-
- XanKortal
- Registered User
-
Member for 7 years, 8 months, and 21 days
Last active Thu, Apr, 25 2024 16:43:21 -
- 2
- 16
- 31
- 0 Followers
- 184 Total Posts
- 187 Thanks
⚙
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.
5
Bonus points to MTG because they then *also* locked Contraptions in Silver-bordered land, which are not legal in any non-silver-border events, despite having that card that synnergizes with Contraptions be a black-bordered card.
The comparison would be like if HS only published Relics as a Duels-only mechanic, but still had this card printed to standard.
0
As stated above: max of 4 lines of text.
Condense the text into 4 lines, or the idea isn't going to fly as a card.
Complex cards and complex mechanics is fine.
Complex card text is not.
0
Sure there is. In fact, you can do 2 mana 60/60 with 0 cost reductions with just one card. Its even immune to silence!
Trick is, it's just not in standard. (Spoilers: it's Jade Idol)
Incidentally, Shadow Word Death is *awful* in the matchup against effects that generate 2-3 huge minions, like with Oracle + Giants.
9
Funny. That's very much the same argument all those people made about Preparation before it went from discount 3 to discount 2.
Shadowstep has been a design space problem since the games creation - it keeps cropping up in degenerate combos, in OTKs, infinite hand loops, etc etc etc. And a bunch of cards in Rogue are absolutely hamstrung during the design because Shadowstep *exists*.
0
Honestly? Probably some time between Karazhan and Knights of the Frozen Throne.
Karazhan denotes a wild step up in RNG and a lack of willingness by the devs to implement promised game modes (remember tournament mode being promised? Well the closest we got was Heroic Tavern Brawl... which was terrible for the normal Brawl playerbase)
Meanwhile, Knights denotes a wild step up in class power disparity, one which we still kind of haven't recovered from (see also the "A History of Official Meta Snapshots" for more clarity)
0
I'm not going to go line by line, but I assure you, you've collected a list that is half "actually are game ending cards, even if you aren't aware of it" and the other half is "this isn't actually 8-10 mana, so they're disqualified".
The ultimate trouble is that you're misunderstanding "game ending" - using the devs own comments in interviews and AMAs, the Quests are game ending cards - not because they kill the opponent (only really one does that actively), but because you're supposed to gain such a vast advantage moving forward from that point that losing becomes less likely. (Another example of a "game ending" card that isn't obvious is Preparation back when it reduced the next spell by 3. It was something like an 80% played winrate card in a 55% winrate deck)
0
This.
There are a few notable differences between the two, but the big one immediately coming to mind is that Pocket Knife gives Charge in Duels but Rush in Constructed.
They are simply different cards, and any theoretical nerfs to one will likely have no impact on the other, unless some underlying mechanic gets changed (like if the RNG mechanism gets changed, or stealth and taunt interaction gets changed)
1
Well, there's your problem. That is decidedly *not* why Wild was created - it may be what you believe to be the optimal design space for Wild, but it was not made for this.
Iksar has discussed this at length in some of his AMAs, but the intention for Wild is that you are able to play your old decks with each cards *core functionality* remaining the same, but with no guarantee that the numbers/specific keywords attached to those cards would stay the same.
This is why Patches hasn't been given Charge back, or why they haven't unnerfed Sylvanas back to 5 mana, or why Force of Nature no longer gives charge treants. They're willing to undo some nerfs because those nerfs were overboard and unnerfing them wouldn't be unbalanced while others were warranted, and need to be in place for the health of Wild as a whole.
0
This is... not strictly true.
It's accurate for Standard, but standard isn't the only metric at play here.
In Wild, the only two* Questlines that see any play are Hunter and Warrior, and even then, post nerf they're not the dominant meta defining powerhouses, anymore, they're just... "kinda alright". I think the most recent stats I saw said they were at like... 50.1% winrate? Which is good enough to climb with, but not really anything outlandish.
Arguably, Warrior Questline is a problem in that it still has a massive representation, but it doesn't seem like a balance issue and more a "stale metagame" issue.
That basically points to the Questlines being... fine for the most part? Not really in dire need of nerfs, since their impact is felt, but is relatively minimal in both formats.
*There would be a third playable questline, if it weren't banned, and the fact that Warlock questline is banned is arguably grounds for some hardcore nerfs, but Blizzard seems reluctant to admit that questline in general was a mistake.
1
Mostly this.
Not 100% sure about the specific implementation suggested, but any time a card gets banned from Wild is just going to cause infinitely more issues down the road.
As we can see with Nefiret, there definitely is a contingient who want to play their cards as-is in the Wild format, but when the mechanics of the card are so toxic as to render Wild unplayable (as Demon Seed and Soul Stealer did for the relatively brief time they were around) there almost is no way to reintroduce them without some massive fix to the underlying mechanics.
What I've always advocated for on the questline was that fatigue was just flat out removed from the equation, and that reflected damage had to come from cards or H.P. under either players control, rather than neutral game mechanics.
And for Stealer, really, what you need to do is just make it so that things costing health instead of mana aren't treated as damage that can be blocked with immune (or seed). As the mechanic works now, it just leaves the mechanic of "costs health instead of mana" at odds with the wording of other mechanics that do similar effects, but don't work that way. Reckless Flurry says you spend Armor, but it doesn't let you *not* lose armor if you're immune, so "spending health" should similarly be unreducible by immune.
4
Fascinating. Though, it definitely does sort of support my feeling that we haven't really had a "balanced" meta in a while.
There's always been a problem of "haha, [9th/10th class] in [year]", but its surprising to see just how lopsided some of these really are.
My 2 general rules of thumb for class balance are that 1) if 50% of meta is 3 classes (out of 9 or 10) or 2) if the gap between the second most played and the second least played is over 10%: something is wrong.
And the last time *both* were satisfied was Ungoro, which definitely lines up with my general opinion of the overall balance.
2
Ah yes. Because "grinding from bronze up to legend" isn't a thing that happens, which matters for determining how good a deck is or isn't for climbing.
Also, if you want to only use top level as a metric? Worlds is going on right now, and Nalguidan is one of the players who brought Quest Warrior, and has yet to lose with said deck.
The other player to bring the deck, Frenetic, only sported one win one loss with the deck, before he was elimimated (and most of his losses were with alignment druid). Meaning at 2021 worlds, Quest Warrior has a 4 win, 1 loss record to date, which seems to be a pretty flipping good ratio for the top players to sport.
2
Tier... 2?
*checks HSREPLAY*
You sure? They're showing it as the #2 deck, right behind Libram Paladin.
0
I think that having a banlist at all is a supremely unhealthy state to be in for the format.
The problem, to me, is that the devs have already gone on record that the intention for wild is that you can play your old decks and that the cards in those decks won't wildly change from what they were, even if the numbers themselves change.
Put another way, the devs don't promise your individual cards and decks will retain their power level, but they will retain their effects.
Having a banlist sort of communicates that when those cards rotate, they will need to break that promise - since the effects *themselves* are the problem for wild. It doesn't matter how much Stealer of Souls costs for mana, Voidcaller plus Violet Illusionist, plus Plot Twist equals infinite mana and infinite card draw. The effect itself is the problem, and will need to be changed when it inevitably rotates out of standard. Same story with The Demon Seed - it's just way too easy to burn through all the stages with no real cost, and the ability to burn to fatigue reliably is way too strong to allow that effect to exist in the format at all.
Other than that one outlier (which is a *big* issue, IMHO), I do think Wild is in a relatively healthy state. There's definitely more deck variety than Standard, that's for sure.
0
Let's take a merry little jaunt over to HSReplay, shall we?
Hrmmm.
Nope. Seems like at this exact moment, two of the top four winrate decks in standard are quest decks (Warrior and Warlock), and a third (Quest Rogue) is also slotting into tier 2 status and tearing things up.
Seems like no. It's not these people, but you who is several months behind the meta.
Furthermore, your argument about wild not mattering is all kinds of dumb - the fact that at least one questline needed to be banned from the format for balance reasons should definitely cue you in that their fundamental designs might be a problem for the game, long term. Quest Warlock has been nerfed at least 7 times, and still is one of the top 4 decks in standard, and is outright banned from wild for being too strong. That should immediately throw some red flags about how healthy such a card even is for the game, at all.