Agreed. I don't think "uninspiring, most boring hero power ever" really counted as a class identity either. I mean even warrior since day 1 has had shield slam. (i.e. using their hero power effect of gaining armor, for offensive removal use)
I know they've tried to make cards to replace hunter's hero power (like dinomancy), but in order for cards like dinomancy to work, you'd have to get rid of cards like "quick shot" entirely (which they didn't).
Overall, I actually feel like Hunter has the worst identity, because it hardly ever detracts from "smorc", and when it does it's usually annoying (if not fun) (i.e....Deathstalker Rexxar, one of the few times I actually played and enjoyed the class...the only other time being spell hunter with Rok'Delar)
Honestly I feel like the best way that they could adjust hero powers, is stop making them all 2 cost baselines. They already broke the mold with Demon Hunter by making it a 1 cost attack and it's turned out (relatively) ok.
I mean anything that discourages hunters from Smorcing is good in my book. I dont mean this is an offensive way, but honestly Blizz needs to let hunters develop something other than "me go face" metas for them. I'd like to see one meta where there aren't a ton of good aggro/curve tools and that hunter would HAVE to build a control deck to be viable. (and no, OTK copy with Leorox? doesn't quite count, actual control) which really hasn't existed for hunter since Deathstalker Rexxar...
So how would this work in standard? Any things pop out at you at making this viable? I'm guessing classes that have deathrattle support, so inherently that seems to indicate Rogue, Hunter, Priest...and maybe shaman? Out of all of them, hunter and priest seem the most viable to trigger it 7 times. But for some reason I'm blanking on the ways this could work...
That still nets you 1 mana to do something with in that combo, and is a 5 mana combo to do 12 damage (With Brukan it could potentially be 24 damage). While this isn't a horrible combo per se; it's not a great on either. Overdraft is not a nature spell, and thus doesn't normally fit into dungeoneer decks.
I think this is gonna be more of a card to pair with the perpetual flame (clear a full board of low health minions, then use Overdraft to either go face, or clear the final big minion). 2 mana (and 2 cards) to effectively clear most boards seems pretty good.
The issue was never sam+apo (It happens at best once a game, and the chances of drawing sam along with one of your apo's are pretty low. )
The issue was the idiotic priests who galvanized the matchup by including southsea scoundrel. I agree that including that card was a dumb greedy decision and I don't run it in any of my matchups (why would I include a card that MAYBE edged my chance to win the mirror slightly more instead of including anti-aggro cards?)
It was really stupid when Priest added cthun in just to prevent fatigue in the mirror. Honestly as VS said before: Priests trying to beat other priests were making the deck stupid with the recursive generation.
I really don't think Flesh Giants is good enough any more though. There's a reason it fell off the radar. The only reliable way to discount it enough early on to be relevant was Devouring Plague. And with premium 1/3 or 2/3 minions being played 3 mana: deal 4 random damage doesn't cut it for stabilizing.
I guarantee with these nerfs, you're gonna see priests gravitate back towards full Sethhek/Bloodweaver builds. As that will probably be the only way they are able to generate the resources necessary to stabilize on board. Priest has no win condition other then generation, and they just nerfed it hard.
I'm not surprised by the changes but I am upset by them. They could have least made Renew 2 mana: heal 4. Instead they just doubled the cost purely to get it out of the wandmaker pool and flipped the middle finger to priests.
Their meta presence at legend is higher than the rest of ladder, but that doesn't imply a broken winrate. As others have said both here and on reddit. Many games were already close calls with Illidari Inquisitor, Doomhammer, or Stampeding coming down and winning close games. Nerfing both cards kills the classes ability to stabilize (LITERALLY IT'S ONLY ARCHETYPE).
I don't even care if these are pre-emptive nerfs for the next expansion. This is a slap in the face to control players, and I'm sure every mouth breathing face hunter, aggro shaman, or netdecking deathrattle demon hunter is cheering hard right now. Go ahead downvote me. I'm so pissed at the developers for this stupid excuse of a balance patch.
And yet somehow Priest is getting nerfed despite not even being in the top 5 of their internal stats list. SMH. This is what happens when devs listen to community outcry. I'm really not happy to see these changes, and can only hope that these are based off pre-emptive changes with new cards (not yet revealed) in consideration to the nerfs. Otherwise they are going to make the top 5 performers even better by outsting/nerfing the only viable archetype for priest at the moment.
especially if Priest ever gets an actual win condition.
You just quoted this though and it's pretty telling overall:
"if priest ever gets an actual win condition". Inherently this means that priest currently has no win condition other than value generation, correct? Meaning if you hit their healing/value generation you are taking away the only viable thing priest currently has to EVEN have a chance at winning. Therein lies the problem. No tools were given to help priests build a win condition, and now they are going to either hurt that matchup archetype, OR going to kill it completely with those changes.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also think this is hitting a class that is barely keeping pace with aggro decks as is. I still don't understand the justifcation/hate towards priest when the only reason they are able to succeed is through the aforementioned combos (Sam+Apo). If priest is unable to make combos like Renew+Xyrella on turn 4 or Sam+Apo on turn 7, they generally die to any aggro deck. Admittedly wandmaker maybe made them a bit too good, but wandmaker is also good in other classes with good 1 cost spells (mage, druid, shaman, and even to a lesser extent DH).
It just seems like they are targeting a class that is barely able to maintain an edge in the meta. It's only over-represented in the highest levels of meta play. All in all, maybe they are making those changes proactively to prevent degenerate gameplay with the next expansions tools, but honestly this feels like a kick in the teeth to all the priest/control players. As someone who's been enjoying priest these last few months, there are games I still get blown out.
The only thing that I think is a problem is how some priest players are galvanizing their matchups to edge out a few % chance to win against other priests, including cards like Cthun and Southsea Scoundrel PURELY just to avoid the fatigue game seems bad. Honestly if they nerfed the neutrals in this case, they could have specifically targeted the greedy priest decks without hurting the archetype entirely (make wandmaker a 1/2, therefore it's a value generator, and not just a decent tempo card for example).
Shaman is having it's "time in the sun" again after being choked of card draw. (which was the only thing holding them back really)
I'm "ok" with shaman having power for a little bit longer. What I'm NOT "ok" with is Hunter once again never seeing any nerfs. I'm honestly tired of hunter having a Tier 2 deck every single meta. Sure, it's never a tier 1 deck, but it's never tier 4. They NEVER are bottom rung, and honestly it's become a bit tiresome IMO.
They said they are nerfing burst healing, there's no reason to nerf palm reading. Honestly I'd be fine with Palm Reading to 4: it just makes it only viable to use if you have 4+ spells in hand. Nerfing renew to 2 mana makes it trash though. Right now Runed Orb in mage is barely used except in no minion, and while a decent card, it damages for 2 and discovers. However damage can be used as both removal, and as reach and isn't as useful as healing.
I'm not really happy about this. Looks like they are nerfing gibbering druid. Which, don't get me wrong, I hate when I get blown out by an early gibbering board, but this just pushes every druid back into clown (which is also infuriating for different reasons)
And nerfing/complaining about Priest is the hip thing to do right now, but honestly Priest has NO other decks. Without card generation and burst healing priest has no viable deck.
I'm sure renew is gonna get hit, but that just makes the class as a whole MUCH worse. They pretty much only have 1 viable deck, and that's control through attrition. I know that some people don't like that, and feel annoyed when priests discover the "perfect" answers, but you never remember the games you won because your opponent priest discovered and whiffed on their discover and ended up with multiple shadowform spells.
Overall priest was the only thing keeping other decks in check. We'll see how the nerfs pan out, but I'm actually disappointed that Blizzard is responding to the cries for nerfs.
And yes, I'm primarily a priest player, I just don't enjoy any of the other decks cause there are really no good control decks that are viable right now. (Shaman is midrange, DH is midrange or OTK, Hunter is aggro, Warlock is just trash, Warrior only has rush/frenzy, Druid has Token and Clowns, and probably the only class with 2 semi viable decks that are vastly different from one another).
I genuinely laughed reading that. I agree that if they do come out with a sequel it shouldn't break the cozy feeling by just tacking on a number at the end.
I seriously don't know what your problem is or why you're so angry, but you should consider in the future being less vocal about your opinions when they are unfounded in reality and misinformed.
Games do have sequels. While some games may lend themselves to being less of a sequential type of format (i.e. WoW) they do suffer from what is known as feature bloat and coding issues. My fiance and I (who both work in the software industry, not games though...actual productive software) call it the "bathtub effect". If you look at the shape of a bathtub it slopes downward, has a smooth level plateau at the bottom, and then curves rapidly up again. Sloping downward represents the initial public release of a software with a high amount of bugs/issues, that usually get quickly resolved. Then the software stabilizes, goes through revisions and such for awhile and is what you call "stable". Finally, as the software nears it's end of life, the amount of bugs/issues rapidly increase again. When it reaches that area, it's often time to create a brand new piece of software from the ground up (i.e. HS2, Overwatch 2, etc}
Trying to revamp and clean up existing code without starting from the ground up can often be an extremely daunting task. It's usually far easier to just release a new "sequel" to your existing software. This also has the benefit of allowing developers to cull largely unused features or to add features or quality of life adjustments that they've wanted to add but couldn't for whatever reason.
Anyhow, that's all to say that software is software, it doesn't matter if it's game or not, they are treated the same by programmers and developers and the such.
Paying real money for this bundle is an eccentricity typical of whales that have too much money to spare and/or do not know how to control their spending... because I remind you, this video game company does not deserve your money at all.
Imagine having the audacity to tell others what to do with their time and/or money. Every time you post (and this isn't the first time I've noticed this) you always have downvotes follow you. Perhaps you should take some time and close your mouth, instead of putting your foot in it.
I mean we've all been playing it for going on 7 years now. It's actually kind of amazing that we all enjoy it still (or at least I hope so). Think about how many games many people pick up play, and then never play again as soon as the new "hot" game comes out. (I.e. FIFA, COD, Madden, etc). I actually like the fact that I consider Hearthstone one of my core games.
Sure my play time waxes and wanes with my other gaming interests, but I always end up coming back (in a healthy way.....not like in an unhealthy WoW-MMO Addiction way haha).
I do wonder if the game is gonna get revamped or new code though. At this point they have to be encountering some serious coding issues and it often seems like with the multiple game modes they've tried (Arena, Duels, BG's, Solo Adventures, and now mercenaries) that maybe starting over fresh with "Hearthstone 2" and cutting the bad modes (Duels is just a better Arena mode for example, though I still enjoy Arena for it's "sealed pack draft" feeling.
I watched Kibler play his Ice and Fire deck yesterday. I feel like the deck could use some changes.
First if you plan to use Kel'thuzad still, I think adding in Archdruid Naralex is a must. The chance to get a 3 mana board clear is just too good. The cards provide much needed tempo, and the spells are all great in different situations.
I think the Coldarra Drake needs to be dropped from the deck. It's good that it effectively draws out removal/trading but it often is just a Boulderfist Ogre.
I think Floecaster doesn't do much. A minion that maybe costs less, and requires other cards to put out pressure just doesn't do much for the deck. I know that it's one of the new cards and should be core, but it just doesn't feel strong enough for a deck that tends to stall out.
Lastly Glacial Racers are ok as a vanilla 1/3, but often are just that and don't do much.
My personal opinion take on the deck: Use Frostweave Dungeoneers as 1/2 AI on a stick. A 3 mana 2/3, draw a spell. If it happens to be frost, you get additional tempo.
Yes this is more expensive but helps do multiple things. Provides many more means of additional tempo, utility, and tutoring. In addition Dungeoneers have decent synergy with Olgra! (enraged Mankrik) so even if it isn't a cold spell it's additional tempo. If the deck gets too top heavy, or you lack the draw, feel free to put the starscryers back in.
I feel like what made control warrior utterly oppressive was the risky skipper combos. Without as much burst armor gain, they are overall less oppressive. (Though they can still generate tons of armor if they are careful and calculate when they use it, in the past warrior has just been "here's my armor gain, good luck punching through it)
The average person can't go "infinite". And I always find it amusing when reddit or forum threads have a plethora of people saying that they "go infinite" all the time. I believe blizzard stated a few years back that the TOP players of arena in the world had an average winrate of something like 5-6 wins? (again that is their average over time). Things like that make it pretty obvious that people are either experiencing cognitive dissonance when they talk about their arena runs, or they are lying.
I also wouldn't encourage any F2P person to play arena in order to earn gold. Especially not with the pass changes that occurred this year. Yes it's a good way to earn free packs and gold on the side if you manage to go 7+, but the average F2P person is not that skilled, nor would they consistently hit that mark.
Agreed. I don't think "uninspiring, most boring hero power ever" really counted as a class identity either. I mean even warrior since day 1 has had shield slam. (i.e. using their hero power effect of gaining armor, for offensive removal use)
I know they've tried to make cards to replace hunter's hero power (like dinomancy), but in order for cards like dinomancy to work, you'd have to get rid of cards like "quick shot" entirely (which they didn't).
Overall, I actually feel like Hunter has the worst identity, because it hardly ever detracts from "smorc", and when it does it's usually annoying (if not fun) (i.e....Deathstalker Rexxar, one of the few times I actually played and enjoyed the class...the only other time being spell hunter with Rok'Delar)
Honestly I feel like the best way that they could adjust hero powers, is stop making them all 2 cost baselines. They already broke the mold with Demon Hunter by making it a 1 cost attack and it's turned out (relatively) ok.
I mean anything that discourages hunters from Smorcing is good in my book. I dont mean this is an offensive way, but honestly Blizz needs to let hunters develop something other than "me go face" metas for them. I'd like to see one meta where there aren't a ton of good aggro/curve tools and that hunter would HAVE to build a control deck to be viable. (and no, OTK copy with Leorox? doesn't quite count, actual control) which really hasn't existed for hunter since Deathstalker Rexxar...
So how would this work in standard? Any things pop out at you at making this viable? I'm guessing classes that have deathrattle support, so inherently that seems to indicate Rogue, Hunter, Priest...and maybe shaman? Out of all of them, hunter and priest seem the most viable to trigger it 7 times. But for some reason I'm blanking on the ways this could work...
That still nets you 1 mana to do something with in that combo, and is a 5 mana combo to do 12 damage (With Brukan it could potentially be 24 damage). While this isn't a horrible combo per se; it's not a great on either. Overdraft is not a nature spell, and thus doesn't normally fit into dungeoneer decks.
I think this is gonna be more of a card to pair with the perpetual flame (clear a full board of low health minions, then use Overdraft to either go face, or clear the final big minion). 2 mana (and 2 cards) to effectively clear most boards seems pretty good.
The issue was never sam+apo (It happens at best once a game, and the chances of drawing sam along with one of your apo's are pretty low. )
The issue was the idiotic priests who galvanized the matchup by including southsea scoundrel. I agree that including that card was a dumb greedy decision and I don't run it in any of my matchups (why would I include a card that MAYBE edged my chance to win the mirror slightly more instead of including anti-aggro cards?)
It was really stupid when Priest added cthun in just to prevent fatigue in the mirror. Honestly as VS said before: Priests trying to beat other priests were making the deck stupid with the recursive generation.
I really don't think Flesh Giants is good enough any more though. There's a reason it fell off the radar. The only reliable way to discount it enough early on to be relevant was Devouring Plague. And with premium 1/3 or 2/3 minions being played 3 mana: deal 4 random damage doesn't cut it for stabilizing.
I guarantee with these nerfs, you're gonna see priests gravitate back towards full Sethhek/Bloodweaver builds. As that will probably be the only way they are able to generate the resources necessary to stabilize on board. Priest has no win condition other then generation, and they just nerfed it hard.
I'm not surprised by the changes but I am upset by them. They could have least made Renew 2 mana: heal 4. Instead they just doubled the cost purely to get it out of the wandmaker pool and flipped the middle finger to priests.
Their meta presence at legend is higher than the rest of ladder, but that doesn't imply a broken winrate. As others have said both here and on reddit. Many games were already close calls with Illidari Inquisitor, Doomhammer, or Stampeding coming down and winning close games. Nerfing both cards kills the classes ability to stabilize (LITERALLY IT'S ONLY ARCHETYPE).
I don't even care if these are pre-emptive nerfs for the next expansion. This is a slap in the face to control players, and I'm sure every mouth breathing face hunter, aggro shaman, or netdecking deathrattle demon hunter is cheering hard right now. Go ahead downvote me. I'm so pissed at the developers for this stupid excuse of a balance patch.
And yet somehow Priest is getting nerfed despite not even being in the top 5 of their internal stats list. SMH. This is what happens when devs listen to community outcry. I'm really not happy to see these changes, and can only hope that these are based off pre-emptive changes with new cards (not yet revealed) in consideration to the nerfs. Otherwise they are going to make the top 5 performers even better by outsting/nerfing the only viable archetype for priest at the moment.
You just quoted this though and it's pretty telling overall:
"if priest ever gets an actual win condition". Inherently this means that priest currently has no win condition other than value generation, correct? Meaning if you hit their healing/value generation you are taking away the only viable thing priest currently has to EVEN have a chance at winning. Therein lies the problem. No tools were given to help priests build a win condition, and now they are going to either hurt that matchup archetype, OR going to kill it completely with those changes.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also think this is hitting a class that is barely keeping pace with aggro decks as is. I still don't understand the justifcation/hate towards priest when the only reason they are able to succeed is through the aforementioned combos (Sam+Apo). If priest is unable to make combos like Renew+Xyrella on turn 4 or Sam+Apo on turn 7, they generally die to any aggro deck. Admittedly wandmaker maybe made them a bit too good, but wandmaker is also good in other classes with good 1 cost spells (mage, druid, shaman, and even to a lesser extent DH).
It just seems like they are targeting a class that is barely able to maintain an edge in the meta. It's only over-represented in the highest levels of meta play. All in all, maybe they are making those changes proactively to prevent degenerate gameplay with the next expansions tools, but honestly this feels like a kick in the teeth to all the priest/control players. As someone who's been enjoying priest these last few months, there are games I still get blown out.
The only thing that I think is a problem is how some priest players are galvanizing their matchups to edge out a few % chance to win against other priests, including cards like Cthun and Southsea Scoundrel PURELY just to avoid the fatigue game seems bad. Honestly if they nerfed the neutrals in this case, they could have specifically targeted the greedy priest decks without hurting the archetype entirely (make wandmaker a 1/2, therefore it's a value generator, and not just a decent tempo card for example).
Shaman is having it's "time in the sun" again after being choked of card draw. (which was the only thing holding them back really)
I'm "ok" with shaman having power for a little bit longer. What I'm NOT "ok" with is Hunter once again never seeing any nerfs. I'm honestly tired of hunter having a Tier 2 deck every single meta. Sure, it's never a tier 1 deck, but it's never tier 4. They NEVER are bottom rung, and honestly it's become a bit tiresome IMO.
They said they are nerfing burst healing, there's no reason to nerf palm reading. Honestly I'd be fine with Palm Reading to 4: it just makes it only viable to use if you have 4+ spells in hand. Nerfing renew to 2 mana makes it trash though. Right now Runed Orb in mage is barely used except in no minion, and while a decent card, it damages for 2 and discovers. However damage can be used as both removal, and as reach and isn't as useful as healing.
I'm not really happy about this. Looks like they are nerfing gibbering druid. Which, don't get me wrong, I hate when I get blown out by an early gibbering board, but this just pushes every druid back into clown (which is also infuriating for different reasons)
And nerfing/complaining about Priest is the hip thing to do right now, but honestly Priest has NO other decks. Without card generation and burst healing priest has no viable deck.
I'm sure renew is gonna get hit, but that just makes the class as a whole MUCH worse. They pretty much only have 1 viable deck, and that's control through attrition. I know that some people don't like that, and feel annoyed when priests discover the "perfect" answers, but you never remember the games you won because your opponent priest discovered and whiffed on their discover and ended up with multiple shadowform spells.
Overall priest was the only thing keeping other decks in check. We'll see how the nerfs pan out, but I'm actually disappointed that Blizzard is responding to the cries for nerfs.
And yes, I'm primarily a priest player, I just don't enjoy any of the other decks cause there are really no good control decks that are viable right now. (Shaman is midrange, DH is midrange or OTK, Hunter is aggro, Warlock is just trash, Warrior only has rush/frenzy, Druid has Token and Clowns, and probably the only class with 2 semi viable decks that are vastly different from one another).
I genuinely laughed reading that. I agree that if they do come out with a sequel it shouldn't break the cozy feeling by just tacking on a number at the end.
Hearthstone: Endgame. It's all ogre now!
I seriously don't know what your problem is or why you're so angry, but you should consider in the future being less vocal about your opinions when they are unfounded in reality and misinformed.
Games do have sequels. While some games may lend themselves to being less of a sequential type of format (i.e. WoW) they do suffer from what is known as feature bloat and coding issues. My fiance and I (who both work in the software industry, not games though...actual productive software) call it the "bathtub effect". If you look at the shape of a bathtub it slopes downward, has a smooth level plateau at the bottom, and then curves rapidly up again. Sloping downward represents the initial public release of a software with a high amount of bugs/issues, that usually get quickly resolved. Then the software stabilizes, goes through revisions and such for awhile and is what you call "stable". Finally, as the software nears it's end of life, the amount of bugs/issues rapidly increase again. When it reaches that area, it's often time to create a brand new piece of software from the ground up (i.e. HS2, Overwatch 2, etc}
Trying to revamp and clean up existing code without starting from the ground up can often be an extremely daunting task. It's usually far easier to just release a new "sequel" to your existing software. This also has the benefit of allowing developers to cull largely unused features or to add features or quality of life adjustments that they've wanted to add but couldn't for whatever reason.
Anyhow, that's all to say that software is software, it doesn't matter if it's game or not, they are treated the same by programmers and developers and the such.
Imagine having the audacity to tell others what to do with their time and/or money. Every time you post (and this isn't the first time I've noticed this) you always have downvotes follow you. Perhaps you should take some time and close your mouth, instead of putting your foot in it.
I mean we've all been playing it for going on 7 years now. It's actually kind of amazing that we all enjoy it still (or at least I hope so). Think about how many games many people pick up play, and then never play again as soon as the new "hot" game comes out. (I.e. FIFA, COD, Madden, etc). I actually like the fact that I consider Hearthstone one of my core games.
Sure my play time waxes and wanes with my other gaming interests, but I always end up coming back (in a healthy way.....not like in an unhealthy WoW-MMO Addiction way haha).
I do wonder if the game is gonna get revamped or new code though. At this point they have to be encountering some serious coding issues and it often seems like with the multiple game modes they've tried (Arena, Duels, BG's, Solo Adventures, and now mercenaries) that maybe starting over fresh with "Hearthstone 2" and cutting the bad modes (Duels is just a better Arena mode for example, though I still enjoy Arena for it's "sealed pack draft" feeling.
LOL Thanks I guess? :)
I watched Kibler play his Ice and Fire deck yesterday. I feel like the deck could use some changes.
First if you plan to use Kel'thuzad still, I think adding in Archdruid Naralex is a must. The chance to get a 3 mana board clear is just too good. The cards provide much needed tempo, and the spells are all great in different situations.
I think the Coldarra Drake needs to be dropped from the deck. It's good that it effectively draws out removal/trading but it often is just a Boulderfist Ogre.
I think Floecaster doesn't do much. A minion that maybe costs less, and requires other cards to put out pressure just doesn't do much for the deck. I know that it's one of the new cards and should be core, but it just doesn't feel strong enough for a deck that tends to stall out.
Lastly Glacial Racers are ok as a vanilla 1/3, but often are just that and don't do much.
My personal opinion take on the deck: Use Frostweave Dungeoneers as 1/2 AI on a stick. A 3 mana 2/3, draw a spell. If it happens to be frost, you get additional tempo.
Yes this is more expensive but helps do multiple things. Provides many more means of additional tempo, utility, and tutoring. In addition Dungeoneers have decent synergy with Olgra! (enraged Mankrik) so even if it isn't a cold spell it's additional tempo. If the deck gets too top heavy, or you lack the draw, feel free to put the starscryers back in.
I feel like what made control warrior utterly oppressive was the risky skipper combos. Without as much burst armor gain, they are overall less oppressive. (Though they can still generate tons of armor if they are careful and calculate when they use it, in the past warrior has just been "here's my armor gain, good luck punching through it)
The average person can't go "infinite". And I always find it amusing when reddit or forum threads have a plethora of people saying that they "go infinite" all the time. I believe blizzard stated a few years back that the TOP players of arena in the world had an average winrate of something like 5-6 wins? (again that is their average over time). Things like that make it pretty obvious that people are either experiencing cognitive dissonance when they talk about their arena runs, or they are lying.
I also wouldn't encourage any F2P person to play arena in order to earn gold. Especially not with the pass changes that occurred this year. Yes it's a good way to earn free packs and gold on the side if you manage to go 7+, but the average F2P person is not that skilled, nor would they consistently hit that mark.