I mean, if they never nerfed base cards they just may as well never continue to make expansions and just sell the game for a set price, otherwise the cards they print will be either way underpowered or severly powercreeped to see any play.
First of all, the video considers decks with a winrate less than 50%, which automatically makes them non-viable. Second, the cards were autoincluded in specific archetypes, for example you would never expect an aggressive paladin deck to use equality, but a control deck would always fill 2/30 spots in the deck with equality, and 2 more with consecration. Last thing, some of the nerfed cards will possibly work better with the carda from upcoming expansions. Remember how the Hex nerf allowed it to be played in standard even shaman? There was no reason for it to be nerfed (high power level or anything) and looked like a strange decision at first glance, but in the end it opened up more possibilities for deckbuilding.
I mean yes. They're looking at the % of decks that have used cards that were nerfed, and go further by comparing it to how relevant the class was (not sure why they bothered given that deck diversity in a class has nothing to do with how popular a class is). but given that they're also using data from VS, Icy Veins, and Metabomb. I doubt their numbers go more in depth then is there a deck or not in this given month with or without the card. That isn't really a helpful number as that doesn't tell me anything about how popular a deck with or without the problem card were. Are the numbers they gave still a reasonable estimate if the three most popular archtypes used the nerfed cards and there were a dozen or so other niche decks that did not? There are plenty of decks that get listed on those sites because they're for tourney play and generally not as good on ladder, Decks used for memes, Decks for experiments and so on. HSReplay does track % of decks with certain cards, but that most likely includes all decks in every class because of neutral cards. So that still doesn't really give me a good idea of the actual % of decks in a class using a certain class card. Although Hunter's mark reaching 20% in all decks in january is kind of concerning.
OP, is this a joke or what? Of course everything Activision Blizzard does is, in the end, for financial reasons. Only a fanboy or an incredible naive person would think otherwise.
Right, kinda like the Lunar New Year event which is giving us loads of gold and dust for free. And that they extended it a day, for no good reason. Because they are extorting us for our money.
Unless, of course, you mean that they are giving us free stuff to keep us interested in the game, in the hopes to keep a healthy fanbase, which will in turn increase profits, then yes. But of course, that's what a business should be doing.
And who said the opposite? I'm not attacking Activision Blizzard this time, my dear friend... Although I would have liked to do it, as always, hehe. ;)
I’ve only been playing since KNC but every rogue deck has always used cold blood, every non-Odd Paladin ran equality and every hunter had hunters mark. All of the nerfs seemed to make sense to me except maybe flametongue.
Nerfin cards so they don't get autoincludes is fine - nerfing cards to oblivion so they never see play really pisses me off. Flametongue is on the brink of beeing unplayable but then there are other cards that will never see play again. I understand that hearthstone or any cardgame needs bad cards but if you have a class that has a weaker base strength then other classes is problematic. It's frustrating ...
-Why did you only go 1 year back? It seemed random, why not 5 years or 5 months? How many times was Flametongue Totem played during shamanstone? This should be considered relevant!
-How did you get that "number of decks" number? Just the number of different decks in existance, or how many times the decks were played?
-What was the big lie? That they really nerfed because they want cards from the next expansion to see play? No shit sherlock!
Next time, rather make a video about how nerfs make big dust investments worthless. That is actually a pretty important argument for keeping Barnes as it is... Another more important issue imo is how nerfing basic and classic cards makes the cards new players aquire first weaker, and I don't think they do enough to compensate.
The community has been crying for more frequent nerfs for years. Now that we've had two nerfs within a shorter time than usual, we get conspiracy theories about how blizzard is lying to us and wants our money.