Well, you see, first there was Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. And the community saw that there were Jades. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeing
Then, there was K&C. And turn 6 voidlords plus 8 life happened. And Doomguards charged for masters with full hands. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeing.
Father Blizzard saw the reeeeeeeeeeeeing and saw it was bad. And Father Blizzard spake, saying, "Let there be a reasonably powered set with powerful but non-game breaking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Well, you see, first there was Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. And the community saw that there were Jades. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeing
Then, there was K&C. And turn 6 voidlords plus 8 life happened. And Doomguards charged for masters with full hands. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeing.
Father Blizzard saw the reeeeeeeeeeeeing and saw it was bad. And Father Blizzard spake, saying, "Let there be a reasonably powered set with powerful but non-game breaking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Yeah the hard truth is that players don't always know what's best for the game, and in that regard I'm glad Blizzard doesn't give in to what the playerbase wants.
The power level of sets like Witchwood and Rastakhan's Rumble seem perfect to me. Balanced and well designed. Kobolds and Catacombs was way too powerful. Go take a look at the insane cards that set gave us (for every class), several of them had to be nerfed. There are many you could argue should be nerfed.
I liked Frozen Throne and Ungoro, but I will not be sad to bid adieu to Kobolds. So many cards in that are so unfun to play against. If I never have to see another Void Daddy or CYOA Druid, it will be too soon.
Well yeah. That expansion had broken cards.which is bad for the gane
Like?
Cube. Defile. Kobold blood tap. Hadronox. Emerald spellstone. Warlock spellstone. Aluneth. Warlock Weapon. Pre Nerf dark pact. Master Oakhart. Only naming a few cards here
But almost half the cards in the set are very good, meta-deck cards, and that's a very high percentage compared to any other set except Naxxramas.
None of these cards listed were "broken". They didn't break the game. They were very powerful, yes. They were meta-defining, yes. Broken? Not in the slightest. People tend to overuse that term without realising what it truly means.
Well yeah. That expansion had broken cards.which is bad for the gane
Like?
Cube. Defile. Kobold blood tap. Hadronox. Emerald spellstone. Warlock spellstone. Aluneth. Warlock Weapon. Pre Nerf dark pact. Master Oakhart. Only naming a few cards here
Can't see any actual "broken" cards in that list.... Some powerful ones, yes. Nothing that would be classed as "broken"...
But almost half the cards in the set are very good, meta-deck cards, and that's a very high percentage compared to any other set except Naxxramas.
None of these cards listed were "broken". They didn't break the game. They were very powerful, yes. They were meta-defining, yes. Broken? Not in the slightest. People tend to overuse that term without realising what it truly means.
So, none of them were broken, which is why they dominated the meta so utterly and were subsequently nerfed, (And some cards still see play!)
What kind of logic is that? Does a card have to crash the game everytime your opponent plays it for it to be broken?
But almost half the cards in the set are very good, meta-deck cards, and that's a very high percentage compared to any other set except Naxxramas.
None of these cards listed were "broken". They didn't break the game. They were very powerful, yes. They were meta-defining, yes. Broken? Not in the slightest. People tend to overuse that term without realising what it truly means.
When a card is used in 99% of the decks of that class, it's a broken card and needs to be nerfed, which they did.
But almost half the cards in the set are very good, meta-deck cards, and that's a very high percentage compared to any other set except Naxxramas.
None of these cards listed were "broken". They didn't break the game. They were very powerful, yes. They were meta-defining, yes. Broken? Not in the slightest. People tend to overuse that term without realising what it truly means.
So, none of them were broken, which is why they dominated the meta so utterly and were subsequently nerfed, (And some cards still see play!)
What kind of logic is that? Does a card have to crash the game everytime your opponent plays it for it to be broken?
Branching Paths wasn't nerfed. Yet apparently it's "broken". And no, these cards didn't "dominate the meta" at all. 3 of them are class specific. And the nerfs to some of them didn't even do much to change the deck - such as Cubelock which is still virtually as powerful as it used to be. And Call To Arms nerf was too late, since Odd Paladin took it over in terms of power very quickly afterwards. So no. None of these cards were "broken". They worked as expected. Yes, they were powerful, but broken means that they were literally unbeatable. Which they obviously weren't. It has nothing to do with game crashes. I'm not sure you understand the terminology here.
If being used in all decks of similar archetypes is somehow "broken", then you must think cards like Prince Keleseth are "broken"... which is obviously utter codswallop.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Near miss for me on the preorder.
Really? for me looks garbage.
Well, you see, first there was Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. And the community saw that there were Jades. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeing
Then, there was K&C. And turn 6 voidlords plus 8 life happened. And Doomguards charged for masters with full hands. And there was much reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeing.
Father Blizzard saw the reeeeeeeeeeeeing and saw it was bad. And Father Blizzard spake, saying, "Let there be a reasonably powered set with powerful but non-game breaking REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Book of Brode, Chapter 13, Verse 1
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Well yeah. That expansion had broken cards.which is bad for the gane
Yeah the hard truth is that players don't always know what's best for the game, and in that regard I'm glad Blizzard doesn't give in to what the playerbase wants.
Like?
Is this a joke??? No shit, Sherlock...
Oh boy
Trying to stick to "broken" cards rather than just "very good, meta-deck cards" ...
But almost half the cards in the set are very good, meta-deck cards, and that's a very high percentage compared to any other set except Naxxramas.
The power level of sets like Witchwood and Rastakhan's Rumble seem perfect to me. Balanced and well designed. Kobolds and Catacombs was way too powerful. Go take a look at the insane cards that set gave us (for every class), several of them had to be nerfed. There are many you could argue should be nerfed.
Spiteful Summoner (now nerfed)
sorry, had to complete the list
I liked Frozen Throne and Ungoro, but I will not be sad to bid adieu to Kobolds. So many cards in that are so unfun to play against. If I never have to see another Void Daddy or CYOA Druid, it will be too soon.
Cube. Defile. Kobold blood tap. Hadronox. Emerald spellstone. Warlock spellstone. Aluneth. Warlock Weapon. Pre Nerf dark pact. Master Oakhart. Only naming a few cards here
4 more months of cubes, can't wait. Unless the next set introduces something worse.
None of these cards listed were "broken". They didn't break the game. They were very powerful, yes. They were meta-defining, yes. Broken? Not in the slightest. People tend to overuse that term without realising what it truly means.
Can't see any actual "broken" cards in that list....
Some powerful ones, yes. Nothing that would be classed as "broken"...
So, none of them were broken, which is why they dominated the meta so utterly and were subsequently nerfed, (And some cards still see play!)
What kind of logic is that? Does a card have to crash the game everytime your opponent plays it for it to be broken?
When a card is used in 99% of the decks of that class, it's a broken card and needs to be nerfed, which they did.
Card with extraordinary power level, stronger than other similar costed cards that push the winrate of deck higher than other cards is broken.
--Alfi--
Branching Paths wasn't nerfed. Yet apparently it's "broken".
And no, these cards didn't "dominate the meta" at all. 3 of them are class specific. And the nerfs to some of them didn't even do much to change the deck - such as Cubelock which is still virtually as powerful as it used to be. And Call To Arms nerf was too late, since Odd Paladin took it over in terms of power very quickly afterwards.
So no. None of these cards were "broken". They worked as expected. Yes, they were powerful, but broken means that they were literally unbeatable. Which they obviously weren't.
It has nothing to do with game crashes. I'm not sure you understand the terminology here.
If being used in all decks of similar archetypes is somehow "broken", then you must think cards like Prince Keleseth are "broken"... which is obviously utter codswallop.