I doubt we are getting a full Quel'thalas-Silvermoon year, more likely just one set, either the first one or the last one. In the same way Dalaran was instrumental, but not really everywhere.
Elementals might be there as well, they don't need to focus the whole theme on them, in order to provide new ones, ie Animated Avalanche, Siamat.
Finally, if Blood Elves are key, Demons should also get the spotlight at some point. I actually suspect that Valdris Felgorge was originally meant to be part of the new set, rather than Dragons...
Turn-based and apparent-roll gamesystem looks definitely interesting. Possibly better than its predecessors.
As an old BG2 fan, I am definitely looking forward to see this one (hopefully an Athkatla expansion too, that city in 3D would be an absolute masterpiece).
Although I know already that as an adult, it won't have the same impact on me that BG2 had.
In synthesis, my point is about lack of goodwill on their side.
I don't believe they are unable to, they just don't want to, and/or think it is more profitable to them to stick with extreme designs (because they think people enjoy power peaks, in Standard too).
Nope, your argument doesn't stick, because the same results in Standard could be achieved with similar, but non-flawed cards, if they really wanted to buff those archetypes.
Possibly with two consistent cards instead of a broken one and a pack filler.
Those cards you cited are very situational, and while they do produce an amazing effect, it cannot be jammed into just about any deck.
Its not just nerfing strong cards, its about making sure that the balance of the classes are within acceptable ranges. Its a hard task, admitably, hence why the results of nerfs aren't always what it should be.
Nerfing those cards as you cited, will pull down an already down class in standard.
Situational? Those cards situational? Have you ever played Wild?
Also, your final argument: if a class is weak in Standard, then it's a good idea to print broken cards for it, as long as said class stays weak in Standard: congratulations! You haven't improved the Standard class by an inch, while making it a meta tyrant in Wild!
Don't you see this is EXACTLY the devilish policy i am denouncing?
I honestly think team5 should just straight up admit that balancing wild is easier said than done, since its a vast amount of cards and complexity.
[...]
Please, tell me how Crystology, Ancient Mysteries, or Plague of Flames (just to name a few) are hard to balance. Please tell me how releasing those cards with a fair mana cost (1-2 higher) would be hard to implement.
Let's be honest: it's just that they don't care about releasing flawed cards, as long as they are in check in Standard.
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".
Thing is, shareholders are bound to acknowledge that putting customers (and product originality) ahead of immediate revenue is actually what made Blizzard such a valuable brand!
Granted, i am no professional in finance, but if i were a shareholder i'd be appalled by Activision-Blizzard in recent years!
Afterall, finance is about perceived future value. Immediate profit is just a variable of the function.
Becoming shareholder of such a company, with immediate profit in mind, sounds contradictory to me.
I do hope that the several mistakes of the recent years (amongst the good things they released) are indeed just mistakes, not really led by blind profit-driven mindset (which is bound to lead to collapse sooner or later).
This year for the first time we had a mid-term expansion, so new announcements could be delivered later than usual - because we are not really starving for them this time, not yet.
I doubt we are getting a full Quel'thalas-Silvermoon year, more likely just one set, either the first one or the last one. In the same way Dalaran was instrumental, but not really everywhere.
Elementals might be there as well, they don't need to focus the whole theme on them, in order to provide new ones, ie Animated Avalanche, Siamat.
Finally, if Blood Elves are key, Demons should also get the spotlight at some point. I actually suspect that Valdris Felgorge was originally meant to be part of the new set, rather than Dragons...
Yay, I made it there!
I just wanted to point out that my Mountain Mage is actually viable, and tuned for meta purposes. Not a meta-breaker, but not a meme either.
I wish I could go with a slower build and more powerhouses, but the meta doesn't really allow that...
Yeah sure, this is definitely true.
But there is a difference between barely viable, unviable, and brutally unviable.
Too many decks are made brutally unviable in current Wild.
And I mean decks that were historically good enough (which are bound to improve on paper), not just stuff that never emerged in any meta.
I totally like the idea.
Endorsement system could simply be an extension of the current Emote system.
Possibly with tiers too:
T1: Great deck! Great move!
T2: Greetings, Well played.
All emotes, Endorsement or not, usable only once per game. And you can only Endorse once per game (so you have to choose).
They could even design the system so that it provides points only if an Endorsement gets reciprocated by another Endorsement of the same tier.
Either way, the concept is cool, much better than useless emotes or squelch.
Turn-based and apparent-roll gamesystem looks definitely interesting. Possibly better than its predecessors.
As an old BG2 fan, I am definitely looking forward to see this one (hopefully an Athkatla expansion too, that city in 3D would be an absolute masterpiece).
Although I know already that as an adult, it won't have the same impact on me that BG2 had.
In synthesis, my point is about lack of goodwill on their side.
I don't believe they are unable to, they just don't want to, and/or think it is more profitable to them to stick with extreme designs (because they think people enjoy power peaks, in Standard too).
Nope, your argument doesn't stick, because the same results in Standard could be achieved with similar, but non-flawed cards, if they really wanted to buff those archetypes.
Possibly with two consistent cards instead of a broken one and a pack filler.
Situational? Those cards situational? Have you ever played Wild?
Also, your final argument: if a class is weak in Standard, then it's a good idea to print broken cards for it, as long as said class stays weak in Standard: congratulations! You haven't improved the Standard class by an inch, while making it a meta tyrant in Wild!
Don't you see this is EXACTLY the devilish policy i am denouncing?
Never heard of people complaining (with half-decent arguments) about Wild nerfs.
Please, tell me how Crystology, Ancient Mysteries, or Plague of Flames (just to name a few) are hard to balance. Please tell me how releasing those cards with a fair mana cost (1-2 higher) would be hard to implement.
Let's be honest: it's just that they don't care about releasing flawed cards, as long as they are in check in Standard.
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 cardback is nice but not impressive.
I expected some Raven and/or Kirin Tor symbol in there.
Oh well!
Thing is, shareholders are bound to acknowledge that putting customers (and product originality) ahead of immediate revenue is actually what made Blizzard such a valuable brand!
Granted, i am no professional in finance, but if i were a shareholder i'd be appalled by Activision-Blizzard in recent years!
Afterall, finance is about perceived future value. Immediate profit is just a variable of the function.
Becoming shareholder of such a company, with immediate profit in mind, sounds contradictory to me.
I do hope that the several mistakes of the recent years (amongst the good things they released) are indeed just mistakes, not really led by blind profit-driven mindset (which is bound to lead to collapse sooner or later).
A t4 deck can't really attract so much hate...
No single release will ensure HS stays on top for the next 10 years.
But if that hyperbole was used, I expect new perks that reward everyday grinding - as ranks, gold and dust are not enough.
One "easy" solution would be a full-blown system of Achievements, with an ever-growing system of varied rewards.
That's the easiest way to help keeping players old and new bound to the game with consistency.
The overhaul of the Basic and Classic sets is much expected because it's needed, but it's not something that can deeply renew the game on its own.
Tbh i don't know what else could support the hype of the preview.
If by "worst" you mean "most hateful to play against", then i can't really decide.
I stick with Wild Secret Mage and Wild Mechadin.
Sniplock would be there as well, but it's been nerfed.
Just too much pressure, from too early, and with too much resilience too.
Other decks may be equally or more powerful, but at least they let you play normally for the first turns.
This year for the first time we had a mid-term expansion, so new announcements could be delivered later than usual - because we are not really starving for them this time, not yet.
As a Wild player, I wish I could say farewell to Zilliax...
A toggle on/off button would be enough.
Lovely concept!
Basically this could work as a reward system for Achievements.
The fact the opponent would always see the vanilla version is a necessary safeguard for playability at all times.
They could even think of going beyond the bare full-art, with arts just partially overlapping their frames, as if they were emerging from them.