Hearthstone's Alec Dawson had some great comments on problematic cards in the current standard meta in today's reddit AMA. Here are the cards possibly being targeted, with an additional 1 or 2 cards of Demon Hunter flavor not yet named.
- Sacrificial Pact isn't fun when it plays a large role in the meta game and seeing more [Hearthstone Card (Jaraxxus) Not Found] would be fun.
- They don't want to kill off Kael'thas Sunstrider's combo potential entirely.
- 1 or 2 cards are likely changing for Demon Hunter.
We know that players have been asking for Sacrifical Pact changes for a long time due to the Jaraxxus interaction. What do you think they may change?
Quote From Alec Hey! We are planning something soon, but here I will shed light on what we are looking at.
With the Year of the Phoenix and Demon Hunter especially, we want to make sure we are active with our approach to balance. There will be additional changes coming shortly that is focused on Demon Hunter, Standard, Wild, and Arena.
For Demon Hunter, we are still monitoring the data as it comes in but expect 1 or 2 cards to see a change. We are thrilled by how players have responded to Demon Hunter, but we want the class to be in a healthy state for years to come. Will be adjusting as we see fit in order to get it into a great spot.
For other standard cards, we are looking at a number of cards including Sacrificial Pact, Bad Luck Albatross, Frenzied Felwing, and Kael'Thas. Some of these cards present some raw power that is just a little too high (Bad Luck Albatross, Frenzied Felwing), while a card like Kael'Thas can create some crazy swing turns but that's usually only fun for one player. Kael'Thas is a super interesting card though so we don't want to kill off his combo potential entirely.
When it comes to Sac Pac, we don't believe it is fun if it plays such a large role in the metagame. That says a lot about where the meta is and your ability to play certain cards. Also, it would be awesome to see more Jaraxxus!
Comments
Honestly I am tired of seeing the bird in every single deck. Even when I am not playing a highlander deck it´s annoying that 2 of my potential draws will be garbage. But that´s not what makes it strong. It´s a 3 mana 4-3 neutral card which are fantastic stats, that mess with your opponents draw.
They could change Keal so that the third spell just does like double the effect or something to keep the combos but make some harder to achieve.
If they nerf albatross they should nerf dragon queen alexstraza as well.. To balance things out.
So albatross will be probably a 3/3
Sact pact will target only allies for sure that's how it sounds.. Still great in Galakroud warlock but not op.
Kaelthas will get a cost increase to 7 or 8 for sure that's how it sounds to me.
And as for cards to nerf in dh it's the growing 1 mana 2/2 it should be a 2/1 or a 1/2 that card is really stupid and I am not sure how it got past, Playte sting, streamer play testing, reveal season and a nerf round.
I think the other card should be twin slice if it costs 1 it will solve all the absurd tempo dh gets for free.
Daily Reminder that you should never DE any extra cards because there's really no telling what becomes a problem in the future....and no, I didn't have a golden Albatross that one time and thought it would be ridiculous for that card to ever be nerfed, whatever gave you that idea?
Kael'thas was obvious. That card was always going to be a problem. I assume they knew that but since he's a free legendary they gaves us at least a bit of time to meme with it before they nerfed it. I hope Spell Druid sticks around at least...it's probably the most interesting thing the class has done for like...a year.
Felwing is another one of those cards where I'm still puzzled as to why they thought it would be a good idea to release. Did they just not remember Heal Zoolock and how it took over the meta for quite a while?
Also good to see that DH is still on the radar.
I feel like everyone is hating on Imprisoned Antoen or Priestess of Fury because they are powerhouse cards, but honestly not many decks run them naturally right now. And as someone who likes the DH class it's gotten neutered to the point of almost obsolescence. The only deck viable in high ranks it seems is tempo (aka aggro) and maybe the OTK variant with Kael.
Honestly Imprisoned Antoen isn't even a problem BEFORE the nerfs. If by the time turn 8 rolls around and you can't figure out a way to soak 10 damage that's split, that's on YOU (the opposing player) not the card. I mean it's actually BETTER for players as a dormant minion because it can be played around somewhat. They could just change it's cost from 6-8, and make it a battlecry, and then players would have zero chance to counter it.
I'd like to see more viable decks other than aggro DH, and honestly I hope the class doesn't get nerfed.
All in all I just find it amusing because if this was Hunter, noone would be complaining but hunter throws out just as much early damage as DH yet flies under the radar all the time.
Nice fix would be made both DH cards to deal same amount of damage but to one target only, so no 6x1 damage but 1x6 damage and not 10x1 damage but 1x10 damage.
- a casual look into hsreplay will show Priestess of Fury as one of the highest win rate cards for tempo dhunter. Let's not debate why. It should be pretty obvious.
- For pre-nerf Imprisoned Antaen. Its not the soaking thats the problem. You either take the damage to the face, or risk having your board removed. Then Priestess of Fury just finishes whatever's left, which includes you. And assuming you're still alive, you're facing down a 10/6 and a 6/7, while having no minions on your side, and this is turn 7. Is this a problem? Yes, yes it is.
- Last point. I remember lots of complains against how one sided face hunter is in DoD. I myself hate that deck, because I see it as limiting other classes and making res priest a popular choice. That is still true by the way as it was when galakrond shaman was tops. No class should get any free passes, not even for Illidan.
- And no, you're wrong in saying that hunter throws out as much early damage. I dont think this is important but for argument sake; At its most, (assuming no clears) Blazing Battlemage turn 1 + turn 2 Phase Stalker + turn 3 Stormhammer = 9 damage by turn 3.
Turn 1 Battlefiend + turn 2 Umberwing + turn 3 Aldrachi Warblades = 14 damage by turn 3. And dhunter can absolutely do more with Twin Slice and Frenzied Felwing turn 1 and 2. In fact, leaving Battlefiend alive for more than 1 turn is generally considered to be a losing play.
There's an old saying "assume the best intentions of those who engage in discourse with you. Respond to the STRONGEST possible argument that they would present, not the weakest...otherwise you are talking past each other, not to each other."
Your math is correct but the scenarios you postulated aren't. A card showcasing a high winrate doesn't mean that it's always played, only that when it's played it produces a higher winrate.
Hunters card produce the SAME winrate as Priestess of Fury.
Don't believe me, here are the statistics. (as of 4/15/2020 on HSreplay)
Priestess of Fury
Imprisoned Antaen
Phase Stalker
Phase stalker has a higher card winrate than Antaen. Phase stalker is seen in almost every hunter deck (given it's 70% deck inclusion rate, I think that's a fair assumption). Despite this, both are sporting similar deck winrates, but phase stalker clearly edges out a few more percent on the card playrate.
What does this mean? Despite the personal bias people have that DH is this "trouble" class that needs serious nerfing, it's nothing more than bias. I've played as DH, and I've played against Demon Hunter. As someone who despised face hunter decks since day 1 of Hearthstone, I can assure you that DH may have a few new tools that people aren't used to, and may have more chip damage available to them late game than hunters, but they are no different than hunters are.
I don't know why you're starting off with this, considering that in your original post basically assumes fault in others for not being able to play around pre-nerfed Imprisoned Antaen. You should have instead displayed all the facts and figures supporting that as you do here. My argument is just that :- many classes/decks can't, hence why I supported the first Imprisoned Antaen nerf.
I applaud the extensive amount of statistics you pulled, but the original argument on this specific point, which I engaged, wasn't about win rates of cards. Its addressing what you stated: "All in all I just find it amusing because if this was Hunter, noone would be complaining but hunter throws out just as much early damage as DH yet flies under the radar all the time. "
Your dose of reality is to show me that stormhammer can potentially* do 12 damage before PoF gets out. What are you comparing here? Damage output in a hunter vs dhunter match? I think its easy enough for me to point out how badly hunters do against dhunters as an argument that dhunters output more damage in a matchup between the two.
Lastly:
I agree that PoF and IA are hardly the most problematic when it comes to assessing dhunters as a whole. But to say that they are 'aren't "winning" the game for them' does not mesh well with your statistics. There's a good reason why PoF have high win rates. They win games. And if other players feel slightly helpless every time they see it played, they ought to be; they're 55.9% likely to lose that game, to quote your stats.
I dont have a premium account from hsreplay, and I can't tell easily how you're pulling these stats out. But if all you wanted to say was that dhunter's early game cards are more responsible for wins than cards like IA and PoF, I would encourage you to just make a statistical comparison of it, instead of insinuating that hunters "flies under the radar all the time". Might have helped your case better had you just leave hunters out of it altogether.
It's a comparison between the classes. People act like DH is uncounterable, it's not. DH falls hard against rez priest and Big Druid.
People act like DH is some new overly aggressive class, it's not. Hunter has been around for ages. My point is *exactly* that. Hunter flies under the radar all the time.
If you aren't seeing my point and furthermore are just attempting to strawman my efforts of showcasing the similarities between the two and instead attacking my argument style instead of replying with any sort of stats or opinion of your own, then I don't think we really have anything more to discuss.
Kinda funny. Like, who would've thought that one Day Sacrificial Pact would become a problematic Card? But honestly, I think changing it is probably is for the better. They want to give DH an Archetype that relies on big Demons, and current Sac Pact just utterly destroys that.
Speaking of big DH Demons: I hope they change Imprisoned Antaen/Priestess of Fury. These Cards are just too OP imo. „Oh, you didn't flood the Board with Minions to be massacred? Well, sucks for you, I guess. Here's a huge Amount of Burst and some big Minions. Good Luck!"
I get the reason why all those cards is getting nerfs, except Bad Luck Albatross.
Why? It's the only tech cards against Highlander Deck (except Bombs and it's only for Warrior). I just don't get it. It's already a perfect card without the nerfs.
Don't forget about Pure Paladin and All Spells Mage.
I think the issue is that the card just has too little downside for being a tech card. When you put a tech in your deck, you should have to balance the drawback of playing a weaker than average card sometimes for the payoff of playing a stronger than average card in other games. Albatross has too little downside to call it really a tech card, since it's a decent minion that has an okay effect even against decks that it doesn't specifically counter.
The way i see it, Albatross is a card where if you’re fighting an opponent with one and you don’t have one, you’re at a direct disadvantage. This wasn’t true of a lot of great cards in the past (even ones like Zilliax or Siamat that were used really widely). The nerf needs to happen, not because the card is powerful on its own, but because it forces this kind of arms race.
If it were reduced to a 3/2, it’d be a weak play but still okay for a tech card, instead of a solid 4/3 statline that also makes your opponent give up on two topdecks, which is at autoinclude territory.
Just my opinion. But the effect would be fine if the body were understatted
Sacrificial Pact was never meant to be able to used as removal. Destroying friendly Demons was basically what the card was meant for, as back then, Warlock was the only class with any Demons. Now that Demon Hunter has Demons, Sacrificial Pact is basically just a tech card against them.
I definitely would change it to only affect friendly Demons. That's basically how the card was intended to be the whole time, and you wouldn't be able to kill Jaraxxus with it anymore.
Not true. You could be a real baller and Sac Pact yourself. Don't give the enemy the satisfaction of the kill, go out like a gangsta Eredar lord.
Do kill the Lord Jaraxxus interaction with Sacrificial Pact but other than that I'd want it to stay as is. The only reason it is so important in the meta is because of Demon Hunter's dominance. If that falls off, so will Sac Pac. It's a tech card after all.
I get where you're coming from, but 0 mana for a swingy tech card is too much of a good thing. Even back in the day when we used BGH to take down something big you still had to spend 3 mana for it.
0 mana Pact is not just "Kill a demon", but essentially "Kill a demon and then get to play your own 5/6/7 mana worth of cards for instantaneous tempo reversal."
I mean, if they just increase the cost of Sac Pac, that would be fine, too. I'd just like there always to ba a counter to any good strategy you can utilise while building a deck. Nobody wants Hungry Crab to only target friendly murlocs.
You got a 4/2 body with BGH for 3 mana (making the destroy effect cost zero)