id craft whatever quest i found fun and dont care about the meta or the WR. ultimately, you wont play something you dont find fun even if it has 100% broken WR, but is boring. besides, the meta evolves but cards do not (or very very rarely). so id make an investment on fun. Open the Waygate looks the most fun to me , but its personnal preference ^^
I agree with this game economy policy, but I think that people who go to online fora asking about in-game investments, find the most fun in winning :)
I thought that mech decks could have gotten a minor nerf since aggro DH was the main deck butchering them, but isn't it no matter what way too soon to talk about any actual proof of why mech mage should get a late nerf? We don't even have 24h of data...
For anybody who spent money on "whatever hearthstone value" it's more than great, but from a consumer-ethics point of view, it's still a dick move.
People didn't spend 25$ on random cards, they bought a game cosmetic with play value. If I order a 1000$ designer lamp and get a 2000$ couch/sofa I'm still being fucked over as a customer, no matter the objective value of my final product. And it's always a good display to offer a full refund :)
Funny. I had exactly your opinion during Frozen throne, where death knights absolutely ruled the game (together with Keleseth). Rexxar was a one card deck (said Kibler), Anduin broke the meta until nerf, then about 45% of all decks had Malfurion the pestilent (not even making this up).
Today the heroes are also really powerful, but I think they are relatively weaker, since minions got power crept more. Many are auto include cards in late game friendly decks, but that's also a reflection of the meta itself. The death knights were so polarizing that only a relative few would be popular at the same time. That we right now don't have a lot of options without heroes is a shame thou, maybe we need a new keleseth ;)
As for quests. I think both first and third generation of quest were too polarizing and influential. Uldum had the right balance between work and reward...
Tbh no quest are worth crafting atp most cards that make the quest work are gone the only one still playable is hunter
If I was a new player or just tight on dust I'd heed this statement.
If one has a decent amount of dust and feels inspired by a specific quest line, sure have fun, but except for hunters, there isn't really a meta quest line. I think that druid has some cool quest deck options and warrior is still playable but neither are really recommendable. There is of course a trend where quests and heroes have the most impact on your games, making them somewhat more essential cards to craft than minions, with exceptions like Kazakusan. So if you really want to get some guaranteed fun for the dust? Quests and heroes are generally a good shot.
Oh! I thought that you were "returning" after just a few months. Well I suppose you still are, but if it's only once per account it's a real drag then.
If you think about how many legendary minions you get in a starter deck compared to just completing your quests, it's really not that much you get to compensate for the months that you had to be inactive. Sure, playing should be rewarded, but I don't think that people who love playing for hours every day should feel tricked if their friends also get to play with a good deck every now and then.
I suggest some quests that can earn you some mixed packs after not exceeding a certain play time, over a long period. Maybe even give the BGs-only players some incentive to come back to standard?
what you call "broken" , "OP" , "combo" or "busted" are synergies. how cards interact with each other and the game. ofc that will "speed up" the process. thats the whole point of this game no ? would you like to play a "fair" game with 0 synergy ? i would not. there are tons of more classical card games for that (and still ... they rely on card synergies, with also strong combos). i prefer having synergies alive and existing with time to time nerfs when its way too good (ex: switcheroo) than none.
and yes you need to have good synergies and combos if you want to compete against good synergies / combos. whats wrong with that? its pushing people up, especially in deck building. just look how many peeps want to find decks "which can deal with naga dh"
and btw there are shaman and priest decks with strong synergies / combos atm , just give a look
look at...well any other card game that is this game direct competition and you will see the difference between "pushing synergies over tempo" and "literally throwing tempo out the window from the balance of the game" - right now Heathstone is just doing the second point. YEAH synergies look amazing for the person that is playing the deck constanly specially when you need to little effort to make them work - not like in other expansions where you Jade Druid deck has so little space to run any other plan B or your Shudderwock almost dictated how 60% of your deck will be builded. But at the same time they also feel boring to play against because there is not a real gameplan to Victory aside for beating plan A and hoping that the oponent dont get a great plan B and surrenders.
I needed to read that statement thrice to understand it properly, so be ready to read some confused comments friend. So your point (now) is that deck synergies are so powerful that decks aren't flexible enough, because it's s much better to go 100% on one win con right?
EVERY dragon deck has a strategy for aggro and one for control that are completely different. Even quest hunter runs two different hero powers depending on the opponents defensive tools. Mech decks are sort of doing the same no matter what, but they are arguably a lot more like your old school mid range deck which has the board fights as tactical variation. DH sometimes go for big burst wins against control-ish decks. The number of OTK decks are lower than all of last year and control decks are (almost) better than ever. Had you written this comment back during UiS I would understand your frustration and I somewhat wish that more "off-ideas" would be better, but the game isn't any worse than before.
Wow! you're right. Those historically top tier hero powers are really pulling a lot of work to put Rogue and Warlock in tier one this meta.
A class being bad has nothing to do with the strength of their hero power. Warlocks have the best hero power in the game, no one argues this. They are also bottom tier.
0
I agree with this game economy policy, but I think that people who go to online fora asking about in-game investments, find the most fun in winning :)
0
I thought that mech decks could have gotten a minor nerf since aggro DH was the main deck butchering them, but isn't it no matter what way too soon to talk about any actual proof of why mech mage should get a late nerf? We don't even have 24h of data...
0
Exactly!
0
For anybody who spent money on "whatever hearthstone value" it's more than great, but from a consumer-ethics point of view, it's still a dick move.
People didn't spend 25$ on random cards, they bought a game cosmetic with play value. If I order a 1000$ designer lamp and get a 2000$ couch/sofa I'm still being fucked over as a customer, no matter the objective value of my final product. And it's always a good display to offer a full refund :)
1
I also like burgle rogue. Even when it was too good it didn't feel bad to play against.
0
of all nerfs that deck could get I'm a little surprised, but I guess they just had to nerf something :)
4
So in one expansion, burgle rogue got so power crept that, that gnoll hasn't just been unnerfed, but 3 cards have gotten buffed too?!
Just remembered secret passage was a card, my bad ;)
0
Careful earning all those coins guys, Blizzard may go bankrupt when they finally let you convert them :p
0
Funny. I had exactly your opinion during Frozen throne, where death knights absolutely ruled the game (together with Keleseth). Rexxar was a one card deck (said Kibler), Anduin broke the meta until nerf, then about 45% of all decks had Malfurion the pestilent (not even making this up).
Today the heroes are also really powerful, but I think they are relatively weaker, since minions got power crept more. Many are auto include cards in late game friendly decks, but that's also a reflection of the meta itself. The death knights were so polarizing that only a relative few would be popular at the same time. That we right now don't have a lot of options without heroes is a shame thou, maybe we need a new keleseth ;)
As for quests. I think both first and third generation of quest were too polarizing and influential. Uldum had the right balance between work and reward...
0
If I was a new player or just tight on dust I'd heed this statement.
If one has a decent amount of dust and feels inspired by a specific quest line, sure have fun, but except for hunters, there isn't really a meta quest line. I think that druid has some cool quest deck options and warrior is still playable but neither are really recommendable. There is of course a trend where quests and heroes have the most impact on your games, making them somewhat more essential cards to craft than minions, with exceptions like Kazakusan. So if you really want to get some guaranteed fun for the dust? Quests and heroes are generally a good shot.
1
Oh! I thought that you were "returning" after just a few months. Well I suppose you still are, but if it's only once per account it's a real drag then.
If you think about how many legendary minions you get in a starter deck compared to just completing your quests, it's really not that much you get to compensate for the months that you had to be inactive. Sure, playing should be rewarded, but I don't think that people who love playing for hours every day should feel tricked if their friends also get to play with a good deck every now and then.
I suggest some quests that can earn you some mixed packs after not exceeding a certain play time, over a long period. Maybe even give the BGs-only players some incentive to come back to standard?
0
I needed to read that statement thrice to understand it properly, so be ready to read some confused comments friend. So your point (now) is that deck synergies are so powerful that decks aren't flexible enough, because it's s much better to go 100% on one win con right?
EVERY dragon deck has a strategy for aggro and one for control that are completely different. Even quest hunter runs two different hero powers depending on the opponents defensive tools. Mech decks are sort of doing the same no matter what, but they are arguably a lot more like your old school mid range deck which has the board fights as tactical variation. DH sometimes go for big burst wins against control-ish decks. The number of OTK decks are lower than all of last year and control decks are (almost) better than ever. Had you written this comment back during UiS I would understand your frustration and I somewhat wish that more "off-ideas" would be better, but the game isn't any worse than before.
1
For such a pure salt post I'm amazed by all the good answers. Really! Shoulder pad yourselves.
My question is why people call every hunter deck "face hunter" by default?
Whether it's classic midrange , aggro-beast, quest or whatever that isn't big beasts winning on turn 9+ is somehow a face deck....
0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
0
hmmm I already had them unlocked years back. Maybe it will read it next time :)