I've also found that druid is now awesome against aggro with Oaken Summons & Ironwood Golem combo. The main issue is dealing with control lock, unfortunately.
- Registered User
Member for 4 years and 5 months
Last active Sun, Nov, 29 2020 23:03:27
- 0 Followers
- 8 Total Posts
- 4 Thanks
Aug 2, 2016Posted in: Card Discussion
No, because of the downside of having Malchezaar in your deck. For every time the extra five cards win you the game in fatigue there will be at least two other times when some terrible legendary that you didn't put in your deck pops up and causes you to lose the game because you needed a board clear or a removal spell.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May 11, 2020sPacEtiMe19 posted a message on When do you think Demon Hunter cards will randomly be "bad"?Posted in: Card Discussion
Will take years, the only basic set close to insanely OP DH is rogue and a very good basic set make the class never be trash tier.
Unless the class being massively overnerfed in 6 or more cards DH will be top tier forever.
This statement is not only bold, but also false. They just need to give the underperforming classes (shaman, paladin) some actual direction and decent cards.
Time and history, not opinion, has proved that over nerfing a class, rather than just making others viable, is just bad. Galakrond shaman met this exact scenario, and now the class is just gone. Priest had a basic set overhaul and it is no coincidence that they are miraculously playable now.
Shaman and paladin also have glaring issues involving their hero powers. Power creep has weakened their hero powers far more than the other classes. 2 mana 1/1‘s with no immediate effect are just garbage, especially when synergy with them have been abandoned.
I also don’t have as big an issue with power creep as many, but I do agree that some classes are falling behind the others. Shoveling murlocs down paladins’ throats every expansion and trying to bake in totem support for shaman is just sad. When you have other classes getting cards that are just generally more versatile, and shaman and paladin get half-in commitments to niche themes, there are of course going to be problems.
Warlock somewhat suffers to this as well, but to a lesser extent. Every expansion there are like 1-2 cards with discard synergy, and 1-2 cards with demon synergy, and then just the other stuff. You can’t Just sprinkle synergy in and expect it to carry an archetype.
Like paladin gets TWO cards to try and create a mono-paladin archetype, and nothing more. Two cards are not going to make enough of a difference to warrant ignoring some very strong neutrals. And now paladin has to sacrifice two of their new cards that could have otherwise just been decent to strong standalone cards.
Why was paladin good during the muster for battle era for example? Because a card like muster is insane in a silver hand themed deck, but is also just very strong standalone.
May 7, 2018Dunscot posted a message on Iksar on Naga Sea Witch: "We’ve Been Discussing a Variety of Changes"Posted in: News
Looks like a massive nerf wave is building up. I excpect at least 5 out of those 8 (or 9 with NGS) get hit, maybe more, but I also expect to lose more dust than I gain back, as quite a few cards won't get nerfed but still end up much weaker, as the decks they belong to are no longer playable, like Level Up, Clockwork Giant, Skull of the Man'ari, Sonya Shadowdancer, and many more.
On the one hand, the meta might actually change quite a bit, on the other hand, I still don't like drastic nerfs, and I think at least some of these problem cards were predictable and avoidable.
Control Warlock, or Bloodreaver Gul'dan for that matter, was good but not too good during KFT, mostly because of Razakus (which had to get nerfed). I think it would have been smarter to just wait, instead of pushing it so heavily with KnC that it would become another problematic deck itself. And I will be pissed if Doomguard gets nerfed because of it. The card was never really too good, and barely played after the rotation of Voidcaller. It just became interesting again after Power Overwhelming was kicked out and Gul'dan gave it a second wind, but then KnC added TWO ways to bring the card out without its battlecry, AND the Cube-Dk-synergy, along with yet another very powerful demon. THAT is a fabricated nerf - keep pushing a card so much until it becomes problematic.
Call to Arms is another one of those carelessly overstatted cards, much like Ultimate Infestation, or like Corridor Creeper used to be. You could reduce it to 2 minions, and it would still be above average as a draw+play 2x2 for 4. There is just no reason to keep it the way it is. I hope Sunkeeper Tarim will be spared, because without the swarming, it is more in the middle between pushing damage and securing board control and an important card for Paladin as a class. Still very powerful, but not a pure aggro tool.
And as a final note: "Quest Rogue matchups are so polarizing that they can leave you feeling like the outcome of the match is decided before the game begins rather than what happened during the game." - this is true for most matches in Hearthstone for quite a while already, starting with Jade Idol and Patches the Pirate. A lot of decks have polarizing matchups because they do their thing so well that you either play a counterdeck or you lose. Strategies have become much more clear-cut and consistent over the last couple expansions. This gives the game much more of a Rock-Paper-Scissors feeling, and thus many matchups are halfway decided just by the matchup. In that regard, Quest Mage is no different than Quest Rogue, just weaker. If you don't like polarizing matchups, stop pushing archetypes to the point of unfairness. Even if there are counters (like with Barnes) it doesn't make it "fair", when the outcome is determined by "have/hold the counter, or lose".
All in all, I'm glad Iksar shares some info on possible nerfs, it's good to hear at least something. But I'm a broken record on this: They need to fundamentally change their design philosophy if this is discussion is not meant to happen every single expansion.
Jul 6, 2018ManThighs posted a message on Hearthstone Tavern Talk: Bringing Back Heroes, Balance Frequency, Community Card ArtPosted in: News
I disagree with the frequent balance changes. Of course weekly balance changes are absurd but monthly... I think monthly balance changes are would be amazing for the game. The meta gets stale after a few weeks, let alone a month, and if you added nerfs (AND BUFFS) every month not only would the player experience be fresh every month but people would have more incentive to keep worse cards in the hopes they could get buffed, or become useful in the future. 1 month is more then enough time to adapt to the meta and counter it and If you don't like a meta you can simply wait a month. I feel everyone would benefit from this system. Casual/fun players will be able to try new decks, new interactions, and new classses, every month. Ladder players will get a fresher experience (not playing against the same cycle of decks for 4 months). And Blizzard will profit more off of people buying packs to try and get the new "in" cards for the month. To summarize my points, I believe monthly balance changes would be optimal for both the player base and Blizzard itself.
Sep 8, 2018BOOOOOOOOOOM posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 8.11 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
Aug 10, 2018RazorOfArtorias posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 8.07 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
Aug 10, 2018wooder posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 8.07 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
All mech can attacking twice in a turn now :)
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.