I can totally agree that nerfs are needed but Blizzard should put all needed nerfs in one patch instead of nerfing cards every 2-3 weeks. Its dumb cuz there is really no way to craft anything. Especially that new reward system was actually not bad now but cuz of the way they nerf cards its still hard, maybe even harder, for f2p players to go on with the game.
I remember Patches the pirate, that pretty much butchered every other aggro and mid range deck. He got nerfed after 4 months.... I'd honestly rather see new nerfs every day than that bullshit....
Two weeks ago they made nerfs that took us from a 2 class meta to a 5 class meta. Still not amazing but WAY better. Their plan is now to monitor the meta and make small tweaks again in a weeks time or so. I don't really see the big fiasco or sellout factor here. They put more effort into the quality of the meta and they haven't even nerfed tickatus, despite people whining over the card all the time.
I vote for very light balance changes every two weeks to keep meta fresh and big changes right before major tournaments to give pro players some room for creativity.
There are ten classes.When one or two classes have several t1 decks or just dominate the meta its time
to examine why.
Everyone has their favorite classes and I don't expect all classes to be totally equal.
But they sure as hell can be closer then they are.
Its all on Blizzard.
To repeat something I have said in other posts,I honestly believe some classes are purposely kept down.For some unknown reason.
They aren't stupid and there is no logical reason that I can see that would justify the disparity in the classes.
I think we all would like to have the classes reasonably balanced so no one would get a match and just quit because its a auto loss.
Myself, I am not going to rage quit over the imbalance problem.But I will no longer spend any money on it.Why should I?
Until the class I enjoy playing the most (shaman) has the same chance of winning as other classes (or close to it) Blizzard won't get anymore of my money.
Class balance is important,no matter WHAT class you play.And it will also reduce ,but not get rid of the constant call for nerfs.
How come, when I clicked on this thread it had already chosen what to place my vote on and that I could "change my vote"? Am I the only one that frequently face this every time I click on a "vote thread"?
No it's different because with buffs you play new cards.
buff do two stuff... 1. change nothing or 2. broke the game. Cuz if you wanna see card to be played you must to make it better then existing (best) cards so you are making it OP. And if you buff it but not enough you change nothing.
Well wasn't Lunacy around for months before it became OP? It clearly wasn't broken on its own, it was only with RSW that Spell Mage came to shine.
RSW is not what made Lunacy powerful. It's the reduced spell pool that is a natural result of rotation, plus the fact that so many card-draw spells are clustered at the 6-mana point. This gives the deck far more consistency than they probably expected when they originally created Deck of Lunacy.
RSW may help you find Lunacy faster, but it's the mana discounts and consistently huge amount of draw that make Lunacy an "I win" card once it's played.
How come, when I clicked on this thread it had already chosen what to place my vote on and that I could "change my vote"? Am I the only one that frequently face this every time I click on a "vote thread"?
I have this problem too so you are not alone at least.
@FortyDust maybe it was a bit overtuned, I still don't agree but I do not deny the possibility. But was it 2mana overtuned? Well given how the card is now cut from the still functional spell only mage I'd say definitely not. I would have left Lunacy as is or only bumped it up by 1mana.
I think the first round of nerfs in this expansion cycle came too quickly, there should be at least three weeks from release to the first nerfs to give the meta enough time to settle. I agree with a lot of people here that the watch posts should not have been nerfed. They were dominating in the first week of the meta or so, but as people learned to play around them and Spell Mage rose to the top of the tier list, they became less powerfull and turned out to be quite balanced. Their nerfs should be undone IMO.
But Penflinger and Lunacy absolutely needed to be nerfed. Lunacy simply became too powerful with the reduced spell pool after rotation, and frankly it's incredible that Penflinger managed to fly under the nerf radar for as long as it did. I think they should have been nerfed before the expansion though - the Hearthstone team should have been able to predict how problematic Lunacy would become.
I would like to have two rounds of nerfs/buffs per expansion cycle. Maybe three in the first cycle after expansion since it's always is the one where things change the most and is most unpredictable. But too many nerfs are better then too few IMO.
IIRC the community has been asking for more and quicker nerfs and Blizz has seemingly answered. But have they gone overboard in the other direction?
Since I came back a little over two months ago Nitroboost Poison has been nerfed which pretty much sent rogues into T2. Then Barrens came and the Watchposts which seemed both interesting and viable have been nerfed into irrelevancy, I virtually don't see them any more. It was a great shame. Pen Flinger was nerfed which messed up a few decks. It and Deck of Lunacy were more nerfed because they were annoying I feel than good cards. Which highlights another issue with nerfing by popular demand, the mob always calls for nerfs (of the deck they don't play), it hits cards that don't deserve it but instead are just flashy and noticable, it is bad policy. And ofc the calls for nerfs will never end, making players feel they can affect card balancing by being vocal, well, we've seen the effects of that on this very forum. The only cards I feel deserved their nerf were Sword of the Fallen and Jandice Barov and even there I could be wrong. Because I base that on the fact that the cards are still payed post-nerf which to me is a sign of being quite overpowered before, but sheer power is not the only criteria for inclusion in a deck so... Anyway that is a lot of nerfs in just two months, too many arguably, and already new nerfs are announced.
Hopefully you can see where my concern is coming from now. And call me cynical but while many may think this is a pro-player move and Blizz should be thanked I can't help but consider how much dust goes down the drain when a deck is nerfed. I just recently crafted a meta deck, the cheapest one I could, and still it cost me something like 3200-4000 dust (1 leg and 4-6 epics not sure anymore). If it is hit with a nerf then I can at best expect to recoup 1600 dust, more realistically 800. Meanwhile that deck is probably T3 now or there abouts, most of the other cards I crafted are useless now, a lot of dust is sunk in failed investments. This hits F2P guys like me especially hard, you only have so much dust to play around with so you craft 1-2 good decks for ladder and those ofc are the most likely ones to be hit. And then you craft something that is good in the post nerf world and two weeks later, surprise surprise. In this sense frequent nerfs are very anti-player, at least anti-those who don't have all the cards and can adapt to nerfs on the fly. And to be extra cynical when you look at the list of cards that were nerfed there most go into cheap decks, the kinds F2P people tend to go for, very few "wallet" builds were hit like Rez Priest, Rush Warrior and so on.
That said not all is doom and gloom. I did like how they unnerfed some cards. Even though it was only after they were to be sent to the gravey... I mean Wild. If Blizz sees a card was wrongly nerfed or its nerf is no longer relevant then they should have the courage to reverse course, even while the card is in Standard. And indeed just straight up buff some cards that were always weak, just as some cards are deserving of a nerf some who saw little to no play deserve a buff, especially if they are fun and interesting cards. Always consider buffing over nerfing if possible imo. So yeah a quick and attentive balancing policy is not necessarily bad, it all ofc depends on how you execute it. I am not yet raising the alarm but I think us players should keep our eyes open.
Ultimately I think there is cause for early concerns about this overzealous nerfing policy every two weeks even though not all is bad.
What do you guys think?
When cards are nerfed, they give you back the full dust value if you DE them my guy. You dont lose anything.
When cards are nerfed, they give you back the full dust value if you DE them my guy. You dont lose anythin
My guy, read what is written. But in case you need help understanding still. A deck has 30 cards, a nerf that can kill a deck or severely weaken it will target one card, which can be a legendary or 2x epic at best. So you are refunded 1600-800 dust meanwhile you potentially sank 10000 dust making that deck, and in my experience at the very least it will cost you 2-4k dust, as I've written. So each nerf costs you a lot of dust in crafting cards you will no longer use but which weren't nerfed and so aren't refunded.
I have multiple accounts, one of them is on Europe and has almost every single card in standard right now. The other two are the same account, in Asia and NA, where I have been completely F2P (although I have been girating my packs from open cups towards the Asian server). I like your post, it's not just whining and it has really solid arguments with ups and downs.
Nerfs are not simple, and it depends on who you are aiming them for.
1. For a pure game balance perspective, I love frequent nerfs, nerf everything on a 2 week basis if need be. This way the open cup meta does not get stale and I can use my head to make an innovative lineup that does really well in open cups, and the ladder always feels somewhat fresh. So For my EU server, I'd vote more frequent.
2. From a F2P player perspective, I agree with you: frequent nerfs hit your collection very hard, especially if you've building your collection for 2/3 classes over a number of month, just to have them nerfed into irrelevancy. I'd vote less nerfs or one round every 2 months, until they implement a more honest nerf refund policy (Watchpost Legendary refund was a good step in this direction). It's complicated and I don't think they will refund an entire archetype. Furthermore, buffing is not great for F2P either. Assuming you dust all cards that are weak to craft your few viable decks, now you basically have yo re-open those cards from packs, or craft them at a major loss.
3. From a casual's perspective, I think the community voice matters. Because although they don't dedicate as much time to hearthstone as you or me, they are the most numerous players. And while most of us know that Tickatus is not very strong at higher levels, they do not feel well to queue into warlocks every 2nd game, then have their entire deck burned. It feels humiliating and it can literally burn them out of the game, so I would agree with a nerf just in respect to the players' sentiment. Slippery slope though, because they can say the same about aggro decks, or OTK decks, but I like the Blizzard approach on this: if the deck is not strong, but creates negative feelings (of helplessness) and it is present in a significant percentage of games, nerf it. It is a community game, and I love that all of us have a voice, from bronze 10 to rank 1 legend.
Way too many nerfs, no deck is overpowered or that strong atm at least compared to everything else. Maybe after the Meta has settled for a good couple months it might be time to consider nerfs. Games like starcraft or fighters go years without patches and sport competitive communities. Maybe 1 patch a year for balance would be acceptable
*edit* Buffs are indicrect nerfs to strong cards which they may power creep them or surpass them so no buffs eithers. Buffs are nerfs in disguise
I would say if you averaged out nerfs over the last 6 expansions it’s more like nerfs every 6 weeks / 2 months (ive not done the math so might be wrong.)
I’d say the problem is more why aren’t blizzard spotting problematic cards before they’re even printed. Are you telling me no one saw Crabrider with 4 hp at 2 mana being a problem at any point? Or none of their testers were big brain enough to work out lunacy could get you all the best spells from other classes on turn 2?
From bronze 10 to legend all you see is the most efficient T1 decks so even after nerfs it’s of no consequence really, and as blizzard don’t seem to be able get a balance where more than 3 decks are playable you’ll just be queueing into the same decks within a week of nerfs landing
Great post. I understand that sometimes things can be missed and a nerf here and there is inevitable. Like software patches to fix escaping defects. That’s fine. But many of these cards brokenness are no brainers and you wonder WTF happened? How did some of these get past basic QA? To me, they need to slow down the releases and take better care at giving us quality over quantity. Give us more usable cards and less broken stuff that ends up in every deck.
I think they should have more buffs and less nerfs.
I can totally agree that nerfs are needed but Blizzard should put all needed nerfs in one patch instead of nerfing cards every 2-3 weeks. Its dumb cuz there is really no way to craft anything. Especially that new reward system was actually not bad now but cuz of the way they nerf cards its still hard, maybe even harder, for f2p players to go on with the game.
Its the same thing.Changing cards is needed but not every 2-3 weeks.
No it's different because with buffs you play new cards.
not enough wild nerfs
enough standard ones tho
I remember Patches the pirate, that pretty much butchered every other aggro and mid range deck. He got nerfed after 4 months.... I'd honestly rather see new nerfs every day than that bullshit....
Two weeks ago they made nerfs that took us from a 2 class meta to a 5 class meta. Still not amazing but WAY better. Their plan is now to monitor the meta and make small tweaks again in a weeks time or so. I don't really see the big fiasco or sellout factor here. They put more effort into the quality of the meta and they haven't even nerfed tickatus, despite people whining over the card all the time.
I vote for very light balance changes every two weeks to keep meta fresh and big changes right before major tournaments to give pro players some room for creativity.
And add MORE tech cards to Core set.
There are ten classes.When one or two classes have several t1 decks or just dominate the meta its time
to examine why.
Everyone has their favorite classes and I don't expect all classes to be totally equal.
But they sure as hell can be closer then they are.
Its all on Blizzard.
To repeat something I have said in other posts,I honestly believe some classes are purposely kept down.For some unknown reason.
They aren't stupid and there is no logical reason that I can see that would justify the disparity in the classes.
I think we all would like to have the classes reasonably balanced so no one would get a match and just quit because its a auto loss.
Myself, I am not going to rage quit over the imbalance problem.But I will no longer spend any money on it.Why should I?
Until the class I enjoy playing the most (shaman) has the same chance of winning as other classes (or close to it) Blizzard won't get anymore of my money.
Class balance is important,no matter WHAT class you play.And it will also reduce ,but not get rid of the constant call for nerfs.
I don't think nerfs are a problem at all. Balance changes are a good thing, changing up the meta is a good thing.
How come, when I clicked on this thread it had already chosen what to place my vote on and that I could "change my vote"? Am I the only one that frequently face this every time I click on a "vote thread"?
Buffs also increase power creep, which is bad, because total health pool is constant and balance should always be related to it.
buff do two stuff... 1. change nothing or 2. broke the game. Cuz if you wanna see card to be played you must to make it better then existing (best) cards so you are making it OP. And if you buff it but not enough you change nothing.
RSW is not what made Lunacy powerful. It's the reduced spell pool that is a natural result of rotation, plus the fact that so many card-draw spells are clustered at the 6-mana point. This gives the deck far more consistency than they probably expected when they originally created Deck of Lunacy.
RSW may help you find Lunacy faster, but it's the mana discounts and consistently huge amount of draw that make Lunacy an "I win" card once it's played.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
I have this problem too so you are not alone at least.
@FortyDust maybe it was a bit overtuned, I still don't agree but I do not deny the possibility. But was it 2mana overtuned? Well given how the card is now cut from the still functional spell only mage I'd say definitely not. I would have left Lunacy as is or only bumped it up by 1mana.
I think the first round of nerfs in this expansion cycle came too quickly, there should be at least three weeks from release to the first nerfs to give the meta enough time to settle. I agree with a lot of people here that the watch posts should not have been nerfed. They were dominating in the first week of the meta or so, but as people learned to play around them and Spell Mage rose to the top of the tier list, they became less powerfull and turned out to be quite balanced. Their nerfs should be undone IMO.
But Penflinger and Lunacy absolutely needed to be nerfed. Lunacy simply became too powerful with the reduced spell pool after rotation, and frankly it's incredible that Penflinger managed to fly under the nerf radar for as long as it did. I think they should have been nerfed before the expansion though - the Hearthstone team should have been able to predict how problematic Lunacy would become.
I would like to have two rounds of nerfs/buffs per expansion cycle. Maybe three in the first cycle after expansion since it's always is the one where things change the most and is most unpredictable. But too many nerfs are better then too few IMO.
When cards are nerfed, they give you back the full dust value if you DE them my guy. You dont lose anything.
My guy, read what is written. But in case you need help understanding still. A deck has 30 cards, a nerf that can kill a deck or severely weaken it will target one card, which can be a legendary or 2x epic at best. So you are refunded 1600-800 dust meanwhile you potentially sank 10000 dust making that deck, and in my experience at the very least it will cost you 2-4k dust, as I've written. So each nerf costs you a lot of dust in crafting cards you will no longer use but which weren't nerfed and so aren't refunded.
I have multiple accounts, one of them is on Europe and has almost every single card in standard right now. The other two are the same account, in Asia and NA, where I have been completely F2P (although I have been girating my packs from open cups towards the Asian server). I like your post, it's not just whining and it has really solid arguments with ups and downs.
Nerfs are not simple, and it depends on who you are aiming them for.
1. For a pure game balance perspective, I love frequent nerfs, nerf everything on a 2 week basis if need be. This way the open cup meta does not get stale and I can use my head to make an innovative lineup that does really well in open cups, and the ladder always feels somewhat fresh. So For my EU server, I'd vote more frequent.
2. From a F2P player perspective, I agree with you: frequent nerfs hit your collection very hard, especially if you've building your collection for 2/3 classes over a number of month, just to have them nerfed into irrelevancy. I'd vote less nerfs or one round every 2 months, until they implement a more honest nerf refund policy (Watchpost Legendary refund was a good step in this direction). It's complicated and I don't think they will refund an entire archetype. Furthermore, buffing is not great for F2P either. Assuming you dust all cards that are weak to craft your few viable decks, now you basically have yo re-open those cards from packs, or craft them at a major loss.
3. From a casual's perspective, I think the community voice matters. Because although they don't dedicate as much time to hearthstone as you or me, they are the most numerous players. And while most of us know that Tickatus is not very strong at higher levels, they do not feel well to queue into warlocks every 2nd game, then have their entire deck burned. It feels humiliating and it can literally burn them out of the game, so I would agree with a nerf just in respect to the players' sentiment. Slippery slope though, because they can say the same about aggro decks, or OTK decks, but I like the Blizzard approach on this: if the deck is not strong, but creates negative feelings (of helplessness) and it is present in a significant percentage of games, nerf it. It is a community game, and I love that all of us have a voice, from bronze 10 to rank 1 legend.
Way too many nerfs, no deck is overpowered or that strong atm at least compared to everything else. Maybe after the Meta has settled for a good couple months it might be time to consider nerfs. Games like starcraft or fighters go years without patches and sport competitive communities. Maybe 1 patch a year for balance would be acceptable
*edit* Buffs are indicrect nerfs to strong cards which they may power creep them or surpass them so no buffs eithers. Buffs are nerfs in disguise
Great post. I understand that sometimes things can be missed and a nerf here and there is inevitable. Like software patches to fix escaping defects. That’s fine. But many of these cards brokenness are no brainers and you wonder WTF happened? How did some of these get past basic QA? To me, they need to slow down the releases and take better care at giving us quality over quantity. Give us more usable cards and less broken stuff that ends up in every deck.