I think at any given time there are just a handful of deck archetypes out there that work (Facehunter, Patron Warrior, Handlock, etc.). I think the diversity of decks would improve if some cards - that are of right now a just plain bad - would be improved so that almost every card would be worth playing. For example a Raid Leader for 2 Mana or a Flying Machine for 2 Mana etc. I know my examples could include terrible outcomes that I don't see yet but you get my drift.
Which cards do you think need buffing so that they are playable and contribute to a overall more diverse scenery of playable decks?
I wish they really would buff cards instead of making new ones. Don't get me wrong, I like the new cards and all. I just don't really see the point of Booty Bay Bodyguard even existing now. I hope they don't continue to do this, otherwise we'll just have a ton of unused cards.
I think the only possible reason why old cards do not get buffed is arena. And that's a pretty weak reason. Besides that I would play arena way more often if I wasn't offered bad cards all the time (a little exaggerated).
But ... originaly this is not what this thread was about :-)
I don't think card buffs are the necessary factor to create diversity. I think that people need to be creative, try out new things, and quit relying on netdecking to get the optimal decks. It's sad because this won't really become undone, but I remember in the starting days of hearthstone everyone just experimented with what they thought would make a good deck. Now it's all about latching onto a deck that hit legend. I encourage you to be one of those people that tries out something new. I've been messing around a lot with control hunter and control rogue. Now that's not insanely unique but it is something you don't see often.
I think Kripperian and Ben Brode talked alot about this topic. At the end there are serveal cons and pros. I can understand Ben Brodes points as well. Just look for the youtube videos with Ben Brode and Krip in it.
I would like to see some old cards change. We have a digital card game and not a physical one like Magic the Gathering. It would give the game new excitment.
Could you please clarify what you mean by diversity? I just want to make sure I know what exactly you mean, since it seems like there's a pretty good variety of decks at the moment, and that to me sounds like diversity. We've got:
Secret Paladin, Midrange/Control Paladin, Patron Warrior, Control Warrior, Dragon Priest, Handlock, Demon Zoolock, Token Druid, Combo Druid, Tempo Mage, Freeze/Giant Mage, Mech Mage, Face Hunter, Midrange Hunter, Midrange Shaman, and Oil Rogue.
You could argue that some of these aren't top tier, but these are all lists that have been on Hearthpwn and gotten to legend this season, so they're at least good enough to see play in the aspect 99% of the people here are looking for. That's sixteen different decks, and that's a lot of different decks to have be viable at one time in any kind of card game.
If you mean something else though, I would be open to hearing what you mean. The very top tiers of play probably are less diverse than what I've listed, but that's not really relevant to the experience of most players.
You have a good point there Hatchie_47. But a lot of cards are not really playable nonetheless. Maybe it's just too complex to give every card it's spot on the main stage...
The problem with simply buffing cards is just 'how' to buff them. People keep swearing that adding +1 health to this or +1 attack to that to 'fix' it's stats will make it playable. Well, for all of the complaints about how Magma Rager was buffed, it was...and it amounted to nothing. And the idea that it's a new card isn't really relevant as it's a common card: even novices can craft those pretty readily. Whether Magma rager became a 5/2 or not wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't see play.
So how about buffing it more? Blizzard tried that with a card that was deemed worthless back in beta: Unleash the Hounds. When it was changed to create 1/1 doggies it was at 4 mana and, thus, deemed too slow for use. Blizzard responded by buffing it, lowering the mana to 2. The result was Hunter defining the meta along with utterly breaking their card draw to the point where it had to be rendered useless. it also helped cement Shaman as a low end class for the entire year.
In order for a new (or buffed) card to reach the meta, it has to do one of three things:
1. Define a new deck. Grim Patron and Challenger are examples.
2. be strong enough to overpower another card in a current deck. Shieldmaiden and the new Bane of Doom.
3. Become a tech card that works against the main thrust of the meta. Flare and Harrison are examples currently while BGH was the key example after GvG.
Note that 'good card' actually has little sway here. Dark Bomb, compared to other cards, is rather Meh on the spell scale, but warlock needs a direct damage spell and it's better than soulfire so it gets a spot. Yeti is an awesome card..that doesn't define a deck, doesn't do a job better than other cards in any deck, and doesn't tech counter anything. Thus he's almost never played.
...though to prove the point, Druids have been finding the need for more 4 drops and are finding a hard time with good options. Thus Yeti is finding a new home there.
The "Well not everyone netdecks and may experiment anyway." is..well.. MEH. Most people aren't deck builders. That's as much an insult as saying "not everyone designs cars." It's not a bad thing, but it is a thing to note. Thus most decks will be based on, if not copied from, top deck designers. Top deck designers form the meta that follow the above rules..and they won't care for a 2 mana 2/2 with a +1 aura. you COULD make it a 1 mana 2/2 that gives +1 but that'll probably replace other cards, and we'll be back here complaining about how overplayed Raid Leader is and how we need to buff Abusive Sergeant or some other card that got bumped out.
Of the rest of the flock, most who build decks that aren't top designers will learn for themselves what the top know. Thus they'll play the buff cards, just like they play the new TGT cards.. then drop the ones that don't fit.. just like the top players do. The few that don't do this play 'for fun' decks and are very rare. They are already using such cards and they aren't doing anything to stop such posts as these from showing, so that doesn't matter.
If you DO want to increase diversity, you want cards that perform #1 or, are cards that support #1 cards. Grim Patron caused the use of Frothing, Slam, Warsong, Gnomish Inventor(!) and other cards, while not pushing out Shieldmaiden, Shield slam, Brawl, or the other control warrior cards. ALL of the cards see play now thanks to Patron. Challenger is doing similar for Paladins which have not abandoned the midrange style. Bah, now we're seeing a range from all-in decks using secretkeeper, of all things, to Quartermaster.
Thus you either make new cards that serve as the #1s of a new deck that utilizes underused cards as 2-3s, or buff old cards to become new #1s, which probably means giving them completely different abiliites and stats..which then questions why not just make a new card if you'er going to basically nuke the old one anyway.
Those that groaned over the mention of Patron/Challenge see the issue here. Which now gets to this question: do you want to turn Raid Leader into the next Unleash the Hounds in the name of for deck diversity? Because that IS what it takes to do so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think at any given time there are just a handful of deck archetypes out there that work (Facehunter, Patron Warrior, Handlock, etc.). I think the diversity of decks would improve if some cards - that are of right now a just plain bad - would be improved so that almost every card would be worth playing. For example a Raid Leader for 2 Mana or a Flying Machine for 2 Mana etc. I know my examples could include terrible outcomes that I don't see yet but you get my drift.
Which cards do you think need buffing so that they are playable and contribute to a overall more diverse scenery of playable decks?
Don't worry they will buff those cards, by releasing them in a new expac as seen with evil heckler.
Of course you are absolutely right! It was more of theoretic scenario :-)
I wish they really would buff cards instead of making new ones. Don't get me wrong, I like the new cards and all. I just don't really see the point of Booty Bay Bodyguard even existing now. I hope they don't continue to do this, otherwise we'll just have a ton of unused cards.
When your opponent has lethal:
I think the only possible reason why old cards do not get buffed is arena. And that's a pretty weak reason. Besides that I would play arena way more often if I wasn't offered bad cards all the time (a little exaggerated).
But ... originaly this is not what this thread was about :-)
I don't think card buffs are the necessary factor to create diversity. I think that people need to be creative, try out new things, and quit relying on netdecking to get the optimal decks. It's sad because this won't really become undone, but I remember in the starting days of hearthstone everyone just experimented with what they thought would make a good deck. Now it's all about latching onto a deck that hit legend. I encourage you to be one of those people that tries out something new. I've been messing around a lot with control hunter and control rogue. Now that's not insanely unique but it is something you don't see often.
I think Kripperian and Ben Brode talked alot about this topic. At the end there are serveal cons and pros.
I can understand Ben Brodes points as well. Just look for the youtube videos with Ben Brode and Krip in it.
I would like to see some old cards change. We have a digital card game and not a physical one like Magic the Gathering.
It would give the game new excitment.
Hello, is anyone here? Hello?
dont netdeck = diversity :)
Could you please clarify what you mean by diversity? I just want to make sure I know what exactly you mean, since it seems like there's a pretty good variety of decks at the moment, and that to me sounds like diversity. We've got:
Secret Paladin, Midrange/Control Paladin, Patron Warrior, Control Warrior, Dragon Priest, Handlock, Demon Zoolock, Token Druid, Combo Druid, Tempo Mage, Freeze/Giant Mage, Mech Mage, Face Hunter, Midrange Hunter, Midrange Shaman, and Oil Rogue.
You could argue that some of these aren't top tier, but these are all lists that have been on Hearthpwn and gotten to legend this season, so they're at least good enough to see play in the aspect 99% of the people here are looking for. That's sixteen different decks, and that's a lot of different decks to have be viable at one time in any kind of card game.
If you mean something else though, I would be open to hearing what you mean. The very top tiers of play probably are less diverse than what I've listed, but that's not really relevant to the experience of most players.
Nothing doing, traveler.
You got my intentions just right. But when I play I face the same types of decks all the time (at least it feels that way).
I think the (not in any way practical) answer is given by tenebrarumNT and yuhanz: don't netdeck.
That's because Brawls with given decks are so fun to play ... everyone has the same not-a-clue-starting-point :-)
You have a good point there Hatchie_47. But a lot of cards are not really playable nonetheless. Maybe it's just too complex to give every card it's spot on the main stage...
The problem with simply buffing cards is just 'how' to buff them. People keep swearing that adding +1 health to this or +1 attack to that to 'fix' it's stats will make it playable. Well, for all of the complaints about how Magma Rager was buffed, it was...and it amounted to nothing. And the idea that it's a new card isn't really relevant as it's a common card: even novices can craft those pretty readily. Whether Magma rager became a 5/2 or not wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't see play.
So how about buffing it more? Blizzard tried that with a card that was deemed worthless back in beta: Unleash the Hounds. When it was changed to create 1/1 doggies it was at 4 mana and, thus, deemed too slow for use. Blizzard responded by buffing it, lowering the mana to 2. The result was Hunter defining the meta along with utterly breaking their card draw to the point where it had to be rendered useless. it also helped cement Shaman as a low end class for the entire year.
In order for a new (or buffed) card to reach the meta, it has to do one of three things:
1. Define a new deck. Grim Patron and Challenger are examples.
2. be strong enough to overpower another card in a current deck. Shieldmaiden and the new Bane of Doom.
3. Become a tech card that works against the main thrust of the meta. Flare and Harrison are examples currently while BGH was the key example after GvG.
Note that 'good card' actually has little sway here. Dark Bomb, compared to other cards, is rather Meh on the spell scale, but warlock needs a direct damage spell and it's better than soulfire so it gets a spot. Yeti is an awesome card..that doesn't define a deck, doesn't do a job better than other cards in any deck, and doesn't tech counter anything. Thus he's almost never played.
...though to prove the point, Druids have been finding the need for more 4 drops and are finding a hard time with good options. Thus Yeti is finding a new home there.
The "Well not everyone netdecks and may experiment anyway." is..well.. MEH. Most people aren't deck builders. That's as much an insult as saying "not everyone designs cars." It's not a bad thing, but it is a thing to note. Thus most decks will be based on, if not copied from, top deck designers. Top deck designers form the meta that follow the above rules..and they won't care for a 2 mana 2/2 with a +1 aura. you COULD make it a 1 mana 2/2 that gives +1 but that'll probably replace other cards, and we'll be back here complaining about how overplayed Raid Leader is and how we need to buff Abusive Sergeant or some other card that got bumped out.
Of the rest of the flock, most who build decks that aren't top designers will learn for themselves what the top know. Thus they'll play the buff cards, just like they play the new TGT cards.. then drop the ones that don't fit.. just like the top players do. The few that don't do this play 'for fun' decks and are very rare. They are already using such cards and they aren't doing anything to stop such posts as these from showing, so that doesn't matter.
If you DO want to increase diversity, you want cards that perform #1 or, are cards that support #1 cards. Grim Patron caused the use of Frothing, Slam, Warsong, Gnomish Inventor(!) and other cards, while not pushing out Shieldmaiden, Shield slam, Brawl, or the other control warrior cards. ALL of the cards see play now thanks to Patron. Challenger is doing similar for Paladins which have not abandoned the midrange style. Bah, now we're seeing a range from all-in decks using secretkeeper, of all things, to Quartermaster.
Thus you either make new cards that serve as the #1s of a new deck that utilizes underused cards as 2-3s, or buff old cards to become new #1s, which probably means giving them completely different abiliites and stats..which then questions why not just make a new card if you'er going to basically nuke the old one anyway.
Those that groaned over the mention of Patron/Challenge see the issue here. Which now gets to this question: do you want to turn Raid Leader into the next Unleash the Hounds in the name of for deck diversity? Because that IS what it takes to do so.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.