Hearthpwn

Quote from Dunscot >>

Quote from jim1608 >>

Yeah, I don't really mind call to arms that much, but good god Blizzard's policy in nerfs is so stupid.

They don't balance to make the game better, they balance to make the game 'fresh'/'different'. It's not a problem for them to have a cancerous stupidly broken deck in the game, as long as it's using new cards and haven't been around since forever.

It only bothers them if it's a cancer that sticked around for long. So if a deck makes you miserable for months and makes the game super frustrating? It's okay, it's new so you can have a horrible time with it.

Much like how they didn't nerf patches until now and didn't nerf Cubelock.

They will nerf Cubelock in maybe 4 or 5 months from now. First, they like to wait and see if a deck is as strong as people say, then they want to see if it's still good after another expansion was added, and then they wait another 1-2 months, before they do something. In the end, a dominating deck usually has about 6-8 months before something happens.

The more concerning thing is that they deliberately make certain cards and decks unfair to play against. Between 2014 and 2016, nerfs were a very rare thing and rarely necessary. Nowadays, nerfs are pretty much scheduled since the power creep has gone through the roof and the dev's policy for card design and "balancing" has changed drastically. They have no qualms letting things get ouf of hand, and they don't mind destroying cards and decks afterwards, usually with some collateral damage. 

Quote from Raemahn >>

 Mm... I'm thinking the reason the early decks were lower power was more about lack of other cards in the mix and the lower-complexity of the card pool that existed.  Since the 2014-16 timeframe we've seen new keywords, card types (I'm thinking quests and DKs), and tribes added.  There has been a general power escalation (try beating the old Heroic bosses using new cards and you'll see what I mean), but I think it isn't due to "bad design" per se as much as to increased depth to the game as a whole.

Regarding the frequency of nerfs, I think it is right for them to hold off on smacking potential problems right away.  Data is required to make informed decisions, and nerfing something incorrectly can be just as bad as not nerfing it at all.  (Personally, I think Corridor Creeper and Patches the Pirate are now worthless, but I guess we'll see with time.)  The purpose of nerfing something isn't to make the card or strategy worthless, but rather to make it less abusive.  (The nerfs to Raza the Chained and The Caverns Below are examples of nerfs that reduced abuse without destroying the target card and associated strategy entirely.)

I can't say that I disagree with you.  Some additional thoughts:

Point #1: I do think it interested that many of the cards we see in decks are still from the Classic set, which means the new cards can't be too dominant.  In Blizzard's defense (and who doesn't like a little "devil's advocate" from time to time), they have said that they wanted to ensure the new cards pull people away from the Classic set so they don't just throw in one or two cards into a deck of largely Classic cards and call it good.  While some may say that is just a money grab (and that does play a part in this), it is also a component of keeping the game fresh.

Point #2: Yes, they do design the cards in a given set to work together.  Otherwise, you end up with too many strategies available and nothing cohesive enough to be competitive (yeah, I'm looking at Shaman here).  Having said that, they also have a limited pool of testers, so it is possible the Blizzard alpha/beta testers don't experience the significant impact on the meta some of these new cards have, and it is also probable that these cards have undergone a LOT of tweaking to get to the point they are currently at, so the waters can get muddied coming into the final release deadline.

Point #3 (nerfs): The first set of nerfs for a given card is typically when a new set is released, thereby allowing the designers to add new cards to the mix that help control the power cards without needing a formal nerf (like adding Geist to negatively impact Jade Druid).  It doesn't always work, but that's preferable to outright nerfing a card into non-existence.  That would be ~4 months after initial release, so 6+ months would be after the following release "soft nerfs" were ineffective and a direct nerf is needed.  Understandable.  Some cards (Corridor Creeper) are so ridiculous -- and there likely isn't a reasonable "soft nerf" to introduce -- that the card needs to be nerfed sooner.

Like I said, I agree with what you are saying, but I don't thinking swinging the nerf bat is as easy a decision as people are inclined to believe.  They have to decide if it is better to soft nerf, hard nerf, or leave alone a card, realizing a hard nerf is permanent and can damage a card so badly as to make it unplayable.

Just some food for thought.  Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I seriously never thought that Fungalmancer would see any play in the constructed format.

Quote from Lebakas >>

I seriously never thought that Fungalmancer would see any play in the constructed format.

Quote from danklesminky >>

Quote from Lebakas >>

I seriously never thought that Fungalmancer would see any play in the constructed format

 I was really surprised when it didn't. Bonemare effect at 5 Mana? All you need is 2 minions on the board? Sign me up.

Before nerf.
7 mana 5/5 need 1 minion +4/+4 taunt was better than
5 mana 2/2 need 2 minion +2/+2.
So yes fungal was good but Bonemare was superior.

Now Bonemare is a bit too high for defensive play so you can burst faster with Fungal and for 8 mana cost you will prefer a legendary like Lich King.

what more bonemare has a good body itself  but fungal master?

Quote from danklesminky >>

Quote from Lebakas >>

I seriously never thought that Fungalmancer would see any play in the constructed format.

 I was really surprised when it didn't. Bonemare effect at 5 Mana? All you need is 2 minions on the board? Sign me up.

Quote from AkiraTerion >>

Quote from danklesminky >>

Quote from Lebakas >>

I seriously never thought that Fungalmancer would see any play in the constructed format

 I was really surprised when it didn't. Bonemare effect at 5 Mana? All you need is 2 minions on the board? Sign me up.

To be fair, no taunt and you need 2 minions instead of 1.  So the tempo gain is harder to accomplish with a slightly lesser effect.  This isn't to say that it's bad, but it is at least harder to execute.

On curve secret mage can easily have some combination of Sorcerer's apprentice, Arcanist, Mana Wyrm, Lackey, Kirin Tor Mage, Valet etc, on the board turn 3-4. Also after 3 secrets are played, which is possible by turn 5, play it in combination with a 0 mana 5/5 Crystal Runner. Turn 5 6/6 in stats to the board is not bad to seal a win. Plus opponents right now don't expect it and might lose when Arcanist and Valet become 2 Yetis. Purely win-more but the games where it is successful are probably wins in a tempo game.

Quote from OldBlackbird >>

So, no SilverName's Pirate Warrior? 31-13 - that's his score to legend. And instead of putting it ahead, site moderators just deleted it. Cool story, guys, cool story!

What are talking 🤦 Geist isn't only Druid tech, it also cuts cards like Inner, PWS, Pact, Coil, Soulfire, Doomerang, Poison, both evolves, combo triggers for Exodia Pally and is decent vs. Spell Hunter. Ooze is also helpful against Cubelock and Pally.

In current meta Jade Idol is not the biggest 1 mana spell target... getting rid of Inner Fire and Dark Pact is much more important for Spiteful Summoner deck...

Well Muzzy's deck looks interesting... maybe I'll use it as inspiration to improve my own dude paly...

I'm definitely no pro but....Fungalmaster? I will have to try it out but I never thought that card would see play.

It is actually also played in Zoolock... but mostly because Bonemare got nerfed I would think...

I'm seeing it used as sort of a diversion tactic.  You want to try and kill him as soon as possible, distracting you from something else.