Hearthpwn

Maintaining the win rate section with following the recent patch would have cost us a raid tier in the Heist of Dalaran raid encounter. We apologize for any disappointment or inconvenience this change may have caused some players.

Quote from Xarkkal >>

It's not the worst meta ever, but it is definitely in need of a shake up so some other decks can have a chance to shine. Rogue has polarized the meta too much. Hopefully the nerf bat comes down soon to shake things up. 

Eh, I'm all for releasing actual new content to shake things up as opposed to nerfing what we already have just to appease players who have short attention spans. CCGs by nature were never meant to have constant rotating metas frequently (Look towards Yu-Gi-Oh's reign of some variation of Chaos Control for over a year (Chaos Control, Chaos Goat Control, Chaos Phoenix Control).

If the purpose of nerfs is to create a rotating door system for every class to be a special snowflake for each meta then all you'll end up with after half of a year is a ton of jank Warsong Commander-esque cards.

Something needs to be on top eventually. People just focus so much on what is on top at that moment. Perfect example is the Jade Druid meta & following metas.

Jade Druid meta. Lots of complaints about druid balance.

Razakus Priest meta. Lots of complaints about priest balance.

Tempo Rogue meta (with patches/bonemare). Lots of complaints about rogue balance.

As long as you have a meta where any deck or class does even slightly better than any & everything else you will also have complaints.

The specialist format will just magnify this. If thousands of dollars are on the line you are always picking the best performing deck/class (unless you think somebody will bring a hard counter), even if the best does 10% better or a mere 0.5% better than the other classes.

Quote from NeoSeraphi >>

You're paying 2800 gold for a legendary. That's pretty fair, that's about how much you would spend in packs to get a specific legendary. I agree that no one in their right mind should spend cash money on this, but the gold cost is fine.

Ignoring the fact that most of us older players used to get multiple, not just one, legendaries for significantly less gold. That makes it a terrible argument.

Taking away the great deals for getting good cards, then taking it away, and then introducing it at a much later date on an extremely degraded conversion rate while also essentially calling it a deal (simply because you can't buy such cards with gold anymore before the deal) only blinds new players.

2800 gold for one legendary is never a good deal.

Leeroy, for all intents and purposes, is a minion version of Fireball that must obey taunt and costs one more. It is a mid level finisher, that is all.

The only upside of it over similar spell finishers is that it can potentially be bounced.

I fail to see why it should be nerfed again or Hofed.

Just because something is used in aggressive decks and you don't like aggressive decks it doesn't mean it needs addressing.

For the very fact that people are wanting a card nerfed, not due to power level, but because it makes them play the match longer is absolutely absurd.

I'm glad none of you have any real say in the game's design.

Btw, DMH existed in standard and theoretically could extend the game as long as double Elysiana. Yet nobody ever demanded the card to be nerfed due to extending the length of the game. Let's stop misdirected aggro from Dr. Boom or the over abundance of warrior removal in general at Elysiana. 

I honestly don't understand this long game hate. Look back over the history of posts on this website about how so many players complained that aggro/tempo/midrange made it so that control games were rarely (depending on the exact meta) a thing. Now you can have really long games and you people complain.

How about you make up your mind about the damn control meta you want. It's never good enough for you people.

PS - Games with double Elysiana rarely actually go to turn limit. The discovers almost always end up eeking out more value than the other person, which gradually leads to too much pressure to ever hit a turn limit.

PSS - If you're really that concerned about super long Elysiana games you can always run some form of finisher and actually try to close games after you've accumulated enough chip damage. Maybe control players have just forgotten that you can actually also win by reducing the face to zero, not just by reducing the threats to 0?

Quote from OoklaTheMok >>

People hate control because the decks take skill and intelligence to pilot. 

Lol more like a tiny amount of classes are given the busted value cards/removal so during slow matches equally skilled players will always win when playing the class that has the most greedy vomited into said classes' laps. 

There's absolutely nothing skillful about playing a class that beat other slow classes that have less removal, less value, and/or less anti-fatigue than you by a landslide.

I dislike the obsession over control because not all classes are given a fair shot at having control as a playstyle option nearly as often as they should be given the freedom to. For example, I've loved the idea of a slow attrition non-Kingsbane rogue for the longest time. We have that in wild ever since N'Zoth and Valeera became a thing, but too often the insistence of not having rogue break its dumb class identity that often (tempo, tempo, tempo, aggro, tempo, miracle, miracle, tempo, OTK/combo, tempo, tempo). Similar things can be said for shaman, paladin, & druid as well. It gets really really old seeing mostly the same four classes (warlock, priest, warrior, & mage of late be the poster children for control).

That is why I carry some dislike for control. I'd care for it more if HS actually broke the mold for the playstyle in a much more refreshing way than it has for the past many years.

Hero cards are fine for the most part I think. The problem comes when you try to think of how to balance future cards around them (in standard, which is another reason the entire format concept is a disaster when compared to wild). 

For example, should the current few best performing classes even be given a hero card if a rotation is not happening within a few months?

If you do go a midrange or better performing class a hero card (or just a weaker class with a really busted hero card) do you avoid giving the class too many powerhouse cards for a full 2 years? Do you just waste design time by nerfing said hero card 6-9 months later to be able to give that same class better non-hero class cards?

And really now that I think of it hero cards seem to strain the design of the classes that receive them. After all, look how often the vocal minority demanded nerfs of the classes that received various hero cards. If T5 listened to such complaints then it would be fair to say that a class receiving a hero card is partially to blame for some of their non-hero class cards getting potential nerfs down the line.

Quote from MeatThrob >>

Maybe. Khadgar mountain mage and I’m sure other ways will pop up to get the job done. But my point is it takes way too long. Instead of looking at ways to beat these 3 classes/archetypes we need to take a step back look at how many classes and archetypes can’t keep up. 

 

For example.. Its a class balance issue. Not just an archetype issue. Nobody wants to play warlock zoo and token Druid on ladder. But ALSO nobody wants to play warlock or Druid ANYTHING on ladder right now. 

 

Ironically players not wanting to play anything in standard ladder that is druid related (barring Token Druid) is because of the balance you mentioned in the OP that you want for the current RoS meta classes/decks. 

Aren't balance passes great? You wreck a class or deck to make things different just to complain later that the nerfed classes now aren't being played, but instead the ones that took the old tier 1 is now dominating. 

Such is the cyclical nature of the nerf bat and power passes.

You can never 100% balance the classes to be as good as every single other class, unless you break T5's precious class identity (which even then wouldn't perfectly balance anything). In addition to this many people play to win, and with that goal optimization & min/maxing is the way to do that. For the average competitive player it wouldn't matter if warlock, for example, only perform 0.4% better than say shaman. The slightly higher performing deck/class will often be what is picked even if you had a fairly diverse and healthy meta.

I've been playing since Vanilla HS and I personally am not going to cry that warlock is not amazeballs currently. The class has been a tier 1/2 deck in far too many metas than I've cared for in the past. Not to mention the class almost single-handedly dictates what other control tools less common control classes are given. "Can't give druids board clears or rogues late game control minions because that is what warlock does. Better given warlock Godfrey 3.0 instead because they are hurting for value engines and removal."

Rogue being strong doesn't matter. Something needs to be on top and do better than everything else. If it wasn't rogue, it would be warrior. If not warrior then shaman. If not shaman then warlock.

The problem is that many of the most popular Twitch/Youtube streamers get as many views as they do is because they usually try to play a variety of stuff instead of only try-harding what everyone else is already using. Specialist format takes variety and makes it burn in hell. If you're a viewer and not the player the average person often will like to see a variety of match-ups, not just one class with a gimmicky sideboard mechanic.

The reason why they didn't just keep the best of 5 conquest format with multiple class and add a sideboard for that instead is beyond me. Clearly most people Looove watching the same class over and over again.

Blame warlocks being given the most broken basic class hero power in the game since beta.

Zoolock and Control Lock have always been completely carried by their cycle potential, more so since the class has been led away the damage from life tap + lower healing being an actual deterrent to just spamming the hero power.

Silly that people complained about odd/even making the game more about the hero power than the cards when warlock has always done this from the beginning.