The goal is that Wild is the place you can go to enjoy decks you love the most for as long as you want.
This is false in practice.
You cannot ENJOY decks that are brutally overrun by meta tyrants.
AND meta tyrants in Wild are often made possible thanks to NEW flawed cards that are harmless in Standard, but broken in Wild.
It's not about a shifting meta. Wild players never asked for that (and the meta does actually shift btw). It's about viability of cards and decks, made poor by a limited pool of flawed cards, ie cards that need synergy to be valuable, but that synergy is so easily provided in Wild, that their mana cost is unbearably low (eg. Crystology, Arcane Flakmage, Plague of Flames, etc).
If those cards weren't flawed to begin with, Wild would be a much better place, with no need of continuously "keeping an eye on it".
The problem is there will always be decks that some players enjoy, but will never be viable, just as there must always be a lich king, I mean tier 1 deck in wild.
You could take 100 powerful cards away in wild and simply delete them, but that doesn't mean that curving into 1, 2, then 3 mana or playing a combo against a control deck that doesn't try to kill you still won't outclass Timmy's Beast Priest or Spell Warrior (Obviously exaggerating a lot here but you get the gist of the idea).
Kind of a let down tbh. They did show that they wanna give Wild a bit more Attention (returning Packs, Nerfs to Echo). And now they're saying they don't have any Changes to it in Mind? Really? I mean, you could just look at Forum Threads and clearly see that People have an Issue with Decks like Quest-Mage. Yeah, there are a lot of Players that are just salty and wanna vent, but you can't deny that it often feels like you can't do anything when you're facing these Decks. I seriously hope the Devs change their Minds on this Topic when the next Xpac is released.
Regarding new Format: Rotating Sets sounds interesting. But you really need to be careful with which Sets you'll combine. A lot of Cards are harmless, untill you put them in the right Enviroment.
cough *Terror in the Tombs* cough
One or two Hearthstone fan forums is not exactly indicative of an entire format's playerbase. Do we have some form of measurable method to see how many numbers or rough percentages hate or love any particular deck or playstyle? Not really. So naturally the topic isn't as simple as 'A dozen threads complained about something [which card just be chalked up to playstyle or class bias] so naturally everyone hates it and it should be addressed.'
It's worthwhile recognising that the majority of complaints regarding balance in Wild (and Standard, for that matter) are simply folks expressing their distaste for a particular deck, rather than honest criticisms of the state-of-the-game. Three sites currently track the older format (maybe others I'm not aware of), and the three sites all rank the Wild meta-game differently, which is frankly more suggestive than the complaints which accumulate on casual gaming fan-sites like this, or the subreddit.
Folks complaining about OP decks in Wild are better off simply avoiding the format - to no one's surprise, the meta-game in eternal format CCGs is always far more degenerate than in limited formats. That's their allure. Bitching about it makes about as much sense as bitching about the lazy devs in MtG, who have never gotten around to nerfing Black Lotus and the Moxen, or Force of Will and Dual Lands. Folks that enjoy playing eternal formats enjoy playing degenerate shit. Many of the complaints that have dogged the format since it debuted honestly seem to amount to nothing other than players discovering that they don't enjoy playing degenerate shit - or, more likely, that they actually enjoy playing degenerate shit, but get upset when degenerate shit is played against them . . .
Can't upvote this comment up enough.
I think it's also fair to mention that many of those players complaining about a particular deck or two in wild, instead of the overall state of the game, also have blatant biases for why they target just those particular decks in the format.
Usually it comes down to wild control players not wanting to play against aggro because they sometimes lose the match-up, and say wild aggro is imbalanced, or that otks are unfair and take too long so they want otks butchered (See a reoccurring trend here?) Too many complaints don't talk about wild to make subtle tweaks to the format to round out the format's rough edges, but really would seek to warp the format into something that butchers their unfavored match-ups and unenjoyed decks.
It's staler because that is how eternal formats work. Changes to the wild format do happen (hence why you no longer see Christmas Tree or Secret Pally as top offenders anymore despite having no real direct nerfs and various other top wild decks from older metas), but since the card pool is much larger and power creep has to one-up itself to massive effect you see changes happen much less frequently.
In standard all you have to do to change a meta is nerf a couple cards here and there, rotate out a few cards here and there, or just release a couple unique powerhouses to change the comparatively small meta. In wild you have give control something better than Gul'Dan or Jaina, give combo something better than Rez Priest, give OTKs something better than Mecha'Thun Lock, etc to make a difference. Or wait until enough expansions provide enough powerhouses over time to create a new tier 1 or 0 deck altogether, which may take many months of new very powerful synergies.
I want a rotating format so bad. I would love to play my old cards without having to go up against the most OP decks imaginable. That's one of the things I like about rank 20-10 in wild. No one's playing busted garbage like odd paladin and quest mage, so you get to see the cards or decks you might miss, like Jade Idol and Deathstalker Rexxar.
The problem with that is regardless of what you rotate out (whether in wild or standard) the meta dust will settle eventually and optimized lists will start forming again with what cards are left. While I play for fun, and ocasionally for a good deck, some players do just play for hard consistency.
So while Timmy may want to roll with his N'Zoth Control Pally he will still have to roll against Sally's weakened wild aggro deck that will still frustrate Timmy.
They said if the playerbase as a whole felt something was a problem they would act. Clearly not all of us have some wild format hive mind that says we all hate aggro, or otks, or control, or midrange. It's easy to mic drop a blanket statement and say 'everyone' or 'most wild players' hate such and such, but how do you actually objectively and accurate prove that is really the case and should be nerfed or rotated into a different format?
Yeah, you can enjoy whatever deck you love as long as you don't expect to rank up AT ALL. Maybe they should remove wild ladder then if it's not supposed to be balanced and competitive.
I still don't understand this mindset. As T5 said you are supposed to be able to enjoy playing whatever you want, with the caveat of rare exceptions. The goal has never been to basically turn wild into standard with just a larger card pool (by gutting every consistent card and deck out there).
EVERY successful card game out there has had an eternal format (a format that mostly goes untouched in terms of balance changes) so that people who actually put forth a lot of money and/or time can actually benefit from longevity and nostalgia from their cards. There are many many competitive wild decks out there. The problem lies in people being sheep and letting tier deck trackers dictate what they 'can' successfully play on wild ladder, when in reality many many tier 1 and tier 2 decks are very capable of getting to rank 5 and clear up to legend. Hell, back during the Even Shaman meta in 2019 (pre nerf) I got to legend for the first time (honestly first time breaking past rank 5) with Reno Dragon Priest. Was almost anybody playing it? Not a chance, but it took advantage of what was being played (aggressive decks).
The same thing can happen with today's wild meta, without going on some weird crusade and purge an eternal wild format of half of its cards/decks. The key lies in taking chances with decks that aren't just being copy pasta'd as the 'only' workable wild ladder decks.
EDIT: It also stands being said that yes you can enjoy any deck you want to play, but some decks are NOT designed to be competitive decks (Often because there is some inherent flaw in their win condition, if they have one, or they lack something crucial in the deck itself or the playstyle. E.g. Many competitive decks need some form of pressure, whether it be chip damage, one or more swing turns for tempo, burst damage or another form of finisher. Sometimes a deck that lacks one or more of those things will not be able to compete regardless of what other decks exist in the wild ladder.).
You don't need to be highly skilled to predict that a person using crutches will still lose most marathons against typically-bodied runners who are not olympiads. Taking the professional athletes out of the running (pun intended) will not prevent the person on crutches from facing a disadvantaged competition.
Just considering the cards from this past year getting unnerfed I again thought about why T5 hasn't unnerfed this deck in today's HS.
There are and have been more consistent and easier OTK setups that have stuck around and big taunts (warlock) exist in today's HS when they didn't then, as well as Reno to go with the Ice Blocks in mage. Not to mention the much higher prevalence of hyper aggressive decks and massive armor gains that didn't exist in the same form of the Grim Patron meta.
Simply put, the deck would not perform the same as it did years ago so why keep the deck broken?
Blame Defile for that. If needed, they could maybe change it's stats to 5 mana 2/2 to make it stronger overall and cure the Defile problem.
Honestly there isn't even any problem with Defile. Ever since Defile came out there never was an infinite loop, as stated by the designers. I play the Deathspeaker OTK with Knife Juggler and Defile and the Defile 'infinite loop' has always auto capped out at 14 procs of the Defile spell. That 14 proc cap has been around for well over a year already. The design around shutting down infinite loop interactions has been addressed for most card interactions as soon as, or soon after, their release so I'm really annoyed that they nerfed Dreadsteed, claiming that an infinite loop issue was the cause for the nerf, when Defile had a cap after releasing anyway.
Just seems like a really dishonest and inconsistent way to nerf a card that saw no actual competitive play.
No they wouldn't. That era was cancerous and unfun.
Wild priest is going to need a broader selection of competitive wild decks eventually (although Dragon/Reno Dragon Priest is still quite a decent deck to target aggro and midrange, contrary to popular belief)
I feel this should happen more often. Way way too often cards are nerfed in both formats only to address a balance issue in the standard format, and then the cards are never reverted when taken out of standard.
Also, old cards should see some consideration for being restored to their original forms as well. For example, Grim Patron Warrior would have to play much more differently than it did in the old HS that was its stomping grounds, if only due to more hyper aggressive decks, easy access to big taunts in warlock via Voidcaller/Voidlord/Skull, as well as Ice Block in mage + Reno. The deck would not be anywhere near as oppressive as it was in old HS.
Honestly, I think that Mecha'thun as a card and concept are acceptable.
The issue is mostly with cards like Plague of Flames and Bloodbloom not costing a whole lot of mana. ~dats just me doe~
Making Bloodbloom cost a lot of mana makes no sense. The deck would cease to work at that point as you know longer have an actual means to pull off the combo
Honestly the 'not being deleted from the game' is a very recent change in balance philosophy. Many decks in the past were deleted from the game, despite them being incredibly weak to current decks/strats nowadays (including Patron Warrior). While these current nerfs not deleting the decks still time around the fear that a reversal in design philosophy (again) presents a still very real concern. Who is really to say that constant nerfs wouldn't just bring such a philosophy reversal back sooner?
You're also glossing over the fact that T5 doesn't just nerf due to power level, they have, at times (especially recently) nerfed due to popularity as well. If you get enough players voting with their wallets until they get decks that they are bored with gutted then it wouldn't matter if you had 25 viable decks. Some players will still b*&*( and whine if they dare have to see an old deck still queueing up against them. Take a look at the old Raging Worgen Warrior of old. Complete semi-meme deck that got gutted despite never even seeing the light of tier 1 status, ever. Look at Quest Rogue, nerfed multiple times not because it was always some broken tier 0 deck but simply because it acted as scissors to paper (control) and stayed or resurfaced in the meta multiple times.
It's easy to say Galakrond Shaman, or warrior, PW, Face Hunter, DR Rogue, etc aren't deleted now, but who is to really confidently say that eventually they won't get the Quest Rogue or Raging Worgen treatment later (most likely due to standard players that for some reason can't stomache established metas for a season)?
EDIT: Concerning laziness I still stand by that point. It is the easy route to turn a few value switches and nerf something than it is to create new mechanics that counter old synergies. HS has something to learn from MtG in that aspect. So often counter synergies have either been created in new sets against old plays or communities have have actually worked hard to create them on their own with their current cards. Since when have we looked at tier 1 status decks as actual 'tier 0' decks that must be dealt with with near instant nerfs? Allow the community to counter strategies once in a while instead of going the easy route each time.
I think it's fair to ask at this point why certain strats and decks are even put on the table and supposedly tested if you're going to nerf most of the non-memes anyway. Why waste development time, as well as player time/money if there is most likely going to be nerfs to said involved cards anyway?
Frequent nerfs to me seems like a priortizing of appeasing to a bored minority over having consistency in the game (as far as knowing you can craft a favored deck without having a deck potentially dismantled). I really don't like the idea of changing things just for the sake of changing things. I'm not saying every nerf was unnecessary, but the massive amount of nerfs does reek of what other posters have mentioned; nerfing things just because some players are bored after a month and want the popular meta decks completely shifted around.
Nerfing is also lazy game design. Instead of intentionally creating counter strategies, or better yet having the community counter previous strategies just demand nerfs. There's nothing to be solved in this scenario, no critical thinking at all. You don't like something just nerf it.
Seems like just a giant cycle of building hype with new sets/cards/strats, break those new strats, then make new strats and break them again when the next set comes out.
I absolutely LOATHE decks like wild Mill Rogue (especially since I am a combo/OTK 'main'), BUT I still feel it should be kept in the game and lightly supported with future cards in the future (as long as it doesn't get to ridiculous levels).
The more diverse cards/strats/interactions the more varied and interesting the game will be. HS gets boring when you more or less have have just a few playstyles that play, more or less, exactly the same with just a new name/theme/tribe slapped onto it. Plus, I am wholeheartedly against the concept of there never being matches that force pure 'stall' control decks from actually trying to kill you with pressure or a finisher. Mill accomplishes exactly that; control will never win by out valuing mill.
Seems pretty cool anyway haha. Can't believe I never have run into it until now. It really reminds me of the original Dreadsteed Lock decks pre-nerf to the Dreadsteed.
Yesterday in wild casual I faced a warlock deck I'd never seen before but it was quite interesting and semi-unbelievable imo. It seemed like an almost zoolock like shell that revolved around tapping into Expired Merchant and having no other cards higher than 5 mana except for Cruel Dinomancer so that it is always the guaranteed draw. What happens is that unless you are running a silence or transform effect you will eventually face up to 4 Dinomancers that can't be removed since they instantly rez each other upon death.
The problem is there will always be decks that some players enjoy, but will never be viable, just as there must always be a lich king, I mean tier 1 deck in wild.
You could take 100 powerful cards away in wild and simply delete them, but that doesn't mean that curving into 1, 2, then 3 mana or playing a combo against a control deck that doesn't try to kill you still won't outclass Timmy's Beast Priest or Spell Warrior (Obviously exaggerating a lot here but you get the gist of the idea).
One or two Hearthstone fan forums is not exactly indicative of an entire format's playerbase. Do we have some form of measurable method to see how many numbers or rough percentages hate or love any particular deck or playstyle? Not really. So naturally the topic isn't as simple as 'A dozen threads complained about something [which card just be chalked up to playstyle or class bias] so naturally everyone hates it and it should be addressed.'
Can't upvote this comment up enough.
I think it's also fair to mention that many of those players complaining about a particular deck or two in wild, instead of the overall state of the game, also have blatant biases for why they target just those particular decks in the format.
Usually it comes down to wild control players not wanting to play against aggro because they sometimes lose the match-up, and say wild aggro is imbalanced, or that otks are unfair and take too long so they want otks butchered (See a reoccurring trend here?) Too many complaints don't talk about wild to make subtle tweaks to the format to round out the format's rough edges, but really would seek to warp the format into something that butchers their unfavored match-ups and unenjoyed decks.
It's staler because that is how eternal formats work. Changes to the wild format do happen (hence why you no longer see Christmas Tree or Secret Pally as top offenders anymore despite having no real direct nerfs and various other top wild decks from older metas), but since the card pool is much larger and power creep has to one-up itself to massive effect you see changes happen much less frequently.
In standard all you have to do to change a meta is nerf a couple cards here and there, rotate out a few cards here and there, or just release a couple unique powerhouses to change the comparatively small meta. In wild you have give control something better than Gul'Dan or Jaina, give combo something better than Rez Priest, give OTKs something better than Mecha'Thun Lock, etc to make a difference. Or wait until enough expansions provide enough powerhouses over time to create a new tier 1 or 0 deck altogether, which may take many months of new very powerful synergies.
The problem with that is regardless of what you rotate out (whether in wild or standard) the meta dust will settle eventually and optimized lists will start forming again with what cards are left. While I play for fun, and ocasionally for a good deck, some players do just play for hard consistency.
So while Timmy may want to roll with his N'Zoth Control Pally he will still have to roll against Sally's weakened wild aggro deck that will still frustrate Timmy.
No fun for who?
They said if the playerbase as a whole felt something was a problem they would act. Clearly not all of us have some wild format hive mind that says we all hate aggro, or otks, or control, or midrange. It's easy to mic drop a blanket statement and say 'everyone' or 'most wild players' hate such and such, but how do you actually objectively and accurate prove that is really the case and should be nerfed or rotated into a different format?
I still don't understand this mindset. As T5 said you are supposed to be able to enjoy playing whatever you want, with the caveat of rare exceptions. The goal has never been to basically turn wild into standard with just a larger card pool (by gutting every consistent card and deck out there).
EVERY successful card game out there has had an eternal format (a format that mostly goes untouched in terms of balance changes) so that people who actually put forth a lot of money and/or time can actually benefit from longevity and nostalgia from their cards. There are many many competitive wild decks out there. The problem lies in people being sheep and letting tier deck trackers dictate what they 'can' successfully play on wild ladder, when in reality many many tier 1 and tier 2 decks are very capable of getting to rank 5 and clear up to legend. Hell, back during the Even Shaman meta in 2019 (pre nerf) I got to legend for the first time (honestly first time breaking past rank 5) with Reno Dragon Priest. Was almost anybody playing it? Not a chance, but it took advantage of what was being played (aggressive decks).
The same thing can happen with today's wild meta, without going on some weird crusade and purge an eternal wild format of half of its cards/decks. The key lies in taking chances with decks that aren't just being copy pasta'd as the 'only' workable wild ladder decks.
EDIT: It also stands being said that yes you can enjoy any deck you want to play, but some decks are NOT designed to be competitive decks (Often because there is some inherent flaw in their win condition, if they have one, or they lack something crucial in the deck itself or the playstyle. E.g. Many competitive decks need some form of pressure, whether it be chip damage, one or more swing turns for tempo, burst damage or another form of finisher. Sometimes a deck that lacks one or more of those things will not be able to compete regardless of what other decks exist in the wild ladder.).
You don't need to be highly skilled to predict that a person using crutches will still lose most marathons against typically-bodied runners who are not olympiads. Taking the professional athletes out of the running (pun intended) will not prevent the person on crutches from facing a disadvantaged competition.
Just considering the cards from this past year getting unnerfed I again thought about why T5 hasn't unnerfed this deck in today's HS.
There are and have been more consistent and easier OTK setups that have stuck around and big taunts (warlock) exist in today's HS when they didn't then, as well as Reno to go with the Ice Blocks in mage. Not to mention the much higher prevalence of hyper aggressive decks and massive armor gains that didn't exist in the same form of the Grim Patron meta.
Simply put, the deck would not perform the same as it did years ago so why keep the deck broken?
Honestly there isn't even any problem with Defile. Ever since Defile came out there never was an infinite loop, as stated by the designers. I play the Deathspeaker OTK with Knife Juggler and Defile and the Defile 'infinite loop' has always auto capped out at 14 procs of the Defile spell. That 14 proc cap has been around for well over a year already. The design around shutting down infinite loop interactions has been addressed for most card interactions as soon as, or soon after, their release so I'm really annoyed that they nerfed Dreadsteed, claiming that an infinite loop issue was the cause for the nerf, when Defile had a cap after releasing anyway.
Just seems like a really dishonest and inconsistent way to nerf a card that saw no actual competitive play.
Agreed. The reasoning for the nerf was extremely weak and not even technically true to begin with
Wild priest is going to need a broader selection of competitive wild decks eventually (although Dragon/Reno Dragon Priest is still quite a decent deck to target aggro and midrange, contrary to popular belief)
I feel this should happen more often. Way way too often cards are nerfed in both formats only to address a balance issue in the standard format, and then the cards are never reverted when taken out of standard.
Also, old cards should see some consideration for being restored to their original forms as well. For example, Grim Patron Warrior would have to play much more differently than it did in the old HS that was its stomping grounds, if only due to more hyper aggressive decks, easy access to big taunts in warlock via Voidcaller/Voidlord/Skull, as well as Ice Block in mage + Reno. The deck would not be anywhere near as oppressive as it was in old HS.
Making Bloodbloom cost a lot of mana makes no sense. The deck would cease to work at that point as you know longer have an actual means to pull off the combo
Honestly the 'not being deleted from the game' is a very recent change in balance philosophy. Many decks in the past were deleted from the game, despite them being incredibly weak to current decks/strats nowadays (including Patron Warrior). While these current nerfs not deleting the decks still time around the fear that a reversal in design philosophy (again) presents a still very real concern. Who is really to say that constant nerfs wouldn't just bring such a philosophy reversal back sooner?
You're also glossing over the fact that T5 doesn't just nerf due to power level, they have, at times (especially recently) nerfed due to popularity as well. If you get enough players voting with their wallets until they get decks that they are bored with gutted then it wouldn't matter if you had 25 viable decks. Some players will still b*&*( and whine if they dare have to see an old deck still queueing up against them. Take a look at the old Raging Worgen Warrior of old. Complete semi-meme deck that got gutted despite never even seeing the light of tier 1 status, ever. Look at Quest Rogue, nerfed multiple times not because it was always some broken tier 0 deck but simply because it acted as scissors to paper (control) and stayed or resurfaced in the meta multiple times.
It's easy to say Galakrond Shaman, or warrior, PW, Face Hunter, DR Rogue, etc aren't deleted now, but who is to really confidently say that eventually they won't get the Quest Rogue or Raging Worgen treatment later (most likely due to standard players that for some reason can't stomache established metas for a season)?
EDIT: Concerning laziness I still stand by that point. It is the easy route to turn a few value switches and nerf something than it is to create new mechanics that counter old synergies. HS has something to learn from MtG in that aspect. So often counter synergies have either been created in new sets against old plays or communities have have actually worked hard to create them on their own with their current cards. Since when have we looked at tier 1 status decks as actual 'tier 0' decks that must be dealt with with near instant nerfs? Allow the community to counter strategies once in a while instead of going the easy route each time.
I think it's fair to ask at this point why certain strats and decks are even put on the table and supposedly tested if you're going to nerf most of the non-memes anyway. Why waste development time, as well as player time/money if there is most likely going to be nerfs to said involved cards anyway?
Frequent nerfs to me seems like a priortizing of appeasing to a bored minority over having consistency in the game (as far as knowing you can craft a favored deck without having a deck potentially dismantled). I really don't like the idea of changing things just for the sake of changing things. I'm not saying every nerf was unnecessary, but the massive amount of nerfs does reek of what other posters have mentioned; nerfing things just because some players are bored after a month and want the popular meta decks completely shifted around.
Nerfing is also lazy game design. Instead of intentionally creating counter strategies, or better yet having the community counter previous strategies just demand nerfs. There's nothing to be solved in this scenario, no critical thinking at all. You don't like something just nerf it.
Seems like just a giant cycle of building hype with new sets/cards/strats, break those new strats, then make new strats and break them again when the next set comes out.
I absolutely LOATHE decks like wild Mill Rogue (especially since I am a combo/OTK 'main'), BUT I still feel it should be kept in the game and lightly supported with future cards in the future (as long as it doesn't get to ridiculous levels).
The more diverse cards/strats/interactions the more varied and interesting the game will be. HS gets boring when you more or less have have just a few playstyles that play, more or less, exactly the same with just a new name/theme/tribe slapped onto it. Plus, I am wholeheartedly against the concept of there never being matches that force pure 'stall' control decks from actually trying to kill you with pressure or a finisher. Mill accomplishes exactly that; control will never win by out valuing mill.
Everything seems to be working fine for me right now.
Seems pretty cool anyway haha. Can't believe I never have run into it until now. It really reminds me of the original Dreadsteed Lock decks pre-nerf to the Dreadsteed.
Yesterday in wild casual I faced a warlock deck I'd never seen before but it was quite interesting and semi-unbelievable imo. It seemed like an almost zoolock like shell that revolved around tapping into Expired Merchant and having no other cards higher than 5 mana except for Cruel Dinomancer so that it is always the guaranteed draw. What happens is that unless you are running a silence or transform effect you will eventually face up to 4 Dinomancers that can't be removed since they instantly rez each other upon death.