Hearthpwn

You're seriously worried about a nerf to miracle rogue?  It would take 6 months of a broken deck for them to even consider a nerf, so even if the next set catapults miracle rogue to broken status you still have over half a year before you even half to worry about it. Not buying a set because 9 months from now there is a 0.01% chance of a nerf seems pretty crazy to me.

They were trying to push a more control oriented hunter, and they expected that lock and load would do well in a deck like that (and it likely would). The problem is control hunter just isn't good enough.

Not all classes are created equally. Some classes aren't really meant for certain types of decks.  Priests aren't suppose to be good at agro, and hunter isn't suppose to be good at standard control. The game would be really boring if every class worked in similar ways.

Quote from victortran123 >>

Hmm so do you think that Zetalot suddenly drops both Zombies for Curators because aggro is suddenly no longer rampant in ladder? Was there a sudden dramatic drop in aggro decks after the last wing of LOE was released? If not, did he just make a terribad decision? 

 

Quote from ptorlak >>

I just know that after 2 years of playing consistently I know this game pretty damn well.

I've watched streams but I don't honestly see them win any more often than I do or see any moves they make that seem ground breaking.

If you are struggling to get to a 60%+ winrate below rank 5 then you are either playing the deck wrong or are making too many misplays.  You are likely making misplays that you don't even know are misplays, and those are the hardest to find. Once you are piloting a deck the way it is supposed to be played you should be getting a 70%+ winrate all the way to rank 5 (and it will likely drop a little from there to legend).  My advice is to watch players who are really good with the deck you are using and see what they do differently. Even small changes like a different play every two to three games can raise your win percentage by a considerable amount.

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Powercreep has several different types, not just one.  

You have the one the OP suggested where you introduce cards that are better than the top cards in the game before.  Then you have the one that OP says is not powercreep where cards are introduced that are objectively better than old cards. And then there is also the powercreep where cards are added to the game that are not game breaking but still raise the overall average powerlevel of cards in the game.

 no - that's not power creep.

what definition are you using anyway? because every one I know off (multiple have been stated throughout this thread) dismiss your understanding of it.

if you're  just voicing your opinion about how you (mis)use a term - please either inform yourself about the correct way the term is defined and used - or make up a new one.

 What definition are you using?  I'm using the three we used when I used to work in game balancing.  You can tell me I am wrong all you want, but just like almost every other word and term there is more than one valid definition. You can act all high and mighty but in reality I know just as much about this subject as you do.

 I'm using the one that's been used by Ben Brode, stated on Wikipedia and which is used for the explanation video by the 'ExtraCredits' Crew (who are GameDesign professors).
In addition that's the understanding the term was first applied to card games (m:tg) and still is.

In fact - the ONLY community that misuses the term to this extent is the Hearthstone community.

 So you're using an arbitrary definition, just like me, yet for some reason yours is somehow valid while mine is not?  Ok.....

Go on and continue your crusade to make everyone conform to your definition, I don't care. It's not like there is any point in arguing over it as no matter what you or I say here it doesn't really change anything in the real world.

 you can't just arbitrary make up definitions for technical terms.
yours is wrong.

 According to the magic wikia YOU are wrong. http://mtg.wikia.com/wiki/Power_Creep 

 again - you're not understanding the primary aspect of the definition:

Power Creep is a phenomenon present in any collectible game that uses both old elements and new ones. The idea behind it is that the company has to sell their new products, but everything new they create has to compete with previously existing pieces. To compensate for this, new cards (or miniatures or whatever else may be used) end up becoming superior to other cards to the point of becoming strictly superior.

 the definition you cited implies that those cards are in fact being played (on or above curve)!

power creep is therefore primarily defined as a reason for players to buy new content - since they need it to stay competitive. that's exactly what I'm talking about.

it just doesn't use the concept of power curve to make this definition. however, the understanding of power curve makes power creep way more understandable, that's why (and most designers I know) use it

 

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Powercreep has several different types, not just one.  

You have the one the OP suggested where you introduce cards that are better than the top cards in the game before.  Then you have the one that OP says is not powercreep where cards are introduced that are objectively better than old cards. And then there is also the powercreep where cards are added to the game that are not game breaking but still raise the overall average powerlevel of cards in the game.

 no - that's not power creep.

what definition are you using anyway? because every one I know off (multiple have been stated throughout this thread) dismiss your understanding of it.

if you're  just voicing your opinion about how you (mis)use a term - please either inform yourself about the correct way the term is defined and used - or make up a new one.

 What definition are you using?  I'm using the three we used when I used to work in game balancing.  You can tell me I am wrong all you want, but just like almost every other word and term there is more than one valid definition. You can act all high and mighty but in reality I know just as much about this subject as you do.

 I'm using the one that's been used by Ben Brode, stated on Wikipedia and which is used for the explanation video by the 'ExtraCredits' Crew (who are GameDesign professors).
In addition that's the understanding the term was first applied to card games (m:tg) and still is.

In fact - the ONLY community that misuses the term to this extent is the Hearthstone community.

 So you're using an arbitrary definition, just like me, yet for some reason yours is somehow valid while mine is not?  Ok.....

Go on and continue your crusade to make everyone conform to your definition, I don't care. It's not like there is any point in arguing over it as no matter what you or I say here it doesn't really change anything in the real world.

 you can't just arbitrary make up definitions for technical terms.
yours is wrong.

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from Orni >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Powercreep has several different types, not just one.  

You have the one the OP suggested where you introduce cards that are better than the top cards in the game before.  Then you have the one that OP says is not powercreep where cards are introduced that are objectively better than old cards. And then there is also the powercreep where cards are added to the game that are not game breaking but still raise the overall average powerlevel of cards in the game.

 no - that's not power creep.

what definition are you using anyway? because every one I know off (multiple have been stated throughout this thread) dismiss your understanding of it.

if you're  just voicing your opinion about how you (mis)use a term - please either inform yourself about the correct way the term is defined and used - or make up a new one.

 What definition are you using?  I'm using the three we used when I used to work in game balancing.  You can tell me I am wrong all you want, but just like almost every other word and term there is more than one valid definition. You can act all high and mighty but in reality I know just as much about this subject as you do.

 I'm using the one that's been used by Ben Brode, stated on Wikipedia and which is used for the explanation video by the 'ExtraCredits' Crew (who are GameDesign professors).
In addition that's the understanding the term was first applied to card games (m:tg) and still is.

In fact - the ONLY community that misuses the term to this extent is the Hearthstone community.

Quote from Human_Guy >>

Quote from Zulska >>

A tier one Arena pick with little to no Constructed applications. An interesting design to say the least. 

 Trash tier in arena also. If you kill 3 3/2s you are taking 18 damage in 3 turns. 

Some greedy people in this thread

There are plenty of viable aggro deck, why are you felling yourself forced to play control? 

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

You're bored with the meta, not because 2-3 decks are dominating it (we actually have many when you consider 2 different spiteful decks, Quest Rogue, Cubelock, Haddronox Druid, 3 variations for aggro pallies, etc), but because you can't play a game with the same meta for more than a month. 

Quote from Lyra_Silvertongue >>

a month. 

If you don’t vote for naga sea witch then nothing on this list should get nerfed. Turn 4 summon a board of 8/8s. Literally so broken. 

I'm ok with it gaining charge as a battlecry, but if it's cheated out of a cube or lackey, it really needs to be rush in that case.

Quote from quartermonk >>

Changes no doubt delayed because of tournament play. So lame. Respect your average consumer first.

but at least it's somewhat balanced

They can make CTA 5 mana because in odd paladin it would only get 3 one drops but insure if it would still be to strong or not.

People constantly ask the devs to communicate but when they do, the community calls them names instead of actually addressing the problem. Kind of sad when you think about it. Really wouldnt like to be in their position during those times.

GULDAN WILL COST 11 MANA !!! FINALLY A GOOD NERF !!!