I’d hate to see the power creep that would come in the next expansion if the power level of existing cards is increased. With nerfs, you lower the power of a card that’s a known issue and people react to replace it and the meta adapts. Where’s the line with buffs? Doesn’t solve the underlying issues in HS and will create more problems, not solve them.
It would be fun if they started buffing cards which could lead to new fun archetypes (praying for them to change the effect of burgle carda to "Card from another class" )
Buffing is not better than nerfing for changing the meta.
Let's say we buff... Betrayal. Nobody plays Betrayal right now, right? So what happens? People test out Betrayal in their Rogue decks, and either it makes the cut, or it doesn't. That's pretty boring.
Let's buff a different card, one for a class not in the meta much right now. I haven't seen a lot of Priest, what happens if we give them a buff? Well, now people try out Priest for a bit, and either it changes the meta up, or it still isn't strong enough to be Tier 1-2. Not much change, and either way the average powerlevel of the game has increased, which isn't good.
Now what happens when we nerf a card? Let's say we nerf Waggle Pick, since that seems to be one of Rogue's strong cards right now. Now we have a lot more interesting developments. First, we need to see how much of a hit this is to Rogue. If Waggle Pick is hit hard enough, what card do you replace it with? Do you need to change up your strategy completely? Then we need to see what Tier 2-3 decks can take advantage of this new drop in Rogue's powerlevel - maybe Zoolock becomes much better now? Or Midrange Hunter? What about Warrior decks, how does this affect them?
In general, nerfing cards creates far more opportunities for change than buffing cards does. Buffing a card means you try out that card; nerfing a card means trying out a bunch of cards to see if they're better than it now.
Honestly if they buff a couple cards sometimes that's enough to push certian archetypes into viability. That can shake up the meta. Like if they gave some combo decks the tools to work that could counter elysiana warrior out of the meta.
When an expansion hits, sometimes archetypes become suddenly viable and they run 2 or 3 new cards.
Ofc it's probably more surefire to just nerf a carf in a dominant archetype so you ate guaranteed to have some decent impact...
While I think buffing certain cards would really benefit the game I don't think there's a single instance of blizzard buffing a card. It's not something they do.
While I think buffing certain cards would really benefit the game I don't think there's a single instance of blizzard buffing a card. It's not something they do.
They "buffed" molten giant from 25 mana cost to 20 and moved it to wild.
The reasons why buff are worse that nerf have been discussed to death on countless threads. Buff are much more complicated to get right and may either not affect the game at all or make a card so strong that a new deck dominates the meta, requiering either more buffs or nerfs. Stop asking for buff, it won't happen.
There has to be weak cards in HS, cuz of all the RNG rolls in the game. If all the weak, underplayed cards were suddenly playable, all rolls would be positive net gain rolls, which would make the game even more unbalanced for the weaker decks. Especially for noobs and shitty players, where RNG saves keep them playing the game under the illusion of skill.
Low rolls add to the charm of the game. I get your point, but if they strengthen weak cards, they need to balance out at the other end.
I think removing something that is too dominant to allow for newer things to break through is a good idea. that thing has to have been dominant through multiple expacs though the way baku and genn were.
I'm also on board with buffs, I mean why not. would be cool to have some cards become viable and shake things up a bit.
at the end of the day though if it doesn't shift more of the new set, they probably won't do it.
A lot of Hearthpwn people just like to disagree with anything that OP says, I've noticed...
Guess it's empowering or something
OR perhaps a lot of Hearthpwn people have more awareness of how balancing works compared to the OP. Buffing cards, especially frequently, is just going to result in inflation / power creep and eventually, everything becomes way too good. Think about the strongest cards right now. Now imagine the weakest cards in the game eventually being that good. That means good cards now have to be that much better.
Then they'll have to either increase each player's health total drastically so that all these overpowered cards aren't instantly killing players in <5 turns. Then we're back where we are now except with everything having a higher number.
Huh, thinking about this... I wonder why Blizzard chooses to nerf cards instead of buff them. Sure, buffing cards would be more "exciting", for a bit. But at least they understand that you don't buff cards to deal with overpowered cards...
As people said above, buffing is much more boring than nerf for the game. The only "buff" that I can agree with is fixing interaction for consistency as well as revert some of the nerfs on previous cards. For example: Making Blade Flurry cost 2 mana again, but still keep the effect or making Keeper of the Grove has 3 Health,
Because they do already buff cards, it's just that the majority of people aren't paying attention enough to notice that they've happened? And those buffs did not change the viability of the cards - they were either bad already and stayed bad or were playable and didn't become phenomenal.
Buffing is not better than nerfing for changing the meta.
Let's say we buff... Betrayal. Nobody plays Betrayal right now, right? So what happens? People test out Betrayal in their Rogue decks, and either it makes the cut, or it doesn't. That's pretty boring.
Let's buff a different card, one for a class not in the meta much right now. I haven't seen a lot of Priest, what happens if we give them a buff? Well, now people try out Priest for a bit, and either it changes the meta up, or it still isn't strong enough to be Tier 1-2. Not much change, and either way the average powerlevel of the game has increased, which isn't good.
Now what happens when we nerf a card? Let's say we nerf Waggle Pick, since that seems to be one of Rogue's strong cards right now. Now we have a lot more interesting developments. First, we need to see how much of a hit this is to Rogue. If Waggle Pick is hit hard enough, what card do you replace it with? Do you need to change up your strategy completely? Then we need to see what Tier 2-3 decks can take advantage of this new drop in Rogue's powerlevel - maybe Zoolock becomes much better now? Or Midrange Hunter? What about Warrior decks, how does this affect them?
In general, nerfing cards creates far more opportunities for change than buffing cards does. Buffing a card means you try out that card; nerfing a card means trying out a bunch of cards to see if they're better than it now.
Your idea that it's bad if the average power level of the game is higher is absurd. If the average power level is higher, it means more fun, not less. As for your entire argument, it is based on the idea of them choosing just a few cards to buff. However, there are buckets of cards in the collection that are NEVER used, solely because they are sooooo bad (Kidnapper anyone?). They could safely buff all of these into playable versions, which would open up a whole new pool of cards that have never been considered because they are so unplayably terrible.
Because they do already buff cards, it's just that the majority of people aren't paying attention enough to notice that they've happened? And those buffs did not change the viability of the cards - they were either bad already and stayed bad or were playable and didn't become phenomenal.
Please do share what cards have been buffed, by name. I'd love to know.
Buffing is not better than nerfing for changing the meta.
Let's say we buff... Betrayal. Nobody plays Betrayal right now, right? So what happens? People test out Betrayal in their Rogue decks, and either it makes the cut, or it doesn't. That's pretty boring.
Let's buff a different card, one for a class not in the meta much right now. I haven't seen a lot of Priest, what happens if we give them a buff? Well, now people try out Priest for a bit, and either it changes the meta up, or it still isn't strong enough to be Tier 1-2. Not much change, and either way the average powerlevel of the game has increased, which isn't good.
Now what happens when we nerf a card? Let's say we nerf Waggle Pick, since that seems to be one of Rogue's strong cards right now. Now we have a lot more interesting developments. First, we need to see how much of a hit this is to Rogue. If Waggle Pick is hit hard enough, what card do you replace it with? Do you need to change up your strategy completely? Then we need to see what Tier 2-3 decks can take advantage of this new drop in Rogue's powerlevel - maybe Zoolock becomes much better now? Or Midrange Hunter? What about Warrior decks, how does this affect them?
In general, nerfing cards creates far more opportunities for change than buffing cards does. Buffing a card means you try out that card; nerfing a card means trying out a bunch of cards to see if they're better than it now.
Your idea that it's bad if the average power level of the game is higher is absurd. If the average power level is higher, it means more fun, not less. As for your entire argument, it is based on the idea of them choosing just a few cards to buff. However, there are buckets of cards in the collection that are NEVER used, solely because they are sooooo bad (Kidnapper anyone?). They could safely buff all of these into playable versions, which would open up a whole new pool of cards that have never been considered because they are so unplayably terrible.
At what point do you stop buffing cards? You can't 'buff everything into playability', just as you can't 'nerf everything into playability'. There will always be optimal decks. Of all the cards in the game, you'll at most see ~100-200 in high-tier play at any one time (being extremely generous there). You're chasing an impossible goal.
There are myriad reasons why bad cards exist. They can be learning experiences for new players - Magma Rager teaches you that having high Attack means nothing if you have nothing to defend it with, for example. They can provide a method of progression - new players will move on from the Basic neutral cards into Classic cards, and then Expansion cards. They might be better in other playmodes - Burly Shovelfist is an abysmal constructed card, but one of the most powerful Arena cards right now. They could be improved by the release of other cards - Stonetusk Boar has been a laughing stock frequently, and has also been a part of strong Aggro decks early in the game and combo decks at various points throughout. Some of them just exist for people to enjoy playing with them or trying to get them to work, even if they kind of suck.
As for 'higher average powerlevel is better', you seem woefully misinformed about the will of the playerbase. I'm an advocate for Wild to remain a high powerlevel area of play, but people are constantly asking for nerfs to cards there because the powerlevel is too high, in their opinion. The reign of the Death Knights and Genn & Baku was widely considered a horrible time by many players, because the powerlevel of the game was so high, with massive swings in advantage on single cards. And you think people want that increased?
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any understanding of how difficult balancing a card game is.
The Bli$$ard method of nerfs always targets the cheapest card in an offensive combo/deck that they can. They don't care about balance they want to ensnare players spending all of their dust on expensive high win rate decks then nerfing some common or rare cards and screw them. Also, buffing cards may not even work. Evil Heckler and Ice Rager were both upgraded versions of classic cards and they never saw play. But something like a 3/3 Shattered Sun Cleric could be cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’d hate to see the power creep that would come in the next expansion if the power level of existing cards is increased. With nerfs, you lower the power of a card that’s a known issue and people react to replace it and the meta adapts. Where’s the line with buffs? Doesn’t solve the underlying issues in HS and will create more problems, not solve them.
It would be fun if they started buffing cards which could lead to new fun archetypes (praying for them to change the effect of burgle carda to "Card from another class" )
Honestly if they buff a couple cards sometimes that's enough to push certian archetypes into viability. That can shake up the meta. Like if they gave some combo decks the tools to work that could counter elysiana warrior out of the meta.
When an expansion hits, sometimes archetypes become suddenly viable and they run 2 or 3 new cards.
Ofc it's probably more surefire to just nerf a carf in a dominant archetype so you ate guaranteed to have some decent impact...
ist easier to identify wich cards to nerf than wich ones to buff
dumb idea is dumb
While I think buffing certain cards would really benefit the game I don't think there's a single instance of blizzard buffing a card. It's not something they do.
I totally agree, its simple to me: buffs are fun, nerfs are not. Get it going.
I dont want the power to keep going up, that's why.
They "buffed" molten giant from 25 mana cost to 20 and moved it to wild.
The reasons why buff are worse that nerf have been discussed to death on countless threads. Buff are much more complicated to get right and may either not affect the game at all or make a card so strong that a new deck dominates the meta, requiering either more buffs or nerfs. Stop asking for buff, it won't happen.
There has to be weak cards in HS, cuz of all the RNG rolls in the game. If all the weak, underplayed cards were suddenly playable, all rolls would be positive net gain rolls, which would make the game even more unbalanced for the weaker decks. Especially for noobs and shitty players, where RNG saves keep them playing the game under the illusion of skill.
Low rolls add to the charm of the game. I get your point, but if they strengthen weak cards, they need to balance out at the other end.
I think removing something that is too dominant to allow for newer things to break through is a good idea. that thing has to have been dominant through multiple expacs though the way baku and genn were.
I'm also on board with buffs, I mean why not. would be cool to have some cards become viable and shake things up a bit.
at the end of the day though if it doesn't shift more of the new set, they probably won't do it.
And rogue would still trounce us all :p
OR perhaps a lot of Hearthpwn people have more awareness of how balancing works compared to the OP. Buffing cards, especially frequently, is just going to result in inflation / power creep and eventually, everything becomes way too good. Think about the strongest cards right now. Now imagine the weakest cards in the game eventually being that good. That means good cards now have to be that much better.
Then they'll have to either increase each player's health total drastically so that all these overpowered cards aren't instantly killing players in <5 turns. Then we're back where we are now except with everything having a higher number.
Huh, thinking about this... I wonder why Blizzard chooses to nerf cards instead of buff them. Sure, buffing cards would be more "exciting", for a bit. But at least they understand that you don't buff cards to deal with overpowered cards...
As people said above, buffing is much more boring than nerf for the game. The only "buff" that I can agree with is fixing interaction for consistency as well as revert some of the nerfs on previous cards. For example: Making Blade Flurry cost 2 mana again, but still keep the effect or making Keeper of the Grove has 3 Health,
Click here to visit my Timestream Tracking Finalist Year of the Dragon in collaboration with Demonxz95
Class Creation Finalist: The Astromancer
Best cards vote by community:
Because they do already buff cards, it's just that the majority of people aren't paying attention enough to notice that they've happened? And those buffs did not change the viability of the cards - they were either bad already and stayed bad or were playable and didn't become phenomenal.
Your idea that it's bad if the average power level of the game is higher is absurd. If the average power level is higher, it means more fun, not less. As for your entire argument, it is based on the idea of them choosing just a few cards to buff. However, there are buckets of cards in the collection that are NEVER used, solely because they are sooooo bad (Kidnapper anyone?). They could safely buff all of these into playable versions, which would open up a whole new pool of cards that have never been considered because they are so unplayably terrible.
Please do share what cards have been buffed, by name. I'd love to know.
I still have that vain hope that someday they will buff Illidan Stormrage and some legendary cards that are never used :(
Petition for Jaina's boobs to return please. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
At what point do you stop buffing cards? You can't 'buff everything into playability', just as you can't 'nerf everything into playability'. There will always be optimal decks. Of all the cards in the game, you'll at most see ~100-200 in high-tier play at any one time (being extremely generous there). You're chasing an impossible goal.
There are myriad reasons why bad cards exist. They can be learning experiences for new players - Magma Rager teaches you that having high Attack means nothing if you have nothing to defend it with, for example. They can provide a method of progression - new players will move on from the Basic neutral cards into Classic cards, and then Expansion cards. They might be better in other playmodes - Burly Shovelfist is an abysmal constructed card, but one of the most powerful Arena cards right now. They could be improved by the release of other cards - Stonetusk Boar has been a laughing stock frequently, and has also been a part of strong Aggro decks early in the game and combo decks at various points throughout. Some of them just exist for people to enjoy playing with them or trying to get them to work, even if they kind of suck.
As for 'higher average powerlevel is better', you seem woefully misinformed about the will of the playerbase. I'm an advocate for Wild to remain a high powerlevel area of play, but people are constantly asking for nerfs to cards there because the powerlevel is too high, in their opinion. The reign of the Death Knights and Genn & Baku was widely considered a horrible time by many players, because the powerlevel of the game was so high, with massive swings in advantage on single cards. And you think people want that increased?
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have any understanding of how difficult balancing a card game is.
You can find me here! Good luck everyone!
The Bli$$ard method of nerfs always targets the cheapest card in an offensive combo/deck that they can. They don't care about balance they want to ensnare players spending all of their dust on expensive high win rate decks then nerfing some common or rare cards and screw them. Also, buffing cards may not even work. Evil Heckler and Ice Rager were both upgraded versions of classic cards and they never saw play. But something like a 3/3 Shattered Sun Cleric could be cool.