EDIT: For some reason the way I used to add images doesn't work anymore, so I'll just post this imgur link: https://imgur.com/a/H2XIWEi
1. Add Nightfall restriction to Go Hard
With this nerf, Go Hard would be far more difficult to use and much worse on turn 1. It also opens up the card to being used in a Nightfall deck (the deck likely wouldn't be trying to get "Pack Your Bags"
2. Reduce Damage and/or increase cost of Pack Your Bags
This is the most likely nerf, and would make Go Hard worse against midrange decks. It also opens up more counterplay because if the opponent taps below 4 mana, you know they can't used Go Hard.
3. Change Pack your Bags to "Drain 6 from anything"
This is one of my personal favorite nerfs for the card because it removes the most frustrating part of Go Hard: the fact that it removes almost your entire board. By making Pack your Bags a single-target Decimate/Vengeance with healing attached, Midrange decks can suddenly do a lot better against Go Hard. This preserves the "finisher" aspect of the card while making it more fun to play against (similar to Jinx's rockets).
The first nerf won't change anything, nightfall decks are not going to use Go Hard, they don't have the necessary draw power, and making it worse on turn one is hardly a problem since most Go Hard decks are control/Midrange.
The second one seems to be the most reasonable to me.
The third one is less a nerf and more of a rework, and it would make the card unplayable. I mean playing 3 underwhelming slow cards and drawing half you deck just to drain 6 is just not worth the investment.
I'm expecting number 2 the most but I don't think they'll nerf the damage. In my eyes, Go Hard as a card is fine, but the deck TF Go Hard makes it an issue. Spooky Karma that runs Go Hard or Ezreal Go Hard isn't that strong because they aren't running specific cards like Twisted Fate, Fortune Croaker, and Zap Sprayfin. Making it 4 Mana is probably the best nerf since other Go Hard decks can afford to use 3 more Mana but at the same time, it won't allow TF Go Hard to use it so freely especially with Zap Sprayfin unable to draw a Pack Your Bags. Nerfing the damage down to 4 seems unnecessary to me but I haven't played enough TF Go Hard to judge how much nerf it actually needs to get, just that it does.
A card that I think could use a nerf although not being that obvious of a nerf candidate is Doombeast. It is essentially the Lifedrinker of Runeterra and goes in pretty much every single SI deck because it combines a solid body, heal and burn in a 3 mana unit... which is just very good. Runeterra's philosophy that every card should have it's own niche while no card should be autoinclude doesn't fit that well with Doombeast so I would change the burn effect from drain to simply burn to keep it's aggressive nature while tuning it down decently
Quote From FenrirWulfI'm expecting number 2 the most but I don't think they'll nerf the damage. In my eyes, Go Hard as a card is fine, but the deck TF Go Hard makes it an issue. Spooky Karma that runs Go Hard or Ezreal Go Hard isn't that strong because they aren't running specific cards like Twisted Fate, Fortune Croaker, and Zap Sprayfin. Making it 4 Mana is probably the best nerf since other Go Hard decks can afford to use 3 more Mana but at the same time, it won't allow TF Go Hard to use it so freely especially with Zap Sprayfin unable to draw a Pack Your Bags. Nerfing the damage down to 4 seems unnecessary to me but I haven't played enough TF Go Hard to judge how much nerf it actually needs to get, just that it does.
I pretty much never play the "OP deck" because it seems like it never works for me. I know people say this all the time, but it actually almost always happens to me: 1) Opponent plays "OP deck" and has [key card] on perfect turn [x], causing me to lose spectacularly. This happens nearly every time I queue up against an opponent playing "OP deck." 2) I decide to play "OP deck" for three games in a row. I never even draw [key card] once, despite mulligan-ing for it, let alone have it on perfect turn [x].
I got sick of this happening to me, so I just don't play the "OP deck" anymore. I know that sounds really salty, and people probably don't believe me that this is possible, but it really does nearly always happen to me. Example from the current meta - Zoe. Opponent has Zoe in their deck, I assume they will have it turn 1. And they honestly almost always do. I actually get genuinely shocked when they don't. I play a Zoe deck - never get her in my opening hand at all. That's the curse of being me. So I play off-meta decks almost exclusively.
I know I proably should open an new threat for the following topic but I'm too lazy to do...
I don't know how you feel about the game but I am quite unhappy how the game feels to play.
The regions I like the most Noxus(of cause) Freljord(frostbite-midrange) and P&Z(Heimerdinger)aren't doing that well and overall I see a lot of targon played.
I still don't like targon as a region and especially I still don't like Hush and the concept of silence in general.
Players complained a lot about Hush as it came out and tbh its feels as toxic of a mechanic as it was when it came out.
Sure, its now limited to 1 target but that is enough to screw over decks that play around buffs or certain effects and that it is just 2 mana at burst speed... its a real feel bad card that can decide games by screwing 1 large unit up or jam an effect that would stop you. Silencing is proably the main reason for targon's popularity aside of Zoe and her highroll potential.
Also I feel bad about landmarks making it into tier decks now. Landmark removal is still narrow and the cards that deal with landmarks usually suck in non landmark matchups (with the exeption of aftershock and divergent paths).
As swim already ranted, landmarks are very rng cards because they have to be broken if you draw exactly 1 copy and play it on curve because otherwise they are pointless and won't see play.
Landmarks suck if you draw multiples, landmarks need several turns to become worth it so drawing them late is terrible not to mention the fact that landmarks are play-around-cards that influence the deckbuilding significantly and therefore make your deck relient on getting them early.
Short: the concept of landmarks is terrible and the best way for riot to deal with landmarks is to rework them, giving them a replacement card if you have already a copy of them in play, and shift some of their ongoing power to immediate power so they are way less rng and healthier design.
In general I wonder if it is just me or that games became a lot less predictable and rng heavier, and therefore less strategic since call of the mountain? It feels like it and it feels bad to me. I once had 70%-80% winrate now we are talking way closer to 50% without me getting worse at the game...
To add an image, I usually click on the icon above (it looks like a box around a mountain) and enter the URL in the resultant popup. Make sure it's the URL of the image itself and not just a page with the image on it -- i.e., your URL should end in .jpg / .png / etc. Right-clicking on the literal image -> "Copy Image Address" can help.
You correctly predicted #2 as the final version -- they increased PYB's mana cost 1:1, but left it at 5. Are you happy with it?
Thanks for the tip! As for the nerf, I think that it’s a fair nerf and should make it much less OP when used in the early rounds and much easier to play around. I would probably still prefer reducing the cost and damage to 4, but I think the change is good as it is.
Noxus and P&Z have the best landmark removal spells of all the regions. They can easily be slotted into any deck with either of those regions, and they are very far from useless if your opponent has no landmarks.
By the way, regarding your winrate dropping over time - I'm fairly confident that the declining winrate of people who have been playing the game longer is due to the simple factor of increasing skill level of the playerbase overall. There are far fewer bad players now than there were 4-5 months ago. When the skill level of the entire playerbase increases over time, that means the winrate of all of the good players will decline (due to getting fewer easy wins because the opponent misplayed). It's a lot harder to maintain a 70% winrate when you have far fewer cases of winning to opponent mistakes.
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign in here.