Incanter's Flow changes Flamestrike and C'Thun's Mask to 6 mana and in some matchups, you want to do that to get the 9-mana Librams because healing and big divine shield taunts are helpful to stabilise. It would take away the option to play 1 Flow before DoL.
...that they could nerf Libram of Hope to 10 mana. Wouldn't that be somewhat helpful to target Paladin and Mage at the same time? Having no 9-cost spells in standard should surely help target DoL, no?
Certainly not everything I would nerf at this point, but could be one part of the puzzle.
There have definitely been times where people complained LESS about the meta than now. Of course, people will always complain, that’s the nature of people. But when every class is playable and win rates are closer to 50-55% for everyone, people are generally happier. Right now there are several classes which have no deck at 50%+ and one of the best decks, lunacy mage, is completely rng dependent. Sure, some amount of rng is great for the game. I love discover effects and of course draw related rng is part of the game, but the main reason lunacy mage is so awful to play against is because there are over 100 cards which could possibly be in the mages’ decks after playing lunacy, and it’s impossible to play around them all, so you often end up either over-committing and getting your board wiped or not committing enough and getting out-pressured. It’s totally different than playing against secret Paladin or control warlock because you know all or at least most of the cards in their deck and can adapt your plays accordingly. With lunacy mage, you can’t play around anything and the game is basically already decided based on when they draw deck of lunacy and what cards they get from it, nothing else matters. Games where decisions matter are much more fun and losing is less frustrating if you feel you either got outplayed or it’s simply an unfavored match up.
I've been playing DoL because I had the entire deck anyway and I highly suggest you watch the DoL video of HS player Viper. He isn't the best at explaining things, but he basically says that people overestimate the amount of randomness that DoL currently creates and he is absolutely right.
Your biggest spells come from a very small range of cards (there even is only 1 9-mana spell in standard right now). This is obviously a big strength of the deck, but it's also one of its biggest weaknesses because as an opponent, you can rather easily predict the big spells based on when your opoonent played Incanter's Flow. If anything, the 3 or lower cost spells are where the RNG sets in and there aren't that many board clears among these. If in doubt, I would rather overcommit than underpressure, unless your opponent was so smart to play both Flows before DoL. The RNG aspect of the deck is frustrating for opponents, but it's definitely not the problem of this deck.
The actual problem is the cost reduction. Nobody would care if Libram of Hope still costs 9. Nobody would care if Nagrand Slam still costs 10. Nobody would care about a 6 mana Skull of Guldan that draws into a 3 mana Hand of Guldan. But the tempo gain and massive card draw in a single turn are problematic.
That being said, I agree that the current winrates of Paladin and Mage in standard create a frustrating experience, especially since 60-80% of your matches are against these two classes. Hearthstone has gone waaaaaaay too far with cost reduction and their ways of countering this (Cult Neophyte, 2-mana Watch Post) create annoying experiences for everyone who isn't attempting to play 10 cards on turn 5.
Yes I understand there is a reduced card pool so it helps with the consistency of the person playing the deck, but you still can’t really play around much as the opponent. Yes you might be able to play around a few of the highest cost cards, but if you are playing around something that never comes, you just end up holding cards, making them effectively dead or a wasted opportunity to create pressure. Yes, I tend to just over-commit and hope they don’t have random board clears, but often they do, and it just feels bad because DoL decided to give them the answer that time, when it wouldn’t have other times. It would be better either if it was less consistent for the person playing the deck by having a worse spell pool or was more expensive. As you said, there’s too much cost reduction and the ability to manipulate your deck to create high frequencies of card draw and cost reduction just feels unreasonable. It should either be more random to make it more memey, or less cost reduction/higher initial mana commitment.
Yeah, that's why I suggested that DoL should say "spells that cost 2 more" and Refreshing Spring Water should say "refresh 1 mana crystal per spell drawn". Imagine you draw a Skull of Guldan after t2 DoL. You get a whooping "up to 12 mana discount" for 2 mana immediately on turn 3! And Spring Water was a completely dumb idea anyway. Over-committing is the better option because DoL sometimes fails to provide the removal tools needed. No pressure is no solution in the matchup.
If there's some data on the subject of number of complaint threads I'm certainly not aware of that and would be happy to stand corrected, but pick any time frame and I'll be happy to supply . . . what? Six threads? 8 threads? What's a fair number of threads completely lambasting a healthy meta?
There have definitely been times where people complained LESS about the meta than now. Of course, people will always complain, that’s the nature of people. But when every class is playable and win rates are closer to 50-55% for everyone, people are generally happier. Right now there are several classes which have no deck at 50%+ and one of the best decks, lunacy mage, is completely rng dependent. Sure, some amount of rng is great for the game. I love discover effects and of course draw related rng is part of the game, but the main reason lunacy mage is so awful to play against is because there are over 100 cards which could possibly be in the mages’ decks after playing lunacy, and it’s impossible to play around them all, so you often end up either over-committing and getting your board wiped or not committing enough and getting out-pressured. It’s totally different than playing against secret Paladin or control warlock because you know all or at least most of the cards in their deck and can adapt your plays accordingly. With lunacy mage, you can’t play around anything and the game is basically already decided based on when they draw deck of lunacy and what cards they get from it, nothing else matters. Games where decisions matter are much more fun and losing is less frustrating if you feel you either got outplayed or it’s simply an unfavored match up.
I've been playing DoL because I had the entire deck anyway and I highly suggest you watch the DoL video of HS player Viper. He isn't the best at explaining things, but he basically says that people overestimate the amount of randomness that DoL currently creates and he is absolutely right.
Your biggest spells come from a very small range of cards (there even is only 1 9-mana spell in standard right now). This is obviously a big strength of the deck, but it's also one of its biggest weaknesses because as an opponent, you can rather easily predict the big spells based on when your opoonent played Incanter's Flow. If anything, the 3 or lower cost spells are where the RNG sets in and there aren't that many board clears among these. If in doubt, I would rather overcommit than underpressure, unless your opponent was so smart to play both Flows before DoL. The RNG aspect of the deck is frustrating for opponents, but it's definitely not the problem of this deck.
The actual problem is the cost reduction. Nobody would care if Libram of Hope still costs 9. Nobody would care if Nagrand Slam still costs 10. Nobody would care about a 6 mana Skull of Guldan that draws into a 3 mana Hand of Guldan. But the tempo gain and massive card draw in a single turn are problematic.
That being said, I agree that the current winrates of Paladin and Mage in standard create a frustrating experience, especially since 60-80% of your matches are against these two classes. Hearthstone has gone waaaaaaay too far with cost reduction and their ways of countering this (Cult Neophyte, 2-mana Watch Post) create annoying experiences for everyone who isn't attempting to play 10 cards on turn 5.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Incanter's Flow changes Flamestrike and C'Thun's Mask to 6 mana and in some matchups, you want to do that to get the 9-mana Librams because healing and big divine shield taunts are helpful to stabilise. It would take away the option to play 1 Flow before DoL.
I just realised...
...that they could nerf Libram of Hope to 10 mana. Wouldn't that be somewhat helpful to target Paladin and Mage at the same time? Having no 9-cost spells in standard should surely help target DoL, no?
Certainly not everything I would nerf at this point, but could be one part of the puzzle.
Yeah, that's why I suggested that DoL should say "spells that cost 2 more" and Refreshing Spring Water should say "refresh 1 mana crystal per spell drawn". Imagine you draw a Skull of Guldan after t2 DoL. You get a whooping "up to 12 mana discount" for 2 mana immediately on turn 3! And Spring Water was a completely dumb idea anyway. Over-committing is the better option because DoL sometimes fails to provide the removal tools needed. No pressure is no solution in the matchup.
The answer to this has to be 42. Right?
I've been playing DoL because I had the entire deck anyway and I highly suggest you watch the DoL video of HS player Viper. He isn't the best at explaining things, but he basically says that people overestimate the amount of randomness that DoL currently creates and he is absolutely right.
Your biggest spells come from a very small range of cards (there even is only 1 9-mana spell in standard right now). This is obviously a big strength of the deck, but it's also one of its biggest weaknesses because as an opponent, you can rather easily predict the big spells based on when your opoonent played Incanter's Flow. If anything, the 3 or lower cost spells are where the RNG sets in and there aren't that many board clears among these. If in doubt, I would rather overcommit than underpressure, unless your opponent was so smart to play both Flows before DoL. The RNG aspect of the deck is frustrating for opponents, but it's definitely not the problem of this deck.
The actual problem is the cost reduction. Nobody would care if Libram of Hope still costs 9. Nobody would care if Nagrand Slam still costs 10. Nobody would care about a 6 mana Skull of Guldan that draws into a 3 mana Hand of Guldan. But the tempo gain and massive card draw in a single turn are problematic.
That being said, I agree that the current winrates of Paladin and Mage in standard create a frustrating experience, especially since 60-80% of your matches are against these two classes. Hearthstone has gone waaaaaaay too far with cost reduction and their ways of countering this (Cult Neophyte, 2-mana Watch Post) create annoying experiences for everyone who isn't attempting to play 10 cards on turn 5.