Hearthpwn

Quote from Livesage >>

Changing the interaction would require changing the mechanics of the Maestra card altogether

 False. Wildpaw Gnoll could have been changed to "Costs (1) less for each non-Rogue class card added to your hand this game," without changing Maestra at all.

I don't know about the decisions regarding nerfs, but what I do know is:

- they should act more quickly. In 3 days they probably have enough data to adjust stuff.

- the business decisions are made by morons.

- because of the previous point, instead of giving the community simple and effective things, they either do nothing, or just provide stupid convoluted stuff that no one asked for.

- if they can't decide on something, they do nothing. This is the worst approach possible (as opposed to, like, trying each alternative and see how it pans out).

- again, the business direction for the game is given by idiots that have no idea what development or "fun" mean. That's why we have duels and mercenaries, yet no proper balance for either. And arena has been neglected for many years. And stupidly grindy ladder system which is not related to skill but time investment. Etc.

- money, money, money... with little or no regards for anything else. It would've been easy enough to create a test version for HS where only certain people and the devs get to play with new changes (under an nda) and find balance issues, for example. But noooo... it's too expensive... the fking CEO or the managers below him wouldn't be able to afford a brand new full-options Tesla every year if they did that. Fking cunts.

Quote from stevebobby >>

They have their favorites, Rogue, Warrior, Warlock, and they have their least favorite child in Priest.  You'll notice any OP interactions in the favorites are reluctantly fixed, if ever, and if there is ever any hint of power in Priest they nerf immediately.

You're right on one thing, they do have a favorite. Rogue is not it.
It's Face Hunter.

Nearly every major balance patch is just to bring that deck to tier 1.

Quote from ScrotieMcB >>

But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.

 Why? You're just making arbitrary claims about design decisions without offering any actual reasoning, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Mana cheat has a proven track record of breaking the game because historically Team 5 has been unable to balance it well.

Start of game effects are usually fine as long as the payoff cards are balanced. This payoff card was not balanced, and the reason it was not balanced was because of mana cheat. It was able to come out way too early because the cost could be reduced too drastically from a starting point that was too low.

Double Agent, for example, is strong, but not terrible, and it cannot come out early because you cannot reduce its cost. I think it's actually a great example of the kind of payoff Maestra should have.

Are there other concerns with Maestra you're not telling us about? If not, this blanket of policy of "Maestra is bad because I say so" is just not going to cut it.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from ScrotieMcB >>

But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.

 this blanket of policy of "Maestra is bad because I say so" is just not going to cut it.

 First off, I never said that. I'm saying Wildpaw Gnoll as a payoff card specifically for Maestra is a bad design intent. I think Maestra is a good design.

I would not classify Double Agent as a payoff card for Maestra. I would classify it as a payoff for Thief Rogue generally. This is an important distinction, because you get full value our of Double Agent if you Reconnaissance or Swashburglar or Wand Thief on turn 2.

I think that the appropriate payoff for Maestra is that Pandaren Importer and Wandmaker both function as Thief Rogue generators prior to switching. I wouldn't have a problem if an additional payoff for Maestra was, say, a Neutral version of Babbling Book (1/1 for 1, Battlecry: Add a random spell of your class to your hand.) I would support options that encourage Rogues to "masquerade" as the other class harder and/or longer.

But reducing Cost for drawing Rogue cards in a Rogue deck is fundamentally bad design. I get that it makes Maestra stronger, but that's a lazy, brute force way to do it. It's ugly, and it's wrong.

Wildpaw Gnoll should be a payoff for being a Thief Rogue. It should not be a payoff for running Maestra in your deck. I believe these points, and I believe them strongly, but that doesn't mean I want Maestra to be a bad card. But it should be a card about being a Thief Rogue, and not about reducing the cost of a single two-of to 0.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from ScrotieMcB >>

But a payoff card for a "start of game" card with no deckbuilding restriction is, by its very nature... well, you said it, bullshit. It's an invalid intent, regardless of whether the execution is good or not.

 Why? You're just making arbitrary claims about design decisions without offering any actual reasoning, so it's hard to take you seriously.

Mana cheat has a proven track record of breaking the game because historically Team 5 has been unable to balance it well.

Start of game effects are usually fine as long as the payoff cards are balanced. This payoff card was not balanced, and the reason it was not balanced was because of mana cheat. It was able to come out way too early because the cost could be reduced too drastically from a starting point that was too low.

Double Agent, for example, is strong, but not terrible, and it cannot come out early because you cannot reduce its cost. I think it's actually a great example of the kind of payoff Maestra should have.

Are there other concerns with Maestra you're not telling us about? If not, this blanket of policy of "Maestra is bad because I say so" is just not going to cut it.

I understand your points, but imo you've got it the wrong way round.  The mana cheating of gnoll would have been absolutely fine had it actually required the investment stated on the card (i.e. drawing cards from another class).  Maestra removes this requirement almost entirely, to the point where virtually no "thief" cards are included in the deck.  I know we can never know Blizzards intent, but from a balance perspective gnoll would not have been problematic without the Maestra interaction.

Double agent is a little different as it can't be brought out early by mana reductions.  That said, you get a lot of value for 3 mana when the condition is fullfilled.  Again, I think it would be fine if you have to invest before hand (typically with a loss of tempo).  However, this card is less problematic in practice as it's condition is dependand on current hand state and therefor removed when a rogue card is played.

As for Maestra herselft, she has a cool design which does have potential to disrupt the mulligan in a unique way and gives the rogue access to class cards through neutral discover options.  However, interacting with any "theify" type cards in the way she currently does is just a poor design imo, and rewarding a deck for just including a card which isn't drawn or played is daft.