If it can't win with those then it is not warlock that is weak but everything else that is nuts. Powercreep really fucked this game hard since I left.
You can't evaluate card's strength in the vacuum, it always has to be related to other cards in the game. So if the card is not good enough, compared to other cards, then it's not good at all.
It's the same thing with poverty and wealth. What makes you rich is not how much money you have in your pocket, but how many goods you can buy with the money you have (and that depends on how much money other people have, that's how inflation works).
So having a card like this: Start of Game: Set your hero's health to 60, you might think: wow, this is crazy! But if all other classes have a similar card, which sets hero's health to 250 instead, then it's not that good anymore, but rather underwhelming.
That's why Warlock's power on paper doesn't matter. It only matters how he copes with other classes in any given meta.
Obviously, but the point of that is not that Warlock, esp. control Warlock, deserves buffs but other classes deserve nerfs, and for Blizz to reverse the gear on powercreeping cards. Just compare classic cards and the ones from last 1-2 years, it's crazy.
You are heavily invested in Warlock, and I get that, we all have our favorite class. But you would probably be well served if you branched out to other classes so that you are not so hard hit when Warlock is not strong in the meta. I agree with PetiteMouche (I think) that Warlock is ridiculously strong, just not strong in this meta. Eventually the meta will shift and Warlock will have its day. If we did what you want and just buffed it buffed it buffed it until it broke to the top it would be absolutely insane because then it would be strong despite the meta and that would make it broken on a level we haven't seen maybe ever. It would be strong in the presence of things that are meant to keep it down, classes which aren't would just die, I am not sure if meta could even compensate for such a buffed up Warlock. It's not fair and it should not happen.
Consider all the ridiculous tools available to Warlock, soul shard cards, corrupt cards (including hated Tickatus), Jaraxxus and a ton of others. Warlock has so many potentially bonkers cards is hard to list them all. This deck is 100% poised to take over the meta, it will almost certainly happen, just not yet. And indeed Blizz is aware of this and has to make sure when it happens it's not too disgusting.
Loving this "good deck in bad meta" bullshit. Warlock is weak and has very limited ability to adjust to meta, if it could adjust, guess what - it would. Deck is good if it can consistently compete with others, that's all that matters. Nobody cares if deck is theorically good in different meta (though this is worth observing with nerfs and buffs). Especially now when rotation is far away. Hysteria probably needed nerf, but something about Warlock should have been buffed as well, instead of meme cards like Deck of Chaos or Fiendish Circle.
Powerful cards do not make powerful deck. Winrates matter.
the point of that is not that Warlock, esp. control Warlock, deserves buffs but other classes deserve nerfs, and for Blizz to reverse the gear on powercreeping cards. Just compare classic cards and the ones from last 1-2 years, it's crazy.
Honestly? I don't care how they do it, I just want Warlock to be viable, with decent win rates against most meta decks, that's all.
I agree with PetiteMouche (I think) that Warlock is ridiculously strong,
And how can you tell that? Not by the numbers (data) of course, because they say otherwise (since almost everything beats Control Warlock now and he wasn't any better for years), so maybe by your "personal feelings"? I mean, why not, but is it a proper way to evaluate card / class power level?
You know what? Let's nerf Deathrattle Demon Hunter now! Why? Because it's obviously ridiculously strong deck. I mean sure, no data can actaully prove this (since it's T4 deck with terrible matchups against almost everything), but I have this impression (feeling?) that it's too strong.
Eventually the meta will shift and Warlock will have its day.
Sure, I've been hearing that for 3 years.
If we did what you want and just buffed it buffed it buffed it until it broke to the top it would be absolutely insane because then it would be strong despite the meta and that would make it broken on a level we haven't seen maybe ever.
You overinterpret my words because I've never said anything like that. I want Control Warlock to be viable meta deck (now, not within next 5 years), nothing more, nothing less. How? Either by buffing him (or giving him new cards), either by nerfing everything else, I don't really care.
Consider all the ridiculous tools available to Warlock, soul shard cards, corrupt cards (including hated Tickatus), Jaraxxus and a ton of others. Warlock has so many potentially bonkers cards is hard to list them all.
Some of those are broken some not so much, if they ever get too out of hand they will be nerfed hopefully. Note Tickatus wasn't nerfed despite being OP and hated, so the blade cuts both ways. Neither were some other OP warlock tools. Anyway I don't see much point in further debate, I look at individual cards and I see Warlock ones are considerably bonkers, probably most OP class pound for pound. It is just that currently the other pieces of the meta work against Warlock, if you buffed it to overcome those then there would be nothing to stop it, it would be T0. That is my read of the situation and seemingly Blizzard agrees.
I hope things work out for you m8, consider trying out some other class for a bit.
if they ever get too out of hand they will be nerfed hopefully.
Like Warlock and Hysteria? Got it.
Note Tickatus wasn't nerfed despite being OP
Because you say so?
and hated,
So nerfs should be based on feelings?
Neither were some other OP warlock tools.
Name them please.
I look at individual cards and I see Warlock ones are considerably bonkers, probably most OP class pound for pound.
Yes, because your feelings >> data. Got it.
if you buffed it to overcome those then there would be nothing to stop it, it would be T0.
Psss... those "nothing" are called nerfs, but don't tell anyone!
That is my read of the situation and seemingly Blizzard agrees.
Exactly, same with Shaman. They keep him in trash tier, because he might get OP at some point. True story! Everyone knows, that It's the best way to balance any multiplayer game, just make some classes dead weak and the job is done.
You can't evaluate card's strength in the vacuum, it always has to be related to other cards in the game. So if the card is not good enough, compared to other cards, then it's not good at all.
It's the same thing with poverty and wealth. What makes you rich is not how much money you have in your pocket, but how many goods you can buy with the money you have (and that depends on how much money other people have, that's how inflation works).
So having a card like this: Start of Game: Set your hero's health to 60, you might think: wow, this is crazy! But if all other classes have a similar card, which sets hero's health to 250 instead, then it's not that good anymore, but rather underwhelming.
That's why Warlock's power on paper doesn't matter. It only matters how he copes with other classes in any given meta.
Obviously, but the point of that is not that Warlock, esp. control Warlock, deserves buffs but other classes deserve nerfs, and for Blizz to reverse the gear on powercreeping cards. Just compare classic cards and the ones from last 1-2 years, it's crazy.
You are heavily invested in Warlock, and I get that, we all have our favorite class. But you would probably be well served if you branched out to other classes so that you are not so hard hit when Warlock is not strong in the meta. I agree with PetiteMouche (I think) that Warlock is ridiculously strong, just not strong in this meta. Eventually the meta will shift and Warlock will have its day. If we did what you want and just buffed it buffed it buffed it until it broke to the top it would be absolutely insane because then it would be strong despite the meta and that would make it broken on a level we haven't seen maybe ever. It would be strong in the presence of things that are meant to keep it down, classes which aren't would just die, I am not sure if meta could even compensate for such a buffed up Warlock. It's not fair and it should not happen.
Consider all the ridiculous tools available to Warlock, soul shard cards, corrupt cards (including hated Tickatus), Jaraxxus and a ton of others. Warlock has so many potentially bonkers cards is hard to list them all. This deck is 100% poised to take over the meta, it will almost certainly happen, just not yet. And indeed Blizz is aware of this and has to make sure when it happens it's not too disgusting.
Loving this "good deck in bad meta" bullshit. Warlock is weak and has very limited ability to adjust to meta, if it could adjust, guess what - it would. Deck is good if it can consistently compete with others, that's all that matters. Nobody cares if deck is theorically good in different meta (though this is worth observing with nerfs and buffs). Especially now when rotation is far away. Hysteria probably needed nerf, but something about Warlock should have been buffed as well, instead of meme cards like Deck of Chaos or Fiendish Circle.
Powerful cards do not make powerful deck. Winrates matter.
Honestly? I don't care how they do it, I just want Warlock to be viable, with decent win rates against most meta decks, that's all.
And how can you tell that? Not by the numbers (data) of course, because they say otherwise (since almost everything beats Control Warlock now and he wasn't any better for years), so maybe by your "personal feelings"? I mean, why not, but is it a proper way to evaluate card / class power level?
You know what? Let's nerf Deathrattle Demon Hunter now! Why? Because it's obviously ridiculously strong deck. I mean sure, no data can actaully prove this (since it's T4 deck with terrible matchups against almost everything), but I have this impression (feeling?) that it's too strong.
Sure, I've been hearing that for 3 years.
You overinterpret my words because I've never said anything like that. I want Control Warlock to be viable meta deck (now, not within next 5 years), nothing more, nothing less. How? Either by buffing him (or giving him new cards), either by nerfing everything else, I don't really care.
Again, what makes them ridiculous? Evaluation made in a vacuum, based on personal feelings (because certainly not numbers, aka objective data)? If this balancing method is fine, why not apply it to the entire game? Incanter's Flow, Illidari Inquisitor, Skull of Gul'dan, Kayn Sunfury, Secret Passage, Jandice Barov, Shadowjeweler Hanar, Scabbs Cutterbutter, Swinetusk Shank and so on. In a vacuum they are all BEYOND BROKEN! Why don't they nerf these cards immediately?
Some of those are broken some not so much, if they ever get too out of hand they will be nerfed hopefully. Note Tickatus wasn't nerfed despite being OP and hated, so the blade cuts both ways. Neither were some other OP warlock tools. Anyway I don't see much point in further debate, I look at individual cards and I see Warlock ones are considerably bonkers, probably most OP class pound for pound. It is just that currently the other pieces of the meta work against Warlock, if you buffed it to overcome those then there would be nothing to stop it, it would be T0. That is my read of the situation and seemingly Blizzard agrees.
I hope things work out for you m8, consider trying out some other class for a bit.
Because... let me guess, your feelings?
Like Warlock and Hysteria? Got it.
Because you say so?
So nerfs should be based on feelings?
Name them please.
Yes, because your feelings >> data. Got it.
Psss... those "nothing" are called nerfs, but don't tell anyone!
Exactly, same with Shaman. They keep him in trash tier, because he might get OP at some point. True story! Everyone knows, that It's the best way to balance any multiplayer game, just make some classes dead weak and the job is done.