Hearthpwn

The Secretkeeper has very similar ramping capability. 

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Veliq76 >>

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Veliq76 >>

You shouldn't count only legend play because by the time you get to legend a meta has been established and surprises in deck composition are much more rare. Most of the games played aren't played at legend rank. If a card disrupts play at legend rank, it sounds like the players or the decks needs to be adjusted to fit the 'new meta'. You don't change the cards to fit the players. That's how you end up destroying your game overall. You start fixing things, and end up breaking two more. Your players get frustrated every time because you have now forced them to 'relearn' the game, and they end up leaving. I know that's one of the largest reasons people leave League of Legends.

 I looked at the legend rank because that's where play should be closer to optimal and an assessment of deck/card strength should be more accurate.  By comparison, when you were brand new to Hearthstone, how good at determining card strengths were you?  Did you think that some cards were super broken (which after playing some more you realize they're actually not that good at all)?  

Also, how do you quantify and qualify "disrupts play'?  

If nerfs caused an overall decrease in the number of players, I'm sure they'd have been approaching balance differently by now.  

1. It doesn't matter my experience with the game nor my ability to determine card strengths that actually determine card strengths.  The power of the card is only partially determined by my ability to use it in all it's various possibilities.  Legend play is in a set meta, that is much tighter and more defined.  When a new meta comes along, as always happens, the card power levels will adapt.

2. I quantify and qualify "disrupts play" as whatever occurred to cause these nerfs in the first place.  I haven't claimed to know why the decisions were made, but those reasons are the answer to this question.

3. I believe new players continue to join, but that doesn't mean older players aren't leaving and doesn't make any statement on whether any one, or more, changes cause an exodus.  Perhaps the poll on twitter which showed this nerf to be unpopular, and the displeasure voiced on the forums is a more reliable subset to decide if players may be driven away or brought in with these decisions.

1. If that's true, then surely the play at legend is closer to illustrating a card/deck's "true" strength.  

2. In other words, nerfs should never happen, players should just adapt, and Team 5 never makes design mistakes?

3. If you're a long time player, you aren't going to leave HS because it's frustrating to relearn the game after Mana Wyrm was increased to 2 mana.  It's not like a 1 mana increase suddenly means you don't know how to play the game anymore.  

 1. It's the players who would reveal the cards true strength, but those players only play against a subset of other cards, that rotate as new expansions rotate.  The Mana Wyrm is a basic card.  It's been perfectly fine and at an acceptable power curve for years.  This is the very definition of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

2.  This wasn't a problematic card.  Again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

3.  Never underestimate what action will be the one that pushes someone over the edge.  What number of Mage decks does this change affect?  It's been a staple of the class.  I'm sure you understand the implications of doubling the cost of a card, you sound as though you are knowledgeable of how the game works.  Again, it affects every mage deck I've ever seen, unless you count even mage...  In fact, it negates every deck on hsreplay.net if you remove it from the deck.  Mages weren't running rampant even though this card was in every. single. deck.

Quote from Sinti >>

Quote from HAL9000 >>

I had 2 Inventors in my deck, drafted them for 5, now they cost 7 and mess up my curve. What a bullshit. Thankfully im already off to MTG

Well, they announced the nerfs well in advance, so it is honestly your own fault that you didnt finish the run before they hit. Have fun with MTGA i suppose ;-)

 I knew nothing of these nerfs and I've been logging in daily for years.  I see by their twitter this was announced.... 3 days ago?

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Veliq76 >>

You shouldn't count only legend play because by the time you get to legend a meta has been established and surprises in deck composition are much more rare. Most of the games played aren't played at legend rank. If a card disrupts play at legend rank, it sounds like the players or the decks needs to be adjusted to fit the 'new meta'. You don't change the cards to fit the players. That's how you end up destroying your game overall. You start fixing things, and end up breaking two more. Your players get frustrated every time because you have now forced them to 'relearn' the game, and they end up leaving. I know that's one of the largest reasons people leave League of Legends.

 I looked at the legend rank because that's where play should be closer to optimal and an assessment of deck/card strength should be more accurate.  By comparison, when you were brand new to Hearthstone, how good at determining card strengths were you?  Did you think that some cards were super broken (which after playing some more you realize they're actually not that good at all)?  

Also, how do you quantify and qualify "disrupts play'?  

If nerfs caused an overall decrease in the number of players, I'm sure they'd have been approaching balance differently by now.  

1. It doesn't matter my experience with the game nor my ability to determine card strengths that actually determine card strengths.  The power of the card is only partially determined by my ability to use it in all it's various possibilities.  Legend play is in a set meta, that is much tighter and more defined.  When a new meta comes along, as always happens, the card power levels will adapt.

2. I quantify and qualify "disrupts play" as whatever occurred to cause these nerfs in the first place.  I haven't claimed to know why the decisions were made, but those reasons are the answer to this question.

3. I believe new players continue to join, but that doesn't mean older players aren't leaving and doesn't make any statement on whether any one, or more, changes cause an exodus.  Perhaps the poll on twitter which showed this nerf to be unpopular, and the displeasure voiced on the forums is a more reliable subset to decide if players may be driven away or brought in with these decisions.

Quote from danklesminky >>

I don't believe that you've never lost a game to Mana wyrm. Have you ever played a control deck and not had removal for it the first couple turns? You're just dead. Its happened to me a million times

 This also happens against any number of other cards out there.  i.e. the aforementioned Cold Blood on any number of small minions.  And you can't state that that takes a combo, because Mana Wyrm takes further spells, aka a combo.

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from MojoJojo21619 >>

Average win rates don't mean much to determine balance.  The average player is bad at the game.  Easier to pilot decks always have higher win rates regardless of power level.

Get in here warrior had around 50% win rate but still got nerfed because it was over powered in the right hands.  Your average player did not pilot the deck well so it's average win rates suffered.

This was also the case in many other games.  When lee sin was releassed in league of legends his win rate was around 50% but he was massively op.  Just high skill, high reward.  Also genji in overwatch.  They are prime examples of why average statistics are not the main determining factor in balance levels.

Odd rogue is the best aggro deck in the game.  That is a simple undeniable fact.

Even according hearthpwns statistics it is with a 63.5% win rate today.

 I was looking specifically at the legend rank. 

https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-109/

How can you say on one hand, "winrates don't mean much" but quote a 63.5% winrate from Odd Rogue as a reason it's too strong?  At least VS differentiates between Legend and lower ranks. 

You shouldn't count only legend play because by the time you get to legend a meta has been established and surprises in deck composition are much more rare. Most of the games played aren't played at legend rank. If a card disrupts play at legend rank, it sounds like the players or the decks needs to be adjusted to fit the 'new meta'. You don't change the cards to fit the players. That's how you end up destroying your game overall. You start fixing things, and end up breaking two more. Your players get frustrated every time because you have now forced them to 'relearn' the game, and they end up leaving. I know that's one of the largest reasons people leave League of Legends.

<deleted by user.>

I don't like any of the nerfs, and I dislike that the poll doesn't allow for a reflection of this.  I am unable to 'vote' without selecting at least one option.

Mages have not been dominating at any memorable point since the inception of Hearthstone and the Mana Wyrm is a basic card of the class.  Class cards are not supposed to 'be in line' with other cards from other classes.  That's why rogues have Backstab, druids have Wild Growth and warriors have Execute.  All of these are 'overpowered' when taken on an individual basis.  They are staples that every other card in the game should be based around, not cards to be changed so classes are less distinct.  Pushing the Mana Wyrm into the 2 mana slot has likely caused great disruption in every mage deck out there.

As for the Giggling Inventor, 7 mana pushes it into the non-playable range.

Aviana has already been rotated out of standard play and wild was sold to us as 'the Wild format will preserve everything you already know and love about Hearthstone!

-And-

Wild Will Be Wild
Wild is our new name for the Hearthstone you already know, because it’ll be the format where anything can happen. While Standard puts a bright spotlight on recently released cards and brings a more balanced experience, when you queue up for Wild, you’ll be cozying up with the crazy fun of Hearthstone you’re already familiar with. Of course, as more and more cards are added over time, the wilder and more unpredictable Wild will be!

I see no reason any cards that have rotated out of Standard format should ever be changed in any way.

2nd try, turn 7 had enough dmg to put him at -50.

First attempt even when things went south midway through.  Almost gave up and still won easily.  Had already tried a couple others with no luck and this was an excellent choice!  Highly recommended!

This is how I would expect it to behave.  The card has had inner fire cast on it, even if the card changes, it still has inner fire cast upon it.

That's how true RNG works.  You *could* play a thousand games and not see him.

I never dust golden cards since I would be even less inclined to ever create a golden version.  With the fact that it is golden though, I doubt you would ever regret dusting it and picking up one of the more substantial and widely used legendaries.  Something like Leeroy Jenkins, Tirion Fordring, Alexstrasza, Bloodmage Thalnos, Ysera, Lord Jaraxxus, Medivh, the Guardian, Kazakus, Barnes, Aya Blackpaw or one of the Princes that will rarely be useless.  You ideally want something that will be important/key cards for many decks.

If you're willing to pay a little more to get your guaranteed legendaries, then just buy a few of each of the packs to push you to the pity timer that you believe you should soon be hitting.  It sounded like you only wanted a little more from them anyway...

Quote from SnXTiF >>

Disagree.

We are so entitled that they should also give us 'a willing*' Scarlett Johansson with the bundle.

Now, I'll be pleased as a loyal customer.