I see this so often with rogue, for an easy example. Rogue shouldn't be able to answer wide boards, they shouldn't be able to heal, they shouldn't be able to answer big single threats via Sap or Vilespine.
Yet this game has already severely deviated from the initial design of so many of the other classes that it is sickening, well as sickening as a children's card game should make a person feel ;P
Warrior was mainly a slow control class at first (at least after the whole charging giants situation in beta). Then?
Major schizophrenia!
Warrior became not just your run of the mill aggro deck, but a 'hyper aggro deck' via PW that resulted in multiple cards being nerfed in the deck just to combat it.
Warrior also shape shifted into midrange playstyles due to dragon warrior & rush warrior.
Then it also morphed into a highroll/'big deck' via things like Woecleaver (although admittedly much more of a meme deck)
Then it was transformed into a semi anti-fatigue / "infinite value" deck via Odd Warrior & the modern standard meta Control Warrior.
Similar things happened with priest (going from control/clunky IF priest (pre shadow visions) to midrange (Dragon Priest, Reno Dragon Priest, & SS Priest), combo (Razakus Priest, Reno Dragon Priest, MB Priest), to OTK (some forms of Razakus Priest, Gallery Priest, Shadow Visons IF Priest, Mecha'Thun Priest, etc). Not to mention the whole thing with mage not being a healing class (outside of 4 secrets & one big dragon) and suddenly becoming one of the best healing classes when DKs became a thing. Oh and druid seemingly losing both its weakness to wide boards (plague) and ramp creating card disadvantage (UI) happened over night, pre nerfs/old meta of course.
So why do we still even insist of other classes sticking to 'their class identity' still? Rogue is still weak to wide boards, still lack healing, paladin still gets force fed cheap spells & minions to go face, etc, etc.
Hell, priest even put the last nail in the coffin for being weak to 4 attack minions (lul)
It's just a lame excuse for blizzard to justify poor balancing.
"X class should have Y weaknesses" -procceds to make the class completely unviable or broken
Any class should have access to every archetype with a "fluff" that justifies it. Honestly is not that the devs are unable to do it, as they have done it in the past. For example guldan getting healed by sacrificing his own minions is an awesome way to give warlocks some healing. Pirate warrior/rogue was an awesome way (regarding flavor) to alow these classes pure smorc decks. Dragon warrior(back in blackrock), felt strong and brutish just like a midrange/tempo deck should feel. Actually, they have been so successful in the past with some archetypes that their own history disproves all their claims.
While i dont call for classes to have their identity in any loud manner, i do like the idea of it. I dont want every class to have all the tools, what would be the point then? So i will choose what class to play only for the Hero Power? No thanks.
There must be a distinction. Not necessarily on individual attributes (some classes can share some attributes), but each class should be defined through a set of ingame attributes that is unique to them.
There is a difference between an excuse for whining or short-sighted card design, and the need of a real class system: the latter is still a necessity for HS, despite the former being annoying.
PS: single-target removal is part of Rogue class identity since the inception of its Basic set, and has always been coherently supported.
While i dont call for classes to have their identity in any loud manner, i do like the idea of it. I dont want every class to have all the tools, what would be the point then? So i will choose what class to play only for the Hero Power? No thanks.
I see what you mean, but classes are being given tools inconsistency, or are having the weaknesses of some classes filled in while others aren't. For example, how did it make sense to give mages both late game healing AND major control tools solely due to Jaina, essentially breaking the mold that used to define the class, while starving rogues of healing or funneling more aggro to paladin when they could have been given more control instead?
There must be a distinction. Not necessarily on individual attributes (some classes can share some attributes), but each class should be defined through a set of ingame attributes that is unique to them.
There is a difference between an excuse for whining or short-sighted card design, and the need of a real class system: the latter is still a necessity for HS, despite the former being annoying.
PS: single-target removal is part of Rogue class identity since the inception of its Basic set, and has always been coherently supported.
The way that I see it is that some classes have been fleshed out so wide with so many viable archtypes in the past that it pretty much takes what the class used to be about and completely throws it away (such as with the examples of the classes I listed in the op). Then you have classes like paladin (that is still much more often force fed into aggro), rogue (that still is force fed into tempo), & shaman (that just follows a cycle of having all of its midrange decks nerfed constantly).
I'm not saying give paladin the pally version of Gul'Dan, Jaina, N'Zoth, etc, nor am I saying to give rogues massive full heal KIngsbane heals again or Godfrey level answers to take on wide boards. However, I don't see why is it justified not to partially pad some of these lack or answers/lack of playstyles for some classes considering that other classes do get granted synergies for playstyles/answers they used to previously rarely have access to.
I totally see your point, Lyra. It seems like a lot of changes to classes are arbitrary but the discussion about classes often seems to be insisting on particular identities while not really defining others. This usually happens just because individuals become fond of a particular class and want to defend it so the favorite class can benefit somehow in the future. Some players love their Rogues while others love their Warriors, etc. I think the game is in a transition about this class identity thing.
The biggest reason why I think people still care about class identity is that it helps make the game smoother to play. Every class has a certain innate weakness that while occasionally is broken (such as Naturalize and druid single target removal), it creates some form of natural counterplay and rewards people who know how to either exploit these weaknesses in deck building or exploit them in game.
While I do feel like people care about class identity a bit more than they should, I feel like it does have a place in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
I don't think that a class shouldn't be able to get things in expacs because it wasn't their core deal when the game came out, but at the same time I think preserving a certain amount of style within a class is important.
Also worth mentioning is that in WoW, most classes can do most things now. You can usually build a class to be a tank, dps or healer no matter what you pick, so it's actually cannon for the classes to be varied when you look at it this way.
I think it would be too hard to balance though if all classes had everything and decks would just become way too good.
There needs to be some kind of structure in place that reinforces balance.
Rogues shouldn’t be control and priest shouldn’t be tempo. Imo it makes sense. Control hunter is odd but feasible with traps I suppose.
BTW OP, rogue is absolutely SUPPOSED to be able to answer single huge threats, that’s true in nearly all RPGs. Wide boards I agree with though.
I do think warrior should be tempo/aggro in terms of class identity, I don’t see control making a ton of sense, but that’s simply my opinion.
I think control is supposed to represent a tank for a warrior. and this makes sense as their control decks are usually fatigue based and do a lot of turtling.
Speaking of class identity, why Warlock get to do everything? Not literally everything but certainly have more options than others ( Plot Twist , Bloodbloom , " recruit" several minions from your deck at once( Darkest Hour), demon synergy(imps, Mal'Ganis,Voidcaller, Charge and rush (Doomguard [/card] and [card]fel lord betrug) , immortality (Dreadsteed), resummon minions(Bloodreaver Gul'dan) , lifesteal( some classes dont have class specific lifesteal), healing(Aranasi Broodmother), buffing minions(lots of examples) , sticky face damage (Curse of Rafaam),discard(tons and tons of examples), destroying hand/deck ( Rin,the first disciple ,Cataclysm for Mecha'thun [/card]decks) , reducing others attack ( [card]Curse of Weakness ) , Transform hand ( Arch-Villain Rafaam )Some of the examples are Wild or HoF or just plain weak but it may mean Team5 might reprint more or less a card with same idea again for warlock again, why not print some of those effect in the flavour of other classes?
While i dont call for classes to have their identity in any loud manner, i do like the idea of it. I dont want every class to have all the tools, what would be the point then? So i will choose what class to play only for the Hero Power? No thanks.
I see what you mean, but classes are being given tools inconsistency, or are having the weaknesses of some classes filled in while others aren't. For example, how did it make sense to give mages both late game healing AND major control tools solely due to Jaina, essentially breaking the mold that used to define the class, while starving rogues of healing or funneling more aggro to paladin when they could have been given more control instead?
There must be a distinction. Not necessarily on individual attributes (some classes can share some attributes), but each class should be defined through a set of ingame attributes that is unique to them.
There is a difference between an excuse for whining or short-sighted card design, and the need of a real class system: the latter is still a necessity for HS, despite the former being annoying.
PS: single-target removal is part of Rogue class identity since the inception of its Basic set, and has always been coherently supported.
The way that I see it is that some classes have been fleshed out so wide with so many viable archtypes in the past that it pretty much takes what the class used to be about and completely throws it away (such as with the examples of the classes I listed in the op). Then you have classes like paladin (that is still much more often force fed into aggro), rogue (that still is force fed into tempo), & shaman (that just follows a cycle of having all of its midrange decks nerfed constantly).
I'm not saying give paladin the pally version of Gul'Dan, Jaina, N'Zoth, etc, nor am I saying to give rogues massive full heal KIngsbane heals again or Godfrey level answers to take on wide boards. However, I don't see why is it justified not to partially pad some of these lack or answers/lack of playstyles for some classes considering that other classes do get granted synergies for playstyles/answers they used to previously rarely have access to.
ive been saying the same thing. and yet people rn still asking for nerfs. after nerfing prep what will be the point of rogue? they gain tempo with that card most of the time and with cold blood being gone, burst became very tricky.
also druids "out of the class" cards like plague, resulted in nerfing druids class identity cards lol
Because classes having clear identities keep them from getting overpowered. This is done by making their strengths and weaknesses clear.
With clear strengths and weaknesses. it make countering a strong deckin a class easier. And if a class has 2-3 weakness, Team 5 can temporarily plug up 1 weakness and still feel safe that the other 1-2 weakness can still hold it down.
For example, Beast Hunter can plug up it's weakness of no card draw with Master's Call, but hunter's AOE and heal access is still terrible. So Beast Hunter still gets blown away by aggro. Control decks can't go aggro but Beast Hunter wrecks control decks as its natural prey for years so there is no worry.
Deviating slightly from that identity in one expansion is fine; it spices things up.
Ignoring class identity entirely -- especially when you do so for only one class -- can cause extreme problems.
Deleting class identity from the game entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Team 5 just needs to be more careful about how far they deviate when coming up with each set of cards, and they need to pay closer attention to how each set interacts with the other expansions within that Standard rotation.
If the classes don't have an identity then there's no point in having classes is there? The problem I have is when blizzard makes certain identities unplayable (See druid now, you can only really play token right now)
Speaking of class identity, why Warlock get to do everything? Not literally everything but certainly have more options than others ( Plot Twist , Bloodbloom , " recruit" several minions from your deck at once( Darkest Hour), demon synergy(imps, Mal'Ganis,Voidcaller, Charge and rush (Doomguard [/card] and [card]fel lord betrug) , immortality (Dreadsteed), resummon minions(Bloodreaver Gul'dan) , lifesteal( some classes dont have class specific lifesteal), healing(Aranasi Broodmother), buffing minions(lots of examples) , sticky face damage (Curse of Rafaam),discard(tons and tons of examples), destroying hand/deck ( Rin,the first disciple ,Cataclysm for Mecha'thun [/card]decks) , reducing others attack ( [card]Curse of Weakness ) , Transform hand ( Arch-Villain Rafaam )Some of the examples are Wild or HoF or just plain weak but it may mean Team5 might reprint more or less a card with same idea again for warlock again, why not print some of those effect in the flavour of other classes?
I see this so often with rogue, for an easy example. Rogue shouldn't be able to answer wide boards, they shouldn't be able to heal, they shouldn't be able to answer big single threats via Sap or Vilespine.
Yet this game has already severely deviated from the initial design of so many of the other classes that it is sickening, well as sickening as a children's card game should make a person feel ;P
Warrior was mainly a slow control class at first (at least after the whole charging giants situation in beta). Then?
Major schizophrenia!
Similar things happened with priest (going from control/clunky IF priest (pre shadow visions) to midrange (Dragon Priest, Reno Dragon Priest, & SS Priest), combo (Razakus Priest, Reno Dragon Priest, MB Priest), to OTK (some forms of Razakus Priest, Gallery Priest, Shadow Visons IF Priest, Mecha'Thun Priest, etc). Not to mention the whole thing with mage not being a healing class (outside of 4 secrets & one big dragon) and suddenly becoming one of the best healing classes when DKs became a thing. Oh and druid seemingly losing both its weakness to wide boards (plague) and ramp creating card disadvantage (UI) happened over night, pre nerfs/old meta of course.
So why do we still even insist of other classes sticking to 'their class identity' still? Rogue is still weak to wide boards, still lack healing, paladin still gets force fed cheap spells & minions to go face, etc, etc.
Hell, priest even put the last nail in the coffin for being weak to 4 attack minions (lul)
It'll be healthier and fun if each class has 2-3 different archetypes ( from aggro, midrange, control to OTK)
It's just a lame excuse for blizzard to justify poor balancing.
"X class should have Y weaknesses" -procceds to make the class completely unviable or broken
Any class should have access to every archetype with a "fluff" that justifies it. Honestly is not that the devs are unable to do it, as they have done it in the past. For example guldan getting healed by sacrificing his own minions is an awesome way to give warlocks some healing. Pirate warrior/rogue was an awesome way (regarding flavor) to alow these classes pure smorc decks. Dragon warrior(back in blackrock), felt strong and brutish just like a midrange/tempo deck should feel. Actually, they have been so successful in the past with some archetypes that their own history disproves all their claims.
While i dont call for classes to have their identity in any loud manner, i do like the idea of it. I dont want every class to have all the tools, what would be the point then? So i will choose what class to play only for the Hero Power? No thanks.
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -
Why having classes at all then?
There must be a distinction. Not necessarily on individual attributes (some classes can share some attributes), but each class should be defined through a set of ingame attributes that is unique to them.
There is a difference between an excuse for whining or short-sighted card design, and the need of a real class system: the latter is still a necessity for HS, despite the former being annoying.
PS: single-target removal is part of Rogue class identity since the inception of its Basic set, and has always been coherently supported.
I see what you mean, but classes are being given tools inconsistency, or are having the weaknesses of some classes filled in while others aren't. For example, how did it make sense to give mages both late game healing AND major control tools solely due to Jaina, essentially breaking the mold that used to define the class, while starving rogues of healing or funneling more aggro to paladin when they could have been given more control instead?
The way that I see it is that some classes have been fleshed out so wide with so many viable archtypes in the past that it pretty much takes what the class used to be about and completely throws it away (such as with the examples of the classes I listed in the op). Then you have classes like paladin (that is still much more often force fed into aggro), rogue (that still is force fed into tempo), & shaman (that just follows a cycle of having all of its midrange decks nerfed constantly).
I'm not saying give paladin the pally version of Gul'Dan, Jaina, N'Zoth, etc, nor am I saying to give rogues massive full heal KIngsbane heals again or Godfrey level answers to take on wide boards. However, I don't see why is it justified not to partially pad some of these lack or answers/lack of playstyles for some classes considering that other classes do get granted synergies for playstyles/answers they used to previously rarely have access to.
I totally see your point, Lyra. It seems like a lot of changes to classes are arbitrary but the discussion about classes often seems to be insisting on particular identities while not really defining others. This usually happens just because individuals become fond of a particular class and want to defend it so the favorite class can benefit somehow in the future. Some players love their Rogues while others love their Warriors, etc. I think the game is in a transition about this class identity thing.
Rogues shouldn’t be control and priest shouldn’t be tempo. Imo it makes sense. Control hunter is odd but feasible with traps I suppose.
BTW OP, rogue is absolutely SUPPOSED to be able to answer single huge threats, that’s true in nearly all RPGs. Wide boards I agree with though.
I do think warrior should be tempo/aggro in terms of class identity, I don’t see control making a ton of sense, but that’s simply my opinion.
The biggest reason why I think people still care about class identity is that it helps make the game smoother to play. Every class has a certain innate weakness that while occasionally is broken (such as Naturalize and druid single target removal), it creates some form of natural counterplay and rewards people who know how to either exploit these weaknesses in deck building or exploit them in game.
While I do feel like people care about class identity a bit more than they should, I feel like it does have a place in the game.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
I don't think that a class shouldn't be able to get things in expacs because it wasn't their core deal when the game came out, but at the same time I think preserving a certain amount of style within a class is important.
Also worth mentioning is that in WoW, most classes can do most things now. You can usually build a class to be a tank, dps or healer no matter what you pick, so it's actually cannon for the classes to be varied when you look at it this way.
I think it would be too hard to balance though if all classes had everything and decks would just become way too good.
There needs to be some kind of structure in place that reinforces balance.
I think control is supposed to represent a tank for a warrior. and this makes sense as their control decks are usually fatigue based and do a lot of turtling.
Speaking of class identity, why Warlock get to do everything? Not literally everything but certainly have more options than others ( Plot Twist , Bloodbloom , " recruit" several minions from your deck at once( Darkest Hour), demon synergy(imps, Mal'Ganis,Voidcaller, Charge and rush (Doomguard [/card] and [card]fel lord betrug) , immortality (Dreadsteed), resummon minions(Bloodreaver Gul'dan) , lifesteal( some classes dont have class specific lifesteal), healing(Aranasi Broodmother), buffing minions(lots of examples) , sticky face damage (Curse of Rafaam),discard(tons and tons of examples), destroying hand/deck ( Rin,the first disciple ,Cataclysm for Mecha'thun [/card]decks) , reducing others attack ( [card]Curse of Weakness ) , Transform hand ( Arch-Villain Rafaam )Some of the examples are Wild or HoF or just plain weak but it may mean Team5 might reprint more or less a card with same idea again for warlock again, why not print some of those effect in the flavour of other classes?
Well, padding is already happening. eg: Betrayal or Cheap Shot or Dark Iron Skulker.
Going beyond that is dangerous.
If anything, they should REMOVE from classes that accumulated too much, instead of adding too much to everyone.
ive been saying the same thing. and yet people rn still asking for nerfs. after nerfing prep what will be the point of rogue? they gain tempo with that card most of the time and with cold blood being gone, burst became very tricky.
also druids "out of the class" cards like plague, resulted in nerfing druids class identity cards lol
Because classes having clear identities keep them from getting overpowered. This is done by making their strengths and weaknesses clear.
With clear strengths and weaknesses. it make countering a strong deckin a class easier. And if a class has 2-3 weakness, Team 5 can temporarily plug up 1 weakness and still feel safe that the other 1-2 weakness can still hold it down.
For example, Beast Hunter can plug up it's weakness of no card draw with Master's Call, but hunter's AOE and heal access is still terrible. So Beast Hunter still gets blown away by aggro. Control decks can't go aggro but Beast Hunter wrecks control decks as its natural prey for years so there is no worry.
Having class identity is good.
Deviating slightly from that identity in one expansion is fine; it spices things up.
Ignoring class identity entirely -- especially when you do so for only one class -- can cause extreme problems.
Deleting class identity from the game entirely would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Team 5 just needs to be more careful about how far they deviate when coming up with each set of cards, and they need to pay closer attention to how each set interacts with the other expansions within that Standard rotation.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
If the classes don't have an identity then there's no point in having classes is there? The problem I have is when blizzard makes certain identities unplayable (See druid now, you can only really play token right now)
does class identity really matter ?
if mean blizzard is pushing minion mage for many expansions... and that made Mages 3 tier class for a long time.
what could be more far away from class idendity than a mage without spell ?
I forgot one more : Treachery