before DH no one was playing Pact with intention of destroying opponent's minions. Yes, it was played to some extent and sometimes in the mirror you could get some value destroying opponent's monster. But it wasn't an intended use.
So? what in your opinion should influence their balance decisions more: intention of use or actual effect of the particular card? I would say, that any card should be fixed when something is not right, regardless of its popularity or intention of use.
But how was it a problem if it destroyed something once in 200 games? From time to time you were getting it off Zeph to destroy an opposing Demon. So what?
It's a card game, numbers are everything. Yes, Sac Pact should never under any circumstances be able to destroy an opponent's monster. But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this? And, from their perspective, affected positively, because as I said, they find occasional gamechanging swings a good thing?
Now, because of DH, Sac Pact started destroying thousands of opposing Demons everyday, so it became an issue that HAD TO be addressed.
before DH no one was playing Pact with intention of destroying opponent's minions. Yes, it was played to some extent and sometimes in the mirror you could get some value destroying opponent's monster. But it wasn't an intended use.
So? what in your opinion should influence their balance decisions more: intention of use or actual effect of the particular card? I would say, that any card should be fixed when something is not right, regardless of its popularity or intention of use.
But how was it a problem if it destroyed something once in 200 games? From time to time you were getting it off Zeph to destroy an opposing Demon. So what?
It's a card game, numbers are everything. Yes, Sac Pact should never under any circumstances be able to destroy an opponent's monster. But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this? And, from their perspective, affected positively, because as I said, they find occasional gamechanging swings a good thing?
Now, because of DH, Sac Pact started destroying thousands of opposing Demons everyday, so it became an issue that HAD TO be addressed.
And I think it was making a control DH unviable, which they didn't want. now Demon hunter can afford to play priestess etc again.
But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this?
Maybe because balance should NEVER EVER depends on popularity? Card can be either balanced, either not, regardless of anything else. if you turn blind eye on it, only because it's not very popular at the moment (and not very many people complain about it), then you simply disregard your customers.
blizzard is nerfing Sac Pact in the most brutal way, only your own minions, while DH is already about 70% WR and every desperate player is playing it.
this nerf is gonna push fun out of the game really bad, assuming tempo decks are the most fun decks, and everyone is gonna play either DH or a control that Counters DH.
i think this dualism is gonna leave nothing fun in the game
But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this?
Maybe because balance should NEVER EVER depends on popularity? Card can be either balanced, either not, regardless of anything else. if you turn blind eye on it, only because it's not very popular at the moment (and not very many people complain about it), then you simply disregard your customers.
It's not bout popularit, it's about gamestate. Their task is to make overall game as enjoyable and balanced, as possible. Entire game. Which means few millions of games played each day. What do you think was percentage of games affected by Sac Pact being able to target enemy's minion before DH era?
Disregarding your customers? Let me tell you once again - numbers. Even if indeed some players felt "disregarded", because of loosing due to one poorly written card, most likely obtained through a random effect, the amount of such people had to be so low, so they didn't find it necessary to adjust anything.
Blizzard is a company, which has to make money. I can GUARANTEE you they do listen to their customers. Because they want to make money. Every single decision affecting overall game balance is very carefully calculated and considered. It seems they had bigger problems then one card affecting fractions of a percent of all games.
I also don't know how many card games you played extensively in your life, but be aware that none card company wants to change/ban their cards too often. There are multiple reasons for this, ultimately most of them being money-related, but also related to the overall health of the game. Yes, too often and too big changes do affect the game negatively - because it makes people complain even more. And since you can never satisfy everyone with such changes, however bad it sounds, it's better to "satisfy" this way as few people as possible.
I often bring yugioh to the discussions here, because it is the game I know the best. Konami has probably dozens cards, which have some obvious flaws in their design and aren't addressed only because nothing broke them yet. Could Konami fix them by releasing some changes and bans? Sure they could. But they have a very strong policy to keep each banlist as small as possible.
And now about card changes ultimately bringing only more complaints. Konami made one very big mistake - instead of banning cards, they started errating some of them - changing their texts. And it literally made the community go crazy. Yugioh forums are now filled with people complaining to change cards. "Errata this, errata that...". People want to errata everything, even though company literally stated they want to use this solution as rarely as possible (Blizzard said the same btw.).
Blizzard has experienced this as well. I still remember times, when any card change in Hearthstone was a huge thing. Since Undertaker nerf, no one was complaining very strongly to change cards. Then Patron came and it obviously had to be nerfed. But it took them years to launch another package of nerfs and during that time, even though some things were powerful, people weren't complaining as much as they do now. But nerfs became very common. And what? This forum is full of people wanting to nerf this, buff that. Every day new threads are created to nerf things. This is seriously ridiculous.
And this is only the smaller part of the story. The one game-related. More important stuff is, as I highlighted very strongly, money. If they thought changing any given card would in the long term make them more money, they would not hesitate a second. Simple as that. Accept the fact that people at Blizzard know better what will make people spend more money on Hearthstone than you.
before DH no one was playing Pact with intention of destroying opponent's minions. Yes, it was played to some extent and sometimes in the mirror you could get some value destroying opponent's monster. But it wasn't an intended use.
So? what in your opinion should influence their balance decisions more: intention of use or actual effect of the particular card? I would say, that any card should be fixed when something is not right, regardless of its popularity or intention of use.
But how was it a problem if it destroyed something once in 200 games? From time to time you were getting it off Zeph to destroy an opposing Demon. So what?
It's a card game, numbers are everything. Yes, Sac Pact should never under any circumstances be able to destroy an opponent's monster. But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this? And, from their perspective, affected positively, because as I said, they find occasional gamechanging swings a good thing?
Now, because of DH, Sac Pact started destroying thousands of opposing Demons everyday, so it became an issue that HAD TO be addressed.
And I think it was making a control DH unviable, which they didn't want. now Demon hunter can afford to play priestess etc again.
This is really the issue. DH started out with some awesome midgame demons like Priestess of Fury and Imprisoned Antaen and the most dominant DH decks in the beginning included those cards. Then Warlocks started running double Sacrificial Pact and highlander decks started pulling it off Zephrys the Great and DH had to COMPLETELY STOP playing those cards because they couldn't afford to invest 6 or 7 mana into a card that would die for free and heal the enemy. So then DH decks just got faster and faster and faster and now they're killing people turn 4. So now they're nerfing Battlefiend and Frenzied Felwing to stop DH from running over people in the early game.
The problem would have become that people who want to play DH would have had no viable archetypes. They wouldn't be able to play aggro because the aggro nerfs are a VERY big deal. And, if Sacrificial Pact remained unchanged then they could't play midrange either for fear of getting absolutely cucked every time they played a big demon. So playing DH would have been the most un-fun experience in the world if something wasn't done about Sacrificial Pact.
These balance changes will push Tempo DH back towards midrange where it belongs without completely neutering the class.
I am honestly growing sick of some people being constantly negative. My brother was so pissy yesterday (about the same issue) that I had to tell him to shut up.
DH is getting nerfed for the second time in three weeks. And it's been clearly communicated, and backed up by recent action, that the developers will nerf it further should it continue to be too strong. Try to relax for once. Just wait a few days to see if the nerfs are gonna have an effect or not. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Have some tea.
Even if not, the game is not "balanced" or "fair" or "fun" either, if Warlock keeps Demon Hunter in check by having an obscenely powerful class card to counter them, resulting in a very polarizing matchup, and the other 8 classes can only hope for shifting playrates. With one more class having Demons as their main tribe, there was no way to keep Sac Pact the way it was, and it was already a quirky card. Regardless, Demon Hunter needs more than just one bad matchup, or one bad class to run into. And we'll see whether that's what we get.
I can't see DH anymore either, but it's more the playrate that bothers me. Yet still, I am actually glad they are not going full Warsong on the Basic and Initial set, but try to do moderate changes here and there to bring DH to a reasonable but not trash level. Even if DH continues to be the strongest class, it's fine. It's allowed to be, as long as it is beatable by some decks.
DH didnt get nerfed though. It got buffed. The nerfs to their cards did nothing whatsover to slow them down. And the sac pact nerf just gave them free reign over the meta.
Demon Hunter is the worst thing that couldve happened to Hearthstone.
Its worse than Undertaker Hunter, its worse than Galakrond Shaman meta, it's just an aggro deck that has unlimited card drawing and doesnt run out of steam enough.
Either play DH on ladder or you don't stand a chance. It's really lame for class diversity. Just not a fun experience for me today, and I don't see any reason why it would change unless DH is nerfed HARD.
DH is favoured in every match up, every you know every, they took out Sac Pact, Priestess coming, DH nerfs are not even NERF so the meta is gonna enter into a dualism DH/counter DH> so no fun for any other class, only DH and DH is everywhere( i mean (EVERYWHERE)
leave those statistics and just play an aggro-tempo against DH and post your WR here
im doing it man, there is no competition, they just own, even their OTK deck out-tempo tempo decks sometimes
before DH no one was playing Pact with intention of destroying opponent's minions. Yes, it was played to some extent and sometimes in the mirror you could get some value destroying opponent's monster. But it wasn't an intended use.
So? what in your opinion should influence their balance decisions more: intention of use or actual effect of the particular card? I would say, that any card should be fixed when something is not right, regardless of its popularity or intention of use.
But how was it a problem if it destroyed something once in 200 games? From time to time you were getting it off Zeph to destroy an opposing Demon. So what?
It's a card game, numbers are everything. Yes, Sac Pact should never under any circumstances be able to destroy an opponent's monster. But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this? And, from their perspective, affected positively, because as I said, they find occasional gamechanging swings a good thing?
Now, because of DH, Sac Pact started destroying thousands of opposing Demons everyday, so it became an issue that HAD TO be addressed.
And I think it was making a control DH unviable, which they didn't want. now Demon hunter can afford to play priestess etc again.
This is really the issue. DH started out with some awesome midgame demons like Priestess of Fury and Imprisoned Antaen and the most dominant DH decks in the beginning included those cards. Then Warlocks started running double Sacrificial Pact and highlander decks started pulling it off Zephrys the Great and DH had to COMPLETELY STOP playing those cards because they couldn't afford to invest 6 or 7 mana into a card that would die for free and heal the enemy. So then DH decks just got faster and faster and faster and now they're killing people turn 4. So now they're nerfing Battlefiend and Frenzied Felwing to stop DH from running over people in the early game.
The problem would have become that people who want to play DH would have had no viable archetypes. They wouldn't be able to play aggro because the aggro nerfs are a VERY big deal. And, if Sacrificial Pact remained unchanged then they could't play midrange either for fear of getting absolutely cucked every time they played a big demon. So playing DH would have been the most un-fun experience in the world if something wasn't done about Sacrificial Pact.
These balance changes will push Tempo DH back towards midrange where it belongs without completely neutering the class.
That's exactly why they have to nerf Sacrificial Pact. Blizzard designed three decks (aggro, midrange, control) for the Demon Hunter (45 different cards -> 4 of them are legendaries, the other 41 cards are duplicates and are basically distributed to the three decks - that makes 86 cards total only for this class, so there are only 4 neutrals missing and one of them is Imprisoned Vilefiend btw. as it activates on turn 4-> Soul Split). You can even tell which card belongs to which deck if you do some analysis.
Giving DH a 70% Winrate instead of his actual 53% shows how frustrated you are lol.
Warlock kept Aggro DH in check, it was the only bad matchup for DH. Now with the Sac pac nerf it's only getting worse. I don't see one bad matchup for Aggro DH, perhaps you can tell me one
blizzard is nerfing Sac Pact in the most brutal way, only your own minions, while DH is already about 70% WR and every desperate player is playing it.
this nerf is gonna push fun out of the game really bad, assuming tempo decks are the most fun decks, and everyone is gonna play either DH or a control that Counters DH.
i think this dualism is gonna leave nothing fun in the game
id like to know your thoughts on this
"desperate " Can you tell more about that bullshit statment?
Giving DH a 70% Winrate instead of his actual 53% shows how frustrated you are lol.
Warlock kept Aggro DH in check, it was the only bad matchup for DH. Now with the Sac pac nerf it's only getting worse. I don't see one bad matchup for Aggro DH, perhaps you can tell me one
From my experience from today mid-range/highlander is more dumb than aggro. Aggro at least was straightforward, live through aggression, stabilize (or not). But mid-range has the same stupid tools aggro has + more.
Priestess demands instant answer. But since it's hard to have board control in the early game vs DH, because of their crazy early tempo, you pretty much have to have out in hand. And what if they play 2 Priestess back to back? And Antaen - it clears the board at the beginning of their turn. So they can develop even more. You pretty much have to kill it from an empty board. Or be super ahead when it enters the field.
I preferred aggro much more, even though sometimes I was dead by turn 6, I knew how to play against them and had deck designated to beating them. It was almost like farming. Now board clears aren't enough, because I also have to have a hard removal.
From my experience from today mid-range/highlander is more dumb than aggro. Aggro at least was straightforward, live through aggression, stabilize (or not). But mid-range has the same stupid tools aggro has + more.
Priestess demands instant answer. But since it's hard to have board control in the early game vs DH, because of their crazy early tempo, you pretty much have to have out in hand. And what if they play 2 Priestess back to back? And Antaen - it clears the board at the beginning of their turn. So they can develop even more. You pretty much have to kill it from an empty board. Or be super ahead when it enters the field.
I preferred aggro much more, even though sometimes I was dead by turn 6, I knew how to play against them and had deck designated to beating them. It was almost like farming. Now board clears aren't enough, because I also have to have a hard removal.
You don't need a board if you play control, Immolation Aura, Chaos Nova, these are cards designed to counter aggro - and to have no minions on your side.
But how was it a problem if it destroyed something once in 200 games? From time to time you were getting it off Zeph to destroy an opposing Demon. So what?
It's a card game, numbers are everything. Yes, Sac Pact should never under any circumstances be able to destroy an opponent's monster. But there are so many other flaws in the game to fix, so why on earth would they care about 1 game in 200 being affected by this? And, from their perspective, affected positively, because as I said, they find occasional gamechanging swings a good thing?
Now, because of DH, Sac Pact started destroying thousands of opposing Demons everyday, so it became an issue that HAD TO be addressed.
And I think it was making a control DH unviable, which they didn't want. now Demon hunter can afford to play priestess etc again.
Maybe because balance should NEVER EVER depends on popularity? Card can be either balanced, either not, regardless of anything else. if you turn blind eye on it, only because it's not very popular at the moment (and not very many people complain about it), then you simply disregard your customers.
No.
This nerf is warranted and overdue.
DH was nerfed as well, don't forget.
It's not bout popularit, it's about gamestate. Their task is to make overall game as enjoyable and balanced, as possible. Entire game. Which means few millions of games played each day. What do you think was percentage of games affected by Sac Pact being able to target enemy's minion before DH era?
Disregarding your customers? Let me tell you once again - numbers. Even if indeed some players felt "disregarded", because of loosing due to one poorly written card, most likely obtained through a random effect, the amount of such people had to be so low, so they didn't find it necessary to adjust anything.
Blizzard is a company, which has to make money. I can GUARANTEE you they do listen to their customers. Because they want to make money. Every single decision affecting overall game balance is very carefully calculated and considered. It seems they had bigger problems then one card affecting fractions of a percent of all games.
I also don't know how many card games you played extensively in your life, but be aware that none card company wants to change/ban their cards too often. There are multiple reasons for this, ultimately most of them being money-related, but also related to the overall health of the game. Yes, too often and too big changes do affect the game negatively - because it makes people complain even more. And since you can never satisfy everyone with such changes, however bad it sounds, it's better to "satisfy" this way as few people as possible.
I often bring yugioh to the discussions here, because it is the game I know the best. Konami has probably dozens cards, which have some obvious flaws in their design and aren't addressed only because nothing broke them yet. Could Konami fix them by releasing some changes and bans? Sure they could. But they have a very strong policy to keep each banlist as small as possible.
And now about card changes ultimately bringing only more complaints. Konami made one very big mistake - instead of banning cards, they started errating some of them - changing their texts. And it literally made the community go crazy. Yugioh forums are now filled with people complaining to change cards. "Errata this, errata that...". People want to errata everything, even though company literally stated they want to use this solution as rarely as possible (Blizzard said the same btw.).
Blizzard has experienced this as well. I still remember times, when any card change in Hearthstone was a huge thing. Since Undertaker nerf, no one was complaining very strongly to change cards. Then Patron came and it obviously had to be nerfed. But it took them years to launch another package of nerfs and during that time, even though some things were powerful, people weren't complaining as much as they do now. But nerfs became very common. And what? This forum is full of people wanting to nerf this, buff that. Every day new threads are created to nerf things. This is seriously ridiculous.
And this is only the smaller part of the story. The one game-related. More important stuff is, as I highlighted very strongly, money. If they thought changing any given card would in the long term make them more money, they would not hesitate a second. Simple as that. Accept the fact that people at Blizzard know better what will make people spend more money on Hearthstone than you.
galak warlock is obnoxious at the moment, it needs some nerfs
This is really the issue. DH started out with some awesome midgame demons like Priestess of Fury and Imprisoned Antaen and the most dominant DH decks in the beginning included those cards. Then Warlocks started running double Sacrificial Pact and highlander decks started pulling it off Zephrys the Great and DH had to COMPLETELY STOP playing those cards because they couldn't afford to invest 6 or 7 mana into a card that would die for free and heal the enemy. So then DH decks just got faster and faster and faster and now they're killing people turn 4. So now they're nerfing Battlefiend and Frenzied Felwing to stop DH from running over people in the early game.
The problem would have become that people who want to play DH would have had no viable archetypes. They wouldn't be able to play aggro because the aggro nerfs are a VERY big deal. And, if Sacrificial Pact remained unchanged then they could't play midrange either for fear of getting absolutely cucked every time they played a big demon. So playing DH would have been the most un-fun experience in the world if something wasn't done about Sacrificial Pact.
These balance changes will push Tempo DH back towards midrange where it belongs without completely neutering the class.
DH didnt get nerfed though. It got buffed. The nerfs to their cards did nothing whatsover to slow them down. And the sac pact nerf just gave them free reign over the meta.
Demon Hunter is the worst thing that couldve happened to Hearthstone.
Its worse than Undertaker Hunter, its worse than Galakrond Shaman meta, it's just an aggro deck that has unlimited card drawing and doesnt run out of steam enough.
Either play DH on ladder or you don't stand a chance. It's really lame for class diversity. Just not a fun experience for me today, and I don't see any reason why it would change unless DH is nerfed HARD.
stop telling bulshit
hs replays 57%
syndicate : 61%
best performing tempo DH is 67% WR,
read vicious syndicate's meta report,
DH is favoured in every match up, every you know every, they took out Sac Pact, Priestess coming, DH nerfs are not even NERF so the meta is gonna enter into a dualism DH/counter DH> so no fun for any other class, only DH and DH is everywhere( i mean (EVERYWHERE)
leave those statistics and just play an aggro-tempo against DH and post your WR here
im doing it man, there is no competition, they just own, even their OTK deck out-tempo tempo decks sometimes
Giving DH a 70% Winrate instead of his actual 53% shows how frustrated you are lol.
That's exactly why they have to nerf Sacrificial Pact. Blizzard designed three decks (aggro, midrange, control) for the Demon Hunter (45 different cards -> 4 of them are legendaries, the other 41 cards are duplicates and are basically distributed to the three decks - that makes 86 cards total only for this class, so there are only 4 neutrals missing and one of them is Imprisoned Vilefiend btw. as it activates on turn 4-> Soul Split). You can even tell which card belongs to which deck if you do some analysis.
The Midrange deck is full of big demons with cards like Fel Summoner, Pit Commander, Imprisoned Antaen, Soul Split. And without Sacrificial Pact being nerfed this deck simply can't exist.
Warlock kept Aggro DH in check, it was the only bad matchup for DH. Now with the Sac pac nerf it's only getting worse. I don't see one bad matchup for Aggro DH, perhaps you can tell me one
"desperate " Can you tell more about that bullshit statment?
Simple. Any Control deck, even DH itself with 2x Immolation Aura, 2x Aldrachi Warblades, 2x Coordinated Strike, 2x Chaos Nova, 2x Command the Illidari, 2x Coilfang Warlord and Nethrandamus for the Death event synergy of Coordinated Strike and Command the Illidari on top COMPLETELY WRECKS Tempo (or Aggro) DH. Anything that has immediate board impact (so any almost-non-minion deck with lots of spells and heals, rush, charge, weapons, hence control) does the job...
From my experience from today mid-range/highlander is more dumb than aggro. Aggro at least was straightforward, live through aggression, stabilize (or not). But mid-range has the same stupid tools aggro has + more.
Priestess demands instant answer. But since it's hard to have board control in the early game vs DH, because of their crazy early tempo, you pretty much have to have out in hand. And what if they play 2 Priestess back to back? And Antaen - it clears the board at the beginning of their turn. So they can develop even more. You pretty much have to kill it from an empty board. Or be super ahead when it enters the field.
I preferred aggro much more, even though sometimes I was dead by turn 6, I knew how to play against them and had deck designated to beating them. It was almost like farming. Now board clears aren't enough, because I also have to have a hard removal.
You don't need a board if you play control, Immolation Aura, Chaos Nova, these are cards designed to counter aggro - and to have no minions on your side.
And every class has sort of a hard removal. Demon Hunter has Blur which is absolute nuts in combination with Warglaives of Azzinoth. Or have you ever tried the Wrathscale Naga + Command the Illidari or Coordinated Strike Combo?
Again, Command the Illidari or Coordinated Strike require you to have no board, otherwise you would rarely be able to have their full effect. They are the Unleash the Hounds of DH. Wrathscale Naga + Command the Illidari can deal a total of 24 damage to all enemies and leave a 3/1 on the board that has to be dealt with. If that's not a boardclear I don't know what is. Wrathspike Brute is also an insane control demon card.
And if you want to play aggro but not DH, try warlock with the new cards Shadow Council, Imprisoned Scrap Imp, Nightshade Matron, Hand of Gul'dan and Kanrethad Ebonlocke.
very well said, respect
last 25 games 21-4
After the nerf 9-1 so far with the exact deck.
P8.1 to D4.2 without loses
Can you share your deck?