A non-zoo midrange deck should have a balance of minions and removal, though. If you don't have spells, you're running a zoo deck by definition. That's what zoo means -- all your effects come from minions.
And let's not pretend there are no battlecries in the game that can deal with Mor'shan. I can think of three without even opening my collection.
I can't believe you're trying to support your argument with a sob story about control warlock, of all things. If you truly think watch posts were keeping that deck down, get ready to agree with me hardcore on the nerfs.
That no one leaves them up is what creates the illusion that they are OP. If people were less psychotic about clearing them, they'd see how balanced they actually are (were, before the nerfs). I have won many, many games by ignoring them when they weren't actually a threat. The trick is knowing when that is.
It was nice when there were cards that punished people for wasting resources mindlessly clearing things that didn't need clearing. Oh, well.
Yeah, that's kind of the whole point of them. That's exactly the tradeoff for "Can't attack," and it's not unfair. It's just something people aren't used to, so they are acting like a bunch of babies.
Sword nerf is fine, but Paladin has plenty of other problematic elements.
Flinger nerf is fine, but I wouldn't have minded something that utterly destroyed it.
Lunacy nerf may not go far enough. Turn 1 or 2 Lunacy was never that deck's biggest problem (a big one, but not the biggest). The real problems are the small spell pool and the ridiculous mana discounts.
Watch Post nerfs are completely stupid and unnecessary. I get that they have high win rates, but a lot of that is because people are still bad at playing against them. Far Watch Post, for example, can be ignored a lot of the time, but people needlessly sink a bunch of resources into removing it. I hate it when they fix players' ineptitude with a nerf.
Not sure who the "you" is in your message, but when the developers talk about what's not fun, they actually have some specific criteria in mind. It's not just "I lost a game because of X." Some examples:
Decks that allow one player to take a lot more actions than the opponent
Decks that play "solitaire" Hearthstone, not giving the opponent any opportunity to counter the win condition
Decks that destroy win conditions with no possible play-around (e.g., Tickatus)
If you think about it, you can see how these are all similar, but not completely identical. Getting a handle on those similarities will give you a better understanding of what people mean when they say "unfun." It has to do with interactivity, the feeling that both sides are playing the game, and the feeling that there's at least some chance of winning.
On the other hand, a Priest outhealing aggro has all kinds of interaction and opportunity on both sides. The aggro player may face an uphill battle, but at least you're playing a game that can be won.
You think they'll nerf Stealth Rogue when Watch Post Rogue is nearly five times as popular? That doesn't make any sense if the goal is to diversify the meta. Jandice and Octo-bot are the cards they've said they are looking at.
It's not the community's place to "go to bat" for anyone in a case like this, one way or the other, and Zalae's opinion on an unrelated matter should have no bearing on this decision. The fact that you even bring it up shows why the community has no business getting involved.
Don't know the guy personally, but his cocky online persona doesn't make me doubt Rini's story in the slightest.
I was not aware of his attitude toward the Reward Track controversy. FWIW I would have been 100 percent on his side on that, and he absolutely does not deserve any backlash for not falling in line with the hivemind on such an overblown issue.
He does, however, deserve some backlash if Rini's account has any truth to it. He should have realized he needed to learn some anger management skills long before it got to this point.
I haven't yet seen one post-nerf, but I'm prepared to be underwhelmed by the change.
Even in Casual, 75% of my games this morning were against Lunacy. Enjoy your last hurrah, assholes.
Have you ever gotten a refund for a card that was weakened by a nerf to a different card? No? Then stop asking.
A non-zoo midrange deck should have a balance of minions and removal, though. If you don't have spells, you're running a zoo deck by definition. That's what zoo means -- all your effects come from minions.
And let's not pretend there are no battlecries in the game that can deal with Mor'shan. I can think of three without even opening my collection.
I can't believe you're trying to support your argument with a sob story about control warlock, of all things. If you truly think watch posts were keeping that deck down, get ready to agree with me hardcore on the nerfs.
That no one leaves them up is what creates the illusion that they are OP. If people were less psychotic about clearing them, they'd see how balanced they actually are (were, before the nerfs). I have won many, many games by ignoring them when they weren't actually a threat. The trick is knowing when that is.
It was nice when there were cards that punished people for wasting resources mindlessly clearing things that didn't need clearing. Oh, well.
Then they should actually have Taunt, because as I said, they are no longer playable in this state.
Yeah, that's kind of the whole point of them. That's exactly the tradeoff for "Can't attack," and it's not unfair. It's just something people aren't used to, so they are acting like a bunch of babies.
This nerf is going to make them unplayable.
Jandice nerf is perfect.
Sword nerf is fine, but Paladin has plenty of other problematic elements.
Flinger nerf is fine, but I wouldn't have minded something that utterly destroyed it.
Lunacy nerf may not go far enough. Turn 1 or 2 Lunacy was never that deck's biggest problem (a big one, but not the biggest). The real problems are the small spell pool and the ridiculous mana discounts.
Watch Post nerfs are completely stupid and unnecessary. I get that they have high win rates, but a lot of that is because people are still bad at playing against them. Far Watch Post, for example, can be ignored a lot of the time, but people needlessly sink a bunch of resources into removing it. I hate it when they fix players' ineptitude with a nerf.
Hearthstone should never, ever reward high apm.
I've been hoping for the return of a skin I don't have yet. Should have known it would be THIS.
Who could have possibly guessed massive mana discounts and infinite value could cause problems in Hearthstone?!
If you can't win without Tickatus, you deserve to have it stolen.
Not sure who the "you" is in your message, but when the developers talk about what's not fun, they actually have some specific criteria in mind. It's not just "I lost a game because of X." Some examples:
If you think about it, you can see how these are all similar, but not completely identical. Getting a handle on those similarities will give you a better understanding of what people mean when they say "unfun." It has to do with interactivity, the feeling that both sides are playing the game, and the feeling that there's at least some chance of winning.
On the other hand, a Priest outhealing aggro has all kinds of interaction and opportunity on both sides. The aggro player may face an uphill battle, but at least you're playing a game that can be won.
You think they'll nerf Stealth Rogue when Watch Post Rogue is nearly five times as popular? That doesn't make any sense if the goal is to diversify the meta. Jandice and Octo-bot are the cards they've said they are looking at.
It's not the community's place to "go to bat" for anyone in a case like this, one way or the other, and Zalae's opinion on an unrelated matter should have no bearing on this decision. The fact that you even bring it up shows why the community has no business getting involved.
Don't know the guy personally, but his cocky online persona doesn't make me doubt Rini's story in the slightest.
I was not aware of his attitude toward the Reward Track controversy. FWIW I would have been 100 percent on his side on that, and he absolutely does not deserve any backlash for not falling in line with the hivemind on such an overblown issue.
He does, however, deserve some backlash if Rini's account has any truth to it. He should have realized he needed to learn some anger management skills long before it got to this point.
I think the number in the Solo Adventures menu indicates how many stories remain in the entire Book of Mercenaries -- so 9 out of 10?
The achievement is definitely bugged, though. Mine shows 0/8 even though I have the crown and the card pack as well.
In which we learn that Guff Runetotem is "special."
I completely agree. Once the glaring issues are addressed, we'll be in a pretty good place.