Ideally the basic and classic set show off the kinds of mechanics each class is about without having too many cards that show up in all possible class archetypes. Generally, I think it's better from a gameplay freshness perspective to have most of the generically powerful cards in expansions because at some point they will rotate out and make room for new cards that play differently even if they fill similar roles. Basic is important to us because it serves as a set of cards players can use to learn about the game before they choose whether or not to make an investment of their time or money. Classic is important to us because it serves as the secondary jump-off point where you learn the baseline for what each of the individual classes is about along with some of our core mechanics like Battlecry or Deathrattle. From a gameplay perspective, having these sets around forever usually only leads to negativity when the cards in these sets are so powerful they show up in every deck in every expansion, making the strategies players use feel more stale than they would otherwise. We've been trying to change some of these power outliers over time, but only when making that change might also be positive for the live game environment. Wild Growth and Nourish were good examples of cards we had thought about changing for some time, so when we arrived in a meta where Druid had been very powerful and popular for a long time, it felt like a good time for those changes. We'd like to continue making changes like this over time, as we believe the game will be in a better position to meet the player expectation that the game is new and fresh from expansion to expansion.
We nerf basic/classic cards that are too powerful instead of rotating them when they hit on that classes fantasy but at just too high of a power level. Ramping mana is a strong identifier for what Druid should be about, so it made more sense to us to have some of the simplest forms of mana ramp exist in the base set to teach players what Druids can be about. It also makes more sense to have those cards be medium power level because if we identify mana ramp as an identity for Druids, it would be nice to be able to make some mana ramp cards from time to time without having to create cards even more powerful than two of the (arguably) most powerful cards in the game. Of course, this doesn't mean all basic and classic cards have to be weak. Generally the cards we target for change are ones that exist in every archetype. Cards like Al'Akir, Frothing, Fireball, or Tirion are probably safe. They are powerful and do an awesome job at selling the class fantasy for the class they represent. However, they have some weaknesses and you can imagine an archetype within their classes that might not play them. This is a pretty good place to be in.
The problem is core classic cards that most veterans have are being replaced with expensive TEMPORARY epics that rotate every 2 years, the game is quite frankly too expensive even for players who do pay upwards of 100$ USD per year with the current 3 sets a year much less with constant nerfs to classic set cards.
I probably should have included this in the first post. It's true that reducing the amount of auto-include cards in the base set makes cards from expansions more important if the goal is to be able to create every powerful deck. This is something that's more healthy to solve with things like gold injection events like fire festival, increasing the gold on the average quest, or having a new player experience that awards 20+ packs. We keep a close eye on the the kind of investment it takes (time or currency) to obtain a deck archetype that is fun and powerful. The end goal is to make that a painless experience and there is more than one way to go about that. Having a wide variety of forever cards that are so high power level they are included in most decks is one way to go about it, I just don't think it's the right one.
That's all well and good, but it feels like the response misses the heart of the article's main point:
[These nerfs] make a lot less sense when they are made to core class cards, especially when they function as a reaction to a rotation-specific problem that doesn’t actually stem from the tool Team 5 decided to target in search of a permanent solution.
When Patches hit the scene, it was a clear design problem from the opening stages, being perhaps the most powerful card ever added into the game (and if not the best, certainly a contender for the title). This problem got nerfed around for a time, hitting first Small-Time Buccaneer and later Fiery War Axe, before Patches ultimately finally got hit as well.
Indeed, the patch notes for the War Axe nerf specifically reference making Pirate Warrior weaker:
Fiery War Axe has been a powerful Warrior weapon since the launch of Hearthstone. Already great tempo for its cost, Fiery War Axe is well complemented by Pirates and cards that synergize with weapons
This is what looks like a permanent nerf to the entire class to deal with a temporary problem.
As a result of Warrior losing War Axe, the class has since struggled in the meta since the rotation of the pirate archetype and been reduced to - currently - a single successful deck: Odd Warrior. (I know you'd probably like to count your Rush Warrior as successful, but the community perception represents a disagreement, judging by it almost never being played), and that's largely the result of a huge injection of powerful tools from Boomsday in combination with Baku.
Without lots of powerful tools being constantly made for the class, Warrior feels like it's going struggle continuously moving forward.
Now what if the same thing happened with Druid? Currently, the entire class has taken a nosedive in play and win rate since the nerf. That's not to say there isn't room for some of that trend to reverse itself on the back of proficient Malygos/Miracle Druid lists that are currently kicking around, but those decks are built on the backs of the cards from Frozen Throne and Kobolds that are very powerful and don't fit the Druid's class identity.
Druid is supposed to not be good at single-target removal of minions, or dealing with wide boards, even though they're currently fine at it:
Currently, Druid has cards that can draw, give armor, deal damage and summon waves of minions. "Druid should be weak at single-target removal (of creatures), AOE removal (of creatures) and right now it really isn't,” Donais said. “(They) still have some good cards that we need to iron out."
Yet the cards that do those things Druid isn't supposed to be doing (the temporary problem) failed to get changed. Instead, the very core of the class's identity got hit and it makes me worry a great deal for the future of Druid after rotation when they lose the powerful tools currently propping them up.
Druid may now join Warrior in having a core that's too weak, requiring multiple strong tools be printed to keep them afloat in the meta.
The main point I think is important to get across here is that we don't ever change basic and classic cards just to solve short-term problems. Warrior was fairly powerful at the time we changed FWA which I think makes the change more palatable. If we truly thought that Warrior was better served in the long-term by have FWA as a (2) mana card, then we certainly would have tried to change expansion level cards rather than something in the classic set. Cards like Sul'thraze, Supercollider, Woodcutter's Axe, and Bloodrazer have all had a little more room to breathe and make Warrior feel different expansion to expansion as a result of the FWA change, which was part of the goal.
Iksar
Ideally the basic and classic set show off the kinds of mechanics each class is about without having too many cards that show up in all possible class archetypes. Generally, I think it's better from a gameplay freshness perspective to have most of the generically powerful cards in expansions because at some point they will rotate out and make room for new cards that play differently even if they fill similar roles. Basic is important to us because it serves as a set of cards players can use to learn about the game before they choose whether or not to make an investment of their time or money. Classic is important to us because it serves as the secondary jump-off point where you learn the baseline for what each of the individual classes is about along with some of our core mechanics like Battlecry or Deathrattle. From a gameplay perspective, having these sets around forever usually only leads to negativity when the cards in these sets are so powerful they show up in every deck in every expansion, making the strategies players use feel more stale than they would otherwise. We've been trying to change some of these power outliers over time, but only when making that change might also be positive for the live game environment. Wild Growth and Nourish were good examples of cards we had thought about changing for some time, so when we arrived in a meta where Druid had been very powerful and popular for a long time, it felt like a good time for those changes. We'd like to continue making changes like this over time, as we believe the game will be in a better position to meet the player expectation that the game is new and fresh from expansion to expansion.
We nerf basic/classic cards that are too powerful instead of rotating them when they hit on that classes fantasy but at just too high of a power level. Ramping mana is a strong identifier for what Druid should be about, so it made more sense to us to have some of the simplest forms of mana ramp exist in the base set to teach players what Druids can be about. It also makes more sense to have those cards be medium power level because if we identify mana ramp as an identity for Druids, it would be nice to be able to make some mana ramp cards from time to time without having to create cards even more powerful than two of the (arguably) most powerful cards in the game. Of course, this doesn't mean all basic and classic cards have to be weak. Generally the cards we target for change are ones that exist in every archetype. Cards like Al'Akir, Frothing, Fireball, or Tirion are probably safe. They are powerful and do an awesome job at selling the class fantasy for the class they represent. However, they have some weaknesses and you can imagine an archetype within their classes that might not play them. This is a pretty good place to be in.
Iksar
I probably should have included this in the first post. It's true that reducing the amount of auto-include cards in the base set makes cards from expansions more important if the goal is to be able to create every powerful deck. This is something that's more healthy to solve with things like gold injection events like fire festival, increasing the gold on the average quest, or having a new player experience that awards 20+ packs. We keep a close eye on the the kind of investment it takes (time or currency) to obtain a deck archetype that is fun and powerful. The end goal is to make that a painless experience and there is more than one way to go about that. Having a wide variety of forever cards that are so high power level they are included in most decks is one way to go about it, I just don't think it's the right one.
Iksar
The main point I think is important to get across here is that we don't ever change basic and classic cards just to solve short-term problems. Warrior was fairly powerful at the time we changed FWA which I think makes the change more palatable. If we truly thought that Warrior was better served in the long-term by have FWA as a (2) mana card, then we certainly would have tried to change expansion level cards rather than something in the classic set. Cards like Sul'thraze, Supercollider, Woodcutter's Axe, and Bloodrazer have all had a little more room to breathe and make Warrior feel different expansion to expansion as a result of the FWA change, which was part of the goal.