Stealer Of Souls In Wild Mode Will Be No More!
Blizzard just announced that they'll be banning Stealer of Souls in Wild mode until he rotates out from Standard. See down below for more details.
Quote from BlizzardWe’ll be banning Stealer of Souls in Wild in a small update next week. Stealer of Souls will still be playable in other formats, and will be eligible for a full dust refund for two weeks after this change goes live.
The patch note for this change will be shared on Tuesday, and the patch itself is expected to go live on Wednesday.
Quote from Alec DawsonThe current plan is to adjust the card at that point in time and remove the ban. If any adjustments happen to Stealer of Souls before that (ex/ a standard nerf) we'll also re-evaluate its inclusion in Wild.
Quite literally anything could be better than what they put out.
My experience as a combo Warlock player is that Blizzard doesn’t want combo turns going off until turn 8 or 9. It gives aggro a shot to kill you first. It gives control a chance to need only one or two tech cards to blow up the combo. My experience also shows me that a turn 8/9 combo deck is usually an afterthought to the meta. Very few plan for it. They’ll take the loss against one combo deck if it means beating the other more played arch type consistently.
So honestly, I’m stoked the banned Stealer of Souls. Mecha’thun Warlock can go back to a 8/9 turn combo, and I can go back to farming Control players in casual. Control players in casual are the real cancer. Power players ruining people’s fun decks. At least aggro has a legit shot at beating me before my combo.
good riddance, just another solitaire turn 6 combo card gone
I hear what your saying, but hell even in MtG they eventually had to limit whatever their equivalent of Wild was. The original power cards made the format unplayable. Hearthstone is reaching a point where the card pool is sufficient enough that options never once considered are now on the table, such as a banned list. I agree with you that they are developing the game in a sloppy manner in regards to actually play testing cards, but still, I felt a banned list was always gonna happen eventually.
Yep It's true, perhaps I may have overstep being too "vehement".
I know that this is only a card game and that in the great scheme of things this is a meaningless thing as you say, but being relative and focusing on the game, it is a "temper tantrum" more than justified.
Obviating the thick words, it cannot be denied that I have only told the truth, it hurts whoever hurts: the approach they have chosen to solve a problem they themselves have created is the lest desirable of all, let's face it, it's the most cowardly and easiest solution for them.
The precedent that has just been created (banning cards in a collectibles card game) is very very harmful, and I am not exaggerating when I say that it destroys the concept of the wild mode completely (since it negates its basic essence: you can use whatever you have in your collection). This is not debatable, it's a fact.
And yes, I insist: team 5 should be fired, and I'm not being childish, I'm just a demanding customer. There are already many mistakes and lack of attention on their part, this is not new. They seem to be more focused on creating new ways to monetize the game than on the game itself.
I admit that I have spent several hundred bucks on the game throughout all these years, in fact I was very interested in buying the wild bundle that is currently in the in-game shop, but considering what happened, why am I going to spend money on a game mode that just broke its golden rule? And what is more, why am I going to reward these incompetent people with my money?
1. Sorry, but you are still, for the most part, just stating your opinions, not "truth" by a common understanding, no matter how much you believe in the things you say. For starters, this "golden rule", this idea of how the format (or the game) should be, is your idea. Based on how things were handled so far, sure, but rules can change and they are allowed to change when necessary.
It's not a "fact" that Wild is completely and irrevocably ruined, just your opinion, based on what you expect the mode to be. When you say that ALL cards should be unnerfed, it never even was like that.
Fact is: You can still use any collectible card in Ranked (Standard and Wild), with the exception of one single card that will be nerfed (and free to use again) eventually. Saying that the entire format is pointless because one card is temporarily banned instead of nerfed to oblivion (like getting a Naga Sea Witch treatment) is more than a little exaggerated, I think. And I can't overstate this enough: The temporary ban is, as far as we know, a nerf waiting to happen, nothing else. Put that in relation to your reaction.
Your one point is that, banning the card temporarily is probably easier to do than coming up with a nerf immediately, or changing game mechanics (as you suggested in other comments). So, how bad is it that they did not put more (visible) effort into this decision? For now, people just want to see the related deck removed, so the solution is adequate enough. More substantial changes might be a better long term solution, but they are, at this point, not excluded either.
Your other point is that this is that this would have severe consequences for the format or the entire game. But you just create a slippery slope where the format gets more and more restrictive and decks are just removed, and you can't even play your favorite decks anymore, and this the end of Hearthstone (basically). Not only does that seem unlikely, but even if, it's debatable how problematic that would actually be. For instance, I don't see the drastic and frequent nerf suggestions in the forums going in any other direction than effectively deleting cards and decks outright, and banning lists are basically just another tool to change the meta. When people are so allergic to decks they don't like, I think it's quite debatable whether format-specific bans really are a red line never to be crossed. Speaking of which...
2. This "precedent" isn't even new. We've had banned cards in Tavern Brawl for more than a year, and we currently have banned cards in Duels. We've had a lot of banned cards in Arena over the years. We even had specific cards banned in tournaments. Was that "very, very harmful"? Probably not, because all these modes still exist and are still played. I don't even recall anyone complaing much about these cases. I actually think temporary bans in specific formats are a better tool to change metas than nerfing them globally. If a card is only problematic in Duels, Tavern Brawl, Arena, or Wild in this case, I think it's better to take it out in that respective format than making it worse in every other. Especially when it is, again, only for a short time.
3. It's entirely your decision whether you want to spend money on the game or not. 100% your choice, and you don't need to justify your reasons. You are also free to complain as much as you want. But if you put on the hat of the self-centered angry customer who just wants everything done their way while calling people incompetent, lazy, and demand them to be fired, you are still childish in my opinion. Even dissatisfied customers can have a different attitude and choose reasonable criticism over shouting complaints.
I will try to be brief and concise.
In the first place it is not a personal opinion nor is it "my" truth: it was established by Blizzard itself that the wild mode was a mixed bag where we could play with ALL the cards that we had in our collection. That "golden rule" is the premise of the very existence of that game mode and now it is broken. That is an undeniable fact.
Banning cards in a game mode whose main reason for being is that all cards can be playable is a terrible precedent, especially when it comes as a response (the laziest and easiest one) to a problem that they have created themselves. This is also an undeniable fact.
In short, banning cards is incompatible with wild mode, that's my point.
And by the way, dissatisfied customers must be demanding and must criticize and even shout their complaints, otherwise they wouldn't be dissatisfied, but conformist customers. We, as customers, have the right, and I would even say the obligation, to demand that the products we consume meet our interests, because it is the only way for companies to know and adjust to the needs of their customers. It is for the good of the companies themselves.
I had to... 😄
I'm stupidly in love with "Deal-with-it! Darkglare"
Yeah, sure, let's ban a single card from a mode that's destined to contain the entirety of HS cards. That sounds like an elegant solution and surely is testament to how well-designed the card and its interactions are.
why ? this card is not problem at all :)
Haha, I bet those exact words were being said by Blizzard's development team.
But as others already pointed out, you can restrict the number of cards it affects, revisit the concept of immunity, have a passive effect to destroy this minion after drawing 5 cards, or even limit its effect to spells only. Hell, I dont mind it being a 10 mana cost minion, it will kill the card but not the game.
Didn’t need change combo is fine from a wild power level standpoint. This is the most stupid solution, nerf was easy (just change immune and cards cost health interaction). This is just boring, unambitious and unfun for wild players because we lose a card.A card that we might only get back in changed form in 2 years. That’s just stupid. And it might become a trend with new cards not being playable in wild
I am ok with banlist or if they want to split wild into 2 modes. One with all un nerfs.
If I were a game developer, I wouldn't change the concept of immunity (which is quite obvious and self-explanatory) not even this specific card, because that would be a mere band-aid that would only serve to hide the real problem.
Make no mistake, the problem with this card is the same as always: the cost cheating problem. We must avoid trivializing the cost of cards, either in mana or health, as in this case.
The concept of PAYING in health instead of mana is interesting, especially in the thematic philosophy of warlocks. But paying means paying, if you don't give what is asked of you, you get nothing.
If you are immune and CANNOT lose health, then it should be impossible to make any health payments, therefore it is as when you have no mana to pay and therefore cannot play any more cards. Remember that the game already prevents you from playing cards for life if you don't have enough life to pay the cost! There is already a precedent.
Taking damage would be a different thing, since an immunity would prevent it, but if in the upper left corner of a card where its mana cost is usually shown inside a blue gem, there is now a drop of blood, that means that you have to give health as payment for playing it...
Practical example: imagine that a card is published whose text reads: "Battlecry: During the next turn, your opponent cannot spend mana". Then, even if your opponent has 10 mana crystals, or even if he has ways to recharge them, he could only play cards whose mana cost is zero on that turn, because he could not consume mana no matter how much he had.
I hope that it has been clear. Honestly, it would be the most elegant solution, and also, it would not only solve the problem of this card but it would have corrected the underlying problem at its roots, that is, it would have fixed the problem forever, even for future cards, as it would not be a simple patch or temporary solution.
I love how this comment of mine has been voted negatively to death, but nevertheless no one has dared to answer me trying to refute me, although I understand that that would be impossible because I have only told the truth.
u think because they banned one card suddenly wild has no purpose? u are insane lol
Not at all: banning cards from a format that was specifically designed to allow EVERYTHING is a mistake.
Let's not fool ourselves, banning cards in constructed modes, even temporarily, can set a very dangerous precedent indeed.
If you so badly want a reply:
You are throwing a temper tantrum over something relatively meaningless. It's a card game, and a recently released card gets banned/changed within two weeks, and probably not because of the winrate, but more because of the playstyle and how people respond to it, not unlike Darkest Hour. That's all, and that's fine.
If you think the card should not have been released or an immediate nerf would be better than a temporary ban, fair enough. I personally don't mind this approach. I prefer seeing new cards too strong and changed later than too weak and never played. And if they want some more time to think about what would be the best nerf (or mechanical change), that's fine by me. But ok, different people have different opinions.
But raging over this being an "atrocity" and "insult", and saying that Wild "no longer has a reason to be" because of a single temporarily banned card, and insisting on people getting fired, is just childish. I personally find your comment more embarassing than this incident.
I agree with Nefiret; this is dangerous if it becomes a habit. People are thinking its no big deal because only one card is being banned. But if Blizzard gets addicted to the taste of this easy and lazy solution, they will ban another card, then another, and keep banning and defer the problem rather than fixing it with a nerf.
Don't get discouraged - everything you said was absolutely right. This is utterly embarrassing for Blizzard and shows utter incompetence by their card designers. It shows they are not testing their game.