• 0

    posted a message on Is Resurrect Unhealthy?
    Quote from DSchu102285 >>
    Quote from Philopery >>

    Why do people in this/these threads keep saying “only viable deck the last few expansions”?

    I mean leave the discussion if you are a liar.
    Combo priest was nr. 1 deck in the pure SOU meta from day 1. Quest shaman and druid was strong but a priest deck was the strongest. This was also allover in grandmasters.

    Doom in the tomb saw the rise of shaman to the top but priest was still strong with n’zoth.

    so in short the last time priest was strong.. was the day before DoD dropped. Literally less than 40 days ago.

    I don’t know when it was strong before SOU but it was indisputably very strong very recently so no it does not deserve ress priest due to lack of power recently

    Doom in the Tomb was not an expansion therefore the statement about Priest being utter shit in past expansions is a completely valid statement. Sure, you could argue the meaning of "viable" but within the context of Quest Resurrect Priest in the current meta that definition applies to it being within a Tier 1 & 2 power level.  So the last time Priest had strong impact in the meta was Kobolds & Catacombs and Knights of the Frozen Throne. Tournament decks aren't the same as Constructed Metagame as people use different decks and tech options compared to competitive ladder.

    List of Metas that Priest was utter shit:

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-139/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-132/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-126/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-114/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-101/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-88/

    List of Metas that Priest had a Tier 1 or 2 Deck:

    Kobolds & Catacombs: https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-73/

    Knights of the Frozen Throne: https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-59/

     

     

    I don't know if you even looked at 139, since Priest is at the top of Tier 2. But if that's not good enough for you, feel free to check out the other reports of that time.

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-145/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-142/

    https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-138/

    There, Combo Priest being listed not only as a Tier 1 deck but temporarily even listed as the deck with the highest power score, the (arguably) best deck in Standard. If you look for it, you'll even find people (including some Tweet from Dean Ayala) about whether Priest should get nerfed. There was a lot of debate about Divine Spirit. You can say it wasn't the most popular one, which certainly is important for "having an impact", but don't act like it doesn't count for whatever reason. It's not like a control-oriented Priest build is the only one that matters.

    Why say that Priest was terrible in all the recent expansions, listing all the reports where it was bad, but leaving out the ones where the class was at the top because of "technically"? I mean, what do you even try to argue for? 

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on what did people think of the year longs story?

    I have mixed feelings about it.

    Uldum, for example, was a cool expansion that I thematically really liked. Maybe one of my favorite expansions of all time. But it felt a bit like it was just the next chapter, not an independet and new expansion as all the others before. It wasn't "predictable" in any way, but in tone and atmosphere, like with the expansion logo and the cinematic trailer, it is mostly line with Rise of Shadows, except for the surprising little detail, that they play the Uldum Sountrack from WoW in the in-game store. But compare that with the huge difference in tone between Un'goro, Frozen Throne and Kobolds & Catacombs. I personally felt like something was missing by the time DoD was announced. It's just not the same kind of excitement when you know it's gonna pick up where the last one left. Kind of like the more recent James Bond movies.

    Something I liked was the way they tie expansions together mechanically, like adding new lackeys and lackey-synergy, adding sidequests to quests, or adding another Highlander card. It's nice that they try to support archetypes within one year more consistently with new expansions, though some classes feel more focused in design than others. For some classes, I was really missing new class-defining cards, especially Paladin and Priest (except maybe for Amet). Then again, it sometimes felt like paint-by-the-numbers, especially in DoD - every class gets either 2 Invoke cards or 2 Sidequests, every class gets their legendary dragon, and their non-legendary dragon, and their dragon breath spell. We had it before that every class gets the same things in different flavors, like Spellstones or Quests, but 5 card out of 10 is a bit too much.

    What also kind of bothered me were returning characters. As much as I liked League of Explorers, it feels a bit silly to me that we are now getting the third Reno Jackson, and already have three Dr. Booms. Cards have an identity; you associate a name with an effect. Decks were called "Reno Decks" and "getting rich" was a known phrase in the Hearthstone community. I don't mind that they spread out the Highlander theme, and with the original Reno in Wild, it's fair to call them "Highlander Decks" instead now, but just talking about "Reno" is no longer the original card or even decktype, but possibly the mage legendary or the new hero card. There's also now a second Ysera, a second Malygos etc. It's not a huge deal breaker, but it makes characters less uniquie, and I think Hearthstone should focus more on expanding its universe, instead of recycling old bits. The game isn't THAT old yet to justify nostalgia trips. I mean, Hagatha was just a year old.

     

    All in all, I think the "story" element of Hearthstone has some pros and cons, and I admit that Witchwood and Rastakhan felt rather bland, but I honestly prefer the old model. Not saying they should never do that again, but not in a way that the first expansions sets the tone for the rest of the year.

    Also, as limiting as the game is for storytelling, they could try a little harder, like creating more than one gameboard or multiple music tracks per expansion. You travel through 5 entirely different sections of Dalaran, but the environment is always the same and it's mostly the same music, whether you are in the streets or in the Underbelly... that just feels lazy and cheap.
    I don't know how much more effort they actually can put into expanding the atmosphere during games (with resources and all) but if they are so ambitious about adding a storyline, I think they need to go a bit further. Similarly, cards need to feel more like they belong to a set with more unique effects and animations. Good examples are mechs in GvG with their very distinct metallic soundbits, or the Plague spells from Uldum with their very dramatic animations. Ideally, I see a card and can immediately tell that it must be from a specific set. Sadly, a large portion of the cards still feels very generic and fails to deliver any atmosphere, especially non-legendaries. But if you want to tell a story through gameplay, you have to add such details.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Best Cards to Craft

    The "best" legendaries always change. With all the nerfs recently, it remains to be seen if any Galakrond deck and Kronx Dragonhoof is even worth it anymore, a card I would have recommended without hesitation when the expansion launched. Ancharrr was a pretty good one that enabled a strong deck, but it just got nerfed. I guess you could simply try it out while you still get the full refund, but you'd have to make sure you disenchant it again before the refund period is over, in case you are not happy with it.

    Considering that we'll have yet another big meta change coming up, I'd wait at least until the adventure is fully released (or all cards were revealed), and you have an idea of what's still worth crafting. It's difficult enough to find any opportune moment to craft legendaries when nerfs seem to always be right around the corner, but right now is really a bad time when nerfs just happened and new cards come out in less than a month.

    If you just want to craft something so you can play and have fun with a new deck, it still depends on class preferences. Also, since you asked for the "best new cards", I don't know if you just want to hear about DoD legendaries or cards from other sets as well.

    Generally speaking, since you already have Zephrys and Dragonqueen, all the Highlander legendaries are pretty decent, though I'd say that Dinotamer Brann and Reno the Relicologist are more worthwhile than Elise the Enlightened (since Druid can go with other builds too) and especially Sir Finley of the Sands (since Paladin is kinda bad right now). Though it's worth mentioning that Highlander decks generally require a bunch of other legendaries. Siamat is one that goes into pretty much all of them.

    Just looking at DoD legendaries, Goru the Mightree is the only legendary you'd need for Treant Druid, which isn't super good, but still a decent deck that doesn't have an entire shopping list of legendaries attached to it. Dragonbane is pretty good for any somewhat aggressive Hunter deck (including Highlander), while Flik Skyshiv is pretty good for most Rogue decks. Most of the other legendaries are less good on their own, and then you'd have to make up your mind what deck you want to eventually build/what class you want to play.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Game Economy suggestions
    Quote from guyopt >>

    I think Blizzard can try the following:

    Non ranked is Free to play: Full collection available to all players.

    Ranks 10 and below  the Game is "Free", (like non ranked)

    Ranks 5-9 the Game is Free (full collection) in certain period - maybe in the the last season/ month of each expansion (since it's the most "boring" time and players not investing in packs on that period)

    The game needs some dramatic change regarding Economy and card collection in order to sustain the players base.

    [...]

    I would like to hear good productive advice regarding improving game Economy in order to increase popularity and get the streamers back to the game.

     While I agree that the game could be a little more fair and rewarding all around (it's not like paying customers get much for their investment either), I think your suggestion is going in the wrong direction, especially if you ultimately want to increase popularity.

    I'd agree that the playing experience isn't very rewarding, which is sort of a problem. But I think it would be better to tweak things a little, like 100g per daily quest, or maybe 10 dust for disenchanting common cards, or maybe slightly increasing the droprates for golden cards, or maybe rewarding 5g per win instead of 10g per 3 wins. I certainly wouldn't remove the entire point of the reward system, which you effectively aim for.

    I think you underestimate that it's actually fun to get new cards and improve decks. And you might overestimate how many people even bother playing up to rank 10 or 5 for that matter. With your suggestion, a LOT of people would play the game entirely for free, but also with no real purpose. While "fun" is a purpose in itself, just about every single other videogame comes with something you play it for, to have fun playing, starting with things like stories and exp-bars, all of which Hearthstone is mostly lacking in already. Hearthstone has no real story to speak of (maybe on the level of a cartoon), a fairly unimportant level-system (meaningless beyond level 10), and very few unlockables or things to pursue altogether. The single player content these days doesn't even require any cards anyway.

    So, while the game would be easier to get into with your idea, it would also end up as rather uninvolving. It might be somewhat more interesting upfront, but then requires a fundamental restructuring of just about everything to stay interesting. Playing Ranked all day to see how far you can get is very motivating to some, but not so much for others (like me). And I wonder if it's really more fun when literally every player has the means to just copy the best deck they can find on some website.

    And yes, as others have pointed out, the economic aspect on the developer's side would have to change as well. Other F2P games can be profitable with cosmetics entirely, i.e. microtransactions/loot-boxes to obtain clothes, weapon skins etc, but those games focus massively on such items. Hearthstone, for some reason, is putting very little effort into cosmetics, and just makes limited offers on hero skins and card backs every couple months. Certainly enough to make some extra profit, but likely not enough to keep the game running and profitable. I'm not sure if I would like to have Hearthstone go big on cosmetics, since that would again likely change the entire game fundamentally, and not necessarily for the better.

    Anyway, to make the game more popular, the developers would have to figure out what makes the game more and less appealing to different audiences, and address these things accordingly. And I don't think it's enough to make the game more accessible and rewarding. Improving the game's economy is not a bad idea, but the economy isn't the only flaw of the game.

    The game is still very successful, mind you. And changing things too drastically could very well result in alienating the large audience you still have. But to really attract new audiences, I think Hearthstone would have to reconsider its design and marketing. How exactly, I cannot say, and it might even be impossible to do so with a 6 year old game, but it seems like it can't attract as many people anymore as it used to, and it would have to be more aggressive about getting people's interest again.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Buff Basic and Classic
    Quote from Dorrian >>

    Did we forget what druid looked like before they nerfed several of their evergreen cards? Druid use to literally be the same 24 or so cards, because their evergreen cards were THAT good. Having great evergreen cards is bad, because then the meta will hardly ever really shake up

     Nope, that's not what it was.

    The class used "the same cards" for 3 decks at the time, because the entire framework was that good, but Evergreen cards were only a small part of that. Specifically, Togwaggle Druid, Malygos Druid, and Token Druid all used 2 of each Spreading Plague, Ferocious Howl, Lesser Jasper Spellstone, Arcane Tyrant, Ultimate Infestation, Wild Growth, Branching Paths, Swipe, Nourish and Naturalize, and maybe Wrath.

    The developers concluded that Druid was too fixated on Ramp strategies, which I argue was because no other strategies worked and a lot of cards happened to benefit from ramp, and for those who say "look at all those Basic/Classic cards", while there are a few in there, it was (and is) no different for Control Warrior, where every deck will include Brawl, Shield Slam, Shield Block and sometimes Slam, or for Rogue, where nearly every single deck uses Backstab, Preparation, SI:7 Agent, etc.

    Using Basic or Classic cards isn't inherently wrong (for some people at least), and Druid's core set wasn't "way too good", it just worked well with what they were playing at the time. And in cases like Swipe, the class simply lacks alternatives to ever give up on that spell.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Buff Basic and Classic
    Quote from JackJimson >>

    I find it unlikely they'll buff evergreen sets. 

    1. (Most incentive for them) It's less money for them. Why buy new packs when good cards are evergreen.

    2. We will always see the same old cards every meta regardless of rotation. Meta will get stale pretty quickly.

     While I find it unlikely as well, these reasons don't really make any sense.

    1. Why buy new cards? Because new cards most certainly will still be better, and provide synergies with other cards whereas almost all basic cards don't, and because even if a few basic cards were more useful, they wouldn't be sufficient for playable decks. And that's before we consider buying new cards for the sake of variety, or because advertisement is not without effect. It's unrealistic to assume that people wouldn't want to buy new cards, and even more unrealistic to assume that they wouldn't need them (at least in constructed beyond the new player experience).

    2. The complaint of the meta being "stale" is not even an argument anymore, because some people get this impression within a week. This expansion, we got the rage train and nerf announcements in less than a week. Before the expansion, people were incessantly complaining about the Wild cards (especially Evolve) even knowing that these cards would leave again in just a few weeks. To some people, Hearthstone is everything, the only game they ever play, and there is no practical way to satisfy those. Unless you make changes once or twice a month, drastic enough to provoke change, but not drastic enough for people to be upset about balance issues again (good luck with that), the meta will always be "stale" to some.


    That being said, it's not 2016 anymore. The complaint about "the same old cards" has become a bit outdated, since every class changes and adapts frequently, and no class can exclusively rely on old tricks. Savannah Highmane, the oh so overpowered champion of old, was barely played across the entirety of the last the year, and isn't even good enough to be included in a Highlander deck. Zoolock, the supposedly indestructible deck that will "always" be relevant, was quite terrible for a while, and is just doing fine again with the Galakrond build and several new cards that push it. Heck, people have been complaining about Warlock's hero power being so good that the class will "always" be strong, and Warlock was about the worst class lately.

    Of course, old cards CAN be relevant in a new meta again, if they get supported. Quest Druid is, in my opinion, a cool way to give old (and dead) cards like Cenarius or Starfall new life. Divine Spirit and Inner Fire used to be laughed at as a terrible combo, and it's only thanks to continuous support that this combo is even a thing, and can be used consistently enough for people to complain about it being "always" good. If that alone, the chance for old cards to be good, is problematic to you, you make an argument why there should be no evergreen set in Standard whatsoever. 

     

    While I find some of the suggested changes a bit too much, I think it wouldn't hurt to make some basic cards a little more interesting, and it's a bit silly in my opinion to be like "oh no, if War Golem is not complete shit, NOBODY will EVER buy and play new cards again".

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Bronze Explorer's terrible flavor

    Ignoring pretty much everything but the op posting (for a good reason):

    The artwork is a bit childish, but it's much more flavorful than you give it credit for. The dragon looks like a dorky boy scout that tells kids to look left and right before crossing the streets. As that, he's a perfect fit for Paladins: goody two-shoes lawful idiots. ONLY a Paladin would want to hang out with such a dragon. 

    The artwork is intentionally silly. It's meant to stick out among the dragons to remind everyone that Paladins are dorks.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Menagerie unplayable

    I agree it is somewhat silly that Zoobot and Menagerie Magician remain with no single dragon to buff aside from the Curator's Amalgam. I mean, it's alright that some heroes can benefit from specific minions more than others, but outside of Curator, these two cards make little sense to any other hero for most of the time. They already said that they are not sure about adding a new tribe without cutting another one entirely, so I guess we won't get dragons anytime soon (even though I think they could replace Bolvar, Fireblood and Righteous Protector any day and nobody would notice).

    But for Menagerie in general:  It's a lot weaker now, because you can't just get an Amalgam or two that you could buff very reliably early on and switch in things like Hydra easily later. Just to be clear, I'm ok with that. I'm also glad that it indirectly nerfs Murlocs further, since seeing the very same board (giant, divine, poisonous murlocs) every single time in the lategame was getting annoying, and should be a lot harder to accomplish now.

    But the only decent early beast is Rat Pack, and the best early single murloc is Murk-Eye... not exactly premium minions, and without them, picking Zoobot or Magician is almost pointless for half the game, and Lightfang much more difficult to make good use of (even more, if you also want a demon).

    Lightfang buffs everything BUT dragons, so it technically hasn't been made worse. And I think it's still very strong, since buffing a Cave Hydra and a Cobalt Guardian can be massive. It's just more situational, which is ok in my opinion.

    However, with the next patch, I think they should at least add a few dragons. I personally like the Menagerie strategy and think it should stay, but it needs something to fill the massive gap that Amalgam left behind. You can probably still make it work, but it will happen a lot less often.

     

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 4

    posted a message on Descent of Dragons Balance Changes Coming - Including Shaman Changes

    I wasn't even saying that people overreacted, just that they tend to.

    Actually, I meant to say that the community is probably right for once, if even the developers agree that something needs to be done fast. I mean, this is unprecedented.

    I'm not sure if I'm happy about it though, because neither do I want to see another instance where they need to rebalance something within a week, nor would I like the game to see another balance patch every other week, because there's always something that someone considers unfair. 

    Buuuuuuut I didn't say in the clearest of all terms that I 100% agree and I didn't even call the developers or testers incompetent or lazy or whatever, so the downvote-train was expectable.

    Posted in: News
  • -8

    posted a message on Descent of Dragons Balance Changes Coming - Including Shaman Changes

    Well, that was quick. ^^

    I'm sure some people are happy about this, but I didn't even have much time the past 3 days to play the game, and I played against 0 Shamans so far. Normally, I play the game fairly frequently, but in this case I don't even know yet what is so super unfair right now. All I know is that a friend of mine was complaining about Shaman on the release day, but then again, he's just like that, and the community tends to overreact as well. The last time people demanded a nerf within 48 hours was Tip the Scales. That deck wasn't nerfed at all, and half a month into the expansion, it was barely played anymore, because it turned out to be significantly weaker than people thought it was.

    So, for the first time, the developers don't say "we want to collect more data" or "we keep an eye on it"; but they just go with the community suggestion. Either it means that they gave up their conservative approach to balancing, or that they effectively admit they released something way too strong that couldn't possibly be countered.

     

    Posted in: News
  • 0

    posted a message on Does anyone else feel they can't keep up as a F2P player ?
    Quote from NinjaVivi >>

    This is the 2nd time I feel this way, been playing since beta.
    There are by far too many legendaries and epics required to get a decent deck in order to be able to keep up with the meta.

    How do you feel about it ?

     Honestly, I don't think it's that bad, at least for DoD alone. There are maybe about 4 or 5 legendaries that I'm actually interested in, and most of them I think are not crucial (especially since you already have Galakrond). I'm also hesitant to give too much about day one decks and meta trends when we get another adventure with 35 new cards anyway. Sure, it could be like Karazhan, but it could also be like Naxx.

    But I know that feeling from Mean Streets and especially from Saviours of Uldum (had a really bad pack opening). In Mean Streets, it felt like everything was either Patches or Reno, and I didn't want to invest into either of them. I thought Kazakus would drop when Reno leaves Standard, and I really hated Patches. And Uldum, I think, has the highest number of relevant legendaries out of all expansions. There are at least about 8-10 that are worth considering and I got none of them. It's a bit disheartening when you feel like you can't play anything. But I think it's mostly a mind trick. I've ALWAYS been able to complete quests and do ok enough to get a couple wins (like about 10 or so) every day within an hour or two of playing, even when my decks were not up to date. 

    So, I think even when you didn't open many packs or got bad results, you can still "keep up". I think what's really more gettng to you is the so called FOMO (fear of missing out). It's more fun to try out all sorts of new decks and play whatever you want, and kinda sucks if you can't. But if that's what you want, you either have to play more, maybe shift your focus to Arena, or spend more.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Do you think quest shaman is bad for the game?
    Quote from Aegis24 >>
    Quote from Dunscot >>
    Quote from Aegis24 >>

     There in lies the issue though, every shaman/neutral battlecry for the next YEAR is going to have to run through the quest shaman filter and I don’t think that bodes well from a creative standpoint.  Even if this deck isn’t tier 0 a change is going to have to be made.   [...] This is what makes the druid quest okay is the fact it only works on a small portion of druid cards and nothing else.  Thoughts?

     I think you are worrying too much.

    We had the situation many times before, that decks could become stronger or even too strong if they received better support, but many of them ended up not receiving the kind of support they actually needed.

    While Battlecry is a very common, possibly even the most common keyword, it can be expected that many new Battlecry cards won't support Quest Shaman's playstyle. Some will have an effect that only triggers once anyway, some will be too weak or cost too much, some will be detrimental to your strategy. There is always the possibility that a new card makes the deck much stronger, but it's the same for every other deck. And at least for the Quest's time in Standard, any good support will likely be designed as such. 

    To give you a counter-example: Even and Odd as build-arounds seem much more problematic, because every single new card, for all eternity, will work with one or the other, and every class can try to make an Even or Odd deck. But despite the huge amount of possible candidates, it is actually difficult to find suitable upgrades for these decks, since most cards are not helping with what you are trying to accomplish, and don't work with each other or your hero power.

     

     You’re missing my point.  I’m not worried about it getting too much support, I’m worried about other classes not getting support because a battlecry would be too good in quest shaman so it isn’t made.

    I said how there is no reason to believe that all future Battlecries would benefit Quest Shaman. If you want to discuss that we might not see good battlecries in the future anymore, I kind of answered that already by saying that you can make good battlecries that are simply uninteresting for Quest Shaman, haven't I?

    But ok, if you wish to point in the "limits design space" direction, I correct my response and say that you definitely worry too much. Or rather, you think about it the wrong way.

    Class cards are supposed to definine the strengths and playstyles of classes, while neutral cards are, for the most part, meant to be weaker support tools, either moderately compensating weaknesses or moderately enhancing strengths, ignoring tech cards and a few build-around legendaries.

    If new battlecries are released, they are of course more interesting for Shaman, but if they seem weak to you, it won't be because of Corrupt the Waters exists, but because they are neutrals. It's kind of like saying that Necrium Vial or Nine Lives prevent better Deathrattles, which is equally untrue. That's not to say that there are no good neutral cards at all, but they are not the main source for power, and the support you receive from neutral cards should always be rather limited.

    That being said, Descend of Dragons features quite a few decent neutral battlecries, some of them are very strong, just not necessarily suited for Quest Shaman For example, Scalerider is a very good card in a dragon deck, and Quest Shaman could go for a Dragon-build as well, but they don't have much of their own dragon support, and are probably better off with other battlecry-related strategies like lackeys. Faceless Corruptor is also a very strong battlecry, but it isn't better in Quest Shaman, because doubling the effect is pointless.

    Likewise, you can also observe that the quest isn't doing all too well in Wild. Apparently, all the years before the quest (where it didn't have to be considered) did not produce such insane battlecries that it is unstoppable now. So, not only do we still get new, strong battlecries even with the quest, we can also see that the powerlevel of battlecries wasn't much, if any higher before it came out. 

    Saying that the quest is "bad for the game" is plain wrong. Neither is it inherently too strong, nor does it/should it prevent new battlecries from getting released. Of course we are speaking hypothetically here, since we'd never know if a design was or will be scrapped due to those possible interactions, but I have no reason to believe that all future Battlecries are going to be weak, because even the newest ones aren't, and because we had very many bad ones before. Besides, not every class is supposed to benefit from Battlecries either, so for every hypothetically awesome neutral battlecry you are missing, you might as well complain about the lack of something else that would be beneficial for some class.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Do you think quest shaman is bad for the game?
    Quote from Aegis24 >>

     There in lies the issue though, every shaman/neutral battlecry for the next YEAR is going to have to run through the quest shaman filter and I don’t think that bodes well from a creative standpoint.  Even if this deck isn’t tier 0 a change is going to have to be made.   [...] This is what makes the druid quest okay is the fact it only works on a small portion of druid cards and nothing else.  Thoughts?

     I think you are worrying too much.

    We had the situation many times before, that decks could become stronger or even too strong if they received better support, but many of them ended up not receiving the kind of support they actually needed.

    While Battlecry is a very common, possibly even the most common keyword, it can be expected that many new Battlecry cards won't support Quest Shaman's playstyle. Some will have an effect that only triggers once anyway, some will be too weak or cost too much, some will be detrimental to your strategy. There is always the possibility that a new card makes the deck much stronger, but it's the same for every other deck. And at least for the Quest's time in Standard, any good support will likely be designed as such. 

    To give you a counter-example: Even and Odd as build-arounds seem much more problematic, because every single new card, for all eternity, will work with one or the other, and every class can try to make an Even or Odd deck. But despite the huge amount of possible candidates, it is actually difficult to find suitable upgrades for these decks, since most cards are not helping with what you are trying to accomplish, and don't work with each other or your hero power.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on So the solo adventure is coming with 35 new cards

    Here we go again, the same old "discussion" of "how DARE you wanting something out of the game if you don't spend any MONEY?!!"...

    For one guy who thinks it's too much to have another release of new cards between expansions for F2P players, four guys see it necessary to put him in his place. This is so moving, isn't it? I'm sure Bobby Kotick is very proud of you.

    I'm not even gonna get into this one. I already feel bad for reading the few responses and wasting a moment of thought on it. I was about to write something more, and it really felt like vividly rotting away. I double checked the spelling of Bobby Kotick's name! For all the talk of MONEY we have here, I give way too much of my time away.

     

    But of course, no discussion that remotely touches this subject would be complete without me saying something to @FortyDust. How could I ever forget you?

    I'm so terribly sorry to disappoint you, but our next encounter will be another day. Yet I hope it comforts you to know that I generally disagree in some way with most of what you have said, as I take great comfort in knowing that you would have vehemently argued with everything I could have possibly uttered, except maybe for the parts where I directly quote you.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on E.V.I.L classes huge advantage?
    Quote from Tamika_Olivia >>

    I think you're forgetting, Heroic classes get sidequests, so clearly balanced with the world eating dragon.

    Of course it is! When the world-threatening evil is about to strike and end all life on the planet, I always go sidequesting for a few days to get my golden chocobo, gamble in the casino or just raid some long-forgotten temple or dungeon, because that will get me all I need to save the day. There's nothing more powerful than sidequests!

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.