On rarity creep

I guess everyone here is familiar with the concept of power creep, that is when some new cards are strictly better than some old cards. I won't give any examples because this expansion has plenty and it's easy to find some.

What is less talked about is rarity creep. That is, when card effects previously printed as epic or legendary are now printed on cards with lower rarities.

Here's what I mean:

I feel like this is a problem. Since the transition from 1 to 2 legendaries per class per expansion in 2017, legendaries (both class and neutral) have become more specialized and specific (Zilliax and SN1P-SN4P are recent exceptions), while in the past legendaries were more versatile and those that were good were auto-includes (think OG Dr. Boom). Nowadays however legendaries are often the foundation for an archetype, and most decks need to contain specific legendaries to be viable on ladder, which means that new/f2p players need to focus on legendaries for a specific archetype that often won't be used elsewere. So they're stuck with basically one deck.

What do you think? Is it a problem for you?

Sort by:

Oldest Newest Top

Cheese LV.7
6 years, 8 months ago

I guess everyone here is familiar with the concept of power creep, that is when some new cards are strictly better than some old cards. I won't give any examples because this expansion has plenty and it's easy to find some.
What is less talked about is rarity creep. That is, when card effects previously printed as epic or legendary are now printed on cards with lower rarities.
Here's what I mean:
I feel like this is a problem. Since the transition from 1 to 2 legendaries per class per expansion in 2017, legendaries (both class and neutral) have become more specialized and specific (Zilliax and SN1P-SN4P are recent exceptions), while in the past legendaries were more versatile and those that were good were auto-includes (think OG Dr. Boom). Nowadays however legendaries are often the foundation for an archetype, and most decks need to contain specific legendaries to be viable on ladder, which means that new/f2p players need to focus on legendaries for a specific archetype that often won't be used elsewere. So they're stuck with basically one deck.
What do you think? Is it a problem for you?
Sherman1986 LV.7
6 years, 8 months ago

What do I think? I think no one can please everyone, not even Blizzard. Sorry, but that's the harsh truth. There will always be some problems like this one, and no matter what Blizzard does, they are inevitable. Of course, I'm talking about the problem with new/f2p players and legendaries, not the rarity creep.
Enk LV.6
6 years, 8 months ago

I hope one day they will buff these legendaries. I mean, they are legendaries after all.
Synesthesy LV.7
6 years, 8 months ago

Yes, there is a problem and that is related to the 2 legendaries per class. Back in the days the high number of neutral legendaries meant that there were cards safe to craft that will always keep their value (at least during their standard time for standard-only player). I think about the first legendaries I crafted: Ragnaros, Sylvanas, N'Zoth, Cairne, ... And some of them were crafted with 700 gold: Reno Jackson, Sr Finley, Emperor Thaurissan, Loatheb...
Nowaday most legendaries are class legendaries, so A) every deck must have its own legendaries, that won't be played anywhere else and B) the deckbuilding feel more forced, as there isn't much freedom in using class legendaries.
There is a reason if most interesting cards are still neutral (Mecha'Thun, Prince Keleseth, Zilliax,...) but they aren't as strong as they were some years ago like Ragnaros or Dr 7.
Aidan0816 LV.4
6 years, 8 months ago

I like the legendaries being more specialized rather than just overpowered, auto include cards like ragnaros, dr boom, sylvanus, loatheb, etc. It makes decks more interesting and unique, rather than both sides being the same powerful shell that differs mainly on some of the class card inclusions. Decks from any individual class are almost not alike at all.
I can understand the issue for free to play players though. You can't just craft a few safe legendaries and be able to play most decks after crafting a few epics and a couple class legendaries. But as someone who pays a reasonable amount of money, I care more about the quality of gameplay than the accessibility for people who don't want to spend anything on it.
AngryShuckie LV.13
6 years, 8 months ago

Broadly speaking, having more legendaries be centrepieces of decks leads to a wider range of distinct decks available. This is not guaranteed as epics, rares or even commons can be centrepieces too, but it tends to be the case. Viewed from the diversity perspective this is surely a good thing. Besides, as you have already said some neutrals still do fill the versatile role.
As for rarity creep itself, we have to consider context at the time each card is printed. Take Maexxna, at the time poisonous (which wasn't even a keyword for another 2.67 years) was limited to small minions and played a kamikaze-like role where you could take down 1 minion of any size, but in practice only 1. So when Maexxna arrived, the idea of having a high health poisonous minion that could easily take down a big minion and survive to kill another was new enough to warrant the rarity.
Fast forward to SoU and poisonous has had rush, divine shield, taunt, magnetic and been a buff multiple times. So simply having a high health poisonous minion no longer feels legendary and it honestly is a common rarity effect in the current state of HS.
By the way, this sort of thing happens in wider society too. Nobody is going to remember you for thinking women should have the right to vote nowadays, but a century ago it was new and special hence the suffragette and suffragist movements are remembered as important parts of history. The normalisation of ideas in society makes them much more common, just as the normalisation of effects in HS leads to rarity creep.
Stock LV.7
6 years, 8 months ago

Well, looking back, a lot of legendaries from the early expansions seem questionable, even by "years ago" standarts

These all are actual cards someone decided people would play. I am glad they got better and trully worthless legendaries like or

are rarity.
RavenSunHS LV.13
6 years, 8 months ago

Well, i agree that rarity-creep feels bad over time, since a legendary dust effort is overcome by a silly common eventually, but tbh, it mainly happens with meme or just obviously bad cards, ie those you brought as example.
So overall it's just a minor problem.
The problem of deck-defining legendaries is a distinct one, and yes, as i already wrote quite a few times, it is a serious issue in Standard.
Not so much in Wild, where despite some oppressive decks, viability is much wider, and dust investments never fade into oblivion.
sebomatikus LV.6
6 years, 8 months ago

I mostly have no problem with that. Some legendaries and their effects simply don't pan out, they don't justify being a unique effect. Sometimes it's bit sad to see a card you really liked lose its relevance but that's just a personal feeling with no significance for the game.
Lightspoon LV.7
6 years, 8 months ago

Some of the older legendaries have silly effect but they've a lot of flavor linked to what they are into WoW, but going further into more recent sets I agree that Blizzard still printing awful cards just to fill packs and diluite what you may find in them. But recently they've buffed up some cards for the first time ever, so maybe there is a chance that one day we'll see some rework of the most terrible ones that may make them at last playable.
AliRadicali LV.9
6 years, 8 months ago

I don't think you can reasonably distinguish "rarity creep" from power creep, it's part of the same process. Obviously if the average power level goes up over time, the amount of power you can expect from any given rarity will go up as well, to the point where today's commons might look like yesteryear's legendaries. That said, Maexxna was never a particularly powerful or exciting card, even when she was first introduced, so I have no problem whatsoever with a common card stealing her very very bland, vanilla thunder. If anything, Maexxna was a bad legendary, even back in the day: Sure, poisonous wasn't a keyword yet, but she was still effectively a fatter, more expensive Emperor Cobra.

As fr the issue of neutral legendaries, I for one am glad that they're no longer the most dominant force in HS as it would make deckbuilding incredibly stale and repetitive. It's bad enough that Zilliax goes into virtually every deck, the last thing I'd want is more auto-include neutral legendaries. I wouldn't mind seeing more decks that don't explicitly require a class legendary though.