Kibler's suggestion of having Lunacy buff the spells by 1-4 mana instead of 3 would go a long way... things are too consistent at +3 with this small spell pool. Adding to the chaos by swinging the mana cost more would be fitting, as well as a good nerf to effect.
Meanwhile, the shell of spell mage is still very strong. Most absurdly is Refreshing Spring Water (not even mentioned on the first page of this thread!). A 0-mana Draw 2 shows that no one in Hearthstone balance has any clue.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
Kibler's suggestion of having Lunacy buff the spells by 1-4 mana instead of 3 would go a long way... things are too consistent at +3 with this small spell pool. Adding to the chaos by swinging the mana cost more would be fitting, as well as a good nerf to effect.
Meanwhile, the shell of spell mage is still very strong. Most absurdly is Refreshing Spring Water (not even mentioned on the first page of this thread!). A 0-mana Draw 2 shows that no one in Hearthstone balance has any clue.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
With all the respect. That man has a history on a lot of TCG games not just HS and Magic. That said magic is really hard game to play and as person that play both games (and other 2 TCGs) i can said with a lot of confident that is not "a losers game" a lot of cards games take inspiration on MTG mechanics and viceversa. Its not a perfect game but is one of the best TCGs you can ever play, you can do stuff in that game that its really crazy and fun, that not other game not even with the online envoirment can replicate. This is very off-topic but i dont like when people shot bullets for free.
Kibler's suggestion of having Lunacy buff the spells by 1-4 mana instead of 3 would go a long way... things are too consistent at +3 with this small spell pool. Adding to the chaos by swinging the mana cost more would be fitting, as well as a good nerf to effect.
Meanwhile, the shell of spell mage is still very strong. Most absurdly is Refreshing Spring Water (not even mentioned on the first page of this thread!). A 0-mana Draw 2 shows that no one in Hearthstone balance has any clue.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
We’re all jealous of Brian Kibler, mate. It’s not just you, don’t worry.
Kibler's suggestion of having Lunacy buff the spells by 1-4 mana instead of 3 would go a long way... things are too consistent at +3 with this small spell pool. Adding to the chaos by swinging the mana cost more would be fitting, as well as a good nerf to effect.
Meanwhile, the shell of spell mage is still very strong. Most absurdly is Refreshing Spring Water (not even mentioned on the first page of this thread!). A 0-mana Draw 2 shows that no one in Hearthstone balance has any clue.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
Kibler actually engages with people that call him out like this, atleast on Reddit. You don't see other streamers doing the same. I don't always agree wth his opinions on the game but he is atleast giving his opinions from a well informed place and I respect them. He's a great deckbuilder too. Calling him toxic just seems unfair.
With the nerfs one witnessed the political management of a dissatisfied crowd. Nothing really changed, but at least devs pretend to do something about preconceived idea who should rule the meta. With the ascention of the new expansion Mage was prominent in their marketing trailers. So you don't nerf Deck of Lunacy to oblivion. The non-target audience will continue to be dissatisfied. But who cares as long as the fanboys keep celebrating the intended mindlessness.
You're clearly just a fanboy troll who doesn't understand the game. Git good, scrub!
Teach me then. I'm all ears. You seem to understand the game or shall I say card design politics?
Do I? What gives you that impression?
Ok then you were just babbling. As any good Pavlovian regurgitation of 'gid good' means.
Glad you cottoned on there, champ. Was just meeting babble with babble.
..as I was not thinking babbling myself.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
With the nerfs one witnessed the political management of a dissatisfied crowd. Nothing really changed, but at least devs pretend to do something about preconceived idea who should rule the meta. With the ascention of the new expansion Mage was prominent in their marketing trailers. So you don't nerf Deck of Lunacy to oblivion. The non-target audience will continue to be dissatisfied. But who cares as long as the fanboys keep celebrating the intended mindlessness.
You're clearly just a fanboy troll who doesn't understand the game. Git good, scrub!
Teach me then. I'm all ears. You seem to understand the game or shall I say card design politics?
I kinda agree with you in the "yeah they dont nerf mage because they want Mage and Paladin to be good actualle" yeah but that is not a fair point. Like obviusly every expansion, in every card game, the devs already have a favorite deck (class, color, craft, pick the name) for a particular expansion. I am not against that. My problem is how you set that Class on the top. Lets talk about Paladin, everyone knows paladin is busted but even when we are not happy with paladin you dont see that many people talking about how paladin is unfair. In fact the only people that want Paladin ULTRA NERF are the high legend players and the pro-players because they know how problematic is that mach that has not RNG factor. So is a deck that probably will remain strong until a new deck shows up.
Deck of Lunacy and Spell mage as a whole is a clown festa but with really good rng high rolls and a great limited card pull. Its a card and a deck that in general no one like. You can go to any streamer or any youtuber channel and see their reactions every time they face spell mage. That is not just them hating the matchup. Everyone here also hate this matchup. I can even imagine that MAGES PLAYERS hate this matchup in the mirror because is just about who gets the better RnG faster and how likely is that the tables turns. Which is not fun. Is not you winning or losing the game, you play Lunacy and you start drawing cards, the system will decide if you win or not.
One thing is clear to me that too much randomness and the inability to outwith, outclass or outmaneuver your opponent is that much disrespect devs have for their own target audience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Hunter has overtaken Rogue and Mage. If it weren't for Paladin we'd be back to Aggro Hunterstone...AGAIN
well you answer yourself for me. Basically yeah hunter destroy mages. But Mage have more better matches than face hunter. Paladin keeps hunter on check and mage destroy anything that is not fast enough. Paladin protects mage, Mage protects Paladin. None of this decks benefit hunter. So yeah Mage > Hunter in terms of matchups. When you talk about meta you need to take in account how many matches the deck wins not just if there is a deck that is a good counter. I can ensure you that if mage was not popular slower decks and more midrange decks could see way more play even with Hunter and Paladin on the ladder. But you Mage is absurdly good against both: late game and mid game decks.
So this is a meta were you play Paladin or you go face unless you want to lose to Mage. "But mage in hersey is note as a tier 3 deck right now" yeah with a 14% play rate, almost 3 times the playrate do Demon hunter and priest, 6 times the play rate of Druid, a loooot more than Shaman, Rogue and Warrior. What all this classes have in common except for demon hunter? they DONT have a deck that dealts with mage. So by high rank numbers you can said "yeah spell mage dont seem that great" but in reality, its a deck that alone denegates 5 classes (druid can only success with token druid btw). 5 classes, for a "tier 3 deck" that has a bad winrate only because of Paladin and Hunter and still against those two it keeps a 50% winrate.
I just get slaughtered by a lunnacy mage. Turn 3 + coin. So yeah, the experience stills the same.
It's not the same. You can't take one match where things clearly go their way. I played for a few hours last night using rush warrior, faced 3 mages, 2 of which managed to drop lunacy by turn 6 and they just lost wayyyy too much tempo. One was even a 3 cost lunacy because they had already discounted it with flow. They basically passed turn 5 with lunacy and hero power which let me flood the board, they tried to devolving missiles, only hit 2 of my 6 minions. Drop Rokara next turn, all go face and buff, buff, buff. Mage concedes.
It isn't the same experience at all. If you think coining lunacy on turn 1 is anywhere close to playing it on turn 3 or 4 and it costing your whole turn then you're doing something wrong. Out of interest, what rank are you? Not to call anyone out but it seems far more common that those in the lower ranks blame the game more often than they accept they aren't playing optimally.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
But it does though, of course it does. Your ability to understand, predict and react to the deck you're facing is important. If you think it isn't then I just assume you're lower rank and by that I mean platinum, gold, that sort of rank.
Lunacy hasn't troubled me in the slightest. If you think it's as good now as it was pre nerf then it's a you issue. It's no where near as common either (in my experience) which is also why I ask about rank, for example control tickatus sees a lot more play the lower rank you are.
If you agree that they actually want lunacy being a strong card, you're just demonstrably wrong. They have openly said they don't want it and it was nerfed very swiftly once it became important in a strong deck.
What 'target audience'? I've seen this a few times and it's just a throwaway dig, a nothing comment. You don't get to just say things and thus it is now true. Please explain how merging a card within 2 weeks and in fact deciding to nerf it even sooner than that, is anything to do with pandering to a 'target audience'?
Makes zero sense, the card is now slow as hell and I am personally bitch slapping mages now, I wasn't before. I had one throw down lunacy on 4 earlier, leading to a concede after my next turn because they had just passed their entire turn and I got ridiculously ahead on board, even if they could access a flame striker it wouldn't have wiped me.
You're either making bad plays, are being incredibly greedy or both, if lunacy is a problem for you.
Instead of this 'target audience' bullshit, explain and show how it is still a problem card. I've asked this multiple times and not one of you lot actually answer. I genuinely don't understand how people see this as a problem now, I'm more than open to hearing why I'm wrong though.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
I’ve seen the card once since the nerf where as before I saw it every other game just about. I play meme decks at D5 so I’m not rushing face damage either. No Minion Mage is still a strong deck, just not because of DoL.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
You don't have to guess. This dude is a dyed-in-the-wool "game is rigged" tin-foil hat type. He pretends to be intellectual, but he insist that people prove the game ISN'T rigged. (Which is, of course, impossible.) His standard go-to insult is "fanboy." You can try to argue with him, but you've got a better chance of teaching your dog algebra than you do talking some sense into him.
Kibler's suggestion of having Lunacy buff the spells by 1-4 mana instead of 3 would go a long way... things are too consistent at +3 with this small spell pool. Adding to the chaos by swinging the mana cost more would be fitting, as well as a good nerf to effect.
Meanwhile, the shell of spell mage is still very strong. Most absurdly is Refreshing Spring Water (not even mentioned on the first page of this thread!). A 0-mana Draw 2 shows that no one in Hearthstone balance has any clue.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
Damn dude, you really showed him. Manchild? Mother's basement? Geez, these are some good arguments, Kibler was completely obliterated by you. Feeling better about yourself now?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
But it does though, of course it does. Your ability to understand, predict and react to the deck you're facing is important. If you think it isn't then I just assume you're lower rank and by that I mean platinum, gold, that sort of rank.
Lunacy hasn't troubled me in the slightest. If you think it's as good now as it was pre nerf then it's a you issue. It's no where near as common either (in my experience) which is also why I ask about rank, for example control tickatus sees a lot more play the lower rank you are.
If you agree that they actually want lunacy being a strong card, you're just demonstrably wrong. They have openly said they don't want it and it was nerfed very swiftly once it became important in a strong deck.
What 'target audience'? I've seen this a few times and it's just a throwaway dig, a nothing comment. You don't get to just say things and thus it is now true. Please explain how merging a card within 2 weeks and in fact deciding to nerf it even sooner than that, is anything to do with pandering to a 'target audience'?
Makes zero sense, the card is now slow as hell and I am personally bitch slapping mages now, I wasn't before. I had one throw down lunacy on 4 earlier, leading to a concede after my next turn because they had just passed their entire turn and I got ridiculously ahead on board, even if they could access a flame striker it wouldn't have wiped me.
You're either making bad plays, are being incredibly greedy or both, if lunacy is a problem for you.
Instead of this 'target audience' bullshit, explain and show how it is still a problem card. I've asked this multiple times and not one of you lot actually answer. I genuinely don't understand how people see this as a problem now, I'm more than open to hearing why I'm wrong though.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
Oh dear, what have we here? Let me try and help you understand. Let me educate you a bit, but I fear it will not help.
Commentators on fora like these can be grouped in two camps: the incrowders and the out-of-the-box thinkers. I take the liberty to render you in the former:
Devs are wise and know what there are doing. If they nerf, they do a good job.
There are no insane aggressive or busted cards: just play a counter deck, or play the deck yourself.
Ranking-up is more important than playing a deck that challenges you intellectually. If a deck is 'mindless' but helps you to high rank, that's the way to go.
you only complain when you lose. A winner don't see problem. A winner has always skill.
Skill is the ability to see good plays. You can't reach legend without skill. The are no 'mindless' decks helping you to legend.
Incrowders like to chitchat about this card and that. They stand ready to tell 'complainers' that they suck at the game. You assume that only those at lower rank complain. Of course BS since even high legend rank players think Lunacy and for my part Tickatus are still busted and not healthy for the game. Incrowders don't think about card design politics that keeps the game fast paced for an aggression loving, low skill and fast to legend audience. Eventhough devs themselves admit that cards are printed for a certain audience in mind.
Then you have the out-devs-box thinkers. They tend to reason in terms of balance, skill, diversity; they hate too much damage out of hand (face damage per turn-ratio of spell mage is extremely high and even the nerfed Lunacy caters into that). They kinda look down to aggressive low skill intensive decks. They wonder about too steep RPS and they indeed see card design in favor for certain types. Wonder i.e why Priest hasn't have a deck like mage, hunter, paladin Rogue that is regularly a tier 1? Yes we all know about dragon priest, that was years ago.Reason? The target audience hate priest. That's why priest will never be dominant in the meta: priest players are not part of the target audience: too much thinking, too much planning, not aggressive enough. Capisce?
So my fellow humanoid we will never understand each other. What I'm trying to tell you that we live in different worlds. Intellectually, morally, qua ethics regarding a silly game and that card design is not made for those who want to play a game of skill, or win based on outwit, outmaneuver, simply outclass the opponent. Only those who play aggressive reach legend fast.The idea reaching legend, therefore skill is ludicrous.
So talking about Lunacy, Tickatus is difficult if you don't see the bigger picture. In the case of Tickatus. If you take down virtually have a deck, strategy is denied. Therefore you go aggressive. The card was made to make people flee to a counter. Exactly was devs figured out. But hey, if you don't see politics behind card design.....I guess that explain a lot about the way you think.
I guess you are going to declare me a lunatic. Like a flatlander would respond to a third dimension.
Kibler is toxic, know jack about the game, the only thing he was good was in Magic a gamer for losers living in mom's basement. So yeah, maybe he's the famous ManChild succesful playing TCG but about HS he's clueless and speak too much bullshit
With all the respect. That man has a history on a lot of TCG games not just HS and Magic. That said magic is really hard game to play and as person that play both games (and other 2 TCGs) i can said with a lot of confident that is not "a losers game" a lot of cards games take inspiration on MTG mechanics and viceversa. Its not a perfect game but is one of the best TCGs you can ever play, you can do stuff in that game that its really crazy and fun, that not other game not even with the online envoirment can replicate. This is very off-topic but i dont like when people shot bullets for free.
We’re all jealous of Brian Kibler, mate. It’s not just you, don’t worry.
Kibler actually engages with people that call him out like this, atleast on Reddit. You don't see other streamers doing the same. I don't always agree wth his opinions on the game but he is atleast giving his opinions from a well informed place and I respect them. He's a great deckbuilder too. Calling him toxic just seems unfair.
..as I was not thinking babbling myself.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
One thing is clear to me that too much randomness and the inability to outwith, outclass or outmaneuver your opponent is that much disrespect devs have for their own target audience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Second strongest in which meta? Lower ranks aren't the same as the meta in Diamond which may or not be the same as Legend.
If Kibler doesn't know anything about Hearthstone, then I wonder, who the hell does ?
Hunter has overtaken Rogue and Mage. If it weren't for Paladin we'd be back to Aggro Hunterstone...AGAIN
well you answer yourself for me. Basically yeah hunter destroy mages. But Mage have more better matches than face hunter. Paladin keeps hunter on check and mage destroy anything that is not fast enough. Paladin protects mage, Mage protects Paladin. None of this decks benefit hunter. So yeah Mage > Hunter in terms of matchups. When you talk about meta you need to take in account how many matches the deck wins not just if there is a deck that is a good counter. I can ensure you that if mage was not popular slower decks and more midrange decks could see way more play even with Hunter and Paladin on the ladder. But you Mage is absurdly good against both: late game and mid game decks.
So this is a meta were you play Paladin or you go face unless you want to lose to Mage. "But mage in hersey is note as a tier 3 deck right now" yeah with a 14% play rate, almost 3 times the playrate do Demon hunter and priest, 6 times the play rate of Druid, a loooot more than Shaman, Rogue and Warrior. What all this classes have in common except for demon hunter? they DONT have a deck that dealts with mage. So by high rank numbers you can said "yeah spell mage dont seem that great" but in reality, its a deck that alone denegates 5 classes (druid can only success with token druid btw). 5 classes, for a "tier 3 deck" that has a bad winrate only because of Paladin and Hunter and still against those two it keeps a 50% winrate.
I just get slaughtered by a lunnacy mage. Turn 3 + coin. So yeah, the experience stills the same.
It's not the same. You can't take one match where things clearly go their way. I played for a few hours last night using rush warrior, faced 3 mages, 2 of which managed to drop lunacy by turn 6 and they just lost wayyyy too much tempo. One was even a 3 cost lunacy because they had already discounted it with flow. They basically passed turn 5 with lunacy and hero power which let me flood the board, they tried to devolving missiles, only hit 2 of my 6 minions. Drop Rokara next turn, all go face and buff, buff, buff. Mage concedes.
It isn't the same experience at all. If you think coining lunacy on turn 1 is anywhere close to playing it on turn 3 or 4 and it costing your whole turn then you're doing something wrong. Out of interest, what rank are you? Not to call anyone out but it seems far more common that those in the lower ranks blame the game more often than they accept they aren't playing optimally.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
But it does though, of course it does. Your ability to understand, predict and react to the deck you're facing is important. If you think it isn't then I just assume you're lower rank and by that I mean platinum, gold, that sort of rank.
Lunacy hasn't troubled me in the slightest. If you think it's as good now as it was pre nerf then it's a you issue. It's no where near as common either (in my experience) which is also why I ask about rank, for example control tickatus sees a lot more play the lower rank you are.
If you agree that they actually want lunacy being a strong card, you're just demonstrably wrong. They have openly said they don't want it and it was nerfed very swiftly once it became important in a strong deck.
What 'target audience'? I've seen this a few times and it's just a throwaway dig, a nothing comment. You don't get to just say things and thus it is now true. Please explain how merging a card within 2 weeks and in fact deciding to nerf it even sooner than that, is anything to do with pandering to a 'target audience'?
Makes zero sense, the card is now slow as hell and I am personally bitch slapping mages now, I wasn't before. I had one throw down lunacy on 4 earlier, leading to a concede after my next turn because they had just passed their entire turn and I got ridiculously ahead on board, even if they could access a flame striker it wouldn't have wiped me.
You're either making bad plays, are being incredibly greedy or both, if lunacy is a problem for you.
Instead of this 'target audience' bullshit, explain and show how it is still a problem card. I've asked this multiple times and not one of you lot actually answer. I genuinely don't understand how people see this as a problem now, I'm more than open to hearing why I'm wrong though.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
I’ve seen the card once since the nerf where as before I saw it every other game just about. I play meme decks at D5 so I’m not rushing face damage either. No Minion Mage is still a strong deck, just not because of DoL.
You don't have to guess. This dude is a dyed-in-the-wool "game is rigged" tin-foil hat type. He pretends to be intellectual, but he insist that people prove the game ISN'T rigged. (Which is, of course, impossible.) His standard go-to insult is "fanboy." You can try to argue with him, but you've got a better chance of teaching your dog algebra than you do talking some sense into him.
Damn dude, you really showed him. Manchild? Mother's basement? Geez, these are some good arguments, Kibler was completely obliterated by you. Feeling better about yourself now?
I love you Dreadsteed, I will never disenchant you!
Oh dear, what have we here? Let me try and help you understand. Let me educate you a bit, but I fear it will not help.
Commentators on fora like these can be grouped in two camps: the incrowders and the out-of-the-box thinkers. I take the liberty to render you in the former:
Incrowders like to chitchat about this card and that. They stand ready to tell 'complainers' that they suck at the game. You assume that only those at lower rank complain. Of course BS since even high legend rank players think Lunacy and for my part Tickatus are still busted and not healthy for the game. Incrowders don't think about card design politics that keeps the game fast paced for an aggression loving, low skill and fast to legend audience. Eventhough devs themselves admit that cards are printed for a certain audience in mind.
Then you have the out-devs-box thinkers. They tend to reason in terms of balance, skill, diversity; they hate too much damage out of hand (face damage per turn-ratio of spell mage is extremely high and even the nerfed Lunacy caters into that). They kinda look down to aggressive low skill intensive decks. They wonder about too steep RPS and they indeed see card design in favor for certain types. Wonder i.e why Priest hasn't have a deck like mage, hunter, paladin Rogue that is regularly a tier 1? Yes we all know about dragon priest, that was years ago.Reason? The target audience hate priest. That's why priest will never be dominant in the meta: priest players are not part of the target audience: too much thinking, too much planning, not aggressive enough. Capisce?
So my fellow humanoid we will never understand each other. What I'm trying to tell you that we live in different worlds. Intellectually, morally, qua ethics regarding a silly game and that card design is not made for those who want to play a game of skill, or win based on outwit, outmaneuver, simply outclass the opponent. Only those who play aggressive reach legend fast.The idea reaching legend, therefore skill is ludicrous.
So talking about Lunacy, Tickatus is difficult if you don't see the bigger picture. In the case of Tickatus. If you take down virtually have a deck, strategy is denied. Therefore you go aggressive. The card was made to make people flee to a counter. Exactly was devs figured out. But hey, if you don't see politics behind card design.....I guess that explain a lot about the way you think.
I guess you are going to declare me a lunatic. Like a flatlander would respond to a third dimension.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.