For what is my gamestyle (homebrewing with Tempo/Midrange decks in Wild) the game has been pretty stale for a while, with the meta overwhelmed by a stupidly limited subset of flawed cards - killing the very purpose of Wild, aka larger set of cards.
I know i am quite specific as a player type, but well that's my point of view.
actually, I don't think there is a reference function at all for any stats balance and keywords: designers just go by custom, their guts, and ultimately statistics...
Nothing is balanced or broken on paper in their minds. So we can hardly make any point here.
If by what you're saying is true, there lies Hearthstone problems with overpowered cards, (hence all the nerfs). For example like Corrupt Elementalist nerf, that it should show you how his stats and battlecry so strong in 5 drops, and I agree that it should be balanced at 6 drops.
If there is some ground rules about making minions, I believe it should be pretty balance, and there would be no need for all that nerfs.
I could be wrong too. But if it were up to me, I do think it's important to have rules about how minion stats should be.
I totally agree, but sadly, that's not how the game is designed...
Vanilla stats function is actually non-linear, as it works differently for (1), (2) and probably (3) too. It normalizes only from (4) and above.
We should also consider that multple keywords REAL value (their impact) does not stack as a sum, but exponentially - and that's why Zilliax APPEARS to be balanced, but actually it is not (and that explains its popularity in both Standard and Wild).
EDIT: actually, I don't think there is a reference function at all for any stats balance and keywords: designers just go by custom, their guts, and ultimately statistics...
Nothing is balanced or broken on paper in their minds. So we can hardly make any point here.
I don't really understand why people want to HoF Malygos.
Has Malygos ever been oppressive? It's never been regularly in the meta. At best, it's probably been top tier for short periods of time.
Even if a Malygos deck is to appear in the meta, what's wrong with it? What's wrong with Combo wincon in general (one should be much more concerned by which Control tools a Combo deck can effectively use in their deck)?
Sure, he forces the devs to pay attention in printing cheap spells that can target face, but is it even a problem?
I mean, there's currently no Malygos deck in Wild meta at the moment, even if we have a much larger pool of spells. Like, not just no Malygos on top tiers, but no Malygos at all. It's off-meta.
I could understand HoFing Leeroy Jenkins, but vaguely tbh. He's just a fairly recurring card, but people notice him just just because it kills them. If Leeroy wasn't a finisher, less people would point at him.
They can always "fix stuff later". IN fact, that's what they've done in the past even before frequent patches became commonplace.
I remember when Silithid Swarmer got retroactively fixed with the beast tag.
These mistakes are going to happen at some point and at least now we get quicker fixes instead of having to wait for the next rotation.
I didn't claim it was a final proof. "It helps proving".
This fact falls in the same pattern as Galakrond half-otfix after 1 week.
Mistakes happen, but more mistakes happen if you allow yourself to be more daring/careless, and you are bound to be, if you know that everyone is ok or even happy with hotfixes.
This one for example is minor ofc, but how the hell could it even happen?!? Isn't the carelessness obvious (here, and in Galakrond Shaman)?
My point is they wouldn't be so daring/careless if they knew that repeated hotfixes are unacceptable for everyone.
What appears as more care for us (hotfixes) is actually contributing to its opposite.
As i already said, a fast & frequent patch/fix policy implies their quality check is bound to get worse in time.
They know they can always fix things later, after release why worry too much?
But hey, everyone downvoted me when i pointed it out (when Galakrond cards were obviously OP) and everyone was happy with frequent fixes....
There you go.
There's a difference between bad QA to careless balancing.
a bug is not a game balance problem
I just think blizzard goes by the model they make people unhappy but then fix the issue to make people satisfied.. instead of having the things right in the first place..
Sure, the Skipper issue is definitely a minor one.
And I also agree they exceed preemptively on purpose.
But my point is that the excess in their policy, together with frequent fixes (that causes some inherent carelessness), won't lead to a high quality product in average. Or at least, that is a risk, with their current policy.
I still downvote you. Because this is just childish behaviour. And your argument still doesn't make sense.
So, pointing out a fact that helps proving a previous point of mine is childish behavior?
Is having a different view than the community, or pointing out that the community might be wrong on being enthusiast with something, childish behavior? Really?!?
Also, do you mind pointing out where my argument makes no sense, sir adult?
Or is downvoting and dismissing my comment as childish how real adults behave?
Next time at least have the decency of disagreeing and downvoting without posting such a moot comment...
PS: have a look at Doublesummon's answer on point and my reply to it. Then come back and tell me i am the childish one.
Not ruined the game yet, but it's definitely wrong when a minion-heavy deck can consistently play reactively AND contest the board.
A reactive deck, aka a Control deck, trades board power in order to gain removals.
Now with strong Rush minions, you don't need that anymore: just look at Embiggen Druid, and Galakrond Warrior before that, and Galakrond Shaman before that: all of them are/were abusing stupidly strong Rush minions to gain continuous board swings.
Actually, it is sometimes better to give in initiative, in order to Rush their minions!
Good old Tempo trades is nearly obsolete: just rush from hand...
As I said in the forum, this is overall a great job, not least because of flavour!
However, I stand by having a slightly stronger Faol: either 6/9 or (7).
But even more importantly, i'd really love Priest to have cards like Injured Blademaster in its core set. So, i'd give those Battle Medic and Soul Survivor an Injured Tol'vir treatment.
(3) would still be OP. (Compare with Plague of Murlocs, which is OP itself, we haven't noticed yet because current Shaman doesn't have enough sealing lategame power).
Because it is not just a combo-clear: the impending Plague forces you to consider trading with any Warlock tokens, for fear of the clear: it is easily a two-turn board clear (with DR upside too!).
At (1) it's just outright broken, and it would still be at (2).
The Dragon restriction is enough to keep Breath of Dreams in check.
They need to add many OP Dragons before you notice a serious problem, and even then, it will be because of the OP Dragons themselves, not just Breath.
Tbh, Wild Growth itself was only problematic because of a stack of OP high cost cards in Druid: they preferred to nerf one solid core card, instead of multiple OP ones...
1/4 for all cards including commons and rares would already be a great thing on the long run.
I'm curious but not seriously hyped.
For what is my gamestyle (homebrewing with Tempo/Midrange decks in Wild) the game has been pretty stale for a while, with the meta overwhelmed by a stupidly limited subset of flawed cards - killing the very purpose of Wild, aka larger set of cards.
I know i am quite specific as a player type, but well that's my point of view.
I totally agree, but sadly, that's not how the game is designed...
Vanilla stats function is actually non-linear, as it works differently for (1), (2) and probably (3) too. It normalizes only from (4) and above.
We should also consider that multple keywords REAL value (their impact) does not stack as a sum, but exponentially - and that's why Zilliax APPEARS to be balanced, but actually it is not (and that explains its popularity in both Standard and Wild).
EDIT: actually, I don't think there is a reference function at all for any stats balance and keywords: designers just go by custom, their guts, and ultimately statistics...
Nothing is balanced or broken on paper in their minds. So we can hardly make any point here.
I can't see any of those cards having any major impact in the current Wild meta, even if unnerfed.
That's because he's a finisher.
It's never fun to lose.
He's an auto-include in minion-based Aggro-Tempo decks.
If the meta is Aggro-Tempo oriented, Leeroy becomes popular.
Either way, about sheer popularity, Zilliax is far more obnoxious. In Wild too. Now THAT is a card that is truly everywhere, with very few exceptions.
I don't really understand why people want to HoF Malygos.
Has Malygos ever been oppressive? It's never been regularly in the meta. At best, it's probably been top tier for short periods of time.
Even if a Malygos deck is to appear in the meta, what's wrong with it? What's wrong with Combo wincon in general (one should be much more concerned by which Control tools a Combo deck can effectively use in their deck)?
Sure, he forces the devs to pay attention in printing cheap spells that can target face, but is it even a problem?
I mean, there's currently no Malygos deck in Wild meta at the moment, even if we have a much larger pool of spells. Like, not just no Malygos on top tiers, but no Malygos at all. It's off-meta.
I could understand HoFing Leeroy Jenkins, but vaguely tbh. He's just a fairly recurring card, but people notice him just just because it kills them. If Leeroy wasn't a finisher, less people would point at him.
My personal bet for HoF is just on Divine Spirit.
Lyra the Sunshard for some Miracle Priest, and King Mukla for Mill Rogue.
I actually played both decks and cards for a while, and sometimes they win you games, but they are completely out of place in Wild...
After DoD, i am quite pessimist about the future of HS.
This Pogo brawl is just another brick in the wall (avoidable with minor thought and ban, they didn't even need to test in this case).
I didn't claim it was a final proof. "It helps proving".
This fact falls in the same pattern as Galakrond half-otfix after 1 week.
Mistakes happen, but more mistakes happen if you allow yourself to be more daring/careless, and you are bound to be, if you know that everyone is ok or even happy with hotfixes.
This one for example is minor ofc, but how the hell could it even happen?!? Isn't the carelessness obvious (here, and in Galakrond Shaman)?
My point is they wouldn't be so daring/careless if they knew that repeated hotfixes are unacceptable for everyone.
What appears as more care for us (hotfixes) is actually contributing to its opposite.
That's ok. :)
Sure, the Skipper issue is definitely a minor one.
And I also agree they exceed preemptively on purpose.
But my point is that the excess in their policy, together with frequent fixes (that causes some inherent carelessness), won't lead to a high quality product in average. Or at least, that is a risk, with their current policy.
So, pointing out a fact that helps proving a previous point of mine is childish behavior?
Is having a different view than the community, or pointing out that the community might be wrong on being enthusiast with something, childish behavior? Really?!?
Also, do you mind pointing out where my argument makes no sense, sir adult?
Or is downvoting and dismissing my comment as childish how real adults behave?
Next time at least have the decency of disagreeing and downvoting without posting such a moot comment...
PS: have a look at Doublesummon's answer on point and my reply to it. Then come back and tell me i am the childish one.
As i already said, a fast & frequent patch/fix policy implies their quality check is bound to get worse in time.
They know they can always fix things later, after release why worry too much?
But hey, everyone downvoted me when i pointed it out (when Galakrond cards were obviously OP) and everyone was happy with frequent fixes....
There you go.
Not ruined the game yet, but it's definitely wrong when a minion-heavy deck can consistently play reactively AND contest the board.
A reactive deck, aka a Control deck, trades board power in order to gain removals.
Now with strong Rush minions, you don't need that anymore: just look at Embiggen Druid, and Galakrond Warrior before that, and Galakrond Shaman before that: all of them are/were abusing stupidly strong Rush minions to gain continuous board swings.
Actually, it is sometimes better to give in initiative, in order to Rush their minions!
Good old Tempo trades is nearly obsolete: just rush from hand...
As I said in the forum, this is overall a great job, not least because of flavour!
However, I stand by having a slightly stronger Faol: either 6/9 or (7).
But even more importantly, i'd really love Priest to have cards like Injured Blademaster in its core set. So, i'd give those Battle Medic and Soul Survivor an Injured Tol'vir treatment.
AND swap Thoughtsteal and Shadow Madness with Divine Hymn and Light of the Naaru to improve that synergy.
Man, would I love to play such a Priest, even just with Classic Set...
A card like Plague of Flames should cost something like (4).
(3) would still be OP. (Compare with Plague of Murlocs, which is OP itself, we haven't noticed yet because current Shaman doesn't have enough sealing lategame power).
Because it is not just a combo-clear: the impending Plague forces you to consider trading with any Warlock tokens, for fear of the clear: it is easily a two-turn board clear (with DR upside too!).
At (1) it's just outright broken, and it would still be at (2).
It was about time!
The Dragon restriction is enough to keep Breath of Dreams in check.
They need to add many OP Dragons before you notice a serious problem, and even then, it will be because of the OP Dragons themselves, not just Breath.
Tbh, Wild Growth itself was only problematic because of a stack of OP high cost cards in Druid: they preferred to nerf one solid core card, instead of multiple OP ones...