There are some cards which I and many others I'm sure would consider completely pointless.
I'm not asking for a huge power increase because that would be stupid and likely lead to unbalancing the game and a power creep but are Blizzard ever going to change the cards which are never used except when you get three uterly dire choices in arena?
1. By these cards I do not mean something like Puddlestomper because other standard 3/2's already exist - hence pointless. Having a variety of equal stats cards with very slight variations e.g. being a murloc adds diversity and sublte changes to the game i.e. viable murloc deck.
2. I also do not mean some cards which have been included which while not really viable in the current meta - or probably ever are just wacky and meant for fun and messing around in casual. Some of the cards in this category might include Alarm-oBot, Elite Tauren Chieftain and of course Gelbin Mekkatorque. I still have fond memories of starting out in Hearthstone and, being a newb, putting Gelbin Mekkatorque into my ladder deck as a serious part of my late game because he was golden and my only legend at the time :)
3. And finally I also do not mean those cards which are not viable in constructed but sometimes find good use in arena. Examples of which might be something like Naturalize which I used in an arena druid deck one time which went 12-0.
So what cards do I then mean?
There are actually surprisingly only a few completely useless cards but because this is a digital card game it should be easy for Blizzard to rework them into something either stonger or perhaps entirly different thus increasing the amount of playble cards without even adding any new ones.
This is surely the great strengh of the digital card game which can't be achieved with magic the gathering for example. They have nerfed cards which are too strong so why can't they buff/change cards which are too weak? I have actually seen evidence of Blizzard creating new cards by merging or slightly buffing old ones with increased mana cost which I go into in some of the descriptions - so why not just change these?
Some of the cards below I consider to be truely useless (not competative or fun) are as follows: - (of course this is debatable - please add or discus cards below)
Angry Chicken - Starting out with the classic. I really wanted to like this card and find some way to make use of it. However this chicken's 1/1 stats just make it way too weak even to try and mess around with in casual. If Blizzard even just changed it to a 1/2 it would no longer be able to be dealt with by just a hero power, it would be easier to activate and people could instead enjoy some chicken maddness.
Goldshire Footman - This of course has been given the 2 mana update as Annoy-o-Tron which is actually a decent card but he just plain sucks. Not exciting and, as anyone who has the misfortune of having to pick him in arena would know, definitely not fun.
Lightwarden - This card is now actually seeing some use but not becuase it's suddenly become viable with other GvG cards but because they stuck it in Light of the Narru. It's now viable but why not just change or buff the origional? Otherwise its just plain lazy Blizz.
Wisp - Not much to say here. You all know what I'm talking about. Dark Wispers = Blizzard's attempt to make it a seen card? I can't see the point of it existing really.
Light's Justice - Just not good enough although to be fair it can work out in arena as a weaker but not a terrible pick. Whereas of course Muster for Battle is excellent.
Shadowbomber - What were they thinking? Aggro priest is a long way from happening and even then just no
Kidnapper - If you had to disenchant an epic this would be near the top of the list. It's stats are terrible and it's high cost makes it very difficult to combo. Never really seen. Just bad.
Hungry Crab - Murloc would have to be rife for this to be a pick. Its a shame because I really like this card - gold animation too.
Young Dragonhawk - Being a 1/1 it can never really make the cut. Same as the chicken I'd make it a 1/2 or change it entirely to be something new.
Millhouse Manastorm - I guess you could put him in the fun category - If you find it fun to get hillariously beaten any turn you play him. His drawback is just way too severe - much more so than any other of the drawback cards.
Mini-Mage - Really Blizzard, really... four mana cost for a 4/1 - his abilities better be good right? They're not.
Eye for an Eye - The worst of the Pally secrets. If they changed it to This effect lasts next turn as well - now we're talking ;)
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long post. There may be some cards that are boarderline or that I've missed out. Please voice your opinion or add cards below. Should Blizzard change the cards that never get used? Would this take them too much time? What do you think?
edit* Just realised I misspelled truly - whoops ;0
Also, I think you overestimate the unplayability of certain cards. Sure, you listed classicaly bad cards, but I've even seen cards like Wisp and Angry Chicken be used at legend on the ladder. Lifecoach recently built a Hobgoblin/Jeeves Paladin aggro that used a couple of the cards you listed as strictly unplayable, so I find it's best to always keep an open mind and still accept the cards that aren't playable at one point or another.
I think a lot of people would have added Silverback Patriarch and/or Stoneskin Gargoyle to this list, especially now since 3-cost, 4-health minions have become more common.
Some of the cards you listed do have (sometime niche) uses, such as:
I believe Aggro Priest can happen, especially with mechs and Jeeves. Shadowbomber, a 2/1 for 1 mana isn't bad for an aggro deck. It can be combo'ed with Time Rewinder.
Wisp was formerly used in Edwin VanCleef decks along with Shadowstep, for a potential 10/10 on Turn 3 (even without coin).
I've seen Hungry Crab in tournament decks. I remember watching an informal tournament, best of 5, choose 5 decks, and ban 1. So you have 4 decks and are only forced to use 3, so you can have a deck dedicated to anti-Murloc if you really wanted to.
Millhouse Manastorm can be a great in an anti-zoo deck since they have no expensive spells. It can be useful in a hyper-aggro deck.
So long as there's a niche use, I wouldn't call a card useless. Also, it'll be an impossible task to balance all cards, and some cards will simply have more uses than others. Also, I'm sure there's an intense quality assurance / balancing process as they modify each card, perhaps making balance too time-consuming to be productive. I believe Blizzard's reasoning is that if there's a niche, or if someone can think of a use for it, no matter how obscure, then it'll stay as is.
@ HS_CVH -This was an interesting article. I do understand there might be a need for weak cards in some respects. However I think your argument about those cards being used on ladder at legend is slightly flawed because when people get to legend they tend to just mess around with some terrible cards. You don't see this in rank 1-5.
Still point taken I'll be sure to keep more of an open mind in the future. Maybe these cards just haven't had their day to shine yet.
@ dodekaedius - add something constructive or gtfo troll
Also, I think you overestimate the unplayability of certain cards. Sure, you listed classicaly bad cards, but I've even seen cards like Wisp and Angry Chicken be used at legend on the ladder. Lifecoach recently built a Hobgoblin/Jeeves Paladin aggro that used a couple of the cards you listed as strictly unplayable, so I find it's best to always keep an open mind and still accept the cards that aren't playable at one point or another.
This is a really good read. Key points answer pretty much everyone's questions:
That in a mutant-sized nutshell is why we make “bad cards." To recap (or to fill in for those unwilling to read the long version):
By definition, some bad cards have to exist. (The most important reason.)
Some cards are “bad” because they aren’t meant for you.
Some cards are “bad” because they’re designed for a less advanced player.
Some cards are “bad” because the right deck for them doesn’t exist yet.
“Bad” cards reward the more skilled player.
Some players enjoy discovering good “bad” cards.
Some “bad” cards are simply R&D goofing up.
The major differences in HS is competitive format and it can be patched. There are no rotating blocks of cards yet, so a LOT of direct comparisons can be made, and if devs DO screw up... they can apply balance changes and tweak cards to get to the playstate they want.
@ HS_CVH -This was an interesting article. I do understand there might be a need for weak cards in some respects. However I think your argument about those cards being used on ladder at legend is slightly flawed because when people get to legend they tend to just mess around with some terrible cards. You don't see this in rank 1-5.
Still point taken I'll be sure to keep more of an open mind in the future. Maybe these cards just haven't had their day to shine yet.
@ dodekaedius - add something constructive or gtfo troll
I think it more speaks to the argument that even the addition of one new card can make "bad" cards playable. Arena is still less forgiving to cards like Wisp because there is less opportunity to build around something like Hobgoblin, but I think if new brews like that got enough testing by the better players it wouldn't be a stretch to see it in ranks 1-5.
As more cards get added to the pool, the more likely it is that "bad" cards find their way in the deck. I remember when everyone did say Wild Pyro is a bad card.
And Puddlestomper is added because murlocs are a thing now. Well kinda at least. Potential for murlocs are a thing and a 3/2 murloc is quite awesome.
As more cards get added to the pool, the more likely it is that "bad" cards find their way in the deck. I remember when everyone did say Wild Pyro is a bad card.
And Puddlestomper is added because murlocs are a thing now. Well kinda at least. Potential for murlocs are a thing and a 3/2 murloc is quite awesome.
What they actually need to do is to allow you to remove 2-3 picks from your deck in arena. There's many situations now where the 3 choices are basically blanks and it'll get worse as time goes by and they release more "X matters" type cards.
But still having to pick between angry chicken, alarmobot or grimscale oracle isn't really a test of skill, it's just boring. You basically lose a card every time you draw any of these in any deck. Yes it "averages out" but I doubt most of their players play 200 arenas in a month. Mostly you'll just make a bunch of people feel cheated and it's frustrating no matter what level of player you are to be forced to play dead cards.
What they actually need to do is to allow you to remove 2-3 picks from your deck in arena. There's many situations now where the 3 choices are basically blanks and it'll get worse as time goes by and they release more "X matters" type cards.
But still having to pick between angry chicken, alarmobot or grimscale oracle isn't really a test of skill, it's just boring. You basically lose a card every time you draw any of these in any deck. Yes it "averages out" but I doubt most of their players play 200 arenas in a month. Mostly you'll just make a bunch of people feel cheated and it's frustrating no matter what level of player you are to be forced to play dead cards.
I totally agree. I'm mostly an arena player and might have done near 200 arena runs a month lol. I guess Blizzard wants to add the rng element of sometimes getting a dead pick but its definitely no fun when it happens.
What they actually need to do is to allow you to remove 2-3 picks from your deck in arena. There's many situations now where the 3 choices are basically blanks and it'll get worse as time goes by and they release more "X matters" type cards.
But still having to pick between angry chicken, alarmobot or grimscale oracle isn't really a test of skill, it's just boring. You basically lose a card every time you draw any of these in any deck. Yes it "averages out" but I doubt most of their players play 200 arenas in a month. Mostly you'll just make a bunch of people feel cheated and it's frustrating no matter what level of player you are to be forced to play dead cards.
I've always said they should have ~2 "redraws" per draft, toss all 3 options and try again. Believe me, crappy cards pop up more than 1 out of 15 picks, but it at least alleviates some of the crap without completely changing or negating the need to adjust to sub-optimal cards. It would even be reasonable if they did it so you "skipped" 3 truly worthless cards and then picked 2 from the next 3; this option may be a bit complicated for the "download and start playing" crowd but it would make the 'skip' option a truly difficult choice for the average, experienced player. Sure Tauren Warrior sucks, but does it really suck enough to justifiy possibly having to take TWO from another crappy slot and get forced into Wisp or something? Obviously they would have to make it so you couldn't pick two of legendary, and obviously this is just spitballing, but yes, there ought to be a way to opt out of at least 1-2 bottom of teh barrel cards.
If you try hard enough you can make most cards work. And there is always future potential too like adding a card that buffs cards with 1 attack for example... Also Millhouse is the BEST 2 cost you can get from shredder so there is that.
What they actually need to do is to allow you to remove 2-3 picks from your deck in arena. There's many situations now where the 3 choices are basically blanks and it'll get worse as time goes by and they release more "X matters" type cards.
But still having to pick between angry chicken, alarmobot or grimscale oracle isn't really a test of skill, it's just boring. You basically lose a card every time you draw any of these in any deck. Yes it "averages out" but I doubt most of their players play 200 arenas in a month. Mostly you'll just make a bunch of people feel cheated and it's frustrating no matter what level of player you are to be forced to play dead cards.
I totally agree. I'm mostly an arena player and might have done near 200 arena runs a month lol. I guess Blizzard wants to add the rng element of sometimes getting a dead pick but its definitely no fun when it happens.
My guess is they don't want to complicate it further for new players. I think there's nothing they can do at this point to make new players want to play more arena unless they were going to do that anyway though. The difficulty is just way too steep, they'll just get crushed 2-3 times and leave forever, as was the case over the GvG weekend lol
So might as well make the arena system strictly better for everyone who actually plays it.
I actually like that you can't drop any cards precisely because it will mean some of the unplayable garbage gets used every now and then. I.E. it makes for a little more variety, more of the card pool getting some use over time. I'm all for considering changes to the drafting process, but this is an aspect I actually appreciate about HS vs. limited in other card games. The whole spirit of limited is making do with what you have, rather than buying a fine-tuned constructed deck someone else built.
Kidnapper is absolutely horrid. This is compounded by the fact that it takes up an EPIC spot in the Classic Set. So that really screws over Rogue. If any card really needs a buff, or complete rewrite, it's that one.
I would like to see some cards get buffed, but I don't think it should happen just because a card doesn't see competitive play. Wisp is at least on curve, and is free, and especially as more cards are added, somebody might possibly try and think of a situation where that might be useful. Even if it's ultimately a "bad card," it belongs there so people can try and experiment with their decks. The same can be said for Angry Chicken, which gets you thinking about strategies and combos for getting it buffed and enraged.
On the other hand, a card like Kidnapper is just too expensive for its effect. That's the kind of card I would want to see revalued.
I actually like that you can't drop any cards precisely because it will mean some of the unplayable garbage gets used every now and then. I.E. it makes for a little more variety, more of the card pool getting some use over time. I'm all for considering changes to the drafting process, but this is an aspect I actually appreciate about HS vs. limited in other card games. The whole spirit of limited is making do with garbage rather than a fine-tuned P2W construction.
There's not much variety, they mostly just stay stranded in your hand or die for free doing nothing. For instance now I get the choice between alarmobot, lightwell and angry chicken.
There are some cards which I and many others I'm sure would consider completely pointless.
I'm not asking for a huge power increase because that would be stupid and likely lead to unbalancing the game and a power creep but are Blizzard ever going to change the cards which are never used except when you get three uterly dire choices in arena?
1. By these cards I do not mean something like Puddlestomper because other standard 3/2's already exist - hence pointless. Having a variety of equal stats cards with very slight variations e.g. being a murloc adds diversity and sublte changes to the game i.e. viable murloc deck.
2. I also do not mean some cards which have been included which while not really viable in the current meta - or probably ever are just wacky and meant for fun and messing around in casual. Some of the cards in this category might include Alarm-oBot, Elite Tauren Chieftain and of course Gelbin Mekkatorque. I still have fond memories of starting out in Hearthstone and, being a newb, putting Gelbin Mekkatorque into my ladder deck as a serious part of my late game because he was golden and my only legend at the time :)
3. And finally I also do not mean those cards which are not viable in constructed but sometimes find good use in arena. Examples of which might be something like Naturalize which I used in an arena druid deck one time which went 12-0.
So what cards do I then mean?
There are actually surprisingly only a few completely useless cards but because this is a digital card game it should be easy for Blizzard to rework them into something either stonger or perhaps entirly different thus increasing the amount of playble cards without even adding any new ones.
This is surely the great strengh of the digital card game which can't be achieved with magic the gathering for example. They have nerfed cards which are too strong so why can't they buff/change cards which are too weak? I have actually seen evidence of Blizzard creating new cards by merging or slightly buffing old ones with increased mana cost which I go into in some of the descriptions - so why not just change these?
Some of the cards below I consider to be truely useless (not competative or fun) are as follows: - (of course this is debatable - please add or discus cards below)
Thanks for taking the time to read this very long post. There may be some cards that are boarderline or that I've missed out. Please voice your opinion or add cards below. Should Blizzard change the cards that never get used? Would this take them too much time? What do you think?
edit* Just realised I misspelled truly - whoops ;0
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
20K G's saved up every new expansion.
Magma Rager. Don't forget Magma Rager.
Always looking for casual play and meeting new people. Hit me up at adampjr#1929 (NA).
^Namely, this famous article by Mark Rosewater:
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5
Also, I think you overestimate the unplayability of certain cards. Sure, you listed classicaly bad cards, but I've even seen cards like Wisp and Angry Chicken be used at legend on the ladder. Lifecoach recently built a Hobgoblin/Jeeves Paladin aggro that used a couple of the cards you listed as strictly unplayable, so I find it's best to always keep an open mind and still accept the cards that aren't playable at one point or another.
19x Legend Ranked (NA)
Former Kaijudo World Champion
Links: Twitter - YouTube - TwitchI offer coaching (info here)! PM if interested!
Check out my articles on Tempo Storm!
I think a lot of people would have added Silverback Patriarch and/or Stoneskin Gargoyle to this list, especially now since 3-cost, 4-health minions have become more common.
Some of the cards you listed do have (sometime niche) uses, such as:
So long as there's a niche use, I wouldn't call a card useless. Also, it'll be an impossible task to balance all cards, and some cards will simply have more uses than others. Also, I'm sure there's an intense quality assurance / balancing process as they modify each card, perhaps making balance too time-consuming to be productive. I believe Blizzard's reasoning is that if there's a niche, or if someone can think of a use for it, no matter how obscure, then it'll stay as is.
Chugga chugga chugga chugga
@ HS_CVH -This was an interesting article. I do understand there might be a need for weak cards in some respects. However I think your argument about those cards being used on ladder at legend is slightly flawed because when people get to legend they tend to just mess around with some terrible cards. You don't see this in rank 1-5.
Still point taken I'll be sure to keep more of an open mind in the future. Maybe these cards just haven't had their day to shine yet.
@ dodekaedius - add something constructive or gtfo troll
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
20K G's saved up every new expansion.
This is a really good read. Key points answer pretty much everyone's questions:
The major differences in HS is competitive format and it can be patched. There are no rotating blocks of cards yet, so a LOT of direct comparisons can be made, and if devs DO screw up... they can apply balance changes and tweak cards to get to the playstate they want.
I think it more speaks to the argument that even the addition of one new card can make "bad" cards playable. Arena is still less forgiving to cards like Wisp because there is less opportunity to build around something like Hobgoblin, but I think if new brews like that got enough testing by the better players it wouldn't be a stretch to see it in ranks 1-5.
19x Legend Ranked (NA)
Former Kaijudo World Champion
Links: Twitter - YouTube - TwitchI offer coaching (info here)! PM if interested!
Check out my articles on Tempo Storm!
As more cards get added to the pool, the more likely it is that "bad" cards find their way in the deck. I remember when everyone did say Wild Pyro is a bad card.
And Puddlestomper is added because murlocs are a thing now. Well kinda at least. Potential for murlocs are a thing and a 3/2 murloc is quite awesome.
I didn't add Puddlestomper and stated why...
http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5 - This article actually answered all my questions very nicely except for of course point 7 because Blizzard can't screw up when they can change the cards at any point.
It might just be too early days for them to do it though.
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
20K G's saved up every new expansion.
What they actually need to do is to allow you to remove 2-3 picks from your deck in arena. There's many situations now where the 3 choices are basically blanks and it'll get worse as time goes by and they release more "X matters" type cards.
But still having to pick between angry chicken, alarmobot or grimscale oracle isn't really a test of skill, it's just boring. You basically lose a card every time you draw any of these in any deck. Yes it "averages out" but I doubt most of their players play 200 arenas in a month. Mostly you'll just make a bunch of people feel cheated and it's frustrating no matter what level of player you are to be forced to play dead cards.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
I totally agree. I'm mostly an arena player and might have done near 200 arena runs a month lol. I guess Blizzard wants to add the rng element of sometimes getting a dead pick but its definitely no fun when it happens.
How to become ∞ at arena: - practice, practice, win, dominate, profit.
20K G's saved up every new expansion.
Angry chicken is angry that he's at the top of your list.
Hearthstone...I play that.
Music...I make that.
Youtube...I have that.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FreeloaderMC
I've always said they should have ~2 "redraws" per draft, toss all 3 options and try again. Believe me, crappy cards pop up more than 1 out of 15 picks, but it at least alleviates some of the crap without completely changing or negating the need to adjust to sub-optimal cards. It would even be reasonable if they did it so you "skipped" 3 truly worthless cards and then picked 2 from the next 3; this option may be a bit complicated for the "download and start playing" crowd but it would make the 'skip' option a truly difficult choice for the average, experienced player. Sure Tauren Warrior sucks, but does it really suck enough to justifiy possibly having to take TWO from another crappy slot and get forced into Wisp or something? Obviously they would have to make it so you couldn't pick two of legendary, and obviously this is just spitballing, but yes, there ought to be a way to opt out of at least 1-2 bottom of teh barrel cards.
If you try hard enough you can make most cards work. And there is always future potential too like adding a card that buffs cards with 1 attack for example... Also Millhouse is the BEST 2 cost you can get from shredder so there is that.
My guess is they don't want to complicate it further for new players.
I think there's nothing they can do at this point to make new players want to play more arena unless they were going to do that anyway though. The difficulty is just way too steep, they'll just get crushed 2-3 times and leave forever, as was the case over the GvG weekend lol
So might as well make the arena system strictly better for everyone who actually plays it.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman
My dream is still Angry Chicken + Velen's Chosen
I actually like that you can't drop any cards precisely because it will mean some of the unplayable garbage gets used every now and then. I.E. it makes for a little more variety, more of the card pool getting some use over time. I'm all for considering changes to the drafting process, but this is an aspect I actually appreciate about HS vs. limited in other card games. The whole spirit of limited is making do with what you have, rather than buying a fine-tuned constructed deck someone else built.
Kidnapper is absolutely horrid. This is compounded by the fact that it takes up an EPIC spot in the Classic Set. So that really screws over Rogue. If any card really needs a buff, or complete rewrite, it's that one.
I would like to see some cards get buffed, but I don't think it should happen just because a card doesn't see competitive play. Wisp is at least on curve, and is free, and especially as more cards are added, somebody might possibly try and think of a situation where that might be useful. Even if it's ultimately a "bad card," it belongs there so people can try and experiment with their decks. The same can be said for Angry Chicken, which gets you thinking about strategies and combos for getting it buffed and enraged.
On the other hand, a card like Kidnapper is just too expensive for its effect. That's the kind of card I would want to see revalued.
There's not much variety, they mostly just stay stranded in your hand or die for free doing nothing.
For instance now I get the choice between alarmobot, lightwell and angry chicken.
Woo.
It's just dumb and boring.
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice - Sneak Review! http://www.thepoxbox.com/challenges.php?id=batmanvsuperman