This is a subject I am not a fan of in general every time a deck reaches popularity you hear scream NERF it. People need to get off the nerf it subject unless a deck has a 60% or better win rate nerfs do not really need to be considered at all. It is just the current flavor of the month. Hearthstone is one of the most horrible games for nerfing cards. Everytime you get a few people that dont like a card you hear screams nerf it nerf it I dont like playing against it you look at card games like magic you rarely see cards banned nerfed ect it takes at least over a month to have the ban list even looked at and unless the meta is super popular with 1 archtype or a deck has a ridiculous win rate with no way to play against it you never see an action taken. Hearthstone every time a card beats a person a few times on ladder everyone screams nerf it nerf it.
Currently of the cards that got nerfs that needed nerfs crab rider and deck of lunacy are the only cards I personally agree needed nerfs. The first day of school thing while a nerf in standard was actually semi a buff in wild format. Instead of focusing on what needs to be nerfed to disrupt a deck type from seeing play I think we need to look at more of what needs to be buffed or fixed to make other decks feel less like they will never see play. Nothing should get nerfed unless the deck has a polarising win rate from it specifically talking about deck of lunacy which deck of lunacy on 2 increased deck win rates from 55-60% to around 80% which is too much. Most mage decks sitting around 58%. Which is not too high and in some ways checked other decks.
Other cards I feel like needed attention in classes struggling to buff them instead of nerfsticking classes that were in an ok spot. When you nerf every deck you dont like playing against you instead are just making alot of cards unplayable instead of fixing the archtypes that need something and creating a new problem that leads to more NERF IT NERF IT. Refreshing Spring water did not need a nerf what happened when you nerfed it mage became alot less competative and paladin completely took over the format. When they nerfed Lunacy mage was still a popular choice but it wasnt the first string choice in alot of cases and that is a healthy nerf.
Currently you have people screaming nerf tickatus nerf incanters flow ect. The Cards dont need nerfs mage is not that good currently and id argue there are alot more decks that out play mage.
Control warrior is getting better which is a plus. I do not think nerfing refreshing spring water impacted that in any way. Crabrider being nerfed helped that and it was a good nerf as it didnt ruin the card completely in standard but really impacted wild aggression more so and impacted warrior more in wild than paladin. But paladin more so than warrior in standard. So it was a healthy nerf to standard.
Regarding standard play currently shaman is the class that needs attention and control warrior a little more love wouldnt hurt. Druid also needs more options than just playing token druid.
Of all the cards in standard/wild that may need a nerf the only card I honestly would consider is Oh my Yogg everything else just leave it alone and focus on what needs buffs. To make classes less comperative better.
Metas change if one deck is slightly more dominant with say a 59% win rate get over it. It happens every time the meta changes. The idea should be trying to get as many decks as possible in the 50-55% range without nerfing a deck with a slight edge instead of nerfing stuff to create less options and another polar deck look at buffing cards to fix problems and create more versitility. But in small incriments unless a class is really struggling. (Shaman).
In wild format Shaman probably struggles the most for decks in general alongside demon hunter. Priest Lacks versitility its pretty much big priest or reno priest. This is where you need to look at what can be done to create more versitility rather than nerf it cause its good. Some players enjoy those deck arch types instead of nerfing it look at ways to create different options that finds an arch type for you.
For example more free options better curve on freeze cards for freeze shaman in wild. In standard look at ways to add more options to shaman we got a card draw tool coming out for it in standard its a step in the right direction but I still think Shaman needs a better curve and a value generator. This is the stuff you need to look at is how can I make deck a b c d better so people will want to play it more try it more and not feel comperatively at a massive disadvantage. This is what we should be doing instead of getting on the nerf wagon.
OP,i don't agree with your MTG statement from the beginning. Hearthstone, in its "simplicity", doesn't allow true interaction during the opponent's turn. This means that *every* kind of powercreep they introduce *will* be unfun to play against. And that's why people cry for nerfs - because they want to have fun,not be frustrated.
In MTG, there is a lot you can usually do to play against most things, and this makes it fun. Nothing appears as broken, except when they do some mistake and print something really overpowered that everyone starts to play or has too high win rate.
In HS, the design philosophy, since the game launched, gated (and is gating) them into a corner every time they print some new cards. It's a complete binary system - you either have fun playing something and winning, or you completely hate playing against that same thing, at least after some games.
And they simply refuse to move away from this powercreep stupidity every time they print cards. It's like they are adding more inflation to their own savings account, knowingly.
What would be ideal? More interaction, having a counter printed along with every powercreep possibility, buffing the rest of the classes and archetypes or printing cards for them too, giving up on the whole powercreep idea and making all classes have at least one viable archetype each expansion(win rate around 55% on most brackets, not only high legend).
Sure, since it's all a zero-sum game, someone must lose. That's perfectly fine. I'm not asking for EVERY archetype from EVERY class to be viable. You can have a viable control shaman but have a bad control warrior. Split them around.
Instead of making the game more complex, they went and complicated everything else - brackets (each with their own cry for nerfs and life cycle and card viability), extreme card simplicity mostly, not adding more keywords because morons can't read the explanation text, the market target being teenagers, etc.
All in all, for HS to change we need someone capable of ripping it apart and moving the design in a new direction, that doesn't apply inflation to the cards' power every new set. That's the hearthstone i'll play. Until then, some BGs will do just fine, until I get frustrated by the same stupid gating they force in this mode too, and the unfun gameplay for the bottom 4 people.
I agree mostly with above but I want to say, they can powercreep as much as they want. In theory it's not a bad thing, could make the game more spicy. The problem is, when they print only a few real powercreep cards and not adjust the whole game around them.
As example the problem with crabrider and farwatchpost was that no spell in that mana range does 4 dmg nor a (unbuffed) minion.
I personaly dont mind more keywords/effects on minions to spice things up nor higher stats but then we need more answers (old answers adjusted) and probably more HP or HP protection somehow.
I agree mostly with above but I want to say, they can powercreep as much as they want. In theory it's not a bad thing, could make the game more spicy. The problem is, when they print only a few real powercreep cards and not adjust the whole game around them.
As example the problem with crabrider and farwatchpost was that no spell in that mana range does 4 dmg nor a (unbuffed) minion.
I personaly dont mind more keywords/effects on minions to spice things up nor higher stats but then we need more answers (old answers adjusted) and probably more HP or HP protection somehow.
The problem with powercreep is it adds stat inflation every time. We'll end up with 3 mana 8/8 being the norm. This means they need to readjust everything that is older, including the basic sets, every time this happens.
They just give themselves more work to do instead of making the game better. Like you said, when powercreep comes up, the older stuff is usually unable to deal with it. If the game wasn't so well designed for aggro/face decks, it wouldn't have been a problem.
In my opinion, the first three steps should be these:
- consistency changes, i.e. give up on the stupid philosophy of not putting keywords on older content that did not have them; the game should be seen as a whole, not as different stages; if one keyword was the focus of a certain expansion, it doesn't mean it can't exist before it (even laws can retroactivate, and it's even an incentive for players to buy those expansions).
- rebalance everything around players having 20 mana, 2 per turn. This way you can give a proper cost to things that are at 2.5 mana currently, and not make them overpowered nor underpowered.
In wild format Shaman probably struggles the most for decks in general alongside demon hunter. Priest Lacks versitility its pretty much big priest or reno priest. This is where you need to look at what can be done to create more versitility rather than nerf it cause its good. Some players enjoy those deck arch types instead of nerfing it look at ways to create different options that finds an arch type for you.
Shaman doesn't struggle in wild in any way whatsoever. Even shaman, murloc shaman and reno shaman are all extremely viable decks (murloc shaman is basically battling with pirate warrior for best board-centric aggro deck). DH, funnily enough, has exactly as many good archetypes as rogue currently does (i.e. one) or warrior for that matter. Saying shaman struggles with its 3 decent decks and conveniently forgetting how garbage hunter is hilarious, to be blunt.
Can we also realise that freeze is one of those mechanics that have been thought of as unfun since the dawn of hearthstone (freeze mage was a fairly weak deck and it still caused an awful lot of grief)? There's a reason why blizzard made freeze shaman cards utter shite, and it's not because they couldn't think "oh, this would be far more viable if we added a few stats on it".
In wild format Shaman probably struggles the most for decks in general alongside demon hunter. Priest Lacks versitility its pretty much big priest or reno priest. This is where you need to look at what can be done to create more versitility rather than nerf it cause its good. Some players enjoy those deck arch types instead of nerfing it look at ways to create different options that finds an arch type for you.
Shaman doesn't struggle in wild in any way whatsoever. Even shaman, murloc shaman and reno shaman are all extremely viable decks (murloc shaman is basically battling with pirate warrior for best board-centric aggro deck). DH, funnily enough, has exactly as many good archetypes as rogue currently does (i.e. one) or warrior for that matter. Saying shaman struggles with its 3 decent decks and conveniently forgetting how garbage hunter is hilarious, to be blunt.
Can we also realise that freeze is one of those mechanics that have been thought of as unfun since the dawn of hearthstone (freeze mage was a fairly weak deck and it still caused an awful lot of grief)? There's a reason why blizzard made freeze shaman cards utter shite, and it's not because they couldn't think "oh, this would be far more viable if we added a few stats on it".
Lmao you clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
The only shaman deck with over 200 plays in Wild that isnt Murloc or <50% is one Highlander build with 320 plays. The other 4070 recorded plays are all Murloc.
If even shaman is viable why is it unplayed? And what about other builds like elemental shaman or battlecry shaman?
Also, freeze mage was never a "weak" deck.
People on here need to learn to play the game before they make posts.
In wild format Shaman probably struggles the most for decks in general alongside demon hunter. Priest Lacks versitility its pretty much big priest or reno priest. This is where you need to look at what can be done to create more versitility rather than nerf it cause its good. Some players enjoy those deck arch types instead of nerfing it look at ways to create different options that finds an arch type for you.
Shaman doesn't struggle in wild in any way whatsoever. Even shaman, murloc shaman and reno shaman are all extremely viable decks (murloc shaman is basically battling with pirate warrior for best board-centric aggro deck). DH, funnily enough, has exactly as many good archetypes as rogue currently does (i.e. one) or warrior for that matter. Saying shaman struggles with its 3 decent decks and conveniently forgetting how garbage hunter is hilarious, to be blunt.
Can we also realise that freeze is one of those mechanics that have been thought of as unfun since the dawn of hearthstone (freeze mage was a fairly weak deck and it still caused an awful lot of grief)? There's a reason why blizzard made freeze shaman cards utter shite, and it's not because they couldn't think "oh, this would be far more viable if we added a few stats on it".
Yeah you do need to learn to play murlock shaman is a low tier 2 high tier 3 deck. Even Shaman are virtually non existant except odd game against a gutter legends player after you hit diamond even. You are pretty much always pairing murlock shaman in wild after diamond though there was a decient galakrond deck going around in wild for a little bit But again every deck that shaman plays in wild if you were above gold rank you would realize is not competative.
Saying hunter is worst than shaman is not accurate as well. Plenty of people have hit legend on the back of even hunter. Highlander hunter is about as good as shudderwok shaman, and there are plenty of low tier 3 mid tier 2 decks in wild. Also standard has a pretty heavy ladder for hunter.
Regarding Flamewalker mage in wild it was never a good deck it was easy to deal with unless you were bad at the game you toss in a couple of tech cards and it was resolved. Which was one of the favorable matches for hunter snipe / pressure plate like wrecks it as a deck and they are not bad secrets in general vs most classes.
If you ever hit above gold in wild format youd realize most control decks do not work for any length of time. Outside an HCS you can only play them when the ladder is favorable for control.
Refreshing spring water was not enough to put mage over a 60% win rate and its sitting on lower tier in standard currently. In wild flamewalker mage was better with refreshing spring water instead you end up in both formats with an over load of paladin. Kings bane is also not hard to beat you can beat a kings bane deck with the mirror match running the 4 cost weapon that has life steal built in super easily. Dark Glare Beats it. Anything with a decient amount of taunt can beat it. Faster aggro decks. Its not a bad deck but there are decks that can also combo kill you faster than a kings bane aggro deck can. Ive even beaten kings bane playing APM rogue.
They should actually unnerf leeching poison in wild it wouldnt really put kingsbane at a point of no return. It would be more in line powerwise with some of the other decks probably low tier 1 upper tier 2.
They should actually unnerf leeching poison in wild it wouldnt really put kingsbane at a point of no return. It would be more in line powerwise with some of the other decks probably low tier 1 upper tier 2.
are you nuts? that would make it even worse "ignore everything, go face"
It would make the deck more sustainable basically kings bane is generally a weaker version of Spectral Cutless at the moment if you pair both decks kingsbane will lose 9/10 times in the mirror match while its more aggressive just running the same shell with cutless you get very similar results the only difference being when you run into that rare match where you get hit with an Ooze and you lose your weapon your just scouping the sustain on the Cutless has more uptime but with a less aggressive start your loosing more to combo than with kingsbane.
Basically it's what Crusader2020 said about fun. People play Hearthstone to have fun, mostly. This is either translated as enjoying a good deck for ladder, or random casual shenanigans. But when something dominates the ladder, the game suddenly becomes unfun, therefore something needs to be done.
Disclaimer: Netdecking rant here
However, the majority of the community have become lazy crybabies. People refuse to adapt in the new metagame and they don't even swap a card because they learnt the game from netdecking. The aspect of deckbuilding, is completely irrelevant in Hearthstone. I am not talking about creating a new archetype from scratch. That's rare. I am talking about the simple ability to be able to make a succesful evaluation of your current deck, point its weaknesses and seek to make changes that are going to, overall, increase your deck's winrate. Since people nowadays are used to netdecking, this doesn't happen often. They simply expect someone to post a changed/teched deck on the web to copy it, but this tactic removes completely the thought process that comes with deckbuilding. Why do I swap this card in particular? Why this and not that? Some questions that the majority of the community isn't capable of asking themselves. People still complain about Secret Mage in Wild, but they don't add more than 1 secret killer in their decks, because of "consistency" reasons. Well, let me tell you something that I learnt from years of experience in card games that applies to all archetypes except for thematic decks (Freeze Mage/Big Priest).
Consistency is derived from your winrate, not the deckbuilding synergy. A refined deck is a deck that can confront any other deck with the maximum percentage of positive outcomes possible. A refined deck IS NOT a deck that has 24 dragons, to invoke dragon synergy. People need to learn to adapt. Honestly the deck that got me high up the ranks or even legend in Wild specifically was an Odd Warrior (actually planning to upload it) with 10 or more tech cards in it. I had like 3-4 secret removals, which means that I would draw at the very least 1 against Mages, for instance.
I blame people for laziness in this situation, who simply want to play their "control" deck full of Old Gods and big minions, but at the same time they don't want to add in tech cards or simply change the structure of their deck, because of the fear of losing "consistency", while at the same time they cry for nerfs, on decks that are slightly better than any other deck.
What you should do?
And for those smart*sses who are eager to type "ThEy ShOuLdN't FoRcE yOu tO pLaY dEcKs AnD cArDs tHaT yOu DoN't LiKe". Well, they don't force you. You force yourself if you are trying to hit legend. People need to understand that they will never reach legend playing their bullcr*p deck. But some will say again: "BuT DoG DiD iT!". Yeah but Dog, unlike you, is a freaking good player, for goodness sake. If you want to hit legend, play a better deck, or even better play THE S TIER deck to achieve legend. Why? Because these "broken" decks, are easier to pilot and more forgiving to misplays in general. Furthermore, they are simple decks that don't need extensive planning and meticulous resource management.
And finally another disclaimer:
1) I was one of the degenerate people who hit legend with Hysteria/Tiller Priest abomination deck. Yes it was broken and it needed nerf. But I wanted to hit legend fast, so I played it.
2) I usually play reactive control decks, but I grind for legend, only if I see a potential of over 55% winrate.
3) When one of my reactive control decks isn't that good to get to legend, I ACCEPT IT and if I want to continue playing the deck because I ENJOY IT, I ALSO ACCEPT that I can rarely make it to diamond. And I'M FINE WITH IT.
The biggest problem is that Blizz didnt give us the right tools to adjust the meta ourselves in the core set, for whatever reason.
Why the hell was Eater of Secrets not included in it?? Its so obvious it should be! But ofc they WANTED to force a secret paladin meta, so they gave us crappy tech choices, none good enough to see play.
The game would be much less stale if Blizz simply gave us all the tech choices we need to adapt to the meta, that way the meta would change constantly, but no, they fear not being able to predict where the meta will be, so they try to force it to reach a predictable outcome. SO. FUCKING. DUMB..
The point of the topic is that if something becomes good meaning it starts beating people on ladder the complain season starts till something in it gets nerfed inside the first month of new cards. Instead of focusing on different methods to resolve the problem as that deck 9/10 times not all times is not that over powered that it needs a nerf its just good enough that if you threw 1-2 buffs on cards somewhere else youd vary up the meta a little.
For example it isnt the nerf to refreshing spring water that made control warrior viable in standard it was the buff to Shield Maiden. All the nerf to refreshing spring water did was bring mage down about 5% in its consistancy and win rating that just wasnt needed. The lunacy nerf was enough to that deck and you still see it played its just not really nearly as good being the deck that got alot of people there losses in GM's rankings.
Carb rider nerf was needed to standard but honestly I think in wild it actually hurt warrior more than paladin with consistancy options outside pirate warrior.
The point being the buff to 1-2 cards can make a difference to bring a deck into playability that was not playable previously rather than the nerf stick all the time.
The only cards I think needed a nerf in standard this rotation were Pen Flinger, Deck of Lunacy and Crab Rider, and they could all probably be unnerfed when they move to wild without to much of an issue. If I was going to add any other card to the list it would probably be Oh My Yogg. I dont think incanters flow needs a nerf in wild or standard. Neither of the decks that use it are unmanageable Just in that 55%-59% win rate even with nothing nerfed. Which there are other decks performing just as good or better in both formats at the time and after. And regarding oh my yogg im not even sure how you would nerf that really other than adding discover a spell and allowing the player to target with it really as the only real option to kind of nerf it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a subject I am not a fan of in general every time a deck reaches popularity you hear scream NERF it. People need to get off the nerf it subject unless a deck has a 60% or better win rate nerfs do not really need to be considered at all. It is just the current flavor of the month. Hearthstone is one of the most horrible games for nerfing cards. Everytime you get a few people that dont like a card you hear screams nerf it nerf it I dont like playing against it you look at card games like magic you rarely see cards banned nerfed ect it takes at least over a month to have the ban list even looked at and unless the meta is super popular with 1 archtype or a deck has a ridiculous win rate with no way to play against it you never see an action taken. Hearthstone every time a card beats a person a few times on ladder everyone screams nerf it nerf it.
Currently of the cards that got nerfs that needed nerfs crab rider and deck of lunacy are the only cards I personally agree needed nerfs. The first day of school thing while a nerf in standard was actually semi a buff in wild format. Instead of focusing on what needs to be nerfed to disrupt a deck type from seeing play I think we need to look at more of what needs to be buffed or fixed to make other decks feel less like they will never see play. Nothing should get nerfed unless the deck has a polarising win rate from it specifically talking about deck of lunacy which deck of lunacy on 2 increased deck win rates from 55-60% to around 80% which is too much. Most mage decks sitting around 58%. Which is not too high and in some ways checked other decks.
Other cards I feel like needed attention in classes struggling to buff them instead of nerfsticking classes that were in an ok spot. When you nerf every deck you dont like playing against you instead are just making alot of cards unplayable instead of fixing the archtypes that need something and creating a new problem that leads to more NERF IT NERF IT. Refreshing Spring water did not need a nerf what happened when you nerfed it mage became alot less competative and paladin completely took over the format. When they nerfed Lunacy mage was still a popular choice but it wasnt the first string choice in alot of cases and that is a healthy nerf.
Currently you have people screaming nerf tickatus nerf incanters flow ect. The Cards dont need nerfs mage is not that good currently and id argue there are alot more decks that out play mage.
Control warrior is getting better which is a plus. I do not think nerfing refreshing spring water impacted that in any way. Crabrider being nerfed helped that and it was a good nerf as it didnt ruin the card completely in standard but really impacted wild aggression more so and impacted warrior more in wild than paladin. But paladin more so than warrior in standard. So it was a healthy nerf to standard.
Regarding standard play currently shaman is the class that needs attention and control warrior a little more love wouldnt hurt. Druid also needs more options than just playing token druid.
Of all the cards in standard/wild that may need a nerf the only card I honestly would consider is Oh my Yogg everything else just leave it alone and focus on what needs buffs. To make classes less comperative better.
Metas change if one deck is slightly more dominant with say a 59% win rate get over it. It happens every time the meta changes. The idea should be trying to get as many decks as possible in the 50-55% range without nerfing a deck with a slight edge instead of nerfing stuff to create less options and another polar deck look at buffing cards to fix problems and create more versitility. But in small incriments unless a class is really struggling. (Shaman).
In wild format Shaman probably struggles the most for decks in general alongside demon hunter. Priest Lacks versitility its pretty much big priest or reno priest. This is where you need to look at what can be done to create more versitility rather than nerf it cause its good. Some players enjoy those deck arch types instead of nerfing it look at ways to create different options that finds an arch type for you.
For example more free options better curve on freeze cards for freeze shaman in wild. In standard look at ways to add more options to shaman we got a card draw tool coming out for it in standard its a step in the right direction but I still think Shaman needs a better curve and a value generator. This is the stuff you need to look at is how can I make deck a b c d better so people will want to play it more try it more and not feel comperatively at a massive disadvantage. This is what we should be doing instead of getting on the nerf wagon.
Okay.
OP,i don't agree with your MTG statement from the beginning. Hearthstone, in its "simplicity", doesn't allow true interaction during the opponent's turn. This means that *every* kind of powercreep they introduce *will* be unfun to play against. And that's why people cry for nerfs - because they want to have fun,not be frustrated.
In MTG, there is a lot you can usually do to play against most things, and this makes it fun. Nothing appears as broken, except when they do some mistake and print something really overpowered that everyone starts to play or has too high win rate.
In HS, the design philosophy, since the game launched, gated (and is gating) them into a corner every time they print some new cards. It's a complete binary system - you either have fun playing something and winning, or you completely hate playing against that same thing, at least after some games.
And they simply refuse to move away from this powercreep stupidity every time they print cards. It's like they are adding more inflation to their own savings account, knowingly.
What would be ideal? More interaction, having a counter printed along with every powercreep possibility, buffing the rest of the classes and archetypes or printing cards for them too, giving up on the whole powercreep idea and making all classes have at least one viable archetype each expansion(win rate around 55% on most brackets, not only high legend).
Sure, since it's all a zero-sum game, someone must lose. That's perfectly fine. I'm not asking for EVERY archetype from EVERY class to be viable. You can have a viable control shaman but have a bad control warrior. Split them around.
Instead of making the game more complex, they went and complicated everything else - brackets (each with their own cry for nerfs and life cycle and card viability), extreme card simplicity mostly, not adding more keywords because morons can't read the explanation text, the market target being teenagers, etc.
All in all, for HS to change we need someone capable of ripping it apart and moving the design in a new direction, that doesn't apply inflation to the cards' power every new set. That's the hearthstone i'll play. Until then, some BGs will do just fine, until I get frustrated by the same stupid gating they force in this mode too, and the unfun gameplay for the bottom 4 people.
I agree mostly with above but I want to say, they can powercreep as much as they want. In theory it's not a bad thing, could make the game more spicy. The problem is, when they print only a few real powercreep cards and not adjust the whole game around them.
As example the problem with crabrider and farwatchpost was that no spell in that mana range does 4 dmg nor a (unbuffed) minion.
I personaly dont mind more keywords/effects on minions to spice things up nor higher stats but then we need more answers (old answers adjusted) and probably more HP or HP protection somehow.
The problem with powercreep is it adds stat inflation every time. We'll end up with 3 mana 8/8 being the norm. This means they need to readjust everything that is older, including the basic sets, every time this happens.
They just give themselves more work to do instead of making the game better. Like you said, when powercreep comes up, the older stuff is usually unable to deal with it. If the game wasn't so well designed for aggro/face decks, it wouldn't have been a problem.
In my opinion, the first three steps should be these:
- consistency changes, i.e. give up on the stupid philosophy of not putting keywords on older content that did not have them; the game should be seen as a whole, not as different stages; if one keyword was the focus of a certain expansion, it doesn't mean it can't exist before it (even laws can retroactivate, and it's even an incentive for players to buy those expansions).
- rebalance everything around players having 20 mana, 2 per turn. This way you can give a proper cost to things that are at 2.5 mana currently, and not make them overpowered nor underpowered.
- increase the player health to 40 or 45.
Shaman doesn't struggle in wild in any way whatsoever. Even shaman, murloc shaman and reno shaman are all extremely viable decks (murloc shaman is basically battling with pirate warrior for best board-centric aggro deck). DH, funnily enough, has exactly as many good archetypes as rogue currently does (i.e. one) or warrior for that matter. Saying shaman struggles with its 3 decent decks and conveniently forgetting how garbage hunter is hilarious, to be blunt.
Can we also realise that freeze is one of those mechanics that have been thought of as unfun since the dawn of hearthstone (freeze mage was a fairly weak deck and it still caused an awful lot of grief)? There's a reason why blizzard made freeze shaman cards utter shite, and it's not because they couldn't think "oh, this would be far more viable if we added a few stats on it".
Lmao you clearly have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
The only shaman deck with over 200 plays in Wild that isnt Murloc or <50% is one Highlander build with 320 plays. The other 4070 recorded plays are all Murloc.
If even shaman is viable why is it unplayed? And what about other builds like elemental shaman or battlecry shaman?
Also, freeze mage was never a "weak" deck.
People on here need to learn to play the game before they make posts.
The only card we need unnerf is Leeching Poison so Kingsbane stops being a Toxic Aggro Card and becomes a Toxic control card.
Yeah you do need to learn to play murlock shaman is a low tier 2 high tier 3 deck. Even Shaman are virtually non existant except odd game against a gutter legends player after you hit diamond even. You are pretty much always pairing murlock shaman in wild after diamond though there was a decient galakrond deck going around in wild for a little bit But again every deck that shaman plays in wild if you were above gold rank you would realize is not competative.
Saying hunter is worst than shaman is not accurate as well. Plenty of people have hit legend on the back of even hunter. Highlander hunter is about as good as shudderwok shaman, and there are plenty of low tier 3 mid tier 2 decks in wild. Also standard has a pretty heavy ladder for hunter.
Regarding Flamewalker mage in wild it was never a good deck it was easy to deal with unless you were bad at the game you toss in a couple of tech cards and it was resolved. Which was one of the favorable matches for hunter snipe / pressure plate like wrecks it as a deck and they are not bad secrets in general vs most classes.
If you ever hit above gold in wild format youd realize most control decks do not work for any length of time. Outside an HCS you can only play them when the ladder is favorable for control.
Refreshing spring water was not enough to put mage over a 60% win rate and its sitting on lower tier in standard currently. In wild flamewalker mage was better with refreshing spring water instead you end up in both formats with an over load of paladin. Kings bane is also not hard to beat you can beat a kings bane deck with the mirror match running the 4 cost weapon that has life steal built in super easily. Dark Glare Beats it. Anything with a decient amount of taunt can beat it. Faster aggro decks. Its not a bad deck but there are decks that can also combo kill you faster than a kings bane aggro deck can. Ive even beaten kings bane playing APM rogue.
They should actually unnerf leeching poison in wild it wouldnt really put kingsbane at a point of no return. It would be more in line powerwise with some of the other decks probably low tier 1 upper tier 2.
are you nuts? that would make it even worse "ignore everything, go face"
It would make the deck more sustainable basically kings bane is generally a weaker version of Spectral Cutless at the moment if you pair both decks kingsbane will lose 9/10 times in the mirror match while its more aggressive just running the same shell with cutless you get very similar results the only difference being when you run into that rare match where you get hit with an Ooze and you lose your weapon your just scouping the sustain on the Cutless has more uptime but with a less aggressive start your loosing more to combo than with kingsbane.
Basically it's what Crusader2020 said about fun. People play Hearthstone to have fun, mostly. This is either translated as enjoying a good deck for ladder, or random casual shenanigans. But when something dominates the ladder, the game suddenly becomes unfun, therefore something needs to be done.
Disclaimer: Netdecking rant here
However, the majority of the community have become lazy crybabies. People refuse to adapt in the new metagame and they don't even swap a card because they learnt the game from netdecking. The aspect of deckbuilding, is completely irrelevant in Hearthstone. I am not talking about creating a new archetype from scratch. That's rare. I am talking about the simple ability to be able to make a succesful evaluation of your current deck, point its weaknesses and seek to make changes that are going to, overall, increase your deck's winrate. Since people nowadays are used to netdecking, this doesn't happen often. They simply expect someone to post a changed/teched deck on the web to copy it, but this tactic removes completely the thought process that comes with deckbuilding. Why do I swap this card in particular? Why this and not that? Some questions that the majority of the community isn't capable of asking themselves. People still complain about Secret Mage in Wild, but they don't add more than 1 secret killer in their decks, because of "consistency" reasons. Well, let me tell you something that I learnt from years of experience in card games that applies to all archetypes except for thematic decks (Freeze Mage/Big Priest).
Consistency is derived from your winrate, not the deckbuilding synergy. A refined deck is a deck that can confront any other deck with the maximum percentage of positive outcomes possible. A refined deck IS NOT a deck that has 24 dragons, to invoke dragon synergy. People need to learn to adapt. Honestly the deck that got me high up the ranks or even legend in Wild specifically was an Odd Warrior (actually planning to upload it) with 10 or more tech cards in it. I had like 3-4 secret removals, which means that I would draw at the very least 1 against Mages, for instance.
I blame people for laziness in this situation, who simply want to play their "control" deck full of Old Gods and big minions, but at the same time they don't want to add in tech cards or simply change the structure of their deck, because of the fear of losing "consistency", while at the same time they cry for nerfs, on decks that are slightly better than any other deck.
What you should do?
And for those smart*sses who are eager to type "ThEy ShOuLdN't FoRcE yOu tO pLaY dEcKs AnD cArDs tHaT yOu DoN't LiKe". Well, they don't force you. You force yourself if you are trying to hit legend. People need to understand that they will never reach legend playing their bullcr*p deck. But some will say again: "BuT DoG DiD iT!". Yeah but Dog, unlike you, is a freaking good player, for goodness sake. If you want to hit legend, play a better deck, or even better play THE S TIER deck to achieve legend. Why? Because these "broken" decks, are easier to pilot and more forgiving to misplays in general. Furthermore, they are simple decks that don't need extensive planning and meticulous resource management.
And finally another disclaimer:
1) I was one of the degenerate people who hit legend with Hysteria/Tiller Priest abomination deck. Yes it was broken and it needed nerf. But I wanted to hit legend fast, so I played it.
2) I usually play reactive control decks, but I grind for legend, only if I see a potential of over 55% winrate.
3) When one of my reactive control decks isn't that good to get to legend, I ACCEPT IT and if I want to continue playing the deck because I ENJOY IT, I ALSO ACCEPT that I can rarely make it to diamond. And I'M FINE WITH IT.
Eh we should wait meta to settle is such a bullshit exuse
The biggest problem is that Blizz didnt give us the right tools to adjust the meta ourselves in the core set, for whatever reason.
Why the hell was Eater of Secrets not included in it?? Its so obvious it should be! But ofc they WANTED to force a secret paladin meta, so they gave us crappy tech choices, none good enough to see play.
The game would be much less stale if Blizz simply gave us all the tech choices we need to adapt to the meta, that way the meta would change constantly, but no, they fear not being able to predict where the meta will be, so they try to force it to reach a predictable outcome. SO. FUCKING. DUMB..
The point of the topic is that if something becomes good meaning it starts beating people on ladder the complain season starts till something in it gets nerfed inside the first month of new cards. Instead of focusing on different methods to resolve the problem as that deck 9/10 times not all times is not that over powered that it needs a nerf its just good enough that if you threw 1-2 buffs on cards somewhere else youd vary up the meta a little.
For example it isnt the nerf to refreshing spring water that made control warrior viable in standard it was the buff to Shield Maiden. All the nerf to refreshing spring water did was bring mage down about 5% in its consistancy and win rating that just wasnt needed. The lunacy nerf was enough to that deck and you still see it played its just not really nearly as good being the deck that got alot of people there losses in GM's rankings.
Carb rider nerf was needed to standard but honestly I think in wild it actually hurt warrior more than paladin with consistancy options outside pirate warrior.
The point being the buff to 1-2 cards can make a difference to bring a deck into playability that was not playable previously rather than the nerf stick all the time.
The only cards I think needed a nerf in standard this rotation were Pen Flinger, Deck of Lunacy and Crab Rider, and they could all probably be unnerfed when they move to wild without to much of an issue. If I was going to add any other card to the list it would probably be Oh My Yogg. I dont think incanters flow needs a nerf in wild or standard. Neither of the decks that use it are unmanageable Just in that 55%-59% win rate even with nothing nerfed. Which there are other decks performing just as good or better in both formats at the time and after. And regarding oh my yogg im not even sure how you would nerf that really other than adding discover a spell and allowing the player to target with it really as the only real option to kind of nerf it.