Because buff isnt an option in a game with tons of random summon cards, those would become insane if they had no or less bad outcomes. Think about how many cards will be effected by this. I like and totaly support that blizzard doesnt make buffs, it makes perfect sence to not make changes to a game unless it is really needed and buffing cards would be subject for alot higher failue rate, since it is much harder to predict the outcome compaired to making nerfs.
There are lots of reasons why no card game buffs its cards - some of those reasons are perfectly sensible, and some aren't. However, the issue is rarely brought up in connection with game balance, since buffing cards which don't see play doesn't provide an immediate solution to any problem that simply nerfing a over-powered card can directly address. Some folks in this thread are pretending that "nerf" is a dirty word. It isn't. If Waggle Pick should have 3-Attack, then giving it 3-Attack is a pretty obvious and simple fix. Giving underplayed, underpowered archetypes a little boost that might not work isn't exactly related to that issue.
Typically, weak archetypes are targeted in future releases - rather than buffing cards that don't see play, game designers prefer to release new cards that make those weaker cards a little better. Presumably, we can guess that the failed archetypes of RoS will receive plenty of additional support over the next two years - Secret Paladin, Silence Priest, and all the rest. But what's the point in buffing Secret Paladin now, if it's just going to receive a bunch of support in the future which makes its currently weak cards better?
I actually prefer option C (which is sadly not listed in the multichoice question) - and that is for Blizzard to do what they originally claimed they were going to do and instead of nerfing or even buffing cards, when a strong deck appears to become too dominant (or even specific cards), then instead new cards are introduced that provide techable options to counter them. It prevents destabilisation of the meta and creating the "vacuum" effect that was described that is cause by nerfs.
The only time I think that doesn't really work is when you get decks that are intrinsically more powerful due to an overarching effect such as the Odd/Even mechanic - which can't be simply countered by the addition of tech cards.
In my opinion, nerfing is the uncreative and lazy way to try and fix a stale meta. All it really does is cause a power vaccuum where the next powerful deck steps up to its place, to which will remain because there is no second wave of nerfs. Don't get me wrong, there are good times to nerf since it's why pencils have erasers, and all that (e.g. Cor-Creeper). However, it would be far more effective instead to give the 3rd tier decks a nudge to try and compete. Every expansion brings about more of Team 5's half-baked ideas that intrigue and gain fanfare but ultimately wind up being footnotes because they just can't compete with the broken few that pass through at the same time.
Is it really such a request to ask for these to be buffed? This expansion was especially fun during the first few weeks. All kinds of weird stuff were running around and even a lot of unplayable concepts from the lackluster last three sets saw light. Is it not fun to have a true diversity in the game? Playing and playing against the same3-8 decks is so tedious that the game just becomes work. As far as I can tell, Blizzard is not capable of projecting the meta, to this I don't blame them. Where I can blame them is for not adjusting it accordingly short of the expected nerf hammer which reads, "this tier one deck drops in power/ the tier 2 deck it counters goes to tier one." a.k.a. nothing very new much emerges.
Please support the idea of buffing cards.
I don't get this, whenever people mention a stale meta they always name 6+ decks, and to me, that makes a diverse meta. what do you guys want? 18 decks? just getting a single deck for 90% of the classes is pretty good. A stale meta is when a one or two class have a single deck that is obviously the best. like with jade druid and pirate warrior meta, or with raza priest meta. but getting to have 8 viable decks is pretty good.
about buffs, you mentioned why you don't like nerfs, basically because they just make room for the next powerful deck to take the top spot. and so you think that buffs will be better? why? I get that you want to see those meme decks have a shot at being tier one, but then guess what, they will become tier one, and you will ask for the next meme tier deck to get buffed.
I was very excited to see year of the mammoth rotate because the cards in there were so incredibly powerful. and the cards from witchwood, and boomsday had no effect on the meta, we were basically just seeing the same decks for a full 2 years. and buffs would make it like this all the time. if we buff the bad cards to help them keep up with the good cards, then we keep on raising the bar for new cards to see play. and then the cards just get more and more bonkers. but nerfs make sure that the top deck we are all tired of can take a break for a while.
I would like to see some buffs, but not to many I would like if it went expansion, nerf, expansion, buff, nerf , expasnsion, nerf then back to the start.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rejoice, for even in death, you have become children of Thanos.
Buffs don't outweigh nerfs in the sense, that if you buff another card, that doesn't undo the OP card that needs a nerf.
That being said, I fully support buffing some cards, especially useless legendaries in the Classic set, like Hogger and the Boogeymonster, who got powercrept by a 5 mana 4/4 lol. Hogger could be a 5/5 at least and Boogeymonster could also have rush or just cost less because rush would just make it exactly like the warrior card
As Blizzard has said, they will never buff cards because they can always just print a new card that is better. Betrayal sucks? Ok, here's a new card "disloyalty" that is the same but cost one less. And oh, since its good will make it Epic and make you buy dozens of packs in the hopes of getting it.
As to whether they should do it, I think no. Buffing cards makes all other cards worse by comparison. Nerfing makes all other cards better. So nerfing, while maybe annoying sometimes, actually increases the play value of other cards in your collection, rather than just making one card better at the cost of all others
If you buff low peaks of powerlevel, nothing changes.
If you buff average peaks of powerlevel, risk is to make it OP.
This is why the only way to balance is nerfing the high peaks of powerlevel.
Ultimately, buffing cards makes owning new cards less compelling, which means less revenues for them. This alone will prevent buffs from happening systematically ever.
Buff Bad legendaries, There's a few every set. Moorabi comes to mind. Buff Moorabi to 4 mana and give it the ability to work on itself and it underpins a new archetype.
do it after a month, when a lot of people have already dusted it, and spent all of their dust elsewere, and the only way for most people to get buff Moorabi is more packs. Everyone will want to try the new hot legedary
You are just flat wrong that no card game buffs it's cards. A game called Eternal often buffs cards at the same time as nerfing others. Almost every balance patch in Eternal actually involves balancing, not just always nerfing. They have lots of crazy interactions, loads of viable decks, and it's all very powerful.
My idea was that each month we would get one rotated card added to the meta. So, lets say you wanted to buff Priest. For a month maybe Lightbomb is back in teh meta. Maybe you want Pally. Perhaps we see Mysterious Challenger for a month.
Not long enough to get sick of a card, but it could really shake the meta up from month to month.
A long time ago, Inner Fire and Divine Spirit were considered not only worthless but newbie traps to teach them about 'bad cards'.
Nourish was also considered worthless and thus would be put into buff lists like those recommended here to give druid 'more options'.
Hadronox was also considered pack filler and also was deemed 'in need of buffs'.
I just finally caught up to watching the World Championships and just saw Ancestral Spirit put into a deck and became a primary reason why the world champion won his final game.
IMO, the best way to 'buff' a card is to add in new synergies that make it a good card. Buffing a card now because it's not useful NOW means a nasty card you need to nerf later on once synergies help it.
I don't want old bad cards buffed. I want them deleted.
HOF at least 50% of the Basic and Classic Sets, and not just the boring filter. Anything which is at all a staple of decks should go, because we've been playing them for too long and they're stale. Pick and choose replacements from past expansions to fill up the half which got the axe. Blizzard made a mistake by not adopting a "rotating core" principle in favor of a group of cards they've foolishly tried to keep evergreen.
Besides, there's too many bad cards to buff (like, you can't realistically buff half the cards in a game of this size), and I'd rather see the overall power level go down. I feel like Blizzard has been over-inflating power too much.
Many of the other digital card games use buffs quite regularly, and the results are usually positive. Hearthstone is the only game I play that pushes the nerf panic button waaay too much, and as OP said, it's a temp fix until the next most broken deck takes over. Hearthstone nerfs are like a broken record, it's always the same result afterwards, the game never gets healthier for the long term.