Hearthpwn

My favorite idea so far is something with battlecry, that says "Secrets cannot activate this turn." Another possibility is just "Secrets can not be activated while this minion is alive" but I think the first option is much more likely to happen (probably a 5/5 legendary for 5 mana, similar to Loatheb, but it could be smaller and cheaper). I do also like the idea of bouncing secrets back to the player's hand.

Quote from Anatak89 »

My favorite idea so far is something with battlecry, that says "Secrets cannot activate this turn." Another possibility is just "Secrets can not be activated while this minion is alive" but I think the first option is much more likely to happen (probably a 5/5 legendary for 5 mana, similar to Loatheb, but it could be smaller and cheaper). I do also like the idea of bouncing secrets back to the player's hand.

As someone said before; I feel that ever since the subtle nerf of secrets, where they only activate on your opponents turn, they - while frustrating - isn't strong enough to warrant hard removal. Secrets are for all intents and purposes discounted spells that you can´t fully control. The reason why there are several ways to remove a creature before it impacts the game is because the creature has a power projection over several turns where spells generally does not.

I feel like those options I mentioned though aren't hard counters. That's why my favorite option is "Secrets cannot activate this turn". One single turn is fine, and all it does is hurt the freeze mage archetype a lot. Obviously, this would hurt freeze mage players, but blizzard has stated they don't like those kind of non-interactive decks (not saying it's completely non-interactive, but it's definitely one of the archetypes they don't like too much).

Either way, all I'm saying is that first option is not a hard counter. Secrets are still annoying besides that one single turn that the creature is played.

Quote from Lametastic »

Or a battlecry that bounces secrets back into your hand.

 Or how about one that "freezes" secrets for one turn?

I dont think it is the secrets that is the main problem. But rather mad scientist being too much value, especially paired with undertaker.

If you did not draw the stuff to deal with at least the undertaker immidietly you have probably just lost.

If a hunter ends up blowing a Kill Command on one of my minions, I'll consider that minion's job well done.

 I play Normal control Priest and this is my stats since rank 9 and now I am rank 4. I wish can meet hunter more but dont know where they are ...I only see <25% hunter..

Ooh resorting to humble brags. Cool story Hansel.

But seriously, hunters sort of fade out after rank 10. People just netdeck hunter until they hit their own wall with it, then they switch to a deck they have fun with. That's what I think. For some reason I can't pass rank 10 with hunter haha, but as soon as I switch back to miracle rogue or ramp druid, I go up a few more ranks. Could just be due to luck, but I think it also has to do with me just losing interest playing hunter haha.

I've recently reached rank 8 and have actually been seeing more hunters the higher up in rank I go.  I'd say at least half are hunters, with the rest being mostly warlock and control warrior.

I think the whole hunter class needs a rework, it just forces a very aggressive game and like the OP said u know u have this many turns left or u die to that hero power. It is not fun at all in any way for me and find it very frustrating to lose to a hero power when i have stabilised the game and pulled well ahead with board control and card advantage.

I think the combination of hounds, bow, secrets and hero power force the hunter to play aggressively and it can be quite daunting to come up against a hunter who just keeps finding a way to be able to burst u down so fast.

Hounds + Buzzard was a combo that was killing the fun in the game Blizz were correct to do something about it but now the buzzard is never used and hounds has vanished as well. 

Instead of nerfing the cards down to the ground they should simply rework hunter in my opinion. It is even a terrible arena class most of the time as it relies on having a very good draft to get any where. Once it does get a good draft it can be quite hard to stop it from cruising to 10+ wins.

Nerfing something because it is strong is fair enough. But changing a class because it encourages a certain playstyle(a very viable and very popular playstyle no less) is silly. HS is a card game. You'll never have a deck that can fair well against all archetypes. And it should never be that way(or meta can't evolve). If your weakness is Hunter's face rush, and you're finding you're losing more than 50% of your games due to hunters, then you should cater your deck to counter them. And if you're still winning more than 50%, and just losing to hunters only, then don't sweat it. You're still climbing the ranks.

If your main concern is that the hunter hero power fosters a powerless and unfun feeling for the opponent, that there's nothing you can do once you verse them, then you're forgetting the very first choices you make are at the deck screen.

Hunter's hero power doesn't really feel any more inexorable than any other hero power when its user is having the perfect match.

What? One of the following makes sense and the other doesn't:

"I took two damage a turn after I stabilized the board and died in 4 turns."

"My opponent healed two damage a turn after I stabilized the board and I died in 4 turns."

Hunter's power is quite annoying in the mid-late game, for sure. Mage power has always been pretty "meh" to me, but people always say that one is incredible.

It's just annoying that the hunter can deal probably at least 8 damage in a match from that, then also deal 10 damage from Kill Command. It's very easy to deal 12 minion damage, and that's not even including the explosive traps.

Also keep in mind I'm assuming you're not playing priest or warrior, since those two have a much better matchup against hunter.

Interesting discussion in this thread.

Some might say I am biased because I do like playing Hunter, but I'm trying to stay objective here. Maybe some players run Hunter because it's inexpensive. I disagree, though. I have the cards available to play other decks (including the expensive "wallet Warrior"). Cost isn't a factor; I just prefer a fast-paced match, and I prefer a deck that has few bad match-ups on paper. Hunter fits the bill. I realize not everyone likes fast-paced matches, but I think it's silly for anyone to assume that there aren't others out there who want to play an upbeat/quick game.

What I would like others to consider is that nerfing Hunter or Mad Scientist isn't going to change how you feel toward Hearthstone. Hunter might be the locus of your hatred, because it's in your face constantly on the ladder. However, the root of the problem, in my opinion, is not the design of Hunter, but rather the design of Hearthstone's game modes overall. Ranked Play is ultra-competitive, and that's just how it is. Some might argue that it's too competitive, because the intensity eliminates many decks from being viable. I hear that. On the flipside, we have Casual Mode ... which is just that: casual. It's mostly people screwing around with garbage decks and/or novices getting their feet wet with entry-level cards/decks.

What Hearthstone REALLY needs is one or more NEW GAME MODES. I'm not sure exactly how to design it, but the community needs a place to play Hearthstone at a level somewhere between the "tryhard" Ranked Play and the "noob" Casual Play. I would venture that the majority of Hearthstone players fall somewhere in-between "pro" and "noob". Give us an intermediate gameplay mode. Challenging but with different rules and incentives. Maybe require each player to load up five decks and have the server randomly select one for each match. Maybe limit the number of times you can play a specific class consecutively befor requiring a class change. Just a couple ideas.

in short, it's easy to direct one's ire at Hunter, but it's myopic to do that. Hunter has been nerfed more than any other class (I think) but it remains strong and popular, and as long as Ranked Play remains the main method of playing Hearthstone, that isn't going to change. Instead of petitioning Blizzard to nerf Hunter, instead petition them to offer more new modes of play. Thanks for reading.

Quote from DreamCrusher11 »

Interesting discussion in this thread.

Some might say I am biased because I do like playing Hunter, but I'm trying to stay objective here. Maybe some players run Hunter because it's inexpensive. I disagree, though. I have the cards available to play other decks (including the expensive "wallet Warrior"). Cost isn't a factor; I just prefer a fast-paced match, and I prefer a deck that has few bad match-ups on paper. Hunter fits the bill. I realize not everyone likes fast-paced matches, but I think it's silly for anyone to assume that there aren't others out there who want to play an upbeat/quick game.

What I would like others to consider is that nerfing Hunter or Mad Scientist isn't going to change how you feel toward Hearthstone. Hunter might be the locus of your hatred, because it's in your face constantly on the ladder. However, the root of the problem, in my opinion, is not the design of Hunter, but rather the design of Hearthstone's game modes overall. Ranked Play is ultra-competitive, and that's just how it is. Some might argue that it's too competitive, because the intensity eliminates many decks from being viable. I hear that. On the flipside, we have Casual Mode ... which is just that: casual. It's mostly people screwing around with garbage decks and/or novices getting their feet wet with entry-level cards/decks.

What Hearthstone REALLY needs is one or more NEW GAME MODES. I'm not sure exactly how to design it, but the community needs a place to play Hearthstone at a level somewhere between the "tryhard" Ranked Play and the "noob" Casual Play. I would venture that the majority of Hearthstone players fall somewhere in-between "pro" and "noob". Give us an intermediate gameplay mode. Challenging but with different rules and incentives. Maybe require each player to load up five decks and have the server randomly select one for each match. Maybe limit the number of times you can play a specific class consecutively befor requiring a class change. Just a couple ideas.

in short, it's easy to direct one's ire at Hunter, but it's myopic to do that. Hunter has been nerfed more than any other class (I think) but it remains strong and popular, and as long as Ranked Play remains the main method of playing Hearthstone, that isn't going to change. Instead of petitioning Blizzard to nerf Hunter, instead petition them to offer more new modes of play. Thanks for reading.

That´s some cool ideas, a middle ground would be to update the quests and/or add elaborate achievements that give players incentive to play more than one deck. Maybe re-work the win streak mechanic so it somehow rewards diversity?

In the interest of science I set out to play some Hunter the other day, and I got completely trolled by smug priests and warriors. :) As said in the initial post, I'm less concerned with the hunter power level right now, and more irritated with how frustrating Rexxar can be to face. I´m much more at ease when facing off against a zoo for an example, even though they sometimes kill me much faster than Hunter. I understand that it´s purely psychological but the -removable- minions on board , and the fact that the Soulfires in hand is concealed makes the experience much more bearable.

I don't think that's true at all, Bollspattarn. But even if it was true, big deal? The World Champion, Firebat, played Zoo and Midrange Hunter at Blizzcon. Did he get lucky once or twice? Yes (top-deck Leokk against DTwo comes to mind), but no one can argue that Firebat didn't do his homework or that he's a "cheap" player or a "no skill" player. Right?

Quote from BoobTheNoob »

Harvest golem is the counter to mad scientist. and the chances that he draws undertaker are smaller then you drawing an answer for the undertaker usually , as you have multiple cards to deal with it and he only has 2 undertakers . I do agree the health buff is a bit to snowball effect prone.

Harvest Golem doesn't counter Mad Scientist (in Hunter). You don't really care about trading as much as you do about protecting your life total. By the time the Golem comes out, Mad Scientist has already dealt 2 damage to your face, and the Golem isn't fast enough to deal with Snake Trap damage, doesn't help against Explosive Trap damage, and basically gets killed by Freezing Trap because you'll never want to play it again (but the Scientist already did 2 damage to you for 1 less mana and the Hunter's 3 drop is still beating your face). There's a reason it doesn't get played over the much better neutral 3 drop against Hunter: Earthen Ring Farseer.

While I don't think that Hunter needs to be nerfed, I feel that it needs to be changed to some degree. The hero power is inherently aggressive, making Hunter the only deck for which it is impossible to effectively play control. Make the hero power slightly less aggressive (maybe deal two damage to a random enemy?), nerf Undertaker and Mad Scientist because those are both op even outside Hunter, and make Flare not destroy secrets (or at most only destroy the first played) and I would find Hunter much more fun to both play and play against.

Some of the initial posts sum up most players' (and my own) frustration with it (and much of what goes for it also goes for zoo, another well-hated deck). I can and have played Warrior or Priest to have quite a good match up against Hunters, but the games are far less enjoyable than games against a variety of other decks. My skill and the opponent's skill generally tend to be far lesser factors than in a variety of other match ups; the quality of the opponent's and my starting hand and our first few draws are usually far more important in determining the outcome. I won't deny that there is some skill involved in playing both Hunter and Zoo correctly, and obviously there is always a significant amount of luck involved in a card game, but the balance feels skewed here (and I say that having played Hunter myself and getting frustrated with it, mind you). Many other players and I feel that they get the most out of the game in relatively even match ups, where key decisions about when to play certain removal or big minions or such have a lot to do with the outcome. Of course, others may not enjoy big control match ups, where single games take long, but this is probably the perspective of most people that feel frustrated with Hunter and/or Zoo.