Looking back at the Buffs experiment.

In case some of you missed it.  We now know of the nerfs that are coming soon

And in it, two of the buffs that were applied were reverted; Extra Arms and Galaxy.

As such it made me look back at the buffs that Blizzard did with Rise of the Mechs.  I had been saying for years that I never wanted cards to be buffed.  When the buffs came I hoped that I was wrong (I was about rotations).  

Now, looking back: I'm fearing that I wasn't wrong.  Again looking at the buffs:

Gloop Sprayer to (7) Mana. (Down from 8): While it was experimented on, it seems to have fallen into meme territory at best.

Mulchmuncher to (9) Mana. (Down from 10): Not even a meme, even after the buff.

Necromechanic to (4) Mana. (Down from 5): Hunter played with it a bit in mech hunter, but that deck doesn't even use the card anymore.

Flark's Boom-Zooka to (7) Mana. (Down from 8):  No

Unexpected Results to (3) Mana. (Down from 4): Still not used in any mage deck

Luna's Pocket Galaxy to (5) Mana. (Down from 7):  Had to be reversed due to overpowering the meta

Crystology to (1) Mana. (Down from 2): The card is broken at 2 mana and the decks that use it used it at 2 mana as well as 1, so it's not really taking a bad card and improving it.  If Paladin ever finds a deck to grab a top tier spot on, this may get nerfed.  

Glowstone Technician to (5) Mana. (Down from 6): I think it's a neat card, but I still miss Troggzor the Earthinator. Consider "I like it" to be a sign of failure.

Extra Arms to (2) Mana. (Down from 3): Had to be reversed

Cloning Device to (1) Mana. (Down from 2): Not currently used anywhere

Pogo-Hopper to (1) Mana. (Down from 2): It did get some play early on, but eventually fell to meme territory

Violet Haze to (2) Mana. (Down from 3): Still unused

The Storm Bringer to (6) Mana. (Down from 7):  I like it.  The world deems it meme.

Thunderhead to 3/6 (Up from 3/5):  The one Shining spot as shaman found a use for him recently.  So we did well here.

Spirit Bomb to (1) Mana. (Down from 2): Still not used

Dr. Morrigan to (6) Mana. (Down from 8): Very laughable

Security Rover to 2/6 stats. (Up from 2/5) & Beryllium Nullifier to 4/8 stats. (Up from 3/8):  I put them together as they share a similar fate:  They are both never put into a deck, but are loved when found via other effects. But they already had that effect beforehand.  And they ended up bolstering a deck that then needed to be nerfed.

So we have:

1 card that actually improved in standing with the buff,

2 cards who weren't trash before the buffs bolstering a deck that needed to be nerfed later

1 card that wasn't trash before and is used as much today and may need a nerf later

3 cards that were played with then dumped into meme status

2 cards that broke the game and had to be reversed

and 9 cards that remained just as trash as before.

For hype and making keeping us engaged with the game, it did a great job.  But we only really  have 3 cards that actually got into the meta in some form and 2 of them for the worse.  Meanwhile it took 3 cards that were already existent in some form and made 1 into a potential big problem and 2 to help support another deck that needed nerfing.  

I'm not sure all of that was worth giving Shaman a more reliable aggro deck.

Note that I'm biased as I already felt that buffing wasn't a great idea, so I do run the risk of confirmation bias.  So I ask the community to weigh in.  Whether you worried over the buffs or spent the past few years yelling at me about why we should be doing it, how has the changes effected you.  Note to not think about how it felt right when it was happening since that's just the hype of 'something new'.  

I mean right now, look at the list of cards, look at what you play and what you fight against, and think about how the buffs effected you, good and bad.  After that, the question: were the buffs a good idea?  

Since I'm not a hard-core ladder climber, my view might not mean much to a lot of people, but I thought the buffs were a good idea. They allowed for the possibility of new combinations and experimentation in my collection. I don't have all of the cards, so I can't speak for all of them, but for the ones I had, they were simply more fun to play. That's all I ask of the cards and game, that they be something I have fun with. Muchmucher is a good example for me. The legendary cards as well. Both of them have buffs that mean I have a greater chance of getting to play their cool effects before the game ends.

Personally, I'm all-in for buffs here and there. Preferably NOT on legendaries tho (as one might decide to disenchant if it is originally trash, it'd be VERY bad to find it very powerful because of a buff later).

However, Buffs must be performed in a way that is even safer and stricter than the original pre-release testing phase. A buffed card should never ever be touched again, in both Standard and Wild. If they are unsure, the card should NOT be buffed.

Because reverting a buff suggests the devs are just sprinkling tweaks randomly, and/or carelessly of the playerbase. I don't want to play a game with such a devteam behind it. Even if untrue, that is what a reverted buff suggests. 2 of them even!

The game is virtual, but it is no PTR, and players spend gametime, and even money, in order to get their cards.

So honestly I don't mind buffs that are unable to revamp a card. That's what happens in every expansion: useless cards exist, and if a cards stays useless, nothing changes.

But I totally regret buffs that later must be reverted. 

Aside from Luna's being a mistake (we can debate about extra arms, I personally don't think it needed to be reverted) The buffs did as little as they should have, and I think they were a success

1. they got people playing with different cards and testing, which was a refresher to the meta at the time

2. they didn't overpower the meta and cause major power swings (again, I'm saying in regards to everything except Luna's).

Nerfs do more to shake up the meta, it's only logical that they do. The top decks and problem cards can be targeted, thus effecting the entire meta to shift to the change of power. 

Buffs shouldn't do this. They should give some cool cards that ended up being duds, a 2nd chance. 

Buffs need to be an experiment and taken lightly, since they have no data on how the buffed cards could effect the meta. 

I'm all for more buffs in the future. It is not the #1 way to keep the meta fresh, but it is another way to keep things interesting and fun. Much better than burning out on the same stale meta for months on end just waiting for a new xpac.

Quote From Xarkkal

Buffs [...] should give some cool cards that ended up being duds, a 2nd chance. 

This one. I personally loved the experiment since June and July felt a little less boring than usual: even if for a few games, people had new tools to play with, and most of the times we didn't even need to craft them. Really cool. I really hope (and the Devs seem to have understood it) that Luna's Pocket Galaxy's mistake won't hold team 5 back from doing another round of buffs in the future (maybe Rastakhan's Rumble since there are so many cool card that have seen little to no play?).

The only suggestion I may give (and it's the same I gave before the Rise of Mechs event) is to make the new buffed card craftable for a lower cost (75%?): I personally would have loved to try some stuff but I really didn't want to waste dust. I don't think I am too greedy to ask it, since such a compromise would encourage a lot more people to invest their savings.

P.S.: just a little reminder to OP: after the buff Necromechanic sees solid play Wild Deathrattle Hunter as a better Baron Rivendare.

I like buffs too. I think they did a good job overall. A lot of people could see that 5 Mana Luna's was going to be very playable and it just got out of control. 6 Mana might be the sweet spot, then again I won't miss it. I have a golden one that I'm eager to dust.

A better nerf to extra arms would have been to just make the first cast somehow less powerful than the second. I didn't see the card as a problem, but I suppose I can understand their thought process.

I hope they keep buffing and nerfing cards as needed. It makes this game interesting and fresh.

Quote From GoliathTheDwarf

Since I'm not a hard-core ladder climber, my view might not mean much to a lot of people, 

That should make your view more valuable. The vast majority of Hearthstone players are not ladder climbers. 

The original post puts all cards into two categories - overpowered or trash. If a card is a part of a top tier deck, it's overpowered. If not, it's trash. I, on the other hand, find plenty of middle ground. Even though Gloop Sprayer is not currently in a tier 1 deck, I use it in my ramp beast deck, and it's great. I use Mulchmuncher in my token Druid, and I like it. So, no, these buffs were not a failure at all. They were fun, and fun is why I play the game.

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone.  I'm still not so favorable about them but I'm glad I'm in the minority and it did make a better improvement for others.  It's hard to tell such things when youare stuck in your own headspace.

I guess you can see the reverts as two things:

1. Their first experience with buffing, meaning they WILL have to go through a learning phase.  You HAVE to make mistakes if you want to master something.  As such future buffing projects would potentially improve as they get a better feel of what to target and what the goals are with each buff.

2. The reverts themselves show that they ARE willing to shift as needed and accept such mistakes.  A BIG fear I had is a buff that breaks the game and stays on for half a year.  While it's been a few months, it's really only recently that we've gone from "oo cool, Galaxy works now." to "ok.. can we get it to stop working now?"  Raven is correct that it shouldn't be a regular thing, but knowing there IS a panic button if things go sour is comforting.

So in the end, I'm still not positive about them but they aren't a true "OMG uNINSTALL" negative for me, and if I'm ok with it if others are.

Meanwhile, keep the opinions coming.  

Quote From Xarkkal

Nerfs do more to shake up the meta, it's only logical that they do. The top decks and problem cards can be targeted, thus effecting the entire meta to shift to the change of power. 

Buffs shouldn't do this. They should give some cool cards that ended up being duds, a 2nd chance. 

This is the point I agree with most. While I love that the dev team introduced buffs, they shouldn't result in the latest oppressive deck like what Luna's Pocket Galaxy did with Highlander Mage. Buffing a few cards should naturally introduce variety to the meta, but a problem arises when they warp the meta towards a few classes. 

In a way, the buffs were successful in this regard. Shaman's playrates were low before Thunderhead enabled new aggro archetypes for the class. Priest was dead in the water until it benefited from the Extra Arms buff (albeit short-lived). Glowstone Technician allowed Mech Paladin to enter the meta as a semi-viable (if not polarizing) deck. The buffs kept the meta somewhat interesting because they gave previously useless cards a competitive edge; it's just that a few classes benefited more than most (Mage), or some were already terrorizing the meta (Warrior). 

Side note, Shaman buffs were hands down the best. Thunderhead is amazing, and The Storm Bringer, while definitely can be great for memes, is awesome as a secondary win condition in any token deck. 

Quote From Dakarian

A BIG fear I had is a buff that breaks the game and stays on for half a year.  

I don't see this as very different from a new card that breaks the game and stays on for half a year, which will always be a part of this game.

Well i personaly am would prefer even more Buffs - i think they did a good Job with Buffs so far - except a little over the top with Luna's but everyone makes mistakes!

Sure there are Cards that already received Buffs and still do not see play (or not as much as they hoped it would) - but other are pretty good! so in my oppinion Buffs and of course Nerfs too are good for the game!

Quote From sancho

Quote From Dakarian

A BIG fear I had is a buff that breaks the game and stays on for half a year.  

I don't see this as very different from a new card that breaks the game and stays on for half a year, which will always be a part of this game.

Well it syncs with my belief that it's more likely that a buff will break the game than a new card while being less likely to benefit the game. 

Again though that's my own fears of the matter that I never can really shake.  I'm willing to concede that I'm just paranoid.

Quote From sancho

Quote From GoliathTheDwarf

Since I'm not a hard-core ladder climber, my view might not mean much to a lot of people, 

That should make your view more valuable. The vast majority of Hearthstone players are not ladder climbers. 

The original post puts all cards into two categories - overpowered or trash. If a card is a part of a top tier deck, it's overpowered. If not, it's trash. I, on the other hand, find plenty of middle ground. Even though Gloop Sprayer is not currently in a tier 1 deck, I use it in my ramp beast deck, and it's great. I use Mulchmuncher in my token Druid, and I like it. So, no, these buffs were not a failure at all. They were fun, and fun is why I play the game.

I am not alone! lol, thanks mate. It's nice knowing there are other people here who view the game this way. I tend to think I'm the only one from looking through forum posts. Perhaps I'm just not looking at the right ones.

Boom and conjures nerfs are very slim. Both cards will stay meta defining.

I think the buffs were excellent and a huge success.  I would much rather team 5 try things out to freshen things up.  Some of it will work out and thats good.  Some of  it won't so they revert it, that's also good.  I'd rather them take chances and fix something if it doesn't feel right than being scared to make change and they do nothing.

So many of these you're say, "oh this doesn't see play so it was a fail".  Not every one of these cards was supposed to see play because it was buffed.  Some of them were clearly just to make fun cards less shitty for meme decks or even when discovered or randomly generated.  Like you're saying Pogo was a fail but people were playing that deck in tournaments and high legend during ROS.  How can that be a fail?  Just because they buff a card doesn't mean they intend for it to be meta until it rotates.  

Extra arms was buffed at a time when priest was hot garbage.  It was fine until the new expansion.  If they wanted to address the divine spirit / inner fire issue then extra arms at 2 would STILL be fine, but they don't want to kill priests only competitively viable win condition so they went the easy way and reverted extra arms.  Still, even though it's being reverted I think extra arms buff was the right call.

Thunderhead pushed aggro shaman into a meta deck.  That is a huge success and it's a fun and cool card.

Storm bringer is pretty playable now and it never saw play before.  Fun card, success.  

Glowstone tech is not just a meme.  It's not a tier 1 deck card but the game doesn't exist only for tier 1 decks.  Mech paladin became a meta deck in RoS because of it, and hand paladin is a decently powerful deck in the current expansion that runs with it.  Jambre plays at high legend with the deck.  Success.

Crystology was good at 2, but it wasn't good enough to push aggro decks over, the only deck that used it was combo paladin.  Crystology is super good but i don't think it gets nerfed unless they print a 1 attack minion that is super snowbally and they've been adamant they aren't doing that.  In fact i'm very confident it doesn't get nerfed.  Mech paladin didn't become a thing until glowstone and crystology were buffed, that was a deck added to the meta from the buffs.  Success.

Already talked about pogo.

The only truly bad buff was Luna's Pocket Galaxy.  They wanted to make a cool legendary that saw very little play more playable.  In ROS it was a little broken but not as toxic as when SoU was released.  Had to be nerfed, it is what it is.  

I'm a bit uncertain about both buffing or nerfing cards. The meta should refresh itself because people have the chance to tinkering with a well balanced and interesting new set of cards in order to create new meta-breaker each time "the dust settles", not because Team5 is making changes to some cards every now and then.

Nerfs are needed when there are extreme scenarios: if something is clearly broken or polarizing. Buffs seems just like a cheap way to shake up a meta that has become stale too fast because tier 1 decks are much more powerfull than the others (and that's mostly because there was some design error on giving certain archetype too many good and/or synergic cards).

I'm on the fence about buffs with one exception (reverting nerfs of certain cards that were nerfed when strong in old metas but have plenty of counters in today's meta). Imo most other buffs only serve to constantly flip-flop a card between its old version and new version (applying and then later stripping buffs away when the cards are complained about). I'm not all about temporarily buffing cards just to throw them back into the hardly playable dumpster soon after that. You might as well have never applied the buff to begin with.

I'd say it was a success for the reasons duppie already mentioned. Hope they do something similar for Rastakhan's Rumble.