Acting like the US hasn't fought against censorship hard in regards to sexuality and violence in children's entertainment doesn't dismiss the fact that there are also obvious factors other than #somethingsomethingbuzzwordschinesecensorship
Or would you like me to direct you towards Yu-Gi-Oh? Although I'm sure I'll be told China caused that as well right?
So your argument is whataboutism then. That's spiffy. Clearly one instance of misguided western censorship twenty years ago completely negates decades of chinese pressure to alter games, which continues unabated to this day. Bra-vo. This isn't the first time chinese censorship has affected game art. It isn't even the first time it has affected blizzard game art: WoW is famous for having had to alter undead designs considerably for their chinese servers.
But sure, chinese censorship is a buzzword.
Care to provide solid evidence then that China is exactly what is causing such a censorship then? I ask because all too often people on the internet tend to like saying something causes another thing without evidence and just assume everyone else won't challenge their claims
Acting like the US hasn't fought against censorship hard in regards to sexuality and violence in children's entertainment doesn't dismiss the fact that there are also obvious factors other than #somethingsomethingbuzzwordschinesecensorship
Or would you like me to direct you towards Yu-Gi-Oh? Although I'm sure I'll be told China caused that as well right?
It's a real shame that the player who actually made the decision we're all talking about, and also accepted the consequences of his actions can do so with a lot of maturity (at least publicly) compared to so many people that are mere viewers/talkers of the whole situation.
Nothing like encouraging people not to make more interrupting political/social statements in the future by not having consequences for the previous dude who did it.
Why should the casters have received a less harsh consequence? Who knows, for all we know Blitz may or may not have carried through with his actions if the casters hadn't directly encouraged him to do so. Somebody encouraging another person to break the rules as almost as bad as those who actually do it imo.
Also, no you don't get democratic justice in how your work decides to maintain your position working for them, why should it work that way? I don't know many normal joe schmoe jobs that allow the average person to vote to decide if you're not fired for not doing your job as you should.
EDIT: If anything the casters should be considered more harshly solely due to the view of them supposedly being professionals while on the job, compared to Blitzchung who was a participant in the event.
Or, more likely, they waited or were told to hold off reacting the exact same way because they saw all of the reactions they were seeing from the community, inside and out.
People really got to stop the copy pasta responses about everything having to do with China.
I don't want to sound cocky, but the distribution of upvotes and downvotes on this matter is disheartening.
It's like the majority of people here in this community expects you can LAWFULLY break the RULES about neutrality, if you break them for a good reason (and get away with it, with no further action being taken).
It's like saying it is lawful to rob if you are poor, and everyone should let you.
Consequently, it implies allowing anybody at these events coming out and explicitly support some kind of political agenda. Can you imagine the absolute mess?!?
Partying for a rebel, as i do in this case, is absolutely legitimate, but that can't mean one also expects no consequences, especially in a Neutral, international environment, that has nothing to do at all with said rebellion.
I hope i misunderstand people's mindset.
Do you refer to this page? The only one getting downvotes was the OP. Other posters in this same page with similar opinions had a neutral or positive ratio, which makes me wonder if the downvotes are more connected to his choice of words than his opinion itself.
There are plenty of comments in the various news posts the last few days that have more or less downvoted people unless you were in agreement about Blizzard sucking, Chinese conspiracies, and a complete reversal for Blitzchung because #freehongkong (which really is completely irrelevant when discussing the appropriateness of hijacking a tournament event to make it political). Obviously I'm exaggerating a little but there are a lot of downvotes in the threads.
I'm just going to post what I posted in the latest J. Allen Brack news post. I feel this is an aspect of the entire situation that is really getting overlooked and ignored because people are focusing on what is happening in China directly vs. what Blitzchung actually did in the context of a tournament that was simply trying to provide thousands of players HS related entertainment.
"I know part of this is meant as a meme post, but in the end something important really needs to be emphasized here. Important issues in other parts of real life does not grant the privilege to break rules everywhere else in support of more weightier issues (at least not all of the time anyway). This is just one of countless examples of this.
This is one reason I have a problem with ThatsAdmirable throwing out the word "right" multiple times at the end of his statement. Yes, many of us do believe it is right to stand up for other human beings. It is in our nature to not want to cause or allow suffering to others BUT that still doesn't mean it was right of Blitzchung to hijack an entertainment company's event that everyone was invested in to enjoy a game's tournament, nor was it right to force a company not directly invested in battling the many vices of human rights on an international level. Blitz doing what he did forced their hand to react in a situation that they did not create by bringing up intense human rights battles themselves. Regardless of how you felt about the severity of the response one way or another it would take anybody with common sense to predict that if Blizzard didn't do some form of temporary sizable response that future mic-drop political/sociocultural comments would be used in future tournament events at some point. You don't get people to follow the rules for events by not responding to questionable tournament actions nor do you get people to follow rules by not assigning consequences at all.
I'll end with a hypothetical to further illustrate this issue of free speech, human rights, and the need for order in everyday life despite intense battles over human rights violations. Say you owned your own music radio channel and one of your hosts just decided to cut the top 10 hits or whatever to give a 5 minute speech about something related to human rights (a speech not related to your schedule on the station for that day or related to any talk-show portion of your station's program). The topic on human rights could be related to anything really (whether the events in China, the mistreatment and abuse of children, individuals, and/or families at the US Mexican border, etc). In this hypothetical what would you do? Your employee clearly violated rules associated with their job and also brought your specific station into question by wildly departing from the entire purpose of your radio station. It isn't to say that what said employee talked about was not important, quite the opposite, but you can't just hijack what isn't yours and break rules for other parts of daily life (entertainment, work, etc) just to stop the daily routine and promote what is passionate for you. There are plenty of APPROPRIATE MEDIUMS for that very thing. It is not appropriate to turn a medium into something it is not."
I know part of this is meant as a meme post, but in the end something important really needs to be emphasized here. Important issues in other parts of real life does not grant the privilege to break rules everywhere else in support of more weightier issues (at least not all of the time anyway). This is just one of countless examples of this.
This is one reason I have a problem with ThatsAdmirable throwing out the word "right" multiple times at the end of his statement. Yes, many of us do believe it is right to stand up for other human beings. It is in our nature to not want to cause or allow suffering to others BUT that still doesn't mean it was right of Blitzchung to hijack an entertainment company's event that everyone was invested in to enjoy a game's tournament, nor was it right to force a company not directly invested in battling the many vices of human rights on an international level. Blitz doing what he did forced their hand to react in a situation that they did not create by bringing up intense human rights battles themselves. Regardless of how you felt about the severity of the response one way or another it would take anybody with common sense to predict that if Blizzard didn't do some form of temporary sizable response that future mic-drop political/sociocultural comments would be used in future tournament events at some point. You don't get people to follow the rules for events by not responding to questionable tournament actions nor do you get people to follow rules by not assigning consequences at all.
I'll end with a hypothetical to further illustrate this issue of free speech, human rights, and the need for order in everyday life despite intense battles over human rights violations. Say you owned your own music radio channel and one of your hosts just decided to cut the top 10 hits or whatever to give a 5 minute speech about something related to human rights (a speech not related to your schedule on the station for that day or related to any talk-show portion of your station's program). The topic on human rights could be related to anything really (whether the events in China, the mistreatment and abuse of children, individuals, and/or families at the US Mexican border, etc). In this hypothetical what would you do? Your employee clearly violated rules associated with their job and also brought your specific station into question by wildly departing from the entire purpose of your radio station. It isn't to say that what said employee talked about was not important, quite the opposite, but you can't just hijack what isn't yours and break rules for other parts of daily life (entertainment, work, etc) just to stop the daily routine and promote what is passionate for you. There are plenty of APPROPRIATE MEDIUMS for that very thing. It is not appropriate to turn a medium into something it is not.
So many people are completely ignoring that even if we took the context of everything happening in China out of the equation Blitzchung still broke tournament event rules. Those of you expecting a full reversal is more or less trying to give him a free pass for throwing a charged political statement into a Blizzard event, taking advantage of the full publicity after winning the event. You ask for a reversal of logical consequences for him then you are more or less saying it is okay for other players to blatantly mic drop charged political comments during other events if the timing and situation aligns and calls for it.
I don't care if there are politics I do or do not agree with. I still don't want politics shoved into my entertainment when it is avoidable. Maybe Millenials think it's all cool to just hijack events for their own reasons but I prefer to keep human rights and entertainment in their mostly separate categories in most situations. Wanting these two vastly different topics separate is not saying you agree or disagree with what is going on on the other side of the world, contrary to popular belief.
Companies should absolutely be held accountable if they do immoral things.
Immoral? Are we really going to try to put a card game player not getting their winnings when saying something political on the same level of immoral? Want to know real immorality? The actual events of what is going on in China, not some reprimand loosely related to the actual issue when said during a tournament that doesn't want charged political phrases thrown into its events.
Real immorality is when those close to you get assaulted or abused (which has happened to many of those close to me), not some logical consequence handed to a children's card game player safe in a children's card game tournament. Please do not compare the stripping of entertainment monetary winnings to a term which more rightfully so should be used to describe actual mistreatment of individuals or groups.
It isn't Blizzard's job to be champions for human rights regardless of how you do or do not feel about the modern politics. Many on here are grossly misunderstanding how taking a stance that didn't result in Blitzchung's removal could end up badly for them by making it seem they were taking a stance in very real international politics.
You want to stand up for human rights do it on an actual appropriate and impacting medium, not after a card game tournament. There are plenty of real avenues to fight for human rights in ways that have a much higher chance of actually doing anything.
Blizzard not acting in this situation would potentially imply international motives on the topic of human rights, which from a business standpoint would be suicide for a non-human rights associated corporation.
Personally I'm big about human rights, especially the abuse of individuals and groups of women and children, but I'm not about to try and high jack a tournament and use it for my own podium, while at the same time scratching my head in bewilderment about why my prize money was taken away due to breaking rules that were already established before using a win for international attention.
EDIT: It should also be pointed out that the very first moment you start allowing your tournament participants to start using your events for political motivation without responding to it you then set the precedent in the future that if sociocultural tensions arise in other countries for any variety of issues those future players would 'have to' be allowed to have space and time to also project their opinions during future tournaments. Blizzard is doing the smart thing by trying to be consistent with their rules and guidelines instead of bending because some other players have strong opinions about modern politics.
Speaking of game modes, i think the starting health of the heroes should be higher, not necessarily the number of cards in the deck. Or maybe a combination of the two. Having 60 starting health seems better than the 30 from now; double the fatigue damage too.
I know this can completely prevent aggro decks from working, but i'm tired of seeing them each and every expansion. There will likely be a new archetype to replace it. Also, don't mention the possibility of never running out of cards or gaining infinite armor - this is what the team of morons is choosing to bring into the game. They basically gimp their own design space with powercreeps and such.
If you double the standard health pool, it won't kill aggro, it'll just drastically alter what it means to be aggro. These new aggro decks wouldn't kill you by turn four and they wouldn't run as many 1-drops, but fundamentally they'd still try to punch you until you die in as few turns as possible. Control decks would become insanely greedy to balance the need to defend against these midrange "aggro" decks and still generate enough value to beat other control decks, and infinite damage combo decks would have a field day if present in the format.
A new balance of archetypes will always emerge and you might like it even less. Something something life finds a way.
If the average aggro deck had the staying power of wild Odd Pally I'd agree mostly, but the problem with most classes that have the option of going aggro or midrange is that top notch control decks could eventually run more midrangy aggro decks out of resources without some form of pressure engine (ie dude spawning machine, multiple 4/3s to wack your opponent with, murlocs spawning themselves repeatedly, etc). I'd see many hypothetical new age aggro decks to look more like a midrange version of zoo in the sense that if you can survive turns 5-9ish then you pretty much beat them 9/10 when they're in top deck mode.
The issue with not having these players be able to drop below rank 15 is what do relatively newer players do when they do get to rank 15 or better and still don't have an amazing collection? Do you make it so that players don't drop below 10?
Side note to this part, yes that is exactly how it should work, why should it not? I don't want to play people all month who are just trolling the low ranks before they do their actual climb.
I thought that was the whole point in the rank floors thing coming in in the first place, is it only rank 20 that got this? I thought every 5 levels was a floor. so this exact thing could not happen. Grinding my way up the ladder to what I thought was the next floor and then dropping all the way back down the next month was not a pleasant experience.
My point was that if you keep increasing the rank experienced players are reset at then eventually you're going to have new players between ranks 25-10 or even 5 & then everyone else who is at ranks 5 to legend, all to accommodate the new player experience.
It's unwise to fully cater to new players and hardcore players. The best model is middle ground or bust.
The issue with not having these players be able to drop below rank 15 is what do relatively newer players do when they do get to rank 15 or better and still don't have an amazing collection? Do you make it so that players don't drop below 10? Whenever you make it so that harder opponents don't drop below a certain rank is that it then makes those now peaceful ranks go by even faster when rank grinding for new players, which results in only a slightly longer time before new(er) players get matched against real opponents again.
The fix is fairly flawed and very much a band-aid solution imo.
If anything I feel a completely separate ranked system for new(er) and/or super casual players, with fewer rewards would be a better idea. A big obstacle to this idea though is how you filter experienced players out without accidentally filtering newer players with moderate collections in with actual opponents.
I play mostly for fun meme/combo/otk decks, which usually require 6-9 cards. Having 60 cards in a card significantly reduces the chance of ever getting your combo pieces before dying (unless major power creep was introducing to card cycling & tutoring).
In all honesty larger decks really only favors fast decks because shoving more greed in control/combo decks from 30-60 also reduces the likliehood that you draw an answer/stabalizer you need in time against aggro decks.
Really you need to design a card game around a deck size. It doesn't typically work the other way around since there is just too much you have to change to compensate for how drastically you change the game when increasing deck size (e.g. larger mulligan, potentially higher hero health, more copies of cards as others have noted, more new cycling effects, more removal effects, etc).
Voidcaller was never nerfed and is almost the same type of scenario, though without the initial trade of the rush effect. Why does this need to be nerfed exactly?
Also, Sap, Poly and Hex are all available answers. The meta choosing not to use some of those cards doesn't mean a big minion in the early midgame is essentially broken.
Seems really cool to me, but is it really accurate to call this a game "mode" for HS? Seems like an entirely different game heavily based on HS.
Care to provide solid evidence then that China is exactly what is causing such a censorship then? I ask because all too often people on the internet tend to like saying something causes another thing without evidence and just assume everyone else won't challenge their claims
Acting like the US hasn't fought against censorship hard in regards to sexuality and violence in children's entertainment doesn't dismiss the fact that there are also obvious factors other than #somethingsomethingbuzzwordschinesecensorship
Or would you like me to direct you towards Yu-Gi-Oh? Although I'm sure I'll be told China caused that as well right?
It's a real shame that the player who actually made the decision we're all talking about, and also accepted the consequences of his actions can do so with a lot of maturity (at least publicly) compared to so many people that are mere viewers/talkers of the whole situation.
My one prop to Blitzchung.
Nothing like encouraging people not to make more interrupting political/social statements in the future by not having consequences for the previous dude who did it.
Why should the casters have received a less harsh consequence? Who knows, for all we know Blitz may or may not have carried through with his actions if the casters hadn't directly encouraged him to do so. Somebody encouraging another person to break the rules as almost as bad as those who actually do it imo.
Also, no you don't get democratic justice in how your work decides to maintain your position working for them, why should it work that way? I don't know many normal joe schmoe jobs that allow the average person to vote to decide if you're not fired for not doing your job as you should.
EDIT: If anything the casters should be considered more harshly solely due to the view of them supposedly being professionals while on the job, compared to Blitzchung who was a participant in the event.
Wow the tinfoil hats are really coming out now...
Also, "further research" without putting forth solid reliable sources doesn't make your statement more credible.
Or, more likely, they waited or were told to hold off reacting the exact same way because they saw all of the reactions they were seeing from the community, inside and out.
People really got to stop the copy pasta responses about everything having to do with China.
There are plenty of comments in the various news posts the last few days that have more or less downvoted people unless you were in agreement about Blizzard sucking, Chinese conspiracies, and a complete reversal for Blitzchung because #freehongkong (which really is completely irrelevant when discussing the appropriateness of hijacking a tournament event to make it political). Obviously I'm exaggerating a little but there are a lot of downvotes in the threads.
I'm just going to post what I posted in the latest J. Allen Brack news post. I feel this is an aspect of the entire situation that is really getting overlooked and ignored because people are focusing on what is happening in China directly vs. what Blitzchung actually did in the context of a tournament that was simply trying to provide thousands of players HS related entertainment.
"I know part of this is meant as a meme post, but in the end something important really needs to be emphasized here. Important issues in other parts of real life does not grant the privilege to break rules everywhere else in support of more weightier issues (at least not all of the time anyway). This is just one of countless examples of this.
This is one reason I have a problem with ThatsAdmirable throwing out the word "right" multiple times at the end of his statement. Yes, many of us do believe it is right to stand up for other human beings. It is in our nature to not want to cause or allow suffering to others BUT that still doesn't mean it was right of Blitzchung to hijack an entertainment company's event that everyone was invested in to enjoy a game's tournament, nor was it right to force a company not directly invested in battling the many vices of human rights on an international level. Blitz doing what he did forced their hand to react in a situation that they did not create by bringing up intense human rights battles themselves. Regardless of how you felt about the severity of the response one way or another it would take anybody with common sense to predict that if Blizzard didn't do some form of temporary sizable response that future mic-drop political/sociocultural comments would be used in future tournament events at some point. You don't get people to follow the rules for events by not responding to questionable tournament actions nor do you get people to follow rules by not assigning consequences at all.
I'll end with a hypothetical to further illustrate this issue of free speech, human rights, and the need for order in everyday life despite intense battles over human rights violations. Say you owned your own music radio channel and one of your hosts just decided to cut the top 10 hits or whatever to give a 5 minute speech about something related to human rights (a speech not related to your schedule on the station for that day or related to any talk-show portion of your station's program). The topic on human rights could be related to anything really (whether the events in China, the mistreatment and abuse of children, individuals, and/or families at the US Mexican border, etc). In this hypothetical what would you do? Your employee clearly violated rules associated with their job and also brought your specific station into question by wildly departing from the entire purpose of your radio station. It isn't to say that what said employee talked about was not important, quite the opposite, but you can't just hijack what isn't yours and break rules for other parts of daily life (entertainment, work, etc) just to stop the daily routine and promote what is passionate for you. There are plenty of APPROPRIATE MEDIUMS for that very thing. It is not appropriate to turn a medium into something it is not."
I know part of this is meant as a meme post, but in the end something important really needs to be emphasized here. Important issues in other parts of real life does not grant the privilege to break rules everywhere else in support of more weightier issues (at least not all of the time anyway). This is just one of countless examples of this.
This is one reason I have a problem with ThatsAdmirable throwing out the word "right" multiple times at the end of his statement. Yes, many of us do believe it is right to stand up for other human beings. It is in our nature to not want to cause or allow suffering to others BUT that still doesn't mean it was right of Blitzchung to hijack an entertainment company's event that everyone was invested in to enjoy a game's tournament, nor was it right to force a company not directly invested in battling the many vices of human rights on an international level. Blitz doing what he did forced their hand to react in a situation that they did not create by bringing up intense human rights battles themselves. Regardless of how you felt about the severity of the response one way or another it would take anybody with common sense to predict that if Blizzard didn't do some form of temporary sizable response that future mic-drop political/sociocultural comments would be used in future tournament events at some point. You don't get people to follow the rules for events by not responding to questionable tournament actions nor do you get people to follow rules by not assigning consequences at all.
I'll end with a hypothetical to further illustrate this issue of free speech, human rights, and the need for order in everyday life despite intense battles over human rights violations. Say you owned your own music radio channel and one of your hosts just decided to cut the top 10 hits or whatever to give a 5 minute speech about something related to human rights (a speech not related to your schedule on the station for that day or related to any talk-show portion of your station's program). The topic on human rights could be related to anything really (whether the events in China, the mistreatment and abuse of children, individuals, and/or families at the US Mexican border, etc). In this hypothetical what would you do? Your employee clearly violated rules associated with their job and also brought your specific station into question by wildly departing from the entire purpose of your radio station. It isn't to say that what said employee talked about was not important, quite the opposite, but you can't just hijack what isn't yours and break rules for other parts of daily life (entertainment, work, etc) just to stop the daily routine and promote what is passionate for you. There are plenty of APPROPRIATE MEDIUMS for that very thing. It is not appropriate to turn a medium into something it is not.
So many people are completely ignoring that even if we took the context of everything happening in China out of the equation Blitzchung still broke tournament event rules. Those of you expecting a full reversal is more or less trying to give him a free pass for throwing a charged political statement into a Blizzard event, taking advantage of the full publicity after winning the event. You ask for a reversal of logical consequences for him then you are more or less saying it is okay for other players to blatantly mic drop charged political comments during other events if the timing and situation aligns and calls for it.
I don't care if there are politics I do or do not agree with. I still don't want politics shoved into my entertainment when it is avoidable. Maybe Millenials think it's all cool to just hijack events for their own reasons but I prefer to keep human rights and entertainment in their mostly separate categories in most situations. Wanting these two vastly different topics separate is not saying you agree or disagree with what is going on on the other side of the world, contrary to popular belief.
Immoral? Are we really going to try to put a card game player not getting their winnings when saying something political on the same level of immoral? Want to know real immorality? The actual events of what is going on in China, not some reprimand loosely related to the actual issue when said during a tournament that doesn't want charged political phrases thrown into its events.
Real immorality is when those close to you get assaulted or abused (which has happened to many of those close to me), not some logical consequence handed to a children's card game player safe in a children's card game tournament. Please do not compare the stripping of entertainment monetary winnings to a term which more rightfully so should be used to describe actual mistreatment of individuals or groups.
It isn't Blizzard's job to be champions for human rights regardless of how you do or do not feel about the modern politics. Many on here are grossly misunderstanding how taking a stance that didn't result in Blitzchung's removal could end up badly for them by making it seem they were taking a stance in very real international politics.
You want to stand up for human rights do it on an actual appropriate and impacting medium, not after a card game tournament. There are plenty of real avenues to fight for human rights in ways that have a much higher chance of actually doing anything.
Blizzard not acting in this situation would potentially imply international motives on the topic of human rights, which from a business standpoint would be suicide for a non-human rights associated corporation.
Personally I'm big about human rights, especially the abuse of individuals and groups of women and children, but I'm not about to try and high jack a tournament and use it for my own podium, while at the same time scratching my head in bewilderment about why my prize money was taken away due to breaking rules that were already established before using a win for international attention.
EDIT: It should also be pointed out that the very first moment you start allowing your tournament participants to start using your events for political motivation without responding to it you then set the precedent in the future that if sociocultural tensions arise in other countries for any variety of issues those future players would 'have to' be allowed to have space and time to also project their opinions during future tournaments. Blizzard is doing the smart thing by trying to be consistent with their rules and guidelines instead of bending because some other players have strong opinions about modern politics.
If the average aggro deck had the staying power of wild Odd Pally I'd agree mostly, but the problem with most classes that have the option of going aggro or midrange is that top notch control decks could eventually run more midrangy aggro decks out of resources without some form of pressure engine (ie dude spawning machine, multiple 4/3s to wack your opponent with, murlocs spawning themselves repeatedly, etc). I'd see many hypothetical new age aggro decks to look more like a midrange version of zoo in the sense that if you can survive turns 5-9ish then you pretty much beat them 9/10 when they're in top deck mode.
My point was that if you keep increasing the rank experienced players are reset at then eventually you're going to have new players between ranks 25-10 or even 5 & then everyone else who is at ranks 5 to legend, all to accommodate the new player experience.
It's unwise to fully cater to new players and hardcore players. The best model is middle ground or bust.
The issue with not having these players be able to drop below rank 15 is what do relatively newer players do when they do get to rank 15 or better and still don't have an amazing collection? Do you make it so that players don't drop below 10? Whenever you make it so that harder opponents don't drop below a certain rank is that it then makes those now peaceful ranks go by even faster when rank grinding for new players, which results in only a slightly longer time before new(er) players get matched against real opponents again.
The fix is fairly flawed and very much a band-aid solution imo.
If anything I feel a completely separate ranked system for new(er) and/or super casual players, with fewer rewards would be a better idea. A big obstacle to this idea though is how you filter experienced players out without accidentally filtering newer players with moderate collections in with actual opponents.
I play mostly for fun meme/combo/otk decks, which usually require 6-9 cards. Having 60 cards in a card significantly reduces the chance of ever getting your combo pieces before dying (unless major power creep was introducing to card cycling & tutoring).
In all honesty larger decks really only favors fast decks because shoving more greed in control/combo decks from 30-60 also reduces the likliehood that you draw an answer/stabalizer you need in time against aggro decks.
Really you need to design a card game around a deck size. It doesn't typically work the other way around since there is just too much you have to change to compensate for how drastically you change the game when increasing deck size (e.g. larger mulligan, potentially higher hero health, more copies of cards as others have noted, more new cycling effects, more removal effects, etc).
Voidcaller was never nerfed and is almost the same type of scenario, though without the initial trade of the rush effect. Why does this need to be nerfed exactly?
Also, Sap, Poly and Hex are all available answers. The meta choosing not to use some of those cards doesn't mean a big minion in the early midgame is essentially broken.
Submit to the dark whispers of the God of Death!