I play until I have no health left. Every once in a while it nets me a disconnect, a concede or a misplay. Just because I can't see the possibility of a comeback, doesn't mean it's not there. It aint over 'till it's over.
FWIW - since the format split three years ago, Blizzard has nerfed or HoF'd 35 cards from the two evergreen sets.
Nevertheless, if you look at the stats on HSReplays, 41 of the 100 most-played cards in Standard are from the two evergreen sets. Basic and Classic have a huge impact on this game - owing to their power level, the final two expansions of the year contributed a total of only twelve cards to the "highly-played" list. Folks playing this game barely had to collect new cards for the past year - and that isn't good for the long-term health of the game. Folks get pretty bored of playing the same decks for a full year, and it's disappointing for everyone when entire sets fail to make any appreciable impact on ladder. The first "C" in CCG is the main reason folks bother playing this game at all - but it was as if that C simply dropped from the game after the launch of WW . . .
Buffing evergreens doesn't seem to be a particularly good idea, all things considered.
I doubt any of my proposed buffs would make a single difference to that statistic. I'm not trying to make good cards better, just bad cards fair.
Im talking about random summon cards: Unstable Evolution and Astromancer is just some of these and there are alot more in wild. Those card would be insane if the bad outcomes where buffed. This is why u cant ever buff all the bad cards.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, and I agree that there needs to be bad options, which my examples show there still are. However, would it be game changing if your Unstable Evolution transformed a card into a Core Hound with 1 more health?
While I agree that some cards should be better than others, I still believe that at least basic cards should adhere to a mana/stat formula, as I stated in an earlier post.
If buffing a bad card won't make it more likely to see play, there is no point in buffing it. None of the buffs you are proposing will move those cards from the unplayable pile into the playable pile. Therefore, they are not really needed.
If buffing a bad card doesn't make it good, then why not do it? If it doesn't interfere with constructed worthy cards, but instead makes it more powerful for new players, what's so bad about buffing it? It's not because I break the cards, I just make them follow the basic stat distribution values.
The problem is: these cards are part of the Basic/Classic Set for a reason. Blizzard wants to make money with every expansion, so the cards need to be slightly stronger every time (though the power level of KotFT and K&C was so high that yes, they made money, but they now have troubles with the power level of newer sets, that's why we saw so many nerfs recently)
They are meant for beginners and you can still have a very efficient deck with these cards if you know how to create one.
I disagree on the idea that they have to create more powerful cards every expansion. Cards don't have to be stronger to be interesting, just different.
0
Never. In fact, until Un'goro, there were only 1 class legendary per expansion.
13
I play until I have no health left. Every once in a while it nets me a disconnect, a concede or a misplay. Just because I can't see the possibility of a comeback, doesn't mean it's not there. It aint over 'till it's over.
0
It has rush, not charge.
2
If you go to the official page (https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/expansions-adventures/rise-of-shadows/cards) and press the reveal stream icon, you'll be redirected to their own Twitch channel (https://www.twitch.tv/PlayHearthstone).
3
Kobold? More like Swolebold.
2
Dyslexia does not equal dumb.
0
League of Explorers was announced 6th of november and released 6 days later.
0
https://wow.gamepedia.com/Dagran_Thaurissan
Basically his ancestor summoned Ragnaros, and he's a super fan.
4
He still lurks.
0
Battlecry: Each player gains a random hero power.
1
I doubt any of my proposed buffs would make a single difference to that statistic. I'm not trying to make good cards better, just bad cards fair.
0
Yeah, I know what you're talking about, and I agree that there needs to be bad options, which my examples show there still are. However, would it be game changing if your Unstable Evolution transformed a card into a Core Hound with 1 more health?
While I agree that some cards should be better than others, I still believe that at least basic cards should adhere to a mana/stat formula, as I stated in an earlier post.
0
Maybe, maybe not. Most likely not.
3
If buffing a bad card doesn't make it good, then why not do it? If it doesn't interfere with constructed worthy cards, but instead makes it more powerful for new players, what's so bad about buffing it? It's not because I break the cards, I just make them follow the basic stat distribution values.
Can we at least agree that the buffs are fair?
2
I disagree on the idea that they have to create more powerful cards every expansion. Cards don't have to be stronger to be interesting, just different.