Equally, Whispers of the Old Gods came out April 26th/27th. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for it to have been further back in the month, especially with how late the New Year announcement is.
Good to have soft confirmation that we're on schedule, though!
Too complicated perhaps, but Lackeys can't really be argued as making it 'dangerously powerful' when we have cards like Magic Carpet already in the game.
Houndmaster Shaw shows that giving everything Rush really isn't a problem - making it a weaker version of that would be fine.
It's probably just because there's a very obvious discrepancy between the servers - NA, EU and Asia have him as 2nd most played, but he's all the way down at 11th in China.
It's unlikely there's other heroes where there's such a strange difference in only one server.
I'm fully convinced we were meant to have some sort of announcement earlier in the month that got cancelled (for an unknown reason).
They're trickling out little bits of information through odd sources, or at odd times. The announcement of Sludge Slurper's unnerfing was on the official Hearthstone Twitter far off from any usual announcement time - I don't think it was even on an hour. The initial information that we'd be seeing any cards unnerfed at all; this information about The Caverns Below; the Battlegrounds data we've been receiving; it all comes from Dean's personal Twitter account, seemingly at random.
Unfortunately that means we have these sporadic little hints at a larger announcement that tease us and can't really be followed up on, because they have that larger announcement planned.
I really love this take on changing the Core Priest Set, as different as it is from my own. There's a lot of similar principles, I feel, and similar ideas for where we want the class to go.
I especially love the breakdown of your thinking in terms of design basics - you set out clear goals you wanted to accomplish, which shows in the coherence of the set you put together.
A lot of the differences in our sets come from three key differences to our thought processes, two of which were simply personal limitations I placed on myself which in reality don't mean much.
Rarity Shifting - I made the decision not to change the rarities of any cards. This meant, for example, that every Basic card I took out needed a completely new card to replace it. While I like to think this created interesting designs, I don't disagree that there are plenty of serviceable cards from future expansions that would work instead; I just felt it was 'realistic' that Blizzard would avoid worrying about compensation by not changing any card rarities.
Direct Damage - I removed almost all direct face damage sources from my Core Set, even cards as simple as Holy Smite. Again, purely a personal limitation in that I disliked the idea of giving Priest any leeway in that regard, because it wasn't what I personally wanted from the class. I can understand your arguments for keeping a little bit of it available though.
Buffing/Nerfing - I chose to change cards as little as possible, with the idea being that people would prefer to play with these unchanged cards in Wild, rather than never be able to play with them again. I stand by that decision - I made the same change to Holy Fire that you did, but otherwise chose to rotate cards like Northshire Cleric and Holy Nova rather than alter them.
Overall, I've got to say I would not be displeased if this was what a Priest rework looked like should one ever happen. I especially like the inclusion of Mass Resurrection - I was talked out of it for flavour dissonance reasons, but my original Legendary replacement was just going to be Catrina Muerte. I agree that some form of Resurrect representation in the Core Set feels right, and this seems like a solid option.
Can't wait to see your full reworking! I can't imagine the amount of work that was - I didn't put nearly as much effort into my thought process for just one class and even that was exhausting.
I think that's the point - they didn't want to change a card that would have a potentially huge impact, just one that'll maybe help Shaman see some play again. This is the only unnerfing that'll be staying in Standard, after all - the rest will be leaving to Wild (or are already there).
It took the fall for some of the newer cards that they wanted to collect more data on (and probably didn't want to pull the trigger on nerfing so soon after just introducing them, too).
It was a statistically really strong card in every deck it was in - I totally get why they chose it to try and curb some of Shaman's power. Now that Shaman has no power though, it's a perfectly fine card to bring back.
its just because of the wording of the flavor text it shows an oversight of the cards design
it should be Battlecry: Your opponent draws a card. Add two copies of that card to your hand
nothing special but its just the little things
I agree, it's my least favourite of the finalists. When you get to that stage, little things like that really stand out. As written, the card makes no sense. Obviously you can intuit what it's meant to do, but on first reading it just sounds wrong
My personal guess is that the four Year of the Raven cards shortlisted for revision are the four ones that were actually nerfed, and not the ones that had their buffs reverted.
Which is a shame, because I agree with Demon that Extra Arms would be nice to see return. I just think it makes the most sense, especially since I don't really see any of them being an issue in Wild.
This is a very interesting take. I've never seen somebody consider the intended representation of the classes in terms of 'flavour' before, but I suppose it makes sense to look at that when you consider that the year as a whole was a story this time.
I suppose that objectively I can agree that over the year the EVIL classes had the more obvious, splashy cards to get people excited about - with the Galakronds tipping the scales at the end. Generally though, we saw every class get a Quest, and every class have a main member represented across the two first expansions.
In terms of actual excitement to play classes, I can't really agree with the premise though.
Those are all decks that I've been super excited for over the course of the year for the various Explorer classes. Those aren't even all the decks that came out of this year for those classes; equally, there were plenty of EVIL class decks I was interested in.
I don't see any imbalance in how the classes played out in terms of exciting cards. Flavourfully important cards, a little, but not excitement or powerlevel (overall - Shaman obviously had a bit of an outlier for a couple weeks or so).
Transparency Report is available every week on each individual competition's page.
We're definitely looking at ways of making the stages more obvious. I don't know if we'll end up doing an entire article, as I don't want to over-saturate with Fan Creations news - I learned early on that a lot of people just do not enjoy that - but its definitely an option to consider.
I think a notification going out to everyone who entered - or even just voted - to tell them of the finalist phase would be a cool idea. Maybe something you could subscribe to, so you always know when a new competition has gone up. So many feature ideas, so little time.
Hunter's Mark is a strange inclusion, I think, since it's barely been a year since it was nerfed for a second time.
Blade Flurry, while strongly nerfed, also saw some play again with Kingsbane, and I don't feel like ignoring class identity even more than they already do is a good idea.
Keeper of the Grove and Ancient of Lore would probably be fine to be reverted though, I agree. Lore, at the very least. I'd also not be against doing something with Arcane Golem, if only because it's another card that got straight dumpstered by a nerf.
I don't know that straight un-nerfing Warsong Commander would be a good idea, but I'd love to see it get the old effect but with Rush instead of Charge.
Even then it'd be worse than cards like Houndmaster Shaw, but it'd at least be somewhat viable for a newer player.
Endorsing works in Overwatch because it's a team game - you recognise teammates who were positive to you, who made great plays, who took control and lead you to victory. They've helped you, helped make your experience a positive one, so you acknowledge that with an endorsement.
In a game like Hearthstone, why would I ever endorse anyone? What is my incentive? My opponent not being shitty to me isn't worthy of praise. Them making a good play could just get a 'Wow' or a 'Well Played'. Maybe they made that deck I hated all on their own, or that deck I loved was a netdeck, how should I know?
So then you assume you give endorsing an incentive. Maybe you can only gain endorsements yourself if you're giving them out somewhat regularly. Maybe players only gain a bonus if both of them endorse each other. You now have the opposite problem; why would I ever not endorse someone? Not endorsing would become a sign of bad manners, because you're going out of your way to deny not only your opponent a benefit, but also yourself.
I don't think it works in a 1v1 game. Like, I'd be fine with it existing, but I'd either never use it, because there'd be no incentive; or I'd always use it, because why would I give up my free rewards?
Equally, Whispers of the Old Gods came out April 26th/27th. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for it to have been further back in the month, especially with how late the New Year announcement is.
Good to have soft confirmation that we're on schedule, though!
Too complicated perhaps, but Lackeys can't really be argued as making it 'dangerously powerful' when we have cards like Magic Carpet already in the game.
Houndmaster Shaw shows that giving everything Rush really isn't a problem - making it a weaker version of that would be fine.
It's probably just because there's a very obvious discrepancy between the servers - NA, EU and Asia have him as 2nd most played, but he's all the way down at 11th in China.
It's unlikely there's other heroes where there's such a strange difference in only one server.
I'm fully convinced we were meant to have some sort of announcement earlier in the month that got cancelled (for an unknown reason).
They're trickling out little bits of information through odd sources, or at odd times. The announcement of Sludge Slurper's unnerfing was on the official Hearthstone Twitter far off from any usual announcement time - I don't think it was even on an hour. The initial information that we'd be seeing any cards unnerfed at all; this information about The Caverns Below; the Battlegrounds data we've been receiving; it all comes from Dean's personal Twitter account, seemingly at random.
Unfortunately that means we have these sporadic little hints at a larger announcement that tease us and can't really be followed up on, because they have that larger announcement planned.
I really love this take on changing the Core Priest Set, as different as it is from my own. There's a lot of similar principles, I feel, and similar ideas for where we want the class to go.
I especially love the breakdown of your thinking in terms of design basics - you set out clear goals you wanted to accomplish, which shows in the coherence of the set you put together.
A lot of the differences in our sets come from three key differences to our thought processes, two of which were simply personal limitations I placed on myself which in reality don't mean much.
Overall, I've got to say I would not be displeased if this was what a Priest rework looked like should one ever happen. I especially like the inclusion of Mass Resurrection - I was talked out of it for flavour dissonance reasons, but my original Legendary replacement was just going to be Catrina Muerte. I agree that some form of Resurrect representation in the Core Set feels right, and this seems like a solid option.
Can't wait to see your full reworking! I can't imagine the amount of work that was - I didn't put nearly as much effort into my thought process for just one class and even that was exhausting.
I think that's the point - they didn't want to change a card that would have a potentially huge impact, just one that'll maybe help Shaman see some play again. This is the only unnerfing that'll be staying in Standard, after all - the rest will be leaving to Wild (or are already there).
It took the fall for some of the newer cards that they wanted to collect more data on (and probably didn't want to pull the trigger on nerfing so soon after just introducing them, too).
It was a statistically really strong card in every deck it was in - I totally get why they chose it to try and curb some of Shaman's power. Now that Shaman has no power though, it's a perfectly fine card to bring back.
Competition Theme: Pole Position
For this competition, we want to see cards that care about positioning!
Another classic competition theme coming from Demonxz95!
As always, I can be reached through Discord or here on the site via PM if you have any issues to report.
Competition Phases
Here are the phases of this card design competition
Discussion Thread Rules
No thread rules were added to this season. Please populate and manually edit this thread with them.
I agree, it's my least favourite of the finalists. When you get to that stage, little things like that really stand out. As written, the card makes no sense. Obviously you can intuit what it's meant to do, but on first reading it just sounds wrong
I was agreeing that Reckless Experimenter is one of the most likely candidates, along with my reasoning for thinking that.
My personal guess is that the four Year of the Raven cards shortlisted for revision are the four ones that were actually nerfed, and not the ones that had their buffs reverted.
Which is a shame, because I agree with Demon that Extra Arms would be nice to see return. I just think it makes the most sense, especially since I don't really see any of them being an issue in Wild.
This is a very interesting take. I've never seen somebody consider the intended representation of the classes in terms of 'flavour' before, but I suppose it makes sense to look at that when you consider that the year as a whole was a story this time.
I suppose that objectively I can agree that over the year the EVIL classes had the more obvious, splashy cards to get people excited about - with the Galakronds tipping the scales at the end. Generally though, we saw every class get a Quest, and every class have a main member represented across the two first expansions.
In terms of actual excitement to play classes, I can't really agree with the premise though.
Lucentbark Druid, Oblivitron and Nine Lives Mech Hunter, Cyclone Mage, Big Spell Mage with Power of Creation and Kalecgos, Conjurer's Calling Giants Mage, Quest Druid (with so many other cards), Combo Druid, Highlander Hunter, Quest Hunter, Big Spell Mage with Tortollan Pilgrim and Puzzle Box of Yogg-Saron, Embiggen Druid, Dragon Druid (along with so many other cards), Dragon Hunter (again, so many other cards), Mech Paladin.
Those are all decks that I've been super excited for over the course of the year for the various Explorer classes. Those aren't even all the decks that came out of this year for those classes; equally, there were plenty of EVIL class decks I was interested in.
I don't see any imbalance in how the classes played out in terms of exciting cards. Flavourfully important cards, a little, but not excitement or powerlevel (overall - Shaman obviously had a bit of an outlier for a couple weeks or so).
Transparency Report is available every week on each individual competition's page.
We're definitely looking at ways of making the stages more obvious. I don't know if we'll end up doing an entire article, as I don't want to over-saturate with Fan Creations news - I learned early on that a lot of people just do not enjoy that - but its definitely an option to consider.
I think a notification going out to everyone who entered - or even just voted - to tell them of the finalist phase would be a cool idea. Maybe something you could subscribe to, so you always know when a new competition has gone up. So many feature ideas, so little time.
I expect to see him come back eventually - they probably didn't want to commit to a nerf without testing it internally first.
I'd guess that they'll up it to 2 mana anyway in the end, but I can see why they'd want to take him out first.
Competition Theme: Do You Copy?
For this competition, we're looking for you to create copying cards!
Welcome to the first competition theme decided upon by a competition winner! Shivershine won our first competition, and gave us this as their prompt.
As always, I can be reached through Discord or here on the site via PM if you have any issues to report.
Competition Phases
Here are the phases of this card design competition
Discussion Thread Rules
No thread rules were added to this season. Please populate and manually edit this thread with them.
If Houndmaster Shaw dies, he no longer grants Rush to any minions on the battlefield. It's an Aura effect, like Stormwind Champion or Tundra Rhino - they all use the same wording.
I wasn't completely sure on that, and couldn't find a source, so I just went and tested it myself against the practice AI.
Yes! If you see a card with elven art in the game, it'll either be a blood elf (or high elf) or a night elf.
White/red skin and 'normal' hair colour (brown, blonde, black) = blood elf or high elf (usually)
Blue/purple skin and 'abnormal' hair colour (purple, green, blue) = night elf (usually)
Lynessa Sunsorrow is a blood elf (or maybe high elf, I don't know the difference visually); Elise Starseeker is a night elf.
Hunter's Mark is a strange inclusion, I think, since it's barely been a year since it was nerfed for a second time.
Blade Flurry, while strongly nerfed, also saw some play again with Kingsbane, and I don't feel like ignoring class identity even more than they already do is a good idea.
Keeper of the Grove and Ancient of Lore would probably be fine to be reverted though, I agree. Lore, at the very least. I'd also not be against doing something with Arcane Golem, if only because it's another card that got straight dumpstered by a nerf.
I don't know that straight un-nerfing Warsong Commander would be a good idea, but I'd love to see it get the old effect but with Rush instead of Charge.
Even then it'd be worse than cards like Houndmaster Shaw, but it'd at least be somewhat viable for a newer player.
Endorsing works in Overwatch because it's a team game - you recognise teammates who were positive to you, who made great plays, who took control and lead you to victory. They've helped you, helped make your experience a positive one, so you acknowledge that with an endorsement.
In a game like Hearthstone, why would I ever endorse anyone? What is my incentive? My opponent not being shitty to me isn't worthy of praise. Them making a good play could just get a 'Wow' or a 'Well Played'. Maybe they made that deck I hated all on their own, or that deck I loved was a netdeck, how should I know?
So then you assume you give endorsing an incentive. Maybe you can only gain endorsements yourself if you're giving them out somewhat regularly. Maybe players only gain a bonus if both of them endorse each other. You now have the opposite problem; why would I ever not endorse someone? Not endorsing would become a sign of bad manners, because you're going out of your way to deny not only your opponent a benefit, but also yourself.
I don't think it works in a 1v1 game. Like, I'd be fine with it existing, but I'd either never use it, because there'd be no incentive; or I'd always use it, because why would I give up my free rewards?