It's not an approach to printing cards, what has changed (at least not directly) - it was approach to nerfs. At the very beginning they were very cautious with nerfs, they wanted to introduce as few of them and as rarely as possible. This was stated by Blizzard multiple times. They didn't want to nerf cards.
But this has changed and as time progresses Blizzard has less and less issues nerfing bunch of cards in a short amount of time. This clearly has something to do with the personal changes in the team, but the bottom line is Blizzard used to want to avoid nerfing anything at all costs, while now they don't care. And if they don't care about how many cards they would nerf, why would they care about some things being too good upon release?
One more thing Blizzard surely noticed is that strong (broken) cards sell the product. AoO is a clear example on how to do it - release broken shit, let people spend money, nerf the aforementioned shit to keep the complaining playerbase in the game. This is an obvious business model, present not only in HS, but in many other card games. If anything I am surprised they started REALLY using it only realitevly recently. But I guess it has something to do with Blizzard's "ideals'" downfall over the years.
maybe one day we can play chillwind yeti again Kappa
yugioh went on the same path, powercreeping untill synchro summons came out and at that point ive stopped because you needed to pay like 500 euros in order to stay competetive. the good thing is that when something is nerfed in hearthstone we get a full dust refund so id say is not that bad that overpowered cards are released and nerfed later on in my opinion.
It's not about powercreeping at all, you probably didn't even read the tl;dr at the end cause my post was not at all about new cards powercreeping old ones, that's bound to happen, and that's ok. The issue is about Blizzard printing cards that are clearly broken and will end up getting nerfed anyways, which can either be due to poor testing or negligence.
Also the "well if something gets nerfed you just get the dust back" mentality is wrong. While that is the case, Bliizzard just nerfs a few select cards and not entire decks so you can spend dust in crafting a bunch of cards and then only one gets nerfed and you get rekt. Here's an example... Kingsbane Rogue was top tier in standard and the deck run some expensive cards, I think 2 legendaries and 4 epics (maybe more epics, I can't quite remember, but let's say 4), those were Kingsbane, Captain Greenskin, Preparation and Evasion. Let's say you wanted to play that deck and had to craft all those cards for a total of 4.8k dust. The deck then got nerfed to the ground and became unplayable and the only card that got nerfed was Leeching Poison, which is a common card. So with all that investment you ended getting back 80 dust and had an unplayable deck.
Even if you're optimistic and say well Greenskin and Prep are classics and have seen play multiple times, ok sure but you still lost 2.4k dust with cards that were literally unplayable in standard just cause a common card got nerfed.
maybe the "well if something gets nerfed you just get the dust back" is wrong for many people that only play standard and think of shortterm while i play this game since open beta, play both game modes and think in longterm (years) when crafting cards so that dont apply to me.
while thinking for the majority of the players id say i agree with you and it seems your not the only one thinking about this as many threads have been popping off about it.
edit: i took my time to read the whole post, even the tl;dr after the wall of text.
In a way I support this design philosophy in Digital Card Games because they're mostly free and errata can just be applied through patches. Its a little more frustrating because of the raw power some of these cards have, but i do have a genuine question.
Would you rather them make underwhelming cards that aren't powerful? As a business trying to get money off of a free game, they need to make purchasing packs with money seem appealing somehow.
Would it be better if the evergreen sets, Basic and Classic, had a higher level of power itself, to balance out new cards entering at this standard?
No, I would like Blizzard to actually hire competent testers that care about doing their job at least a little bit. I'm not saying they should just print bland and boring cards, they obviously need to keep printing cards that powercreep the classic set cause they need to keep selling packs. But you can't seriously justify the absolute clusterfuck that Demon Hunter was at its launch and you can't deny that there are some cards (again like Passage or Omu) that just look too overtuned even before the expansion has arrived
Why should they hire competent testers when we test their cards for free? Some of us even pay Blizzard to test those cards. Also, if enough people support their business model, then is Blizzard really doing anything wrong?
You are complaining about a few things here: We frequently see cards that turn out too strong, Demon Hunter was too good in the beginning, cards get nerfed more/too often, and refunds don't cover for deck investment. The "design philosophy", more precisely card design, is only related to the first and second part, so I'll start with that.
Why do we frequently see cards that quickly get changed again and why was Demon Hunter so strong at launch? It's not because of a lack of testing or a lack of competence. Most, if not all of their designers have experience in competitive playing as well. But cards don't get tested for the sole purpose of being perfectly "balanced" either. Their approach has certainly changed a bit over the last year. They are willing to take some more risks with card design, and release versions that are pushing the limits more. But that's probably a good thing.
Generally, strong cards are more exciting than weak cards, especially when it comes to Demon Hunter. Who would get excited about a new class that's weak? If there's a build enabler or a powerful synergy card available, it inspires new decks and gives the entire game a more diverse profile. The thing about "balance" is that it's easy to make cards that are too good (1 mana 10/10), and cards that are way too weak (10 mana 1/1), but difficult to make cards that are good without being too good.
Try to pinpoint the exact parameters for a card like Secret Passage to be "bad", "good" or "too good". Testing alone can't determine if Rogue has too much burst or too many answers for this card to work like an emergency tool in any circumstance, partly because the meta can't really be predicted and the strength of the effect always depends on how impactful it is against the opponents you run into. The interesting part here is that the card is obviously strong, but it's not entirely obvious, if it even is too strong, and what part of it exactly. For comparison, The Soularium was not an overwhelming card in Standard. It was good, but not "too good". Was 3 card draw the maximum, or can you push it further in a different class? Was it balanced due to the discard downside, or is the card even better than Secret Passage, now that Wild has so many of these "activate on discard" effects, and you frequently ended up not playing all the drawn cards anyway? Balancing isn't as simple as going for a "fair" effect. If you do that, you end up with loads of cards like Webweave, and I'm sure most people wouldn't be happy about that either.
By releasing powerful cards that might need to get changed again later, you get a better idea of what effects the current card pool can tolerate, what is and isn't possible, and if everything works out, you end up having more cool decks in the game. There are quite a few cards recently that crossed the line, but there's also a lot of cards that were very powerful and just on the right level. As far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have more expansions like Descent of Dragons than Rastakhan's Rumble.
As for nerf frequency and refunds: There's no perfect solution. One part of the players wants constantly changing metas and loses their mind if a deck displays an unusually high winrate for as much as a single day, and another part is saving up dust for one deck at a time, tries to make smart investments, and sees cards, decks and the meta changing almost every month. The developers almost force changes now, just to keep the competitive players interested, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are not happy about it either, because it also discourages many other players from collecting cards and crafting the decks they want to play.
And part of the problem is, that the amount of dust you generate through packs is in a bad relation to the amounts of dust you need. With most of your packs generating 40 dust, a pack on average generating something between 85 and 100 (less, if you don't like disenchanting legendaries) and legendaries costing 1600, and several decks close to or more than 10.000 in total, most players need to make some tough decisions when it comes to crafting, and nerfs can feel very punishing then.
The new mode is supposed to encourage a more diverse collection. It might help with making unimpressive cards more interesting, giving you more options what to do with your collection. The "achievements & progression" update that we'll see at the end of the year might also try to target that problem.
I'm not super optimistic about what comes out of it, but the developers at least seem to be aware that the current system isn't the most fun for everyone.
Yes, Blizzard's strategy is:We made broken cards, so people buy pre-orders because they think that they will need these cards for long time, but in the first month we will nerf all.
By the way, I don't think that this is legally correct. As a consumer, I bought what I saw before the pre-order. Now, you have changed the product, so, I don't want it anymore. But here is the trick: Hearthstone is a card game and there is no returned product and no refund.
As a consumer, I am totally mad with this Blizzard's strategy, I consider it a scam.
No, I'd rather they were agressive with nerfs, as this playerbase has proven that if not they will gravitate towards the most unethical, easy-to-play, play-itself busted shit available, and Blizzard can't stop itself from sleepwalking into it nearly everytime we have a new expansion, trying toi help Timmy's feel powerful. Thankfully this expansion looks like we're moving away from cards like Ysera Unleashed, to more complex cards.
"because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded." - Osho Rajneesh
I love the current design philosophy. I would much rather have useful and interesting cards in the meta, with subsequent nerfing if necessary then to neuter almost every card and have 0 impact to the meta with a new set. You try to pre-nerf everything and you end up with TGT a set that had around 5 cards that actually impacted the meta. That's incredibly boring. Not only does this philosophy of having powerful useful new strategies make things interesting, every time you get a nerf set the meta shifts. It's a deck builders dream. It's probably a netdecker's nightmare though so I can understand why it might upset most people. As for Kibler, he's always seemed overly conservative which was the exact problem with prior meta's ... overly conservative and boring design followed by being overly conservative with nerfs.
Yes, Blizzard's strategy is:We made broken cards, so people buy pre-orders because they think that they will need these cards for long time, but in the first month we will nerf all.
By the way, I don't think that this is legally correct. As a consumer, I bought what I saw before the pre-order. Now, you have changed the product, so, I don't want it anymore. But here is the trick: Hearthstone is a card game and there is no returned product and no refund.
As a consumer, I am totally mad with this Blizzard's strategy, I consider it a scam.
But this is exactly what CCG's have been for literally almost 30 years. The issue is the game is filled with mostly noobs who don't build their own decks and aren't interested in a shifting meta.
I prefer when they make a very strong set then nerf cards fast then what happened with sets like Rastakhans Rumble: super underwhelming, low impact, barely changed anything, meta went super stale for 3 months.
What the game needs is not balanced expansions, its balanced CORE SETS. It would not matter how strong an expansion set is if all classes had equally good core sets, cuz they all would have something to play all the time, but that is not the case.
The Priest rework was a sign that Blizzard realized this, if they keep focusing on bringing up the power of weaker core sets like this, they wont have to make broken sets all the time for some classes to see play, thats the way to go imo.
tl;dr - Blizzard has adopted a design philosophy of printing cards that are clearly busted, with what looks like little to no testing and just thinks that nerfing them if they become a problem (which they of course will) is healthy. This is not only unethical but also can heavily screw players that can't but large quantities of packs and Blizz shouldn't be "praised" for how often they nerfed things this expansion. Read paragraph 4 for the nerfing topic.
So what's the end conclusion here?
I think this is a brilliant business move by Blizzard. You are saving your time and resources on testing. Let the players do it as we launch it for us. They when we have some statistics we can nerf and change cards. We can focus on other business strategies and future expansions.
Most of the players don't even realize what's going on. They are still playing the game. Raging here and there, complaining now and then but still playing the game. Players get screwed in all sort of games not just this one. Just have a look at EA or any other company that basically has pay or lose motto. If the players are still playing the game it's just business as usual. Just trow a bone to the players every now and then to make them happier a bit and make them buy more packs and spend more time and money on our product.
maybe one day we can play chillwind yeti again Kappa
yugioh went on the same path, powercreeping untill synchro summons came out and at that point ive stopped because you needed to pay like 500 euros in order to stay competetive. the good thing is that when something is nerfed in hearthstone we get a full dust refund so id say is not that bad that overpowered cards are released and nerfed later on in my opinion.
It's not about powercreeping at all, you probably didn't even read the tl;dr at the end cause my post was not at all about new cards powercreeping old ones, that's bound to happen, and that's ok. The issue is about Blizzard printing cards that are clearly broken and will end up getting nerfed anyways, which can either be due to poor testing or negligence.
Also the "well if something gets nerfed you just get the dust back" mentality is wrong. While that is the case, Bliizzard just nerfs a few select cards and not entire decks so you can spend dust in crafting a bunch of cards and then only one gets nerfed and you get rekt. Here's an example... Kingsbane Rogue was top tier in standard and the deck run some expensive cards, I think 2 legendaries and 4 epics (maybe more epics, I can't quite remember, but let's say 4), those were Kingsbane, Captain Greenskin, Preparation and Evasion. Let's say you wanted to play that deck and had to craft all those cards for a total of 4.8k dust. The deck then got nerfed to the ground and became unplayable and the only card that got nerfed was Leeching Poison, which is a common card. So with all that investment you ended getting back 80 dust and had an unplayable deck.
Even if you're optimistic and say well Greenskin and Prep are classics and have seen play multiple times, ok sure but you still lost 2.4k dust with cards that were literally unplayable in standard just cause a common card got nerfed.
Yes, Blizzard's strategy is:We made broken cards, so people buy pre-orders because they think that they will need these cards for long time, but in the first month we will nerf all.
By the way, I don't think that this is legally correct. As a consumer, I bought what I saw before the pre-order. Now, you have changed the product, so, I don't want it anymore. But here is the trick: Hearthstone is a card game and there is no returned product and no refund.
As a consumer, I am totally mad with this Blizzard's strategy, I consider it a scam.
But this is exactly what CCG's have been for literally almost 30 years. The issue is the game is filled with mostly noobs who don't build their own decks and aren't interested in a shifting meta.
Because other games are releasing cards and nerfing them in the first week? This is the point. When people pre-ordered, pre-ordered what they saw. If you nerf cards in the first weeks this means two things:
1) You didn't test your game
2) You are voluntarily making op cards to increase your sell in the pre-order phase and after, in order to make the game balance, you are nerfing them
I am totally against the Blizzard's policy, that is using like now, to make nerfs in the first 1-2 weeks and I consider it SCAM.
It is scam, because, It is a scamming strategy to increase the sell in the pre-order phase without any attention to consumers. (Yes because the first point, Blizzard is not testing the game, it is quite irrational the thinking that in a big company like Blizzard are working monkeys, so the solution is of course the second, Blizzard is doing it voluntary.)
Nerfs to make the meta shift in time are fine, but meta doesn't need to shift in the first and second weeks after the release.
Sadly this trend seems to continue with latest set, Scholomance Academy, dropping in 2 days. Most of us haven't been able to play with any of the new cardsbut I think we can all agree that cards like Lightning Bloom, Forest Warden Omu, Power Word: Feast, Secret Passage and Voracious Reader are just way overtuned in comparison to the rest of the set and even most standard cards.
OK, let's analyse those cards that you think are overtuned:
1. Lightning Bloom - a card like this existed in Hearthstone for many years, only it was much stronger. It's called Innervate. It was finally nerfed though, but there were no war drums calling for it's deletion from the game because it was brutally overpowered.
2. Forest Warden Omu - I'm trying really hard to imagine a situation in which this card will be broken, and I simply cannot find any. It can potentially pull of some strong combos, but nothing that we haven't seen before.
3. Power Word: Feast - potentially strong arena card, but for constructed......far from being overtuned.
4. Secret Passage - just another overhyped card. It will be strong in aggressive deck types, pointless in others.
5. Voracious Reader - again, some aggro decks may love it, useless for anything else.
If that's the best SA expansion has to offer, then we'll be fine.
maybe one day we can play chillwind yeti again Kappa
yugioh went on the same path, powercreeping untill synchro summons came out and at that point ive stopped because you needed to pay like 500 euros in order to stay competetive. the good thing is that when something is nerfed in hearthstone we get a full dust refund so id say is not that bad that overpowered cards are released and nerfed later on in my opinion.
It's not about powercreeping at all, you probably didn't even read the tl;dr at the end cause my post was not at all about new cards powercreeping old ones, that's bound to happen, and that's ok. The issue is about Blizzard printing cards that are clearly broken and will end up getting nerfed anyways, which can either be due to poor testing or negligence.
Also the "well if something gets nerfed you just get the dust back" mentality is wrong. While that is the case, Bliizzard just nerfs a few select cards and not entire decks so you can spend dust in crafting a bunch of cards and then only one gets nerfed and you get rekt. Here's an example... Kingsbane Rogue was top tier in standard and the deck run some expensive cards, I think 2 legendaries and 4 epics (maybe more epics, I can't quite remember, but let's say 4), those were Kingsbane, Captain Greenskin, Preparation and Evasion. Let's say you wanted to play that deck and had to craft all those cards for a total of 4.8k dust. The deck then got nerfed to the ground and became unplayable and the only card that got nerfed was Leeching Poison, which is a common card. So with all that investment you ended getting back 80 dust and had an unplayable deck.
Even if you're optimistic and say well Greenskin and Prep are classics and have seen play multiple times, ok sure but you still lost 2.4k dust with cards that were literally unplayable in standard just cause a common card got nerfed.
Did they not nerf Prep as well?
Prep did get nerfed but not in during that time, it got nerfed 6 months later. Leeching Poison was nerfed on December 2018 and Prep got hit on May 2019.
dev team been trash at least since magnetic/rush. Why are you surprised? None of them actually play card games, including the one they're helping create.
It's not an approach to printing cards, what has changed (at least not directly) - it was approach to nerfs. At the very beginning they were very cautious with nerfs, they wanted to introduce as few of them and as rarely as possible. This was stated by Blizzard multiple times. They didn't want to nerf cards.
But this has changed and as time progresses Blizzard has less and less issues nerfing bunch of cards in a short amount of time. This clearly has something to do with the personal changes in the team, but the bottom line is Blizzard used to want to avoid nerfing anything at all costs, while now they don't care. And if they don't care about how many cards they would nerf, why would they care about some things being too good upon release?
One more thing Blizzard surely noticed is that strong (broken) cards sell the product. AoO is a clear example on how to do it - release broken shit, let people spend money, nerf the aforementioned shit to keep the complaining playerbase in the game. This is an obvious business model, present not only in HS, but in many other card games. If anything I am surprised they started REALLY using it only realitevly recently. But I guess it has something to do with Blizzard's "ideals'" downfall over the years.
maybe the "well if something gets nerfed you just get the dust back" is wrong for many people that only play standard and think of shortterm while i play this game since open beta, play both game modes and think in longterm (years) when crafting cards so that dont apply to me.
while thinking for the majority of the players id say i agree with you and it seems your not the only one thinking about this as many threads have been popping off about it.
edit: i took my time to read the whole post, even the tl;dr after the wall of text.
With how quick new expansions are figured out, beta tests is a viable option to avoid some of these problems.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Why should they hire competent testers when we test their cards for free? Some of us even pay Blizzard to test those cards. Also, if enough people support their business model, then is Blizzard really doing anything wrong?
You are complaining about a few things here: We frequently see cards that turn out too strong, Demon Hunter was too good in the beginning, cards get nerfed more/too often, and refunds don't cover for deck investment. The "design philosophy", more precisely card design, is only related to the first and second part, so I'll start with that.
Why do we frequently see cards that quickly get changed again and why was Demon Hunter so strong at launch? It's not because of a lack of testing or a lack of competence. Most, if not all of their designers have experience in competitive playing as well. But cards don't get tested for the sole purpose of being perfectly "balanced" either. Their approach has certainly changed a bit over the last year. They are willing to take some more risks with card design, and release versions that are pushing the limits more. But that's probably a good thing.
Generally, strong cards are more exciting than weak cards, especially when it comes to Demon Hunter. Who would get excited about a new class that's weak? If there's a build enabler or a powerful synergy card available, it inspires new decks and gives the entire game a more diverse profile. The thing about "balance" is that it's easy to make cards that are too good (1 mana 10/10), and cards that are way too weak (10 mana 1/1), but difficult to make cards that are good without being too good.
Try to pinpoint the exact parameters for a card like Secret Passage to be "bad", "good" or "too good". Testing alone can't determine if Rogue has too much burst or too many answers for this card to work like an emergency tool in any circumstance, partly because the meta can't really be predicted and the strength of the effect always depends on how impactful it is against the opponents you run into. The interesting part here is that the card is obviously strong, but it's not entirely obvious, if it even is too strong, and what part of it exactly. For comparison, The Soularium was not an overwhelming card in Standard. It was good, but not "too good". Was 3 card draw the maximum, or can you push it further in a different class? Was it balanced due to the discard downside, or is the card even better than Secret Passage, now that Wild has so many of these "activate on discard" effects, and you frequently ended up not playing all the drawn cards anyway? Balancing isn't as simple as going for a "fair" effect. If you do that, you end up with loads of cards like Webweave, and I'm sure most people wouldn't be happy about that either.
By releasing powerful cards that might need to get changed again later, you get a better idea of what effects the current card pool can tolerate, what is and isn't possible, and if everything works out, you end up having more cool decks in the game. There are quite a few cards recently that crossed the line, but there's also a lot of cards that were very powerful and just on the right level. As far as I'm concerned. I'd rather have more expansions like Descent of Dragons than Rastakhan's Rumble.
As for nerf frequency and refunds: There's no perfect solution. One part of the players wants constantly changing metas and loses their mind if a deck displays an unusually high winrate for as much as a single day, and another part is saving up dust for one deck at a time, tries to make smart investments, and sees cards, decks and the meta changing almost every month. The developers almost force changes now, just to keep the competitive players interested, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are not happy about it either, because it also discourages many other players from collecting cards and crafting the decks they want to play.
And part of the problem is, that the amount of dust you generate through packs is in a bad relation to the amounts of dust you need. With most of your packs generating 40 dust, a pack on average generating something between 85 and 100 (less, if you don't like disenchanting legendaries) and legendaries costing 1600, and several decks close to or more than 10.000 in total, most players need to make some tough decisions when it comes to crafting, and nerfs can feel very punishing then.
The new mode is supposed to encourage a more diverse collection. It might help with making unimpressive cards more interesting, giving you more options what to do with your collection. The "achievements & progression" update that we'll see at the end of the year might also try to target that problem.
I'm not super optimistic about what comes out of it, but the developers at least seem to be aware that the current system isn't the most fun for everyone.
Yes, Blizzard's strategy is: We made broken cards, so people buy pre-orders because they think that they will need these cards for long time, but in the first month we will nerf all.
By the way, I don't think that this is legally correct. As a consumer, I bought what I saw before the pre-order. Now, you have changed the product, so, I don't want it anymore. But here is the trick: Hearthstone is a card game and there is no returned product and no refund.
As a consumer, I am totally mad with this Blizzard's strategy, I consider it a scam.
I'll bet you're wrong on this one
No, I'd rather they were agressive with nerfs, as this playerbase has proven that if not they will gravitate towards the most unethical, easy-to-play, play-itself busted shit available, and Blizzard can't stop itself from sleepwalking into it nearly everytime we have a new expansion, trying toi help Timmy's feel powerful. Thankfully this expansion looks like we're moving away from cards like Ysera Unleashed, to more complex cards.
this card is gonna be nerfed more faster then light and will cost at least 5 mana
edit. i was meaning secret passage
"because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded." - Osho Rajneesh
I love the current design philosophy. I would much rather have useful and interesting cards in the meta, with subsequent nerfing if necessary then to neuter almost every card and have 0 impact to the meta with a new set. You try to pre-nerf everything and you end up with TGT a set that had around 5 cards that actually impacted the meta. That's incredibly boring. Not only does this philosophy of having powerful useful new strategies make things interesting, every time you get a nerf set the meta shifts. It's a deck builders dream. It's probably a netdecker's nightmare though so I can understand why it might upset most people. As for Kibler, he's always seemed overly conservative which was the exact problem with prior meta's ... overly conservative and boring design followed by being overly conservative with nerfs.
But this is exactly what CCG's have been for literally almost 30 years. The issue is the game is filled with mostly noobs who don't build their own decks and aren't interested in a shifting meta.
I prefer when they make a very strong set then nerf cards fast then what happened with sets like Rastakhans Rumble: super underwhelming, low impact, barely changed anything, meta went super stale for 3 months.
What the game needs is not balanced expansions, its balanced CORE SETS. It would not matter how strong an expansion set is if all classes had equally good core sets, cuz they all would have something to play all the time, but that is not the case.
The Priest rework was a sign that Blizzard realized this, if they keep focusing on bringing up the power of weaker core sets like this, they wont have to make broken sets all the time for some classes to see play, thats the way to go imo.
So what's the end conclusion here?
I think this is a brilliant business move by Blizzard. You are saving your time and resources on testing. Let the players do it as we launch it for us. They when we have some statistics we can nerf and change cards. We can focus on other business strategies and future expansions.
Most of the players don't even realize what's going on. They are still playing the game. Raging here and there, complaining now and then but still playing the game. Players get screwed in all sort of games not just this one. Just have a look at EA or any other company that basically has pay or lose motto. If the players are still playing the game it's just business as usual. Just trow a bone to the players every now and then to make them happier a bit and make them buy more packs and spend more time and money on our product.
Did they not nerf Prep as well?
Because other games are releasing cards and nerfing them in the first week? This is the point. When people pre-ordered, pre-ordered what they saw. If you nerf cards in the first weeks this means two things:
1) You didn't test your game
2) You are voluntarily making op cards to increase your sell in the pre-order phase and after, in order to make the game balance, you are nerfing them
I am totally against the Blizzard's policy, that is using like now, to make nerfs in the first 1-2 weeks and I consider it SCAM.
It is scam, because, It is a scamming strategy to increase the sell in the pre-order phase without any attention to consumers. (Yes because the first point, Blizzard is not testing the game, it is quite irrational the thinking that in a big company like Blizzard are working monkeys, so the solution is of course the second, Blizzard is doing it voluntary.)
Nerfs to make the meta shift in time are fine, but meta doesn't need to shift in the first and second weeks after the release.
Works for me when they nerf out of the gate - I get a shit load of dust!
Let's see which cards will be nerfed.
Prep did get nerfed but not in during that time, it got nerfed 6 months later. Leeching Poison was nerfed on December 2018 and Prep got hit on May 2019.
dev team been trash at least since magnetic/rush. Why are you surprised? None of them actually play card games, including the one they're helping create.
Fun > Meta
50hero power, bigger battlefield. Can do stonger cards.