I'd say you're raising a new argument there rather than actually addressing the point I was making and that my post already contains the rebuttal your argument: "if not necessarily to the same extent".
That's not a rebuttal, that's a claim, and one that I disagree with. The same logic does not apply at all. It could be argued that Big Priest is being addressed due to the extreme amount of critique towards it and the pressure the player base is putting on the developers regarding the deck. That is supported by that Blizzard has been hesitant to actually do anything about Big Priest so far, and seems to be stalling to see whether SoU might fix it with the murloc mass transform card, alternate tools for priest and other solutions.
I don't see how this contradicts anything I'm saying. I agree Big priest is seeing large amounts of criticism, are you arguing that Genn and Baku didn't prior to rotation? Or don't presently?
Supposing that the new BP hate cards like Curse of Murlocs "solve" the problem in wild, would you agree that Blizzard was pressured into printing those cards because of the public outcry against BP?
By the way I prefer it when balance/gameplay issues can be addressed by printing new cards rather than changing cards that already exist, I just don't see how you'd accomplish that with Genn and Baku without printing something that hard-counters hero powers, EG something that disables/replaces the enemy hero power. And I imagine people wouldn't be very fond of that either.
Big Priest has its own hate subreddit. Everything that is either high tier or annoying to play against receives hate, including Odd Paladin, but it doesn't come close to how much Big Priest is despised. I suppose the large amount of tech cards and other attempted solutions against it have at least partly been fueled by the players' reactions towards the deck, but it's impossible to know the motivations of Blizzard. Tech cards would be preferable with both odd/even decks and Big Priest, tbh as much as I hate Big Priest I wouldn't want anything in it to actually be nerfed. For Genn and Baku, some kind of reverse Inspire (triggers from opponent's hero power), temporary cost increase, temporary disable, and temporary replacement I could see working.
Is the discussion about whether or not the cards should be nerfed or will be nerfed? You've conflated the two a couple of times, committing an appeal to authority.
I would prefer it if the topic remained whether they should be nerfed, but when the counterargument being presented is "Wild/HS ought to be X way, so you're wrong", it's very unfair of you to call me out for citing the game designers' views on what Wild/HS ought to be. An appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy, especially with something as subjective as "what is this game about?"
It is especially in subjective topics a fallacy. At least in objective questions it can be argued that the authority itself is making an argument, and therefor to appeal to it is to say that since the authority makes the argument, the argument can be made and is a part of the argument in which appeal to authority is used.
Maybe I'm indeed a bit unfair in only targeting the fallacy of your side, but the reason I got involved here in the first place is that your argumentation was so much better than the other side's that I felt it was warping the direction of the debate - you were doing adequate job of disproving their arguments so I saw no need to do it. I don't feel strongly enough about not nerfing Baku or Genn to partake in this discussion just because I disagreed. Some people throw slurs like "dishonest argumentation" at me but I'm just saying, just because I argue for a side, don't assume that's my opinion - thus why I rebutted RavenSunHS' comment.
That's a very long way to say, it's not unfair, you're committing an appeal to authority and it totally is a fallacy.
So to actually try to reach a conclusion here, it's a fallacious argument indeed that HS should be any way, but even more so is to try and justify it, as if claiming it is an objective fact in the first place. In the end it's just a subjective opinion whether playing against odd/even decks is enjoyable and whether they should be nerfed or changed or not.
I also laid out exactly why they are NOT more repetitive than other decks. YOU are ignoring my argument. ;)
tl;dr: Odd/Even decks still have to play cards every turn. Only exceptions, turn-2 and turn-1, respectively. How's that repetitive?
The rest is an argument about powerlevel, and it IS unrelated to repetitiveness.
And yes, i seriously think it was the only point about HoF, not because the decks felt somehow boring to play against.
And their choice about HoF is proof of the fact they don't even consider the mechanic as wrong or too powerful in the void, just too powerful for Standard.
Now, fair fair enough if you don't agree. Just don't take my silence as having actually counterargued my points.
Peace.
He didn't ignore your argument, he rebutted it by making the claim that consistency is repetitive - odd/even decks have no possibility of having their build around win conditions at the bottom of their decks, so the scenario where that doesn't happen repeats more often.
I'd say you're raising a new argument there rather than actually addressing the point I was making and that my post already contains the rebuttal your argument: "if not necessarily to the same extent".
That's not a rebuttal, that's a claim, and one that I disagree with. The same logic does not apply at all. It could be argued that Big Priest is being addressed due to the extreme amount of critique towards it and the pressure the player base is putting on the developers regarding the deck. That is supported by that Blizzard has been hesitant to actually do anything about Big Priest so far, and seems to be stalling to see whether SoU might fix it with the murloc mass transform card, alternate tools for priest and other solutions.
Edit: I also have to say that I think it's disingenuous to frame the premature rotation of Genn and Baku, an unprecedented move by the dev team and arguably the most impactful balance change to the standard meta, as just some minor little tweak. Removing two cards and thereby killing half a dozen top decks cannot be reasonably compared to the recent round of buffs. I stand by my claim that the G&B rotation is to be read as an admission by the devs that these cards are too impactful by design and can't reasonably be fixed by a simple nerf.
You're conflating the importance of issue and the means taken to fix it. The two have a positive correlation but are not the same, and to draw the parallel to how big the issue is in Wild is an inexact argument as well, so while I think either one might be acceptable, to combine the two into a single argument makes the margin of error too great.
That the cards can't be fixed with a nerf is a design issue, not a power level one.
You not agreeing with the argument doesn't make it not an argument. If you want to make *that* case you have to actually substantively address the argument and point out where it's fallacious. The devs have stated ad nauseam that their goal isn't just to keep the game balanced, but also "fresh" "fun" "not stale", etc. By most people's standards that excludes high levels of repetitiveness.
Is the discussion about whether or not the cards should be nerfed or will be nerfed? You've conflated the two a couple of times, committing an appeal to authority.
Actually, this is quite false for Even decks: you consider them repetitive because they are going to Hero Power every Odd turn, right?
Well, just look at it as a bonus. Exclude the Hero Power, consider it an extra, what is left? Well, what you get is a normal deck, playing normal cards, with a constant bonus in Odd turns. But how is that actually repetitive? How is that more repetitive than Murloc Shaman, or Mech Hunter, or Big Priest, or Quest Mage?
I can give you that the thing holds more truth for Odd decks, but at the end of the day, their Hero Power is still a bonus for them, a Tempo move to optimize turns, that can never get higher priority than normal playable cards in their hand.
Genn and baku are cards that provide their effects without their cards having to be drawn, let alone played. From turn one, every single game, you get a permanent "bonus" that considerably improves what you as a player can do independent of any cards you drew. That's the crux of the design problem: hearthstone is a card game balanced around having to draw and play your cards and these two just shit all over the fundamental balancing mechanism of the game, from the start of the game, every game.
The closest analogy there is in the game are quests, but there you have to: a) Sacrifice a card in hand b) Play the quest ASAP c) Complete the condition of the quest, typically takes 4+ turns if not more (and d) Play the quest reward).
Genn and Baku are like starting the game with a hero card active. The fact that they require some awkward deckbuilding choices doesn't make up for the fact that once the game has started they are the pinnacle of reliability and predictability and, dare I say it, repetitiveness.
Quote From No Author Specified
So how is that repetitive actually? Their games are still bound to playing cards, first and foremost, despite the synergies with Hero Powers, they cannot win without playing cards in the best way possible. Cards still define their game.
Odd/Even decks just provide a bonus based on hero powers, but they are not repetitive, as their game is still bound to playing cards.
It's repetitive because it gives players a draw-independent edge at the outset that they can build their deck to capitalise on. There, now I'm repeating myself. See how boring that is?
That's consistency, not repetitiveness. And yes, consistency can be repetitive, but inconsistency is an unfun consequence of unhealthy RNG, and a bad way to break repetitiveness. Many Baku/Genn decks are repetitive, especially Odd Paladin, but that's not because of or inherent to the even/odd mechanics.
You missed the point I was making, which was that most players' collections should be fairly similar. ie - an evenly distributed amount of opened cards, then an amount of crafted cards favoring the more powerful or novel ones. Some might favor specific classes but the distribution of cards that they specifically craft and the mediocre cards that they open should still be about the same
It's not even about playing "for fun" vs playing competitive decks trying to be a professional player. Most "fun" cards and decks still require powerful cards to be successful. For example, pogo and thief rogue uses mostly powerful cards from tempo rogue as a shell to keep themselves afloat in winrate
Also, there's a difference between cards that are bad and cards that are fun. For example, Madame Lazul is a card that is bad but not fun; discovering an opponent's card is not a novel nor synergistic effect that you can build a deck around and no deck, even creative ones, cease to function if you don't have her. Gonk, the Raptor is a card that is both bad and fun; the effect irreplaceable and can't be replicated with other cards. You can build a deck around Gonk to OTK, make him a secondary win condition in other combo druids or tempo him out with witching hour in a beast druid. Gonk druid won't work if you don't have Gonk
When I crafted Gonk, I was thinking, "Gonk is pretty garbage but I came up with a neat deck idea that requires him," not, "I'm a druid main so I should craft all druid cards in case I want to experiment with them later." That's the difference between crafting to play and crafting to craft. I'm not crafting Duskfallen Aviana without a better reason than the fact that I main druid. What deck can't you experiment with if you don't have two Mindgames or a Chameleos? There are none. Maybe some fun synergies will be printed later but there's no reason why you can't craft these when that time comes rather than now and do something else with the dust in the meantime. Conversely, if synergy is never printed (which is extremely likely given history), you've just wasted dust
You'll have to define a functioning deck more specifically to make those claims. A functioning thief priest must not only function but also be a thief priest to be a functioning thief priest, so while no single card of what you mentioned must be in the deck, they're a part of a set from which something must be in the deck, and they are necessary even if they don't boost the winrate at all above that of a basic deck.
What does this have to do with what people craft, then? Well absolutely nothing, but for exactly the opposite reasons than why you'd think so. You claimed that generally speaking players tend to craft good cards, but I speculate that people aren't crafting these kinds of cards despite that they're better than the ways they do spend their dust in. This statistic is from before the ladder update, but 50% of the active player base was below rank 18 - the point being, there's a lot of casual players and they're a lot more casual than anyone committed enough to be on forums realizes.
I'm well aware that wild has different standards for balancing and a distinct pool of players. I didn't argue that every card that is a problem in standard must be nerfed in wild as well, I said that if a card is so problematic that it has to be HoFed/nerfed in standard it's reasonable to assume that the same logic applies to that card in wild, if not necessarily to the same extent. If Genn and Baku make games extremely predictable and repetitive in standard then it stands to reason the same is true for wild, even if the cards might not be as strong there.
"So problematic" is a lot lighter condition than it sounds like, when Blizzard's philosophy of balancing Standard has been sliding towards tweaking smaller and smaller things, recently even with buffs, in order to keep things fresh. In the light of no such change seen in Wild, I don't think it's reasonable at all to make assumptions like that.
I just wanted to check whether this is completely useless or I'm missing something. Could work with Shaman Spellstones but 1) it's not even enough damage for an OTK and 2) it requires Thaurissan. Resurrect Priest maybe? Meat Wagon? It seems interesting though if any new cards give it support outside combo decks.
~900 gold, 2000 dust. I can't keep up with both adventure and expansion as f2p, I just hope Warlock isn't in the last fucking wing again if they lock the playable classes again. Maybe I can skip this adventure and actually feel like I have resources saved up by the end of the year.
Crafting costs dependable on the cards' popularity, or just a more affordable system - trying out memes is getting too expensive
Chat
Some kind of complete reworking of MMR system - I don't want to face competitive tryhards when I'm trying out a deck type I have never played for the first time
Quite daring to say one counter would eliminate a deck from the meta, especially when we're not sure how good Bomb Warrior will be after the expansion. Control Warrior also used to be a counter to Face Hunter (one of the most polarized match-ups that comes to mind), but Face Hunter didn't die until the Leper Gnome nerf, and as a more contemporary example, Big Priest is alive despite Treachery Warlock's existence.
Don't forget Direhorn Hatchling, and with all the deathrattles we might as well want N'Zoth, the Corruptor in the deck. Now, Primordial Drake is probably in the deck already as an activator for Acolyte of Pain, Battle Rage, Execute, and Sleep with the Fishes, so I'm thinking The Curator, a taunt, could work as card draw. Now we just slap Chillmaw in there because it has taunt, dragon tag and a deathrattle and I think a Taunt Deathrattle Beast Dragon Warrior could be, well, not good, but a bit better than it sounds like.
The whole post just seemingly has amazingly little thought put into it. Like what kind of weakness is lacking face damage spells? It's just an excuse for that some classes don't have real or enough weaknesses. And Warlock's "big healing"? *****, they knew five years ago that weakness was healing, and then they gave Warlock heals to fulfill that vampire flavour, leaving the class with no significant weaknesses - which made Cubelock a huge problem when suddenly Warlock, the class with no good heals, had the second strongest heal engine in the game - attached to a tempo efficient and under-costed board fill.
The biggest misconceptions, however, are Priest and Shaman imo.
Priest has a shadow side, that, if anything, hasn't been explored enough, and here Blizzard is taking a step away from it because they haven't figured out Priest's weaknesses - the most significant one being the lack of tempo oriented tools, something that has defined the class for the whole game's existence (except for BRM when fixing that weakness broke the class and created a deck that didn't fit the class at all). Arguably silence decks break this flavour as well, but imho they're a net positive for the flavour because self-silence is a lot stronger and clearer factor than the abstract concept of tempo.
And what Shaman is, is a jack-of-all-trades(-master-of-none), with three tribes getting consistent support and good tools to leave design space for aggro, midrange, control, combo and anything between. It's a class without clear weaknesses, and that's not a strictly negative thing.
for those of you who are saying "LOL this class does not have this weakness because one card, DuH". a class weakness does not mean that in all of hearthstone ever they cannot have one/two cards that can give them that.
for example, people are laughing at shamans 'bad card generation'. but without hagatha the witch, kragwa, and underbelly angler, they really don't have very good card advantage, and kragwa and underbelly are only viable in one/two decks. and no, cards like shudderwock, and hagatha number 2 don't count because they generate value, they don't add cards to your hand.
and all those cards are adventure cards, but in the core of shaman, there is not much card draw outside of manatide totem, which is kind of really bad.
Good? Not good enough for constructed. Fun? Absolutely. Siegebreaker will definitely have a place in BigLock. It will also be important for newbie demon decks as there aren't that many decent big demons, especially if you're lacking epics and legendaries. I used to run stuff like Illidan Stormrage, Fearsome Doomguard and Floating Watcher before Abyssal Enforcer and Voidlord were printed.
The lack of notification system is what killed Blizzard's official forums. That is a central function for any forum. How is the user supposed to keep up with a discussion if they don't get notifications about new replies?
Big Priest has its own hate subreddit. Everything that is either high tier or annoying to play against receives hate, including Odd Paladin, but it doesn't come close to how much Big Priest is despised. I suppose the large amount of tech cards and other attempted solutions against it have at least partly been fueled by the players' reactions towards the deck, but it's impossible to know the motivations of Blizzard. Tech cards would be preferable with both odd/even decks and Big Priest, tbh as much as I hate Big Priest I wouldn't want anything in it to actually be nerfed. For Genn and Baku, some kind of reverse Inspire (triggers from opponent's hero power), temporary cost increase, temporary disable, and temporary replacement I could see working.
It is especially in subjective topics a fallacy. At least in objective questions it can be argued that the authority itself is making an argument, and therefor to appeal to it is to say that since the authority makes the argument, the argument can be made and is a part of the argument in which appeal to authority is used.
Maybe I'm indeed a bit unfair in only targeting the fallacy of your side, but the reason I got involved here in the first place is that your argumentation was so much better than the other side's that I felt it was warping the direction of the debate - you were doing adequate job of disproving their arguments so I saw no need to do it. I don't feel strongly enough about not nerfing Baku or Genn to partake in this discussion just because I disagreed. Some people throw slurs like "dishonest argumentation" at me but I'm just saying, just because I argue for a side, don't assume that's my opinion - thus why I rebutted RavenSunHS' comment.
That's a very long way to say, it's not unfair, you're committing an appeal to authority and it totally is a fallacy.
So to actually try to reach a conclusion here, it's a fallacious argument indeed that HS should be any way, but even more so is to try and justify it, as if claiming it is an objective fact in the first place. In the end it's just a subjective opinion whether playing against odd/even decks is enjoyable and whether they should be nerfed or changed or not.
He didn't ignore your argument, he rebutted it by making the claim that consistency is repetitive - odd/even decks have no possibility of having their build around win conditions at the bottom of their decks, so the scenario where that doesn't happen repeats more often.
That's not a rebuttal, that's a claim, and one that I disagree with. The same logic does not apply at all. It could be argued that Big Priest is being addressed due to the extreme amount of critique towards it and the pressure the player base is putting on the developers regarding the deck. That is supported by that Blizzard has been hesitant to actually do anything about Big Priest so far, and seems to be stalling to see whether SoU might fix it with the murloc mass transform card, alternate tools for priest and other solutions.
You're conflating the importance of issue and the means taken to fix it. The two have a positive correlation but are not the same, and to draw the parallel to how big the issue is in Wild is an inexact argument as well, so while I think either one might be acceptable, to combine the two into a single argument makes the margin of error too great.
That the cards can't be fixed with a nerf is a design issue, not a power level one.
Is the discussion about whether or not the cards should be nerfed or will be nerfed? You've conflated the two a couple of times, committing an appeal to authority.
That's consistency, not repetitiveness. And yes, consistency can be repetitive, but inconsistency is an unfun consequence of unhealthy RNG, and a bad way to break repetitiveness. Many Baku/Genn decks are repetitive, especially Odd Paladin, but that's not because of or inherent to the even/odd mechanics.
You'll have to define a functioning deck more specifically to make those claims. A functioning thief priest must not only function but also be a thief priest to be a functioning thief priest, so while no single card of what you mentioned must be in the deck, they're a part of a set from which something must be in the deck, and they are necessary even if they don't boost the winrate at all above that of a basic deck.
What does this have to do with what people craft, then? Well absolutely nothing, but for exactly the opposite reasons than why you'd think so. You claimed that generally speaking players tend to craft good cards, but I speculate that people aren't crafting these kinds of cards despite that they're better than the ways they do spend their dust in. This statistic is from before the ladder update, but 50% of the active player base was below rank 18 - the point being, there's a lot of casual players and they're a lot more casual than anyone committed enough to be on forums realizes.
"So problematic" is a lot lighter condition than it sounds like, when Blizzard's philosophy of balancing Standard has been sliding towards tweaking smaller and smaller things, recently even with buffs, in order to keep things fresh. In the light of no such change seen in Wild, I don't think it's reasonable at all to make assumptions like that.
I tried to downvote a comment and got redirected to https://outof.cards/voting/remove/x/xxxxx although voting on another comment worked.
Edit: it seems this issue is not specific to comments but to downvoting.
I just wanted to check whether this is completely useless or I'm missing something. Could work with Shaman Spellstones but 1) it's not even enough damage for an OTK and 2) it requires Thaurissan. Resurrect Priest maybe? Meat Wagon? It seems interesting though if any new cards give it support outside combo decks.
Misdirection, Mosh'Ogg Announcer, Mass Hysteria, Unseen Saboteur into The Beast Within or Duel!
~900 gold, 2000 dust. I can't keep up with both adventure and expansion as f2p, I just hope Warlock isn't in the last fucking wing again if they lock the playable classes again. Maybe I can skip this adventure and actually feel like I have resources saved up by the end of the year.
Quite daring to say one counter would eliminate a deck from the meta, especially when we're not sure how good Bomb Warrior will be after the expansion. Control Warrior also used to be a counter to Face Hunter (one of the most polarized match-ups that comes to mind), but Face Hunter didn't die until the Leper Gnome nerf, and as a more contemporary example, Big Priest is alive despite Treachery Warlock's existence.
Don't forget Direhorn Hatchling, and with all the deathrattles we might as well want N'Zoth, the Corruptor in the deck. Now, Primordial Drake is probably in the deck already as an activator for Acolyte of Pain, Battle Rage, Execute, and Sleep with the Fishes, so I'm thinking The Curator, a taunt, could work as card draw. Now we just slap Chillmaw in there because it has taunt, dragon tag and a deathrattle and I think a Taunt Deathrattle Beast Dragon Warrior could be, well, not good, but a bit better than it sounds like.
Pyromaniac
Card that triggers from hero power use
The whole post just seemingly has amazingly little thought put into it. Like what kind of weakness is lacking face damage spells? It's just an excuse for that some classes don't have real or enough weaknesses. And Warlock's "big healing"? *****, they knew five years ago that weakness was healing, and then they gave Warlock heals to fulfill that vampire flavour, leaving the class with no significant weaknesses - which made Cubelock a huge problem when suddenly Warlock, the class with no good heals, had the second strongest heal engine in the game - attached to a tempo efficient and under-costed board fill.
The biggest misconceptions, however, are Priest and Shaman imo.
Priest has a shadow side, that, if anything, hasn't been explored enough, and here Blizzard is taking a step away from it because they haven't figured out Priest's weaknesses - the most significant one being the lack of tempo oriented tools, something that has defined the class for the whole game's existence (except for BRM when fixing that weakness broke the class and created a deck that didn't fit the class at all). Arguably silence decks break this flavour as well, but imho they're a net positive for the flavour because self-silence is a lot stronger and clearer factor than the abstract concept of tempo.
And what Shaman is, is a jack-of-all-trades(-master-of-none), with three tribes getting consistent support and good tools to leave design space for aggro, midrange, control, combo and anything between. It's a class without clear weaknesses, and that's not a strictly negative thing.
I agree with your point - for example on Priest and Hunter's card draw - but Shaman really isn't struggling at all on card generation. They have Mana Tide Totem, Far Sight, Haunting Visions, Earthen Might and Elementary Reaction for elemental decks, Ice Fishing, Siltfin Spiritwalker and Neptulon for murloc decks, Storm Chaser, Bogshaper, and Blazing Invocation and Finders Keepers which turn up constantly from that one Lackey as well as Hagatha the Witch. Surely a lot of that list is trash, but even then that list is so lengthy that it's absurd to say Shamans are in the slightest limited in card draw and generation.
Good? Not good enough for constructed. Fun? Absolutely. Siegebreaker will definitely have a place in BigLock. It will also be important for newbie demon decks as there aren't that many decent big demons, especially if you're lacking epics and legendaries. I used to run stuff like Illidan Stormrage, Fearsome Doomguard and Floating Watcher before Abyssal Enforcer and Voidlord were printed.
The lack of notification system is what killed Blizzard's official forums. That is a central function for any forum. How is the user supposed to keep up with a discussion if they don't get notifications about new replies?
Or maybe I managed to miss it, idk.
No offense to Hearthpwn, you will be missed, but I do like having a functional site for a change.