BBrodes analysis in that post send frankly dumb. They say that the best deck only has a 53%win rate which is fine, but no one has really been complaining that a single deck is dominating the meta. The problem is that there are three to five different pirate decks depending on where you draw the line plus another two shaman decks that don't need to run pirates. These decks are all different enough that there isn't a single answer to them while being similar enough that it feels repetitive to play against.
It also doesn't touch on the almost complete collapse of paladin and Hunter as classes.
Edit: not to mention that Reno and dragons are rotating soon and pirates and Jade are sticking around.
I mean... he's not wrong. It did make holy wrath decks better, technically.
I don't think he's saying anything about the competitiveness of that deck; I'm pretty sure he knows it's only good for memes.
Yes, but him saying that was like him justifying the Molten Giant nerf. As in, "Well it's okay that this card doesn't see play anymore, because dank meme decks! Lol!" Meanwhile people are still kind of upset that they can't play that card anymore.
Which is similar to Brode now making the Control Warrior/Shaman statement.
I... don't follow that connection at all? How does making molten giant meme-y have anything to do with the Control Warrior/Shaman matchup? Like, he also isn't wrong here, Control Warrior can beat aggro shaman fine, and if you roll into aggro shamans on ladder you'll do well with it. It just happens that they introduced a braindead mechanic that autobeats every control deck ever at the same time so queuing with control warrior also gives you a % chance to just lose instantly when you're paired into a jade druid or mid/control jade shaman.
Which like, yeah, there's some shitty stuff going on that I think Brode isn't addressing, but I don't see how this equates to Molten Giant at all. If anything it reminds me more of those interviews with Mike Donais where I was like "okay maybe there's a reason he's not on the MTG team anymore" in regards to his ability to talk about the metagame.
Justifying the Molten Giant overnerf by saying it makes a meme deck better
Justifying not doing anything to Shaman because a high legend player built a Control Warrior deck that's teched against Shaman
That's the correlation. My point was to illustrate that Brode justifies action/inaction in extremely strange ways despite being, well, wrong. Molten Giant was overnerfed and yet he says he's okay with that because Holy Wrath. Shaman is disgustingly OP and yet he says he's okay with that because "just play Control Warrior".
There wasn't technically anything there relating to Shaman/Control Warrior, it was simply an example from the past of how he's done this same sort of justification before and will continue to do so until the end of time.
Edit: And again, not related to anything of consequence at the moment, but simply as another example of Team 5's incredibly strange mindset and thought process: Gadgetzan Ferryman. I know it's neither here nor there! But at the same time, they printed this card literally just to please "that one guy who really wants to make a bounce deck". They said it themselves! They're okay with printing Ferryman because as long as one person uses it and has fun with it, they "consider it a success".
AGAIN, simply illustrating how their thought process is working here, not making a direct comparison or correlation to the Shaman situation. Just showing that they make some really fucking weird decisions sometimes, most of the time.
Edit Edit: Brode has also said before that he's okay with not really nerfing or touching Shaman because "Tunnel Trogg/Totem Golem/etc etc are rotating soon", as if that makes it somehow okay to not deal with the situation in the meantime. Like he's telling the playerbase "yeah just tough it out for 3 months w/e".
Dibby on
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
+1
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
I mean... he's not wrong. It did make holy wrath decks better, technically.
I don't think he's saying anything about the competitiveness of that deck; I'm pretty sure he knows it's only good for memes.
Yes, but him saying that was like him justifying the Molten Giant nerf. As in, "Well it's okay that this card doesn't see play anymore, because dank meme decks! Lol!" Meanwhile people are still kind of upset that they can't play that card anymore.
Which is similar to Brode now making the Control Warrior/Shaman statement.
I remember reading him saying that, though I can't find the post now, but I don't recall that he was justifying the nerf because of a goofy gimmick deck.
What I recall is that it was something along the lines of "we nerfed molten giant because it caused a lot of problems in decks like handlock and echo mage, but the change impacted other kinds of decks in different ways." He used holy wrath as an example of some kind of positive change.
For what it's worth, I think that's an odd example as well, and I completely disagree with a lot of the nerfs implemented to the Core set last year when it would have been much more elegant to just move certain Core cards to Wild (and not destroying fun decks in the process), but I recognize that Brode is also trying to approach a complex problem from different angles because a lot of people play Hearthstone for different reasons. Everyone here is very tapped into the competitive scene, but that's just one perspective. It's probably not the majority perspective, though.
I just think that a lot of people are quick to ascribe incompetence or bad intentions to Team 5 as a whole, and while I agree they've made mistakes and have dropped the ball hard in some case, I think there's more going than what we see, and I do think they're trying.
I do wish they would be more upfront about stuff though. The contrast between Team 5 and the Overwatch team is pretty stark.
I mean... he's not wrong. It did make holy wrath decks better, technically.
I don't think he's saying anything about the competitiveness of that deck; I'm pretty sure he knows it's only good for memes.
Yes, but him saying that was like him justifying the Molten Giant nerf. As in, "Well it's okay that this card doesn't see play anymore, because dank meme decks! Lol!" Meanwhile people are still kind of upset that they can't play that card anymore.
Which is similar to Brode now making the Control Warrior/Shaman statement.
I remember reading him saying that, though I can't find the post now, but I don't recall that he was justifying the nerf because of a goofy gimmick deck.
What I recall is that it was something along the lines of "we nerfed molten giant because it caused a lot of problems in decks like handlock and echo mage, but the change impacted other kinds of decks in different ways." He used holy wrath as an example of some kind of positive change.
For what it's worth, I think that's an odd example as well, and I completely disagree with a lot of the nerfs implemented to the Core set last year when it would have been much more elegant to just move certain Core cards to Wild (and not destroying fun decks in the process), but I recognize that Brode is also trying to approach a complex problem from different angles because a lot of people play Hearthstone for different reasons. Everyone here is very tapped into the competitive scene, but that's just one perspective. It's probably not the majority perspective, though.
I just think that a lot of people are quick to ascribe incompetence or bad intentions to Team 5 as a whole, and while I agree they've made mistakes and have dropped the ball hard in some case, I think there's more going than what we see, and I do think they're trying.
I do wish they would be more upfront about stuff though. The contrast between Team 5 and the Overwatch team is pretty stark.
I mean I also play a ton of HotS, and the difference between the HotS team and the HS team is like night and day.
HotS team very clearly explains their intentions, puts everything on the table for everyone to see, is very upfront about everything they do, and they communicate with us super super often. They make changes pretty often too, but I get that a MOBA differs fundamentally from a CCG.
HS team just doesn't communicate with us and it's super frustrating. And when they do, it's usually hit or miss. That live Q&A stream they did? Great, awesome. This wall of nothing? Not so great.
I don't think Team 5 has bad intentions or is even incompetent, but like some of this stuff regarding communication comes across as super fucking basic. I don't know how they're still struggling on the communication front. Like it's not hard and yet they're making it this giant imposing mountain for themselves. I dunno how they do that.
I get that they're just people, and they're trying their best; they really are, I understand that. But at the end of the day, I love HS and I want to see it be the best that it can be. And right now, the HS team is failing me on that front. They're failing a lot of people on that front, because this is probably the worst meta that's ever existed and they're been ultra silent for the most part. Like, a little communication goes a long way, and again, they really haven't been doing too well there. That's why I'm so frustrated. They have so many tools available to them to be more open and communicative with us and they aren't utilizing them. And when they do it's months apart.
It's just frustrating.
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
+2
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
I think the 'more going on than what we see' is that it's much harder to balance a game like this than any of us ever acknowledge
there are definitely the occasional reddit post that gets to 500 upvotes with stuff like "just do this, add more tutorial missions explaining these things that would make absolutely no sense to someone who hasn't played a card game before, just put some effort in for once!" and I'm just like "goddammit y'all that is not how this works"
+3
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I think the 'more going on than what we see' is that it's much harder to balance a game like this than any of us ever acknowledge
there are definitely the occasional reddit post that gets to 500 upvotes with stuff like "just do this, add more tutorial missions explaining these things that would make absolutely no sense to someone who hasn't played a card game before, just put some effort in for once!" and I'm just like "goddammit y'all that is not how this works"
yeah I certainly don't mean to say I don't read good ideas in here pretty often. I just think as we chat away about the game it's easy to solve the problems we see and maybe not consider all the fallout (which is what a statement like the one about molten giant, weird though that particular case may be, is meant to reference I imagine)
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Part of the issue is probably the past goodwill being squandered in terms of how they've approached communication and design decisions. Case in point: deck slots. Getting more than 9 was like pulling fucking teeth.
So dog is playing this cool small-time-recruits-hand-buffs-miracle-anyfin paladin deck that hits fatigue on turn 10. It's super interesting deckbuilding-wise and play-wise!
Good thing they didn't print a card for the already most dominant class that completely invalidates a strategy involving going wide with buffs and value deathrattles!
Dang, I tried that general idea a while back and couldn't figure out how to get it work. I really like dog's list.
Basically he deals one damage for every mana over 5 when played. On turn 9 he's a Flamestrike.
Would you put this in your deck? I could see it getting major use in Druid and Rogue. Both classes which lack solid AoE and can cheat out extra mana. Thoughts? OP? Too weak?
Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051 Steam ID Twitch Page
+3
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
in a world of kazakus it's certainly hard to call it OP. seems cool and worth playing but I am not great at evaluating. what you said makes sense to me, though. at the very least in druid.
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
My initial gut reaction is that it costs too much for what it's trying to do (regain the board).
Further thought on it is that, if it was cheaper (with an appropriately smaller body to go with it), would the potential for a 6-7 damage enemy board wipe be too powerful?
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
edited February 2017
That is entirely too strong as a neutral board clear. Compare to deathwing, whom has seen fringe play with massive downsides. This doesn't hit your own minions, doesn't discard your hand, and is even extra flexible for being anything from a five drop to a ten drop. Auto include in any control deck and probably every non-aggro druid deck; I don't like it.
Edit: honestly, the big deal is that neutral board clear is just a super dangerous design space, like neutral healing. You risk homogenizing the classes too much, you shouldn't have to work about druids clearing your board of 5 health minions without malygos shenanigans (see: why yogg druid was so busted)
So, on a 5-game wining streak with a bog-standard Dragon Priest that I kinda tossed together. Early season, obviously, but ...
So far, my three favorite wins are:
Vs. Druid, P2: He passes, I play Whelp, he hero powers, goes face, pauses ... and concedes.
Vs. Pirate Warrior, P1: I play Northshire Cleric, he play's N'Zoth's First Mate, I take 2 from the Hookpatch; kill Patches, heal the Cleric for draw and get Kabal Talonpriest; he hero powers, hits face; I play the Talonpriest on the Cleric, kill the Mate, and pass; he ropes for 3 turns until the game decides he's left.
Vs. C'thun Warrior (!?), P1: I've got a Wyrmrest Agent and a Whelp out, and plan to just keep healing it to get through early stuff, but nothing shows up: he passes turn 1 and Armors Up turn 2. I drop Bran on 3 so I can Historian on 4 for BONUS DRAGONS, but he hits it with a Shield Block and Coined Shield Slam; I think, "I haven't seen that in forever!" My turn 5 SECRET AGENT gives me a choice between C'Thun's Chosen, C'Thun's Shieldbearer, and Shield Slam. I take the Chosen one, but never need it. I have a decent hand at this point, so I start adding to my board. He actually uses Protect the King! and adds in an Acolyte of Pain. Unfortunately, I've got Holy Nova in hand, so I give him 1 card, then run everything else into his face for exactly lethal.
in a world of kazakus it's certainly hard to call it OP. seems cool and worth playing but I am not great at evaluating. what you said makes sense to me, though. at the very least in druid.
The equivalent, which is kazakus into 5 mana 4 damage board clear which hits your own minions, isn't 100% certain, and kills himself and requires a highlander deck. It's OP.
I was thinking about the Pirate Package issue and it made me realize that Hearthstone hasn't yet implemented a Kicker-like mechanic or a "Pay 1 Mana: Do this thing." mechanic.
My first thought was to change Patches to say "Whenever you play a Pirate, you may pay 1 mana to play Patches from your deck." I think that would make it too weak, but that design space hasn't been explored.
I was thinking about the Pirate Package issue and it made me realize that Hearthstone hasn't yet implemented a Kicker-like mechanic or a "Pay 1 Mana: Do this thing." mechanic.
My first thought was to change Patches to say "Whenever you play a Pirate, you may pay 1 mana to play Patches from your deck." I think that would make it too weak, but that design space hasn't been explored.
Well, for Patches specifically, that'd pretty much just be "Put Patches in your hand," with some extremely unlikely edge cases. (Like Unlicensed Apothecary. Or Naga Sea Witch.)
hippofant on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
in a world of kazakus it's certainly hard to call it OP. seems cool and worth playing but I am not great at evaluating. what you said makes sense to me, though. at the very least in druid.
The equivalent, which is kazakus into 5 mana 4 damage board clear which hits your own minions, isn't 100% certain, and kills himself and requires a highlander deck. It's OP.
it gets another effect too though and also gives you flexibility
I was thinking about the Pirate Package issue and it made me realize that Hearthstone hasn't yet implemented a Kicker-like mechanic or a "Pay 1 Mana: Do this thing." mechanic.
My first thought was to change Patches to say "Whenever you play a Pirate, you may pay 1 mana to play Patches from your deck." I think that would make it too weak, but that design space hasn't been explored.
i am extremely worried about the fact that the last major technical addition to the game has been "giving buffs to a card not in play" (unless you want to count the portals in that one adventure fight i guess, but i don't want to count things that haven't been added to the PVP experience) (well okay i guess you could call Kazakus a technical addition but it just feels like an extension of the discover tech)
hearthstone desperately needs room for more technical complexity, it just needs more knobs to tune in general. everything relying more and more on how much value you get out of your minions per mana cost (or how strong miracle rogue is) is extremely bad for the game's long term health
just had a very poor night where i ran into a lot of bad matchups (anyfin, miracle rogue) with really good early hands and have been tilting just weeee bit.
PS: It's pretty funny playing against a deck you piloted yourself (i ran token/jade druid for the first half of last season but hit a brick wall around rank 13/12) Definately seeing them a lot more this time.
holy shit am i really going to have to run double evolve to beat rogues?
fucking tomb pillagers, questing adventurers and cleef's ruining my shit.
Counterpoint: I probably was playing too agressive, will need to save removals for the really heavy buffed stuff and trade face with the pillagers.
Counter counterpoint: I really don't want them to have 4 coins on turn 6
Poor Shaman!
Said no one. Ever.
i know you're making a joke and all
but rogues are ALSO a supreme amount of bullshit
"lemme just whip my questing adventurer onto the board, and oh look, i've got a quest for him! many quests! he's an 8/8! but that's not all, i also now have an 8/8 van cleef on board! and i hope you like not being able to interact with them because whoosh there goes my conceal!!"
so i mean, poor shaman and all right har har, but like damn, rogues are some hot bullshit
I was thinking about the Pirate Package issue and it made me realize that Hearthstone hasn't yet implemented a Kicker-like mechanic or a "Pay 1 Mana: Do this thing." mechanic.
My first thought was to change Patches to say "Whenever you play a Pirate, you may pay 1 mana to play Patches from your deck." I think that would make it too weak, but that design space hasn't been explored.
Discover is bad enough for drawing out games, we don't need another thing for people to "hmmmmm" on endlessly on turn 3.
This is a good article that highlights the current problems with this expac/meta
tl;dr tri-class is a failure, limits deckbuilding, forces players into one of the two gangs or pirates (rip grimy goons), decks feel way too samey despite being spread across multiple classes, and ultimately left us with way less neutrals than before to work with
holy shit am i really going to have to run double evolve to beat rogues?
fucking tomb pillagers, questing adventurers and cleef's ruining my shit.
Counterpoint: I probably was playing too agressive, will need to save removals for the really heavy buffed stuff and trade face with the pillagers.
Counter counterpoint: I really don't want them to have 4 coins on turn 6
Poor Shaman!
Said no one. Ever.
i know you're making a joke and all
but rogues are ALSO a supreme amount of bullshit
"lemme just whip my questing adventurer onto the board, and oh look, i've got a quest for him! many quests! he's an 8/8! but that's not all, i also now have an 8/8 van cleef on board! and i hope you like not being able to interact with them because whoosh there goes my conceal!!"
so i mean, poor shaman and all right har har, but like damn, rogues are some hot bullshit
Amen brother, I was staring down a 12/12 Van Cleef on turn 2 or 3 once last season. At one point I faced almost exclusively Miracle Rogue and I got super salty even piloting a favoured deck like Reno Mage because of those explosive turns that feel like utter bullshit.
This is a good article that highlights the current problems with this expac/meta
tl;dr tri-class is a failure, limits deckbuilding, forces players into one of the two gangs or pirates (rip grimy goons), decks feel way too samey despite being spread across multiple classes, and ultimately left us with way less neutrals than before to work with
There are really only 2 majorly problematic things in this xpac, which isn't terrible: Kazakus and Pirate stuff (STB/Patches). I think pirates can be tuned, and Kazakus loses some major teeth once Reno/Brann are out of rotation. Even Kazakus would probably be fine if you made him 6 mana to limit combos. I think the bigger issue is tuning up the goons, but I can understand why they'd be reticent given the major power swing we'll see once League of Explorers leaves.
0
The Escape Goatincorrigible ruminantthey/themRegistered Userregular
Jade is pretty problematic in that it's too good for how simple it is. Nothing against good simple decks in principle, but the fact that it's just play your cards and you auto beat control decks is ridiculous. At least midrange druid had to think a little bit about which threats and spells to commit when on their road to roflstompimg control warrior, the only caveat jade decks care about is saving a spirit or a claws for Brann.
Jade is pretty problematic in that it's too good for how simple it is. Nothing against good simple decks in principle, but the fact that it's just play your cards and you auto beat control decks is ridiculous. At least midrange druid had to think a little bit about which threats and spells to commit when on their road to roflstompimg control warrior, the only caveat jade decks care about is saving a spirit or a claws for Brann.
well that and pacing yourself to play around boardclears i guess.
Jade is pretty problematic in that it's too good for how simple it is. Nothing against good simple decks in principle, but the fact that it's just play your cards and you auto beat control decks is ridiculous. At least midrange druid had to think a little bit about which threats and spells to commit when on their road to roflstompimg control warrior, the only caveat jade decks care about is saving a spirit or a claws for Brann.
Jade moves slow enough that I feel like you can play prevent given how dependent it is on draw and mana build.
Posts
It also doesn't touch on the almost complete collapse of paladin and Hunter as classes.
Edit: not to mention that Reno and dragons are rotating soon and pirates and Jade are sticking around.
Justifying the Molten Giant overnerf by saying it makes a meme deck better
Justifying not doing anything to Shaman because a high legend player built a Control Warrior deck that's teched against Shaman
That's the correlation. My point was to illustrate that Brode justifies action/inaction in extremely strange ways despite being, well, wrong. Molten Giant was overnerfed and yet he says he's okay with that because Holy Wrath. Shaman is disgustingly OP and yet he says he's okay with that because "just play Control Warrior".
There wasn't technically anything there relating to Shaman/Control Warrior, it was simply an example from the past of how he's done this same sort of justification before and will continue to do so until the end of time.
Edit: And again, not related to anything of consequence at the moment, but simply as another example of Team 5's incredibly strange mindset and thought process: Gadgetzan Ferryman. I know it's neither here nor there! But at the same time, they printed this card literally just to please "that one guy who really wants to make a bounce deck". They said it themselves! They're okay with printing Ferryman because as long as one person uses it and has fun with it, they "consider it a success".
AGAIN, simply illustrating how their thought process is working here, not making a direct comparison or correlation to the Shaman situation. Just showing that they make some really fucking weird decisions sometimes, most of the time.
Edit Edit: Brode has also said before that he's okay with not really nerfing or touching Shaman because "Tunnel Trogg/Totem Golem/etc etc are rotating soon", as if that makes it somehow okay to not deal with the situation in the meantime. Like he's telling the playerbase "yeah just tough it out for 3 months w/e".
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
I remember reading him saying that, though I can't find the post now, but I don't recall that he was justifying the nerf because of a goofy gimmick deck.
What I recall is that it was something along the lines of "we nerfed molten giant because it caused a lot of problems in decks like handlock and echo mage, but the change impacted other kinds of decks in different ways." He used holy wrath as an example of some kind of positive change.
For what it's worth, I think that's an odd example as well, and I completely disagree with a lot of the nerfs implemented to the Core set last year when it would have been much more elegant to just move certain Core cards to Wild (and not destroying fun decks in the process), but I recognize that Brode is also trying to approach a complex problem from different angles because a lot of people play Hearthstone for different reasons. Everyone here is very tapped into the competitive scene, but that's just one perspective. It's probably not the majority perspective, though.
I just think that a lot of people are quick to ascribe incompetence or bad intentions to Team 5 as a whole, and while I agree they've made mistakes and have dropped the ball hard in some case, I think there's more going than what we see, and I do think they're trying.
I do wish they would be more upfront about stuff though. The contrast between Team 5 and the Overwatch team is pretty stark.
I mean I also play a ton of HotS, and the difference between the HotS team and the HS team is like night and day.
HotS team very clearly explains their intentions, puts everything on the table for everyone to see, is very upfront about everything they do, and they communicate with us super super often. They make changes pretty often too, but I get that a MOBA differs fundamentally from a CCG.
HS team just doesn't communicate with us and it's super frustrating. And when they do, it's usually hit or miss. That live Q&A stream they did? Great, awesome. This wall of nothing? Not so great.
I don't think Team 5 has bad intentions or is even incompetent, but like some of this stuff regarding communication comes across as super fucking basic. I don't know how they're still struggling on the communication front. Like it's not hard and yet they're making it this giant imposing mountain for themselves. I dunno how they do that.
I get that they're just people, and they're trying their best; they really are, I understand that. But at the end of the day, I love HS and I want to see it be the best that it can be. And right now, the HS team is failing me on that front. They're failing a lot of people on that front, because this is probably the worst meta that's ever existed and they're been ultra silent for the most part. Like, a little communication goes a long way, and again, they really haven't been doing too well there. That's why I'm so frustrated. They have so many tools available to them to be more open and communicative with us and they aren't utilizing them. And when they do it's months apart.
It's just frustrating.
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
there are definitely the occasional reddit post that gets to 500 upvotes with stuff like "just do this, add more tutorial missions explaining these things that would make absolutely no sense to someone who hasn't played a card game before, just put some effort in for once!" and I'm just like "goddammit y'all that is not how this works"
yeah I certainly don't mean to say I don't read good ideas in here pretty often. I just think as we chat away about the game it's easy to solve the problems we see and maybe not consider all the fallout (which is what a statement like the one about molten giant, weird though that particular case may be, is meant to reference I imagine)
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Dang, I tried that general idea a while back and couldn't figure out how to get it work. I really like dog's list.
Basically he deals one damage for every mana over 5 when played. On turn 9 he's a Flamestrike.
Would you put this in your deck? I could see it getting major use in Druid and Rogue. Both classes which lack solid AoE and can cheat out extra mana. Thoughts? OP? Too weak?
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
Further thought on it is that, if it was cheaper (with an appropriately smaller body to go with it), would the potential for a 6-7 damage enemy board wipe be too powerful?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Edit: honestly, the big deal is that neutral board clear is just a super dangerous design space, like neutral healing. You risk homogenizing the classes too much, you shouldn't have to work about druids clearing your board of 5 health minions without malygos shenanigans (see: why yogg druid was so busted)
So far, my three favorite wins are:
Decklist: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/729142-priest-of-bahomet
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Also, I'm going to start streaming. Picking up my 1-0 Warrior Arena.
Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
Steam ID
Twitch Page
The equivalent, which is kazakus into 5 mana 4 damage board clear which hits your own minions, isn't 100% certain, and kills himself and requires a highlander deck. It's OP.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
My first thought was to change Patches to say "Whenever you play a Pirate, you may pay 1 mana to play Patches from your deck." I think that would make it too weak, but that design space hasn't been explored.
Well, for Patches specifically, that'd pretty much just be "Put Patches in your hand," with some extremely unlikely edge cases. (Like Unlicensed Apothecary. Or Naga Sea Witch.)
it gets another effect too though and also gives you flexibility
but like I said I am bad at evaluating.
i am extremely worried about the fact that the last major technical addition to the game has been "giving buffs to a card not in play" (unless you want to count the portals in that one adventure fight i guess, but i don't want to count things that haven't been added to the PVP experience) (well okay i guess you could call Kazakus a technical addition but it just feels like an extension of the discover tech)
hearthstone desperately needs room for more technical complexity, it just needs more knobs to tune in general. everything relying more and more on how much value you get out of your minions per mana cost (or how strong miracle rogue is) is extremely bad for the game's long term health
fucking tomb pillagers, questing adventurers and cleef's ruining my shit.
Counterpoint: I probably was playing too agressive, will need to save removals for the really heavy buffed stuff and trade face with the pillagers.
Counter counterpoint: I really don't want them to have 4 coins on turn 6
Poor Shaman!
Said no one. Ever.
just had a very poor night where i ran into a lot of bad matchups (anyfin, miracle rogue) with really good early hands and have been tilting just weeee bit.
3 hours played and ended right where i started.
I have actually not run into many shamans since reset. Menagerie Druid seems to be a new hot deck at rank 14 EU though
PS: It's pretty funny playing against a deck you piloted yourself (i ran token/jade druid for the first half of last season but hit a brick wall around rank 13/12) Definately seeing them a lot more this time.
Dang it, Sean
i know you're making a joke and all
but rogues are ALSO a supreme amount of bullshit
"lemme just whip my questing adventurer onto the board, and oh look, i've got a quest for him! many quests! he's an 8/8! but that's not all, i also now have an 8/8 van cleef on board! and i hope you like not being able to interact with them because whoosh there goes my conceal!!"
so i mean, poor shaman and all right har har, but like damn, rogues are some hot bullshit
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
said my daring druid opponents after i killed them with a 10/10 on turn 4 8-)
Discover is bad enough for drawing out games, we don't need another thing for people to "hmmmmm" on endlessly on turn 3.
I know we've all talked about it but like, that's 50% of ALL decks in that range.
Witty signature comment goes here...
wra
This is a good article that highlights the current problems with this expac/meta
tl;dr tri-class is a failure, limits deckbuilding, forces players into one of the two gangs or pirates (rip grimy goons), decks feel way too samey despite being spread across multiple classes, and ultimately left us with way less neutrals than before to work with
Battle.net Tag: Dibby#1582
what was he even going for?
like, im almost sure there was lethal in there as well, but the failed prep/vanish bit just confused the hell out of me.
was he trying to send the tri-patches back to his deck or something?
edit: no lethal, but 5 more dmg and sapping the 6-6 was an option.
Amen brother, I was staring down a 12/12 Van Cleef on turn 2 or 3 once last season. At one point I faced almost exclusively Miracle Rogue and I got super salty even piloting a favoured deck like Reno Mage because of those explosive turns that feel like utter bullshit.
There are really only 2 majorly problematic things in this xpac, which isn't terrible: Kazakus and Pirate stuff (STB/Patches). I think pirates can be tuned, and Kazakus loses some major teeth once Reno/Brann are out of rotation. Even Kazakus would probably be fine if you made him 6 mana to limit combos. I think the bigger issue is tuning up the goons, but I can understand why they'd be reticent given the major power swing we'll see once League of Explorers leaves.
He was planning to replay the Patches so they can attack again for an additional 6 damage, but counted how much mana that would require incorrectly?
well that and pacing yourself to play around boardclears i guess.
nvm
Jade moves slow enough that I feel like you can play prevent given how dependent it is on draw and mana build.