• 1

    posted a message on Zeddy is happy about new balance patch
    Quote from ArcyroX >>

    now he acts like nothing happened :D

     Lol @ him going over “predictions” when he was told what the changes would be beforehand. More like multiple dead-on “guesses”, another three or four damn near identical to the actual patch, and one or two that are purposely way off base to please his source

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Zeddy is happy about new balance patch
    Quote from PetiteMouche >>
    Quote from xanzan1 >>
    Quote from PetiteMouche >>

    How does he know what's in the next balance patch ?

     Content Creators for Hearthstone get the info early. That's how some of them have videos that go up immediately when the Patch or details are announced. Even Regis has said in some of his patch notes videos that they get it early.

    I know, If Regis or Kibler had said that I would believe them.

    Zeddy is probably the guy Blizzard hates the most, there is absolutely no way a blizzard employee leaked ANYTHING to him

    Zeddy is blacklisted by Blizzard so whatever info he allegedly has is from an indirect source. If the rumor is legit then he must have been in contact with some GM or another streamer that the devs actually speak to. i agree that Regis and Kibler are more reliable sources than him but they are also too loyal and/or classy to go around spreading any exclusive leaks.  This is not to say anything Zeddy is saying is true, but it’s also not impossible that it could be.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Is inevitability a good thing?

    I have been thinking a lot about that exact point made above since the expac released. I mean what could be the next logical step after crossing such a huge power level threshold in the current meta state? Not only would the next set’s cards need to be unbelievably strong, but they would need to be even faster than the current turbo win condition decks to make any impact. It’s inevitably going to lead to a clown fiesta scenario like Yu-Gi-Oh where an unbreakable board comes out on turn one unless your opponent draws badly.  The only thing I’m holding out for is the power level reset idea that Iksar hinted at for the next set rotation. If they don’t go for that approach then the game as we knew it is a thing of the past.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Elemental Shaman in the New No Minion Mage

    This topic needs to be locked lol

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Warlock Questline change
    Quote from emkarab >>

    Warlock Quest is fine, it's DH that needs to be nerfed asap.

     You can’t be serious. If you run Far Watch Post Quest DH folds almost immediately. Fel DH is much stronger than that version to me

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Theory on the Next Expansion's Hero Cards

     

    Judging from the last two expansions of this rotation, it seems like the mercenaries are being given the legendary treatment in various iterations.  First were minions, now we have legendary spells, and the next logical conclusion to me would be hero cards for every class. The possibilities of how they could work are very interesting to me, and I've been thinking about how the traditional hero card format would not function well in the fast paced meta established by the Stormwind Set.   I can't imagine any card over the cost of 7 mana making the cut in any deck, even if they were at the power level of some of the Galakrond variants or the Amazing Reno, etc.  The first idea that occurred to me was that the new cards could potentially be 5 mana, but I think the following prediction could be a possibility as well: 

     

    The new hero cards may have variable mana costs deppending on how much mana the player has at the time. This is to say that if you drew the hero card in your mulligan it would be a relatively weak version that costs 1 mana, then on turn 5 it would become a stronger version, and eventually transform into a game winning final form at 10 mana.  

     

    As a very rough example, a Rokara hero card could have a one mana version which gives 1 (or zero) armor, summons two 1/1 pirates, and has a 2 mana hero power that gives you a 2/2 weapon. The 5 mana version could give 3 armor, summon two 3/3s, and a 3/3 weapon. And then the 10 mana version would be some massive effect much like the juggernaut. 

     

    Has anyone else here had considered the idea of hero cards for the mercenaries being on the horizon? Or does it seem like I'm way off base? Either way, i'm happy to discuss anything other than how awful the meta is right now. 

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Is inevitability a good thing?
    Quote from brother >>

     I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.

    This "burn version" without Stealer is most often referred as Quest Zoo Lock, because it runs typical zoo minions like Hecklefang Hyena, Flame Imp or Flesh Giant, but despite that, its main goal is still to complete the quest as quickly as possible and then kill the opponent with transferred self-damage (not necessarily from fatigue). The thing is though, this deck pretty much died after the first round of nerfs, because Darkglare for 3 mana is just to slow, when it gives only one mana crystal.

     Is that the same deck with Barrens Scavenger, Soul Rend and Blood Shard Bristleback? That’s the one i was seeing in diamond other than the handlock variant. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Is inevitability a good thing?
    Quote from brother >>

    Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers.  Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.

    To be fair, I'd say that inevitability of standard Warlock works now (after nerfs) as it always should have been. Because yes, Handlock can still kill the opponent with fatigue damage, but it won't happen before turn 10-11. So it's more of a plan B, to finish off some attrition slowpokes, but it's too slow in most matchups.

     I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Is inevitability a good thing?

    The big difference i see in this expansion is that the definition of inevitabilty has been severely altered as opposed to what it used to indicate within the game. Win conditions for decks are not new, and they’re intrinsic to some fan favorite cards like C’Thun, etc. However, these cards could not win you the game without legitimate set-up over multiple turns and paying off around turn 10 or even after that, like a true finisher. Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers.  Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blanket Change to Questline Mechanics
    Quote from jazzfan27 >>

    Maybe too punishing, but I'm not sure I can think of a better way to introduce some counterplay to quests.  This at least leaves the quest in play so that your opponent can continue perusing it.

     Resetting the quest would be very extreme, and if it wasn’t a legendary it would be devastating to get hit with 2 even if your deck could somehow recover for the first one. But in that same vein, maybe something like a Cult Neophyte for quests would be decent. Something like a 2 mana “Your opponent cannot progress toward their Questline next turn” with tradeable so it’s not a dead draw against other decks. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blanket Change to Questline Mechanics
    Quote from Deezedvc >>

    This would make people have to hold onto the  5 mama 7/7 lol mutantus would be run in every deck until quests stop being played

     I’m not sure what you mean as really what one would have to do is wait until a turn where there is enough mana availanle to complete the quest and play the reward as well, meaning that they may actually have to play an extra turn or two before going all in. That would essentially be the goal as I think all the quests would be healthier if they were completed by about turn 8 or 9 (bar some exceptions) and then have their explosive turns take place at around 10 mana. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Blanket Change to Questline Mechanics
    Quote from FortyDust >>

    In the immortal words of En Vogue,

    Never gonna get it, never gonna get it
    Never gonna get it, never gonna get it
    Never gonna get it, never gonna get it
    Never gonna get it, never get it.
    If they change anything about Questlines, they will alter individual cards. They will not make a blanket change to the mechanism.
    I could imagine, for example, increasing the damage requirement on the first two steps of The Demon Seed. Warlock has far too much healing as a class, so this would make the quest take longer without killing its viability.

    I get what you’re saying especially when it comes to Blizzard having to allow full dust refunds for 10 legendary cards, which seems like a disaster. However, i think that concept is more costly on paper than it is in practice as I don’t see why people would disenchant cards that could still be completely viable just because they are technically “weaker”. I could see a ton of people disenchanting the priest quest though as it would still be almost unplayable even though it would be functionally unchanged.  

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Blanket Change to Questline Mechanics
    Quote from blizzaga >>

    itz a sik idea blud hope they implement it

     You know, the way you type reminds me a lot of my favorite user on here, warcraftofworld. Their comments always made me laugh and if that is you I’m glad you’re still around blud

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Blanket Change to Questline Mechanics

    I’ve been contemplating a possible change to the way Questlines are completed which I saw someone suggest on here a while back. The idea was to prevent questlines from accumulating progress toward multiple steps in one turn, making it so one would have to wait until the next turn to complete another step as opposed to overlapping. To me, it seems like it would be very successful in slowing down the “turbo” quests like Mage and Warlock, but I do not have much experience with the other classes in regard to how detrimental the change would be. Do you guys think it would succeed in slowing the meta down or would it be too damaging to Paladins, Rogues etc.? 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Prismatic Jewel Kit and Transformation Effects

    Are you sure? I just used devolving missiles on a divine shield minion against a paladin today and I saw the weapon’s durability go down. This was on mobile but i’ll screenshot if i see it again

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.