Maybe try to use brains and counter it before whining. Trust me, it's more effective.
Finnaly someone with brains yeah i am also not a fan of DH but i am even more not a fan of is a nerf after just a expansion is out I thinkt they do it to fast and if they waited the counter would be there its a new class ofcourse most people play it
Usually I feel the same way, but way too often I've been highrolled by an early Antean followed by the shivara, or vice versa. The only "counter" to that is either play a high pressure deck, or throw your resources away to usually just die on the board so that your hero doesn't die.
That really wasn't a great counter during the midrange turns of the game. Making it slightly slower/more awkward to slam down with little consideration should give more opportunities for real counter play.
I do feel that the 10 damage demon & the mini Rag demon are a bit overtuned. Played against the deck for the first time in wild and felt I was always playing catch-up even when playing a warrior deck of mine with tons of armor and removal. Can't fathom what standard is like going against DH. Could easily reduce the 10 damage effect to 7 or 8 and the shivara's damage down by 1 or 2 as well.
Imo Edwin rewards the good game play aspect of risk taking, something that has been eroding from the game imo.
You dedicate many of your resources early to midway during your game and potentially get rewarded with a lot of pressure/damage, and sometimes even with a win. This is quite different from just getting lucky and pulling off a win due to silly rng, or from using 1-2 cards (such as back in the Barnes/Big/Priest/Y'Sharjj days) that won you games without dedicating many of your resources.
In other words Edwin rewards good game play in the hands of more experienced players who weigh when they can maybe get a read on a good risk-taking.
Honestly seems like a non-issue here to keep Illidan as a card and a hero. The whole confusing to players catch-phrase holds no water here and would serve to insult players are drooling idiots.
I never understood the whole not making heroes into cards thing from nearly the start of HS itself.
This still leaves me feeling that the cards that are being reverted are ones that only had any real impact on the standard format while either seeing little to no play in wild even pre-nerf status.
So in other words I fear the changes will be to cards that were uninteresting in wild to begin with.
Fair point, but if Stickyfinger really became a consistent counter what would really stop rogues from running their own to steal it back? Not like they're winning against aggro match-ups anyway so I don't see how subbing one card out for their own Stickyfinger would hurt that much against control & otk decks if it means they guarantee the win.
I personally hope that Leeching Poison is the one thing that doesn't get reverted. I really hated how the old Kingsbane Rogue was an insta loss against aggro (usually), but an almost auto win against anything else.
There's a huge problem when you know who has won by the time turn 0-1 has rolled around after finding out that you're facing Kingsbane Rogue with stall/answers for days, immunity to non-[otk] lethal damage from slow decks, and the normal punishment from mill.
Is it bad to me to think that most of the cards that do end up getting reverted won't be many of the more interesting cards to change, but will instead be less impactful cards that didn't see play in wild to begin with?
Just not feeling super optimistic about what T5 will do tbh.
Just unnerf Dreadsteed already. The demonic pony was nerfed for the supposed Defile infinite loop, which really was addressed almost right away upon releasing by giving the spell a 14 proc hard limit before stopping.
The card never saw play in any actual competitive deck that oppressed the meta and personally I'd like to play a true Ponylock again.
People wanted an overly board centric min-maxing minion trading Hearthstone (or they thought they wanted it) so here we are. Next time control players should be careful what they wish for.
Less RNG would really make this game so much better imo.
My concern with less rng is that matches become much more solved and pre-determined in many scenarios. Saw this in Yu-Gi-Oh all of the time, which does have rng but still not as much as HS and you would still get these matches where you generally knew who was going to win (if it wasn't a mirror match) solely due to who was playing what. Generally the only things that swung the match was the draw and shuffle rng and if somehow someway a skilled player had a brain fart and stopped forgetting how to make correct plays for a couple of turns.
Just look at some very powerful decks that had little to no rng but were often solved from the get-go as to who was going to win the match-up (pre nerf Kingsbane vs control, pre nerf Pirate Warrior vs reno decks that didn't draw Reno, pre nerf Big Priest vs many control decks or vs aggro when 100% guaranteeing multiple statue rezes, pre nerf Caverns Quest Rogue vs control).
I absolutely LOATHED the pre-nerf Kingsbane decks in wild. Even with rolling with a Reno Mage, with multiple ping opportunities and transform effects for maximum water elemental generation I still often lost the match-ups on ladder, which was supposed to generally favor my end of the match-up.
Double Vanish to clear water eles
Up to 4 Saps to address my turns when I built up a double water ele turn
1-2 Doomerangs (or whatever it was called)
1-2 weapon aoes
On top of that you had to actually produce enough pressure to bait out all of the above answers to water eles, which often still wasn't enough when playing many minions for tempo instead of for value. Most idiotic deck ever as it didn't just punish control, or just OTKs, but slaughtered almost anything that wasn't aggressive or tempo based in a lot of instances. I am very much against for mass nerfing of most decks or cards for the sake of preserving as many decks in the game as possible, but even I was super glad about the control killing Kingsbane deck getting curbstomped beyond recognition (Hoped they enjoyed their significantly weaker lul Kingsbane Pirate decks.
However, I don't think it would discourage as much BMing as you'd hope. Some players honestly might just have a bad day IRL and in their minds wants to vent that frustration through BMing on a video game. Would such a player really care that for that day or week they wouldn't get a little extra gold, dust, or whatever the incentive was?
How about the players that play fairly casually (in this case being defined as not a whole lot of hours per week) and again don't care a whole lot about the incentives, but just want a kick out of some BMing?
I want a rotating format so bad. I would love to play my old cards without having to go up against the most OP decks imaginable. That's one of the things I like about rank 20-10 in wild. No one's playing busted garbage like odd paladin and quest mage, so you get to see the cards or decks you might miss, like Jade Idol and Deathstalker Rexxar.
The problem with that is regardless of what you rotate out (whether in wild or standard) the meta dust will settle eventually and optimized lists will start forming again with what cards are left. While I play for fun, and ocasionally for a good deck, some players do just play for hard consistency.
So while Timmy may want to roll with his N'Zoth Control Pally he will still have to roll against Sally's weakened wild aggro deck that will still frustrate Timmy.
When the meta has settled, it will be time for the next rotation. That's what is appealing in a rotating format, you don't need to be bored waiting for 3 more months for another card set (and still hope this given set really shakes the meta)...
Fair point, but there still will be boredom even in that type of format for the players that do get bored more easily. Some cards, when rotated back in, would warp the meta to some degree.
For example, any class that has one of the stronger KotFT DKs would most likely have their winrates skyrocket during the rare time any of those particular cards were eventually rotated back in for a season (particularly Gul'Dan and Jaina). The same can be said for a number of other cards, albeit to a lesser degree than the DKs, when they would also be rotated in.
I picture such a rotating format to be like some pseudo arena format in so much as you can more or less determine which classes will most likely be the top 3 or 4 classes based on what tools they have available in their class pool for that period. You'd just be able to actually draft your decks without the randomness of the arena draft system.
All in all a rotating system would have significantly less staleness by comparison, but the format would still have its own 'mini storm' of stale predictability. Priests have powerful midrange dragons and the tools the other classes have don't strongly repel that? Guess we're stuck with Dragon Priest for a month? Warlocks or mages have their DK while the other classes don't have theirs guess you're never winning the value game with another class for a month. While such scenarios could be reduced in length depending on how and how long rotations actually last there's not much preventing the cream of the crop for any particular playstyle or deck from dominating their own respective mini metas.
Bad Luck Albatross maybe getting nerfed? Wut face? Why?
For now, but over time DH will get more odd cards for people to give the archtype a try again.
Or you could always try Even DH for that 1 mana hero power ;P
Usually I feel the same way, but way too often I've been highrolled by an early Antean followed by the shivara, or vice versa. The only "counter" to that is either play a high pressure deck, or throw your resources away to usually just die on the board so that your hero doesn't die.
That really wasn't a great counter during the midrange turns of the game. Making it slightly slower/more awkward to slam down with little consideration should give more opportunities for real counter play.
I do feel that the 10 damage demon & the mini Rag demon are a bit overtuned. Played against the deck for the first time in wild and felt I was always playing catch-up even when playing a warrior deck of mine with tons of armor and removal. Can't fathom what standard is like going against DH. Could easily reduce the 10 damage effect to 7 or 8 and the shivara's damage down by 1 or 2 as well.
8 legendaries in 90 packs. Not bad for basically 1 every rough 11 packs. Also got Maeiv for my free golden.
Was thinking the same thing :(
Imo Edwin rewards the good game play aspect of risk taking, something that has been eroding from the game imo.
You dedicate many of your resources early to midway during your game and potentially get rewarded with a lot of pressure/damage, and sometimes even with a win. This is quite different from just getting lucky and pulling off a win due to silly rng, or from using 1-2 cards (such as back in the Barnes/Big/Priest/Y'Sharjj days) that won you games without dedicating many of your resources.
In other words Edwin rewards good game play in the hands of more experienced players who weigh when they can maybe get a read on a good risk-taking.
Honestly seems like a non-issue here to keep Illidan as a card and a hero. The whole confusing to players catch-phrase holds no water here and would serve to insult players are drooling idiots.
I never understood the whole not making heroes into cards thing from nearly the start of HS itself.
This still leaves me feeling that the cards that are being reverted are ones that only had any real impact on the standard format while either seeing little to no play in wild even pre-nerf status.
So in other words I fear the changes will be to cards that were uninteresting in wild to begin with.
Fair point, but if Stickyfinger really became a consistent counter what would really stop rogues from running their own to steal it back? Not like they're winning against aggro match-ups anyway so I don't see how subbing one card out for their own Stickyfinger would hurt that much against control & otk decks if it means they guarantee the win.
I personally hope that Leeching Poison is the one thing that doesn't get reverted. I really hated how the old Kingsbane Rogue was an insta loss against aggro (usually), but an almost auto win against anything else.
There's a huge problem when you know who has won by the time turn 0-1 has rolled around after finding out that you're facing Kingsbane Rogue with stall/answers for days, immunity to non-[otk] lethal damage from slow decks, and the normal punishment from mill.
Pre-nerf days Yogg was often played in both mage and druid for maximum stall/value generation with spells before dropping Yogg
Is it bad to me to think that most of the cards that do end up getting reverted won't be many of the more interesting cards to change, but will instead be less impactful cards that didn't see play in wild to begin with?
Just not feeling super optimistic about what T5 will do tbh.
Just unnerf Dreadsteed already. The demonic pony was nerfed for the supposed Defile infinite loop, which really was addressed almost right away upon releasing by giving the spell a 14 proc hard limit before stopping.
The card never saw play in any actual competitive deck that oppressed the meta and personally I'd like to play a true Ponylock again.
People wanted an overly board centric min-maxing minion trading Hearthstone (or they thought they wanted it) so here we are. Next time control players should be careful what they wish for.
My concern with less rng is that matches become much more solved and pre-determined in many scenarios. Saw this in Yu-Gi-Oh all of the time, which does have rng but still not as much as HS and you would still get these matches where you generally knew who was going to win (if it wasn't a mirror match) solely due to who was playing what. Generally the only things that swung the match was the draw and shuffle rng and if somehow someway a skilled player had a brain fart and stopped forgetting how to make correct plays for a couple of turns.
Just look at some very powerful decks that had little to no rng but were often solved from the get-go as to who was going to win the match-up (pre nerf Kingsbane vs control, pre nerf Pirate Warrior vs reno decks that didn't draw Reno, pre nerf Big Priest vs many control decks or vs aggro when 100% guaranteeing multiple statue rezes, pre nerf Caverns Quest Rogue vs control).
This should be where the real point of the conversation is ;)
I absolutely LOATHED the pre-nerf Kingsbane decks in wild. Even with rolling with a Reno Mage, with multiple ping opportunities and transform effects for maximum water elemental generation I still often lost the match-ups on ladder, which was supposed to generally favor my end of the match-up.
Double Vanish to clear water eles
Up to 4 Saps to address my turns when I built up a double water ele turn
1-2 Doomerangs (or whatever it was called)
1-2 weapon aoes
On top of that you had to actually produce enough pressure to bait out all of the above answers to water eles, which often still wasn't enough when playing many minions for tempo instead of for value. Most idiotic deck ever as it didn't just punish control, or just OTKs, but slaughtered almost anything that wasn't aggressive or tempo based in a lot of instances. I am very much against for mass nerfing of most decks or cards for the sake of preserving as many decks in the game as possible, but even I was super glad about the control killing Kingsbane deck getting curbstomped beyond recognition (Hoped they enjoyed their significantly weaker lul Kingsbane Pirate decks.
Interesting idea that I wouldn't be against.
However, I don't think it would discourage as much BMing as you'd hope. Some players honestly might just have a bad day IRL and in their minds wants to vent that frustration through BMing on a video game. Would such a player really care that for that day or week they wouldn't get a little extra gold, dust, or whatever the incentive was?
How about the players that play fairly casually (in this case being defined as not a whole lot of hours per week) and again don't care a whole lot about the incentives, but just want a kick out of some BMing?
Fair point, but there still will be boredom even in that type of format for the players that do get bored more easily. Some cards, when rotated back in, would warp the meta to some degree.
For example, any class that has one of the stronger KotFT DKs would most likely have their winrates skyrocket during the rare time any of those particular cards were eventually rotated back in for a season (particularly Gul'Dan and Jaina). The same can be said for a number of other cards, albeit to a lesser degree than the DKs, when they would also be rotated in.
I picture such a rotating format to be like some pseudo arena format in so much as you can more or less determine which classes will most likely be the top 3 or 4 classes based on what tools they have available in their class pool for that period. You'd just be able to actually draft your decks without the randomness of the arena draft system.
All in all a rotating system would have significantly less staleness by comparison, but the format would still have its own 'mini storm' of stale predictability. Priests have powerful midrange dragons and the tools the other classes have don't strongly repel that? Guess we're stuck with Dragon Priest for a month? Warlocks or mages have their DK while the other classes don't have theirs guess you're never winning the value game with another class for a month. While such scenarios could be reduced in length depending on how and how long rotations actually last there's not much preventing the cream of the crop for any particular playstyle or deck from dominating their own respective mini metas.