Hearthpwn

This game become trash for those who aren't pro players and focus on the standard format.

Just play your entire collection, play decks you love, never disenchant cards because tomorrow they could become good (my First legendary ever Is King krush that was trash for Yeats, and now i'm pretty Happy i never disenchant It).

Standard Is for new players that can't afford a good wild collection when they start playing, and for pro players because of blizzard's decision.

You can play wild (if not a newer) as a f2p as i do since the Dual mode patch.

Don't cry, be smart!

Quote from iandakar >>

.  I remember when Goblins vs Gnomes came out, I was thrilled. There were tons of fresh and new cards. They actually managed to improve the game! 

You're defending Goblins vs Gnomes as a good expansion.  The expansion that literally only had 2 good legendaries and a tier 3 legendary.  The expansion that had abominations like Unstable Portal [/card] and [card]Piloted Shredder.  The expansion that further pushed the meta into pure face and set the seeds for Secret paladin later on.  You're praising that over metas such as the Old Gods meta.

I REMEMBER watching tournaments back then. I REMEMBER games that were ended because of doomspeakers coming out of shredders, and Dr. Boom's bombs going 8 damage to the face, and F#($)#(*$ Imp-losion.  

We cheered for GvG because it was the first time we ever had an expansion.  And because we were still new as crap at the game.  

 

That is on top of what others have already brought up: that 'planned obsolescence' is a feature, not a bug.  We plan standard specifically BECAUSE we want to be constantly swapping out old cards for new ones.  One of the biggest reasons why we hated TGT, Boomsday, and Rumble is because of how little of that very thing occurred.  We WANT them to put out new stuff, and for us to buy that stuff every expansion.  Otherwise there's many other genres we would be playing instead.  Wild players MAY be able to argue about the issue, but if you're in Standard and you're bothered by having to 'keep up with the trend' then you've picked the wrong mode.

Sidenote, the 'Blizzard is nerfing my good deck' outcry is a rather silly argument for a big reason: you visit the forums.  Every other #$*)#*( (#)$#)( thread has been about the problems with Rogue since almost as soon as the expansion started.  We've been having regular nerf bats after just about every single expansion.  How in the world can a person who reads the forums enough to feel bold enough to write here can claim to be blindsided by a nerf to most played and most raged on class, especially given that the very cards they targetted are the most raged on and most proposed for nerfs.  

This isn't a surprise. This isn't new.  This wasn't out from left field.  No one tricked you.  The warnings came early and often that this was going to happen.  Don't pretend otherwise.  

The same goes for the Classic set as a whole.  Blizzard flat out said from the beginning of rotations, that their goal is to make the classic set take up a much smaller role in the meta.  Everything they've been doing has been putting their money where their mouth is at this point.  There's even a rather vocal part of the community screaming to go faster or just flat out gut the whole thing all-together.  

Where the @()$#( have you been for the past 5 years?  

 

 I want to add that Preperation especially has been said about time and time again, also by the developers that it is one of the most design restricting cards in the game. They basicaly told us: we have to deal with this card sooner or later. This nerf is not a surprise as it has been a long time coming. The only surprising part is that they didnt HoF it a month ago. 

Quote from toucharaa >>

Thing is Wild is treated once more as the trashbin of the game. Sure, it's not the major mode, but why having it at all, if all they do is making it more unpleasant every expansion?

 I think it's because they aren't sure what to do with it.

That's not a rant.  Blizzard flat out said about half a year ago that they aren't really sure what to do with the mode.  Remember they really didn't have any plans for it.  They didn't even want to make a ladder for wild.  The added support was requested by the players that they had come in for advice.  So even from the start Wild was this odd...thing that they knew needed to exist since Standard exists but...*shrug*.

Half a year ago they wrote a post saying that it's really still the case.  There's a few competing visions on how Wild can be: a place for insane high power levels, a competitive alternative to Standard, and an archive of the past.  All three ideas are nice, but clash with each other.  Blizzard isn't sure what to do and is asking the community for ideas of what they want.  Myself I haven't heard too much of a consensus since the same article also talked about us not getting tournament mode so THAT topic blew up.

So yeah, until Blizzard really gets a read on what Wild should be then they'll be mostly spinning their wheels here.  

Quote from Bluelights >>

 

 

 I want to add that Preperation especially has been said about time and time again, also by the developers that it is one of the most design restricting cards in the game. They basicaly told us: we have to deal with this card sooner or later. This nerf is not a surprise as it has been a long time coming. The only surprising part is that they didnt HoF it a month ago. 

 I'm guessing there was a debate over whether Preparation is a good card that's been around too long (HoF) or a card that needs to be tweaked (nerf).  Seems like they went for the latter which is why it wasn't HoFed.  You don't HoF a card that needs a nerf.  

To put it this way: if Preparation came out as a Shadows card would it be ok? If not, you don't HoF it, you nerf it.  

Quote from iandakar >>

Quote from toucharaa >>

Thing is Wild is treated once more as the trashbin of the game. Sure, it's not the major mode, but why having it at all, if all they do is making it more unpleasant every expansion?

 I think it's because they aren't sure what to do with it.

That's not a rant.  Blizzard flat out said about half a year ago that they aren't really sure what to do with the mode.  Remember they really didn't have any plans for it.  They didn't even want to make a ladder for wild.  The added support was requested by the players that they had come in for advice.  So even from the start Wild was this odd...thing that they knew needed to exist since Standard exists but...*shrug*.

Half a year ago they wrote a post saying that it's really still the case.  There's a few competing visions on how Wild can be: a place for insane high power levels, a competitive alternative to Standard, and an archive of the past.  All three ideas are nice, but clash with each other.  Blizzard isn't sure what to do and is asking the community for ideas of what they want.  Myself I haven't heard too much of a consensus since the same article also talked about us not getting tournament mode so THAT topic blew up.

So yeah, until Blizzard really gets a read on what Wild should be then they'll be mostly spinning their wheels here.  

1.  Archive of the past is impossible, if applied to decks in a meta. At least, it's not possible for many decks, which are bound to be t4, untill completely revamped to a new version (at that point it's not a 'past deck' anymore).
2. Insane Place is the current direction of Wild, and their best solution in order to make most money for Standard, I guess (because the community mindlessly drools for cycles of brokenness-relieve in Standard). But it's gonna fail sooner or later due to the mode turning into a junk mode of highroll vs aggro.
3. The alternative to Standard is harder to make, but not as hard as it seems: it would only require to them to NEVER print cards that can, potentially, break the balance of the mana curve (with spikes being allowed around turn5+ and complete curvequakes at turn 8+), OR the requirement of drawing the damn cards before triggering their effects. It's really not hard to avoid breaking those 2 rules. Thing is it requires the will to do so, and holding off the community that drools for cycles of brokenness-relieve (which in turn makes them gain more money, so they'd be fools not to do what makes more money who cares of the total quality of the product)...

I think they are just delaying it as long as they can, with the option #2, because afterall, it's unimportant to them if the mode fails entirely and is depleted of a decent population.

We should hope they find a way to monetize Wild mode, so that they would be more interested in keeping a serious balance in any release, instead of just a contextual balanced focused around Standard.

Problem is, the later they wait, the harder it is to actually fix the many flawed/broken cards that keep stacking up at each release...

PS: notice that if they ever tried to fully implement #3, also option #1 would be better implemented, for many more decks.

Quote from RavenSunHP>>

1. Archive of the past is impossible, if applied to decks in a meta. At least, it's not possible for many decks, which are bound to be t4, untill completely revamped to a new version (at that point it's not a 'past deck' anymore).

I agree there.  I do see this argument brought up once in a while, particularly in the desire to unnerf cards or the like.  But it's just madness to think you can redo the old decks without limiting the meta down to the decks involved.

1. Insane Place is the current direction of Wild, and their best solution in order to make most money for Standard, I guess (because the community mindlessly drools for cycles of brokenness-relieve in Standard). But it's gonna fail sooner or later due to the mode turning into a junk mode of highroll vs aggro.

1. The alternative to Standard is harder to make, but not as hard as it seems: it would only require to them to NEVER print cards that can, potentially, break the balance of the mana curve (with spikes being allowed around turn5+ and complete curvequakes at turn 8+), OR the requirement of drawing the damn cards before triggering their effects. It's really not hard to avoid breaking those 2 rules. Thing is it requires the will to do so, and holding off the community that drools for cycles of brokenness-relieve (which in turn makes them gain more money, so they'd be fools not to do what makes more money who cares of the total quality of the product)...

The thing is, if blizzard could form Wild into a system that accepts new cards while remaining balanced and relevant then there would be no point to Standard.  The entire concept behind formats is to not have to worry about the old cards.  If the new cards are weaker than the old, it doesn't matter. If the new cards create broken synergies it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter because the cards are gone.  

That mentality, though, means NOT paying attention to Wild as strongly as Standard.  And if the goal is to focus more on Wild then why even bother with Standard?

As far as the matter of the mana curve, blame the Old Gods meta for that one.  Blizzard did focus on preserving the mana curve and power levels.  The result was the game becoming 'tempo' based where the most important thing because putting down the 1 drop, 2 drop, 3 drop so on.  The result was the community complaining about 'curvestone' at levels..well.. similar to how much they raged about polarizing games during the Boomsday meta.  

Blizzard listened, eventually, and thus we got the Year of the Mammoth and future years that broke with such mentalities.  We lost a lot of the curve (a bit reason why Keleseth was so loved was because many classes simply didn't HAVE a good 2 drop to use so they might as well use that thing) and ideas of how much power a certain mana should have died with it.  

The concept of cheating mana is toning down since then.  Which is great for Standard as the cards die off.  But Wild preserves all of the old mistakes of the past: the aggrocentric and bad large minion design of the early days, the curvestone reliance of afterwards, the mana cheating and combo centric nature afterwards.  

The first part will mean that Blizzard will always focus on Standard for their balancing, so they'll make the cards people want to play with.  They CAN focus on nerfing/buffing to retool Wild later though. I believe if they ever focus on #3 then THAT would be the final gameplan.

I think they are just delaying it as long as they can, with the option #2, because afterall, it's unimportant to them if the mode fails entirely and is depleted of a decent population.

We should hope they find a way to monetize Wild mode, so that they would be more interested in keeping a serious balance in any release, instead of just a contextual balanced focused around Standard.

Problem is, the later they wait, the harder it is to actually fix the many flawed/broken cards that keep stacking up at each release...

PS: notice that if they ever tried to fully implement #3, also option #1 would be better implemented, for many more decks.

That will probably depend on the community.  If the community makes a big enough demand for a balanced wild they'll eventually do something about it.  Worked for buffing cards :p.

Quote from Horkinger >>

"Planned obsolescence" is what keeps the game fresh.It is necessary to keep the game alive, because it gets super stale if the same cards are always viable.

Btw, releasinging new cards that will replace some of the present staples is also a way of "planned obsolescence" (removing presently viable cards). And with nerfs you get at least your dust for the nerfed cards back unlike with a new expansion that simply brings a new meta in which former top tier decks might not viable any more.

And just for the sake of clarity: I appreciate almost all nerfs and new expansions as long as they change the meta.

Changing stuff for the sake of change is a terrible plan. Most successful games out there don't make their game fresh by going scorched earth on all of their old content (in this case, cards that are no longer the shiny new ones). You guys are honestly spoiled when it comes to change simply because the game is on a digital platform and not a physical one. You know nothing about real staleness when it comes to card games. Try having played Yu-Gi-Oh back in the days of Chaos Control, when one variation or another of the deck kicked around for over a year straight (as the single most powerful deck mind you). Having something around for 3-6 months is HARDLY earth shattering if you've played something other than just hearthstone. 

Card games by nature are not meant to change as fast as other games. Sure, you do want them to change, but constant nerfing of anything after someone gets bored of just takes all card integrity and throws it out of the window. In a world where you always nerf something the moment the millenials get bored you start getting players that care much less about their collection or the cards in general. After all, why save favorite cards and spend thousands of dust towards crafting new decks when they are all going to get nerfed into oblivion after Timmy gets bored of a 1-2 month long meta?

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

Quote from Horkinger >>

"Planned obsolescence" is what keeps the game fresh.It is necessary to keep the game alive, because it gets super stale if the same cards are always viable.

Btw, releasinging new cards that will replace some of the present staples is also a way of "planned obsolescence" (removing presently viable cards). And with nerfs you get at least your dust for the nerfed cards back unlike with a new expansion that simply brings a new meta in which former top tier decks might not viable any more.

And just for the sake of clarity: I appreciate almost all nerfs and new expansions as long as they change the meta.

Changing stuff for the sake of change is a terrible plan. Most successful games out there don't make their game fresh by going scorched earth on all of their old content (in this case, cards that are no longer the shiny new ones). You guys are honestly spoiled when it comes to change simply because the game is on a digital platform and not a physical one. You know nothing about real staleness when it comes to card games. Try having played Yu-Gi-Oh back in the days of Chaos Control, when one variation or another of the deck kicked around for over a year straight (as the single most powerful deck mind you). Having something around for 3-6 months is HARDLY earth shattering if you've played something other than just hearthstone. 

Card games by nature are not meant to change as fast as other games. Sure, you do want them to change, but constant nerfing of anything after someone gets bored of just takes all card integrity and throws it out of the window. In a world where you always nerf something the moment the millenials get bored you start getting players that care much less about their collection or the cards in general. After all, why save favorite cards and spend thousands of dust towards crafting new decks when they are all going to get nerfed into oblivion after Timmy gets bored of a 1-2 month long meta?

 This is half wrong. Card games cares A LOT about changes. Look MTG, YuGiOh and Vanguard for example. The last one even create the standard format excluding ALL THE CARDS that were in the game before the release of the format. In yu gi oh konami always hit the most powerfull decks when a new expansion is release (sometimes after 2 expansions) regardless of the cost of the deck. MTG change the standard format every time they can, new expansions are always filled with mechanics that not play with the old ones. Only Eternal Formats like Modern or Legacy keep the stuff in the same spot "forever" (and even in those formats there is a ban list).

Card Games are about changes. That is the reason for making standard and eternal formats. No one wants to play against the same deck forever and, also, is not good for the business that the same deck can be playe forever without changes.

You're just feeling nostalgic ain't you?
Guess I can still play 10 games with Piloted shedder and Dr. Boom

Somestimes hearthstone has to take care of old gamers, just let us play the old meta for 3 days in the brawl.