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.
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.
I dont think it is, its just RNG. For example, when Dual Arena hit, i wanted to play Rogue, and i was offered Rogue only after 12th draft, and mind you that i didnt get it offered till then on 1st nor 2nd round of picks. But it was just "bad luck". Happens all the time.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I dont think it is, its just RNG. For example, when Dual Arena hit, i wanted to play Rogue, and i was offered Rogue only after 12th draft, and mind you that i didnt get it offered till then on 1st nor 2nd round of picks. But it was just "bad luck". Happens all the time.
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.
Hm, interesting. I wonder how does it work when a player gets knocked out, do their minions free up for the ones still in the game? I think this would all be excellent questions to ask Blizzard, so we know how this works. Cause if it really works as you say, that would change how you approach the win condition quite a lot, if you knew you couldnt get a certain carry you're looking for
Despite the growing variety of portraits, i find myself using the original ones for most classes, and will definitely use the 1k ones as soon as i get there (hopefully at least for Rogue and Hunter).
And i would still use them, even if i had alternate heroes.
The only exceptions are:
Lunara for Druid (her colour palette is perfect for Druid).
Would definitely use Khadgar or Medivh for Mage, but i do not own either of them.
Would use Magni for Warrior, but i don't care about Warrior anyway.
Hi DerpCorn
Lol my daughter loves that show. Nice reference
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
Blizzard Provides an Update on 15.6 Issues - Patch Next Week, Some Bugs Already Fixed
My 1000 win Pala hero skin doesn't show up in game.. He's my fav but once I'm in a game it changes to Uther
Is arena hero selection weighted?
You're saying I need to just play more area? :
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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).
New Neutral Minion - Sathrovarr
It should be in the post right above yours. Is it not showing on your end
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
LUCENTBARK WITH SATHROVARR
The first comment was by Helicon1. The second comment after mine was by Majere. I think you maybe mistook them for the same person.
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
Quest Trading - Play A Friend!
Battle tag: GuyOnRhino#1503
Region: NA
Trade Only? Yes you go first
Meme of the Week: Hearthstone Battlegrounds!
Didn't know that! I wish Blizzard would make a post detailing exactly how everything works. Hopefully it'll come out when BGs are out of beta.
Is arena hero selection weighted?
I dont think it is, its just RNG. For example, when Dual Arena hit, i wanted to play Rogue, and i was offered Rogue only after 12th draft, and mind you that i didnt get it offered till then on 1st nor 2nd round of picks. But it was just "bad luck". Happens all the time.
LUCENTBARK WITH SATHROVARR
No offence intended to anyone. Just my lighthearted (but clearly failed) attempt to start a copypasta.
Sorry if I upset anybody :)
New Neutral Minion - Sathrovarr
Hey, could you show your paladin deck list with sathrovarr?
Wild needs CPR. Please discuss and spread the word
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.
What hero portraits do you use?
Priest - anduin
Druid - malfurion
Rogue - valeera
Paladin - uther
Hunter - rexxar
Mage - jaina
Warlock - guldan
Warrior - garrosh
Shaman - thrall
No interest in portraits.
Meme of the Week: Hearthstone Battlegrounds!
Hm, interesting. I wonder how does it work when a player gets knocked out, do their minions free up for the ones still in the game? I think this would all be excellent questions to ask Blizzard, so we know how this works. Cause if it really works as you say, that would change how you approach the win condition quite a lot, if you knew you couldnt get a certain carry you're looking for
What hero portraits do you use?
Druid: Elise (her Good game is super BM - You have legendary skills, my friend :-))
Mage: Khadgar
Shaman: Thunder King
Warrior: Deathwing
Warlock: Mecha Jarraxxus
Priest: Madame Lazul
Hunter: Alleria
Paladin: Arthas (Sir Annoy'o is too BM for my taste with his Heeeloooooooooo)
Rogue: Maiev
LUCENTBARK WITH SATHROVARR
totally forgot Kun was one of the Wildcards....
either way, the deck is playable right now and will technically still be after the rotation because Kun doesn't seem to be essential
What hero portraits do you use?
Despite the growing variety of portraits, i find myself using the original ones for most classes, and will definitely use the 1k ones as soon as i get there (hopefully at least for Rogue and Hunter).
And i would still use them, even if i had alternate heroes.
The only exceptions are:
What hero portraits do you use?
Yes this is true. Now you don't have to just play with one portrait forever.
Hi DerpCorn
Xuli, Kyan, Lars and Foz say hello :D