta curbstomper. I could dish out 56 damage with my Aviana/Rag/Majordomo/DW druid deck but with it being an 8 (now 9) card combo that doesn't mean it carries consistency to be viewed as an actual problem. Same thing with my Spectral Pillager Rogue, over 50 damage, but 8 card combo. With Dane's C'Thun Rogue I got an over 200 attack C'Thun against someone in casual but it required a lot of setup. End result doesn't matter as much as consistency.

As far as druid always having draw, removal, etc all I have to say is that not all removals/draws are equal. There is a reason Aviana & Kun were not actual competitive decks before melon, despite having things like Nourish, Wild Growth, Azure Drake, or Poison Seeds. The cards, while powerful, still weren't fast enough nor efficient enough to carry the combo. Sure, we'll card more cycling and removal but if it ends up being well thought out & designed (nstead of 1 mana fireball spellstones, extremely flexible draw/armor/board buffs, & tutors that draw your entire combo) then I don't think it would matter as much. The removal/stall/cycle that druid has gotten has been extremely power creeped. That is why those cards made the combo work so much easier.

Giving T5 the green light to nerf any druid or non-druid combo cards because more new cards can be released simply gives them the excuse to continue making power creep versions of draw/cycle/removal because "Hey, we can keep the power creep by putting the blame on OTKs that were made consistent because of our brokeback power creep spells! It must be okay to keep designing cards this way because we never have to balance the spells & can just nerf the combos instead."

Again, you continue to miss the point. Aviana is always going to cause issues in an eternal format because the draw & stall will continue to get better.

In Standard mage barely have 1 competitive deck and this nerf will kill that...

Druid have 4.567 top tier decks and all your cards remain untouched.

Balance team in Blizzard should be all fired today.

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

My statistic was purposefully made up to prove a point. The end result being powerful matters very little if the deck is not consistent enough to then make the deck a meta curbstomper. I could dish out 56 damage with my Aviana/Rag/Majordomo/DW druid deck but with it being an 8 (now 9) card combo that doesn't mean it carries consistency to be viewed as an actual problem. Same thing with my Spectral Pillager Rogue, over 50 damage, but 8 card combo. With Dane's C'Thun Rogue I got an over 200 attack C'Thun against someone in casual but it required a lot of setup. End result doesn't matter as much as consistency.

As far as druid always having draw, removal, etc all I have to say is that not all removals/draws are equal. There is a reason Aviana & Kun were not actual competitive decks before melon, despite having things like Nourish, Wild Growth, Azure Drake, or Poison Seeds. The cards, while powerful, still weren't fast enough nor efficient enough to carry the combo. Sure, we'll card more cycling and removal but if it ends up being well thought out & designed (nstead of 1 mana fireball spellstones, extremely flexible draw/armor/board buffs, & tutors that draw your entire combo) then I don't think it would matter as much. The removal/stall/cycle that druid has gotten has been extremely power creeped. That is why those cards made the combo work so much easier.

Giving T5 the green light to nerf any druid or non-druid combo cards because more new cards can be released simply gives them the excuse to continue making power creep versions of draw/cycle/removal because "Hey, we can keep the power creep by putting the blame on OTKs that were made consistent because of our brokeback power creep spells! It must be okay to keep designing cards this way because we never have to balance the spells & can just nerf the combos instead."

Again, you continue to miss the point. Aviana is always going to cause issues in an eternal format because the draw & stall will continue to get better.

That honestly can apply to a whole breadth of cards in wild. Are we to turn wild into a pseudo-eternal format that constantly nerfs previously non-troublesome or less troublesome cards because the design team wants to push power creep cards, such as a melon that has more draw potential than Nourish for one less mana?

I don't believe in nerfing old cards to enable poor design decisions, decisions that will probably get nerfed anyway once Melon starts causing problems in standard in the future (thus rendering the Aviana nerf meaningless).

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

That honestly can apply to a whole breadth of cards in wild. Are we to turn wild into a pseudo-eternal format that constantly nerfs previously non-troublesome or less troublesome cards because the design team wants to push power creep cards, such as a melon that has more draw potential than Nourish for one less mana?

I don't believe in nerfing old cards to enable poor design decisions, decisions that will probably get nerfed anyway once Melon starts causing problems in standard in the future (thus rendering the Aviana nerf meaningless).

It isn't a poor design decision though because only standard matters. Blizzard made a mistake by trying to balance Wild. It's an eternal format, not a balanced one. The two cannot coexist.

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

That honestly can apply to a whole breadth of cards in wild. Are we to turn wild into a pseudo-eternal format that constantly nerfs previously non-troublesome or less troublesome cards because the design team wants to push power creep cards, such as a melon that has more draw potential than Nourish for one less mana?

I don't believe in nerfing old cards to enable poor design decisions, decisions that will probably get nerfed anyway once Melon starts causing problems in standard in the future (thus rendering the Aviana nerf meaningless).

It isn't a poor design decision though because only standard matters. Blizzard made a mistake by trying to balance Wild. It's an eternal format, not a balanced one. The two cannot coexist.

And yet we keep getting wild cards nerfed in such a format. If cards like melon are being designed, with obvious strong synergies in wild, and that is causing wild cards to get nerfed in a format where they shouldn't be getting nerfed then yes that is a problem.

We shouldn't be getting dreadsteeds nerfed to prevent 'infinite loops' that cap out at 14 procs anyway to release more board clears for warlock, nerfing old mechs to prevent theoretical meme otk combos that weren't even tested in standard, or to create a card that currently sees little play in standard just to invent an excuse to nerf a popular combo wild card. None of that fits the card game definition of an eternal format and standard was the reason all three of those cards were nerfed. 

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Quote from ColinthePyro >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 Hearthpwn stats are generally worse than other sites because there are less people using it. Odd Rogue is actually the 4th best deck atm according to HSReplay, it only has a 54% winrate.

Even if it did normally have a 63.5% winrate, your first two paragraphs were all about how stats didn't matter. Pick one.

 I already explained why these statistics are almost meaningless and why I used 1 as an example.

Sorry that you don't understand pure logic backed up with facts.

Everyone crying about Aviana too.  Have you heart of a little card called dirty rat?

 Aviana WAS ok before, draw all combo pieces playing only one f...... card in a combo deck don't is, the nerf solve this problem.

Don't have any problem have powerful combo/OTK decks but when one is able to outrace aggro something must to be done.

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

That honestly can apply to a whole breadth of cards in wild. Are we to turn wild into a pseudo-eternal format that constantly nerfs previously non-troublesome or less troublesome cards because the design team wants to push power creep cards, such as a melon that has more draw potential than Nourish for one less mana?

I don't believe in nerfing old cards to enable poor design decisions, decisions that will probably get nerfed anyway once Melon starts causing problems in standard in the future (thus rendering the Aviana nerf meaningless).

It isn't a poor design decision though because only standard matters. Blizzard made a mistake by trying to balance Wild. It's an eternal format, not a balanced one. The two cannot coexist.

And yet we keep getting wild cards nerfed in such a format. If cards like melon are being designed, with obvious strong synergies in wild, and that is causing wild cards to get nerfed in a format where they shouldn't be getting nerfed then yes that is a problem.

We shouldn't be getting dreadsteeds nerfed to prevent 'infinite loops' that cap out at 14 procs anyway to release more board clears for warlock, nerfing old mechs to prevent theoretical meme otk combos that weren't even tested in standard, or to create a card that currently sees little play in standard just to invent an excuse to nerf a popular combo wild card. None of that fits the card game definition of an eternal format and standard was the reason all three of those cards were nerfed. 

 Its 18th PDT, i dont know where u live but you can search your timeframe on google and convert it to PDT

My reaction: "It's been Oct 18th PST for over 14 hours now, where are they?"

Quote from hillandder >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Quote from ColinthePyro >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 Hearthpwn stats are generally worse than other sites because there are less people using it. Odd Rogue is actually the 4th best deck atm according to HSReplay, it only has a 54% winrate.

Even if it did normally have a 63.5% winrate, your first two paragraphs were all about how stats didn't matter. Pick one.

 I already explained why these statistics are almost meaningless and why I used 1 as an example.

Sorry that you don't understand pure logic backed up with facts.

Everyone crying about Aviana too.  Have you heart of a little card called dirty rat?

 Aviana WAS ok before, draw all combo pieces playing only one f...... card in a combo deck don't is, the nerf solve this problem.

Don't have any problem have powerful combo/OTK decks but when one is able to outrace aggro something must to be done.

They could have just changed the spell to tutor out two 7 or higher minions (reducing the consistency of star aligner decks a lot & slightly reducing Togwaggle decks. The card isn't even used competively in standard so comparatively few people in standard would have even noticed. Instead they chose to nerf the card that competitive & non-competitve meme decks use.

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Quote from ColinthePyro >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 Hearthpwn stats are generally worse than other sites because there are less people using it. Odd Rogue is actually the 4th best deck atm according to HSReplay, it only has a 54% winrate.

Even if it did normally have a 63.5% winrate, your first two paragraphs were all about how stats didn't matter. Pick one.

 

 I already explained why these statistics are almost meaningless and why I used 1 as an example.

Sorry that you don't understand pure logic backed up with facts.

Everyone crying about Aviana too.  Have you heart of a little card called dirty rat?

 Ok, you have to be trolling. You say that facts and logic are irrelevant when people show you the winrates/playrates of cards, then say others don't understand them?

Done with this.

I see a lot of people complaining how the Avian / Kun combo was such a problem, as if there aren't a shit load of combo decks in the format that serves the very purpose of letting those decks be played. Blizzard screwed the pooch by making Psychmelon, not by leaving one ridiculous combo deck out of many in the place it belonged. 

The entire point of Wild IS the unbalance. 

So now you people crying about how OP that deck was better get ready. Blizzard keeps nerfing Wild cards on top of nerfing an EVERGREEN card so now nothing is off limits. And people praise this shit? 

Bad expansions (Witchwood, Boomsday), head-scratching nerfs along with just really bad design (Crystal Core, Psychmelon) which are causing a ripple effect on cards nobody was really bitching about. And when I say "really", I mean there was no overwhelming outcry over Mana Wyrm. Half the people bitching about Avania were nowhere to be found before Psychmelon.

I can't wait until the next expansion. I wonder what card they will develop only to nerf years from now...

I don't like any of the nerfs, and I dislike that the poll doesn't allow for a reflection of this.  I am unable to 'vote' without selecting at least one option.

Mages have not been dominating at any memorable point since the inception of Hearthstone and the Mana Wyrm is a basic card of the class.  Class cards are not supposed to 'be in line' with other cards from other classes.  That's why rogues have Backstab, druids have Wild Growth and warriors have Execute.  All of these are 'overpowered' when taken on an individual basis.  They are staples that every other card in the game should be based around, not cards to be changed so classes are less distinct.  Pushing the Mana Wyrm into the 2 mana slot has likely caused great disruption in every mage deck out there.

As for the Giggling Inventor, 7 mana pushes it into the non-playable range.

Aviana has already been rotated out of standard play and wild was sold to us as 'the Wild format will preserve everything you already know and love about Hearthstone!

-And-

Wild Will Be Wild
Wild is our new name for the Hearthstone you already know, because it’ll be the format where anything can happen. While Standard puts a bright spotlight on recently released cards and brings a more balanced experience, when you queue up for Wild, you’ll be cozying up with the crazy fun of Hearthstone you’re already familiar with. Of course, as more and more cards are added over time, the wilder and more unpredictable Wild will be!

I see no reason any cards that have rotated out of Standard format should ever be changed in any way.

<deleted by user.>

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 I was looking specifically at the legend rank. 

https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-109/

How can you say on one hand, "winrates don't mean much" but quote a 63.5% winrate from Odd Rogue as a reason it's too strong?  At least VS differentiates between Legend and lower ranks. 

You shouldn't count only legend play because by the time you get to legend a meta has been established and surprises in deck composition are much more rare. Most of the games played aren't played at legend rank. If a card disrupts play at legend rank, it sounds like the players or the decks needs to be adjusted to fit the 'new meta'. You don't change the cards to fit the players. That's how you end up destroying your game overall. You start fixing things, and end up breaking two more. Your players get frustrated every time because you have now forced them to 'relearn' the game, and they end up leaving. I know that's one of the largest reasons people leave League of Legends.

Oh, the tears of so many players who simply want to play THEIR OVERPOWERED DECKS.

Sorry, but people are telling quite a BS. Wild is the format where all cards are available, BUT NOT A FORMAT WHERE EVERY CARDS NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED LIKE IN A MUSEUM!

If it is the format we all love about hearthstone, it's also a BALANCED FORMAT. Balance changes were the case BEFORE standard was even introduced. So yes, BALANCE CHANGES in wild are SUPPOSED TO BE, simply because it is the format we had before the crap called standard was even introduced. Here is everything possible, it's wild, BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FORMAT WHERE A DECK IS DOMINATING EVERYTHING. There is a reason that for example Undertaker wasn't unnerfed.

Sorry for the abuse of caps, but when i read the complains of players who justify their desire to play an overpowered deck with the intention of wild is supposed to be a format where nothing changes, then i'm getting angry; because wild is supposed to be a format where you simply can play all cards.

Wild is not a museum, it's a game mode where people simply can play WITH ALL THEIR CARDS that they got. And we NEED balance changes even here. And Aviana+ Kun the Forgotten King will always be a problem, so yes, Aviana-nerf was much needed. And as said before: there are so many enablers still in the game, but it got less consistent than it was. Aviana+floop, aviana+innervate, aviana+emperor thaurissan, aviana + the card from boomsday that reduce mana cost by (7) and so on.

But it's no longer: Juicy Psychmelon: draw your whole combo. And as said before: what do you want to nerf on psychmelon: the mana cost? As druid, you don't care about mana, it could cost 10, and it's still too strong. (not that this card doesn't need nerf, but i think this was the best solution for now until psychmelon gets totally out of control one day and then gets hid with the nerf-hammer)

So yes, Aviana was a good nerf, but as many people here think too: 4 mana draw 4 cards is insane. 4 mana tudor 4 cards is even more insane. But instead of making it even more costly than for example Sprint, they gave this a discount. But right now we don't have this issue, so i agree that we shouldn't need to nerf cards that aren't an issue quite yet. But if they are in the future, we need a nerf for them too

Oh, and one last thing about wild and balance. People here are often saying that wild isn't supposed to be balanced: but why is wild then FAR MORE BALANCED than standard? Yes, it needs tweaks here and there, but compared to standard, wild at least has most of the time a solution for something. Not for everything, but that might change in the future.

As long as you doesn't introduce totally broken cards like Juicy Psychmelon.