Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word

November month 2019. A month where a lot of new content arrives into the game. And a month where Wild is more dead than ever

Because of that I ask you,the players,the streamers and most importantly the developers to help and save the format which is not the most popular one but truly is the oldest one.

There is no doubt that the format has amazingly big deck variety that Standard format can't even dream of. However. There's also no doubt that format has a lot of issues which drags the players away not only from Wild,but from the whole game:

1.The SNIPlock

There's a lot of controversy about this deck. There are some players that are cheating. There are some genuine players. Either way the deck causes amazingly huge frustration and Team 5 still haven't said a clear statement about this deck since the last ban wave. As it stands by now, the deck is one of the only deck in HS history which is placed in Tier S(same as AK47 Druid and Secret Mage at the beginning of Uldum). The deck revolves around certain combo strategies and has: Card draw of a Miracle deck. Clear of Control Warlock. Big boards of Big decks. And finishing force of Cubelock or Mechathunlock. All those traits make this extremely frustrating deck to play against and causes a lot of drama and headache for whole Wild community. It needs to be addressed. Even some clear statement about what is considered cheat and what not will be very helpful. The links below will provide you a closer information about this whole deck

Tier S status

https://teamrankstar.com/meta/hearthstone-wild-meta-snapshot-november-2019/

https://tempostorm.com/hearthstone/meta-snapshot/wild/2019-11-01

https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/wild-vs-data-reaper-report-19/

Deck preview

https://youtu.be/QsaJYv6Lmtw

Confirmed cheater cases

https://www.reddit.com/r/wildhearthstone/comments/dq0228/navis1mple_is_t3ss3rakt_confirmed_i_pretended_to/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

2.The competitive scene of the format

Due to the fact that there's only 1 official Wild tournament. The motivation of players to play Wild and spend money on packs is quite low. As it stands by now there were more streamer vs streamer single player tournaments than all oficial Wild tournaments combined.

3.The card balance and nerfs regarding the Wild format:

This topic was brought not so long time ago and remains unanswered. Wild experienced some really odd card changes and design policy. For anyone interested in closer approach,here is the link to he mentioned thread

https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/dpd3it/we_need_more_communication_from_team_5_regarding/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

All those points contribute to the lowering amount of Wild players which were staying in the game for Wild only. The format has amazing deck variety, astonishing community and streamers like Dane,Roffle,Solem or Control and is home for a lot of old players. It is truly heartbreaking to see the Wild in agony and lack of competitive tournaments and feedback. So I ask you for help and solutions. Spread the word and spread the information about Wild issues.

I would like to end this post with a song which usually helps people to do CPR so we all have a a better chance at saving Wild.

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk

I'm a woman's man, no time to talk

Music loud and women warm, I've been kicked around

Since I was born

And now it's alright, it's okay

And you may look the other way

We can try to understand

The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother

You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'

And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Well now, I get low and I get high

And if I can't get either, I really try

Got the wings of heaven on my shoes

I'm a dancin' man and I just can't lose

You know it's alright, it's okay

I'll live to see another day

We can try to understand

The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother

You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'

And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me

Somebody help me, yeah

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

I'm stayin' alive

Well, you can tell by the way I use my walk

I'm a woman's man, no time to talk

Music loud and women warm

I've been kicked around since I was born

And now it's all right, it's okay

And you may look the other way

We can try to understand

The New York Times' effect on man

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother

You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Feel the city breakin' and everybody shakin'

And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' alive

Ah, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me

Somebody help me, yeah

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

I'm stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me

Somebody help me, yeah

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

I'm stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me

Somebody help me, yeah

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

I'm stayin' alive

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me

Somebody help me, yeah

Life goin' nowhere, somebody help me, yeah

I'm stayin' alive

Wall of.complains about snipsnaplock and a crazy part with lyrics from a beegees song.

What the hell.  I'll take losing to snipsnaplock any time instead of losing to idiots that play secret mage or big priest 

Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).

All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.

All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).

The game needs a new hard-rule: no battlecry, spell or aura can discount a card below (1) mana.

Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.

EDIT: i made my hard-rule suggestion more precise, leaving out end-of-turn effects, by virtue of their non-immediate impact.

Quote From RavenSunHS

Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).

All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.

All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).

Wild needs a new hard-rule: no card can be discounted below (1) mana.

Additionally: make Sap and Beneath the Grounds into reasonable Neutral legendary Battlecry cards ffs.

That couple of things together would fix Wild for a very long while, avoiding spikes, and allowing any deck a tech card against major synergies. No nerf required.

Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.

Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.

It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.

Add Shudderwock endless copying, Mill Rogue and BEES! Armor Druid on the list of stuff that needs addressing.

Agree with Sniplock and ultra-aggro mechadin needing to be kneecapped.

Secret Mage ... yeah, annoying, but I've gotten by them as well. But they've been atop the wild ladder for a while now, and it needs to be periodically cleansed.

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).

All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.

All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).

Wild needs a new hard-rule: no card can be discounted below (1) mana.

Additionally: make Sap and Beneath the Grounds into reasonable Neutral legendary Battlecry cards ffs.

That couple of things together would fix Wild for a very long while, avoiding spikes, and allowing any deck a tech card against major synergies. No nerf required.

Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.

Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.

 

It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.

Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.

But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.

In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.

I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.

Quote From ShotgunSoul

Add Shudderwock endless copying, Mill Rogue and BEES! Armor Druid on the list of stuff that needs addressing.

 

Agree with Sniplock and ultra-aggro mechadin needing to be kneecapped.

 

Secret Mage ... yeah, annoying, but I've gotten by them as well. But they've been atop the wild ladder for a while now, and it needs to be periodically cleansed.

None of those three decks need addressing. It's a joke that you want to add those three decks to the same group as Sn1p-sn4p warlock, mech paladin and secret mage.

Wild is super fun right now. I haven't played it for a few months and dropped all the way to rank 11. Ranks 5 and above are warlock, paladin and mage. Below those ranks over half of the games are losers who still play big priest all day (seriously all of them have 500 or 1000 wins and yet they still make the stupidest plays and 'tech' choices) so you can't even try fun decks.

I thought standard was bad but oh boy...

Lol blizzard doing something about their game XD. They don't seem to care anymore 1 month shaman has been around 50% of standard meta and yet they don't think retiring evolve is a good idea. And you are optimistic they will balance wild. 

Sadly Team 5 doesn't consider Wild as an extended format, but just as a dumpster for whatever leave Standard or is too hard to balance there and goes into HoF. Even if the main issues of Wild are a few general interaction, they won't look into it properly any time soon.

The only time they've done something is when they've nerfed Raza the Chained and Patches the Pirate a week before they would rotate out of Standard. Or when they've stealth buffed Naga Sea Witch for no reason at all.

Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more. 

I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.

Wild was always going to be a nightmare to balance, but Team 5 could do better than they're doing right now. They're just way too slow with the changes. Naga Sea Witch took forever to be changed and it's the same thing this time as well I feel.

There's still a lot of people playing wild based on my personal experience so I don't think it's too much to expect them to at least fix the outright broken cards.

Then again, people playing wild isn't in their best interest as using old cards means spending less on packs, so from a buisness perspective it makes sense that they don't care that much about balancing it.

I'm currently jumping between wild and standard, depending on how broken the meta feels.

Quote From LyraSilvertongue

Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more. 

I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.

And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.

And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).

Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.

Quote From RavenSunHS

Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.

But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.

In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.

I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.

With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.

But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.

In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.

I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.

If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.

 

With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.

The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.

And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.

I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).

Quote From RavenSunHS

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.

But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.

In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.

I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.

If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.

 

With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.

The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.

And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.

I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).

No it wouldn't. Instituting your rule change would create a bunch of chaos after which new metas would emerge with their own problems. Given the wide-ranging consequences of the proposed change and the chaotic, emergent nature of metagames, you may well end up with a game that's far more toxic and stale than what you have now.

But even if the proposed rule change were guaranteed to leave wild a peaceful, tranquil place for years to come I'd still say the price was way too high. Getting cards to 0 is absolutely fundamental to a ton of combo decks. Chopping my arm off might permanently cure my RSI but that still sounds like a bad deal to me.

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.

But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.

In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.

I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.

If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.

 

With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.

The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.

And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.

I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).

No it wouldn't. Instituting your rule change would create a bunch of chaos after which new metas would emerge with their own problems. Given the wide-ranging consequences of the proposed change and the chaotic, emergent nature of metagames, you may well end up with a game that's far more toxic and stale than what you have now.

 

But even if the proposed rule change were guaranteed to leave wild a peaceful, tranquil place for years to come I'd still say the price was way too high. Getting cards to 0 is absolutely fundamental to a ton of combo decks. Chopping my arm off might permanently cure my RSI but that still sounds like a bad deal to me.

Yes, it would, in the same way nerfs would, just with some side-effects.

I should remark i precised my hard-rule suggestion, excluding end-of-turn effects from it.

Getting cards to (0) from battlecry, spell or aura may is not fundamental (many OTKs do not need (0) already, and variations of Emperor Thaurissan could be printed in the future), but availability of such a discount in the same turn, sooner or later leads to problems that will take months or years to nerf, while the game is more of a frustration than a fun activity.

Either way, as i said, timely and thorough nerfs would obviously be fine. But since that isn't the case, nor it's any likely to be, a new hard-rule on all discount cards (except end-of-turn effects) would still be a fair solution to the current situation, and any future ones from the same issue. While not really breaking the usual metagame fundamentals.

Afterall, at some point they printed Reckless Experimenter. They just need to extend that to any non-end-of-turn cards.

Imho, no one want a costant balance for Wild but just some attention for when the meta become too polarized toward certain decks, those that are classified as Tier S (or terribly obnoxius, like Big Priest). If the meta will not self-correct probably an intervention from Team 5 may be appreciated: no change to basic mechanics and no nerf to cards currently on Standard (to avoid messing with that meta).

Just targeted nerfs to problematic cards that enable broken situations with too much consistency.

1. The problem of Sniploc stems from the fact that Wild allows players to use their ENTIRE collection to build decks, this is it's biggest strength while simultaneously being its biggest weakness. Of course Team 5 knew this would eventually come about, they also understand that one of three things will happen. If they step in and nerf the deck, a new Bad Guy will reveal himself and everyone will complain about that deck. The second comes from the release of a set of cards that unlock more possibilities for counters to the deck itself. Lastly, just other decks coming up that are even more powerful overall. If you ask me, Wild should never be touched/re-balanced, but instead a new format with limits should be introduced (See link at bottom of comment)

2. Yeah I don't see why they don't push Wild harder. There's a vast library of cards that can only be gained with real world money. It's just a really weird missed opportunity on Blizzard's part. Maybe they're waiting for the "Oh fuck we haven't made our financial quota this quarter, hit the emergency button" and push Wild HARD.

3. I've already said it once but I'll say it again, they should not nerf cards in wild and should've un-nerfed (Yogg, Tuskar, Molten Giant to name a few) cards when they rotated 

My stance on this matter is that there are simply too many cards to cram into two formats and we need more. My ideas aren't perfect but they're something to think about and digest, and I'm sure at least one of them would be a welcomed addition.

https://outof.cards/forums/hearthstone/hearthstone-general/1488-six-formats-hearthstone-could-easily-have

Quote From griffior

3. I've already said it once but I'll say it again, they should not nerf cards in wild and should've un-nerfed (Yogg, Tuskar, Molten Giant to name a few) cards when they rotated 

They did un-nerf Molten Giant when he rotated. I wish they had done that with other cards as well (such as yogg). This would make wild much more interesting and it would play a big role in attracting standard players to wild.

"Are you sad that yogg got nerfed? well now you can play him in all his former glory in a new format that will require you to spend lots of time/dust/money to play." 

It sounds like blizzard could be making money off of pushing wild more.

Quote From KANSAS

Quote From griffior

3. I've already said it once but I'll say it again, they should not nerf cards in wild and should've un-nerfed (Yogg, Tuskar, Molten Giant to name a few) cards when they rotated 

They did un-nerf Molten Giant when he rotated. I wish they had done that with other cards as well (such as yogg). This would make wild much more interesting and it would play a big role in attracting standard players to wild.

"Are you sad that yogg got nerfed? well now you can play him in all his former glory in a new format that will require you to spend lots of time/dust/money to play." 

It sounds like blizzard could be making money off of pushing wild more.

Thanks for reminding me, I guess I forgot about its changes.

I think they're holding off actually adding anything new to the game (Battlegrounds was not made for the health of Hearthstone (I could dive deeper on that but I'm not going to) it is a cash in on auto-battlers) until they (Team 5) start seeing scary financial impact.

@griffior

There is a huge difference between current top tiers, and when we had Odd Paladin and Even Shaman at the top.

In the same way there is a difference between POWERFUL vs BROKEN.

And it's not just a matter of power, it's also a matter that current top decks are basically Tempo AND Combo (power from hand) at the same time!

They can build insane boards in the same turn, and you can only hope to hold a counter at the right time, or you're screwed.

So no, if they nerfed the current trio of top decks, the new ones would be obviously very powerful, but not equally broken (Renodecks would probably stabilize on top, with classic Combo rising as meta police, and Odd/Even Tempo to lock the balance).

(And unnerfing some cards would do little to no good on its own, even tho i'd certainly appreciate Yogg unnerfed).

I expect Wild to be very powerful, NOT broken.

Quote From RavenSunHS

 

@griffior

There is a huge difference between current top tiers, and when we had Odd Paladin and Even Shaman at the top.

In the same way there is a difference between POWERFUL vs BROKEN.

And it's not just a matter of power, it's also a matter that current top decks are basically Tempo AND Combo (power from hand) at the same time!

They can build insane boards in the same turn, and you can only hope to hold a counter at the right time, or you're screwed.

So no, if they nerfed the current trio of top decks, the new ones would be obviously very powerful, but not equally broken (Renodecks would probably stabilize on top, with classic Combo rising as meta police, and Odd/Even Tempo to lock the balance).

(And unnerfing some cards would do little to no good on its own, even tho i'd certainly appreciate Yogg unnerfed).

I expect Wild to be very powerful, NOT broken.

 

So I agree with everything you've said except for your last sentence.

I think this comes from my perception of Wild should be is different from yours. You expect it to be very powerful, I expect it to be broken. With access to every card it is inevitable that Wild gets out of hand, and that's okay. What's not okay is that Team 5 selectively nerfs some cards/decks but not others. Aviana, Dreadsteed, and Naga Sea Witch are great examples of this since Team 5 was swift to "re-balance" these cards while Barnes was still a large community complaint. So my question is "Why do some cards see immediate action but others took years before Team 5 would step in?".

I think the solution to this problem (I'm about to sound like a broken record) is to introduce a format in between Standard and Wild. Something that allows cards from every set to be played but bans cards that cause broken combos, SN1P-SN4P, un-nerfed Shadowboxer, and un-nerfed Naga Sea Witch.

One obvious argument to that idea is the potential to splitting the player base, but having a split player base is better than having no player base.

Quote From RavenSunHS

 

@griffior

There is a huge difference between current top tiers, and when we had Odd Paladin and Even Shaman at the top.

In the same way there is a difference between POWERFUL vs BROKEN.

And it's not just a matter of power, it's also a matter that current top decks are basically Tempo AND Combo (power from hand) at the same time!

They can build insane boards in the same turn, and you can only hope to hold a counter at the right time, or you're screwed.

So no, if they nerfed the current trio of top decks, the new ones would be obviously very powerful, but not equally broken (Renodecks would probably stabilize on top, with classic Combo rising as meta police, and Odd/Even Tempo to lock the balance).

(And unnerfing some cards would do little to no good on its own, even tho i'd certainly appreciate Yogg unnerfed).

I expect Wild to be very powerful, NOT broken.

 

Completely agreed on that

There is a huge difference between powerful and broken. Usually the problems arrive when there is a broken COMBO deck that disrupts the rock/paper/scissors rule. Once in a while they appear to annoy us, poor wild players. Being beaten up by a combo deck at turn 5-7 in a regular basis is not cool.

The most recent example is this snip snap warlock. Mechwarper is the main issue, but let's remember that the card that made this deck viable was Plague of Flames (1 mana, wipe the board... totally balanced). Btw, nowadays I've been only playing shaman decks, since devolve solves all my mech related problems (but I have a hard time against secret mages).

I enjoy playing wild because of the multiple synergies between old and new cards, but facing broken decks over and over just cuts the fun out of the game. If I was willing to play a no brainier draw-and-win game, I would play Yu-Gi-Oh, not HS!!

Another thing, that OP stated, but I don't agree, is that wild is low represented. I usually queue in a few seconds, even at higher ranks. Last year, when wild was all about Odd Pally and Big Priest, it was forever to enter a single match, no matter what rank you were.

Quote From RavenSunHS

Quote From LyraSilvertongue

Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more. 

I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.

And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.

And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).

Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.

 

Stating that there are also players on the other side of the argument doesn't invalidate that making a such big change to hate on combos wouldn't hurt a devoted part of the playerbase. I can also think of 2 (3 if you count Dane) streamers that constantly put the wild format out there more in the public eye due to streams/youtube and fun combos (many of which actually do need Thaurassian ticks). Who does more for the wild format? Those public players and streamers who promote the format (even with silly combos) or players on forums who do nothing positive to put the format into the public eye in a positive way?

As for wanting to play decks that are not bashed by current top tiers, I have to ask why you think axing combos is going to change that whatsoever. Do you honestly think that more optimized control classes/cards or more optimized aggro/midrange classes or cards still wouldn't push less net-decked lists out of the wild meta game? You'd be dead wrong on that sir.

For example, say wild combo decks prevent you from laddering with a lower tier control deck. Well, other decks/classes that can do control better will still ALWAYS sh*t on you, such as warlocks permanently having access to Gul'Dan (N'Zoth too if the meta got super slow/greedy), Godfrey & Defile, Mal'Ganis (making Gul'Dan even more polarizing during high rolls), Voidcaller, etc. The same logic can be applied to things like aggro (e.g. Murloc Shaman, variations of optimized aggro pally lists, Zoolock) still also pushing out lower tier aggro decks out of ladder. The point I'm getting at is that some classes are saturated in the tools of a particular playstyle while others are starved of them. You can try to significantly overhaul/nerf combos but it will never change the fact that optimized control/aggro/midrange decks are still going to prevent you and like-minded players from having as much success with control/aggro/midrange decks that aren't top netdecks of their respective playstyles. Using combos as a scapegoat won't suddenly make less popular decks work and not get curbstomped by control and aggro power creep.

Quote From LyraSilvertongue

Quote From RavenSunHS

Quote From LyraSilvertongue

Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more. 

I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.

And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.

And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).

Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.

 

Stating that there are also players on the other side of the argument doesn't invalidate that making a such big change to hate on combos wouldn't hurt a devoted part of the playerbase. I can also think of 2 (3 if you count Dane) streamers that constantly put the wild format out there more in the public eye due to streams/youtube and fun combos (many of which actually do need Thaurassian ticks). Who does more for the wild format? Those public players and streamers who promote the format (even with silly combos) or players on forums who do nothing positive to put the format into the public eye in a positive way?

As for wanting to play decks that are not bashed by current top tiers, I have to ask why you think axing combos is going to change that whatsoever. Do you honestly think that more optimized control classes/cards or more optimized aggro/midrange classes or cards still wouldn't push less net-decked lists out of the wild meta game? You'd be dead wrong on that sir.

For example, say wild combo decks prevent you from laddering with a lower tier control deck. Well, other decks/classes that can do control better will still ALWAYS sh*t on you, such as warlocks permanently having access to Gul'Dan (N'Zoth too if the meta got super slow/greedy), Godfrey & Defile, Mal'Ganis (making Gul'Dan even more polarizing during high rolls), Voidcaller, etc. The same logic can be applied to things like aggro (e.g. Murloc Shaman, variations of optimized aggro pally lists, Zoolock) still also pushing out lower tier aggro decks out of ladder. The point I'm getting at is that some classes are saturated in the tools of a particular playstyle while others are starved of them. You can try to significantly overhaul/nerf combos but it will never change the fact that optimized control/aggro/midrange decks are still going to prevent you and like-minded players from having as much success with control/aggro/midrange decks that aren't top netdecks of their respective playstyles. Using combos as a scapegoat won't suddenly make less popular decks work and not get curbstomped by control and aggro power creep.

I should remind you that i updated my original suggestion, leaving out end-of-turn effects.

With that being said, since when Wild is divided into two subcommunities, one of which is unimportant? Are you being an elitist jerk? I do hope i misunderstood you.

Also, nerfing the current top tiers will in fact improve the viability of ALL decks (proportionately ofc, an off-meta deck will still struggle, but there's a difference between struggling and getting bashed), by virtue of the obvious fact that current top tier is meta-warping.

We are in front of yet another AK47 Druid situation, but worse, and split in 3 different decks. That is, Tempo decks that can unleash Combo-level of power, or, otherwise seen, Combo decks with Tempo pace. They are degenerate because they break the meta paradigm (where Combo decks kick in with their power exclusively in the late turns, say no earlier than 9-10 mana).

Finally, i don't really care of what solution is found (at this point i could even take the third mode suggestion, as Griffior said), as long as it is a serious and timely solution, but certainly we can't dismiss the matter with a superficial "hate thread".

Quote From AliRadicali

Quote From RavenSunHS

Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).

All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.

All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).

Wild needs a new hard-rule: no card can be discounted below (1) mana.

Additionally: make Sap and Beneath the Grounds into reasonable Neutral legendary Battlecry cards ffs.

That couple of things together would fix Wild for a very long while, avoiding spikes, and allowing any deck a tech card against major synergies. No nerf required.

Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.

Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.

 

It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.

 

What if they added to Snip-snap card text: "cannot cost less than 1?" 

 

Quote From Gwyneth

What if they added to Snip-snap card text: "cannot cost less than 1?"  

At that point I think I'd prefer they remove Sn1p-Sn4p altogether or give him a full remake. If time travel were possible I'd try to prevent them from releasing a card that has "abuse me" written all over it on a whim just for promotional purposes. It's not that that line of text wouldn't solve the immediate balance issues -it would- but it'd be terrible design. It'd be kind of like printing a terribly busted 0 cost card and then adding the line "if you play this on the same turn you win the game, you lose" just to prevent players from winning the game with it: just don't make the card so obviously busted and it doesn't need an ugly line of text to fix it.