I'm curious since this is Wild and Hunter - why Chief Inspector rather than Flare or Eater of Secrets? Just the bigger body?
Other than deck storytelling, Inspector is better than Eater in non-Mage matchup, and flare can be countered by Counterspell, so it requires you to waste another small spell in the same turn, in the majority of cases.
Inspector has the only downside of coming a bit late.
They should also add a weekly reward, exactly as we have it in Tavern Brawl.
1x Classic or Latest pack per week, if you get top4 in a BG.
I am positive about them adding something like that once the mode gets out of Beta.
___
As for the gameplay, i'd love more tribes, and i wouldn't mind at all to have a generally more diluted pool. I don't like consisten powerspikes in Constructed, and i don't like them in BG.
I am surprised with Reno Mage on t2. I expected it to be on t1.
I meet some Odd Rogue and Even Shaman in my usual grind to r4/3, and i am honestly not so surprised. If anything because Shaman can use Devolve, and Odd Rogue can be pretty fast as a deck, while consistent.
I still think Aluneth Mage, Sniplock and Mechadin are broken and meta-warping, with only extremely narrow weaknesses.
Currently having a blast with Reno Burgle Rogue and Reno Paladin (both are homebrews built with (6) as curve top). Both have fair chances against current Wild cancers.
In particular, i am absolutely in love with Mojomaster Zihi. The troll lady won me so many games for which i wouldn't have had enough Value/impact.
Hopefully, the new expansion will bring some decent Dragon package to fit in those two decks.
Uhm, ok, i apparently entered the spam filter for some reasons.
Before reading here, i posted 3 times in the same thread ('Wild needs CPR', thinking of some connection issue on my side), so i guess i made things worse?
Either way, how can i get out of it?
I've never really been a spammer, at worst i am a fast replier, and you all know it, i hope.
PS: could you please delete my latest replies in the aforementioned thread, except the very latest one?
Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more.
I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.
And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.
And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).
Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.
Stating that there are also players on the other side of the argument doesn't invalidate that making a such big change to hate on combos wouldn't hurt a devoted part of the playerbase. I can also think of 2 (3 if you count Dane) streamers that constantly put the wild format out there more in the public eye due to streams/youtube and fun combos (many of which actually do need Thaurassian ticks). Who does more for the wild format? Those public players and streamers who promote the format (even with silly combos) or players on forums who do nothing positive to put the format into the public eye in a positive way?
As for wanting to play decks that are not bashed by current top tiers, I have to ask why you think axing combos is going to change that whatsoever. Do you honestly think that more optimized control classes/cards or more optimized aggro/midrange classes or cards still wouldn't push less net-decked lists out of the wild meta game? You'd be dead wrong on that sir.
For example, say wild combo decks prevent you from laddering with a lower tier control deck. Well, other decks/classes that can do control better will still ALWAYS sh*t on you, such as warlocks permanently having access to Gul'Dan (N'Zoth too if the meta got super slow/greedy), Godfrey & Defile, Mal'Ganis (making Gul'Dan even more polarizing during high rolls), Voidcaller, etc. The same logic can be applied to things like aggro (e.g. Murloc Shaman, variations of optimized aggro pally lists, Zoolock) still also pushing out lower tier aggro decks out of ladder. The point I'm getting at is that some classes are saturated in the tools of a particular playstyle while others are starved of them. You can try to significantly overhaul/nerf combos but it will never change the fact that optimized control/aggro/midrange decks are still going to prevent you and like-minded players from having as much success with control/aggro/midrange decks that aren't top netdecks of their respective playstyles. Using combos as a scapegoat won't suddenly make less popular decks work and not get curbstomped by control and aggro power creep.
I should remind you that i updated my original suggestion, leaving out end-of-turn effects.
With that being said, since when Wild is divided into two subcommunities, one of which is unimportant? Are you being an elitist jerk? I do hope i misunderstood you.
Also, nerfing the current top tiers will in fact improve the viability of ALL decks (proportionately ofc, an off-meta deck will still struggle, but there's a difference between struggling and getting bashed), by virtue of the obvious fact that current top tier is meta-warping.
We are in front of yet another AK47 Druid situation, but worse, and split in 3 different decks. That is, Tempo decks that can unleash Combo-level of power, or, otherwise seen, Combo decks with Tempo pace. They are degenerate because they break the meta paradigm (where Combo decks kick in with their power exclusively in the late turns, say no earlier than 9-10 mana).
Finally, i don't really care of what solution is found (at this point i could even take the third mode suggestion, as Griffior said), as long as it is a serious and timely solution, but certainly we can't dismiss the matter with a superficial "hate thread".
There is a huge difference between current top tiers, and when we had Odd Paladin and Even Shaman at the top.
In the same way there is a difference between POWERFUL vs BROKEN.
And it's not just a matter of power, it's also a matter that current top decks are basically Tempo AND Combo (power from hand) at the same time!
They can build insane boards in the same turn, and you can only hope to hold a counter at the right time, or you're screwed.
So no, if they nerfed the current trio of top decks, the new ones would be obviously very powerful, but not equally broken (Renodecks would probably stabilize on top, with classic Combo rising as meta police, and Odd/Even Tempo to lock the balance).
(And unnerfing some cards would do little to no good on its own, even tho i'd certainly appreciate Yogg unnerfed).
But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.
In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.
I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.
If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.
With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.
The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.
And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.
I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).
No it wouldn't. Instituting your rule change would create a bunch of chaos after which new metas would emerge with their own problems. Given the wide-ranging consequences of the proposed change and the chaotic, emergent nature of metagames, you may well end up with a game that's far more toxic and stale than what you have now.
But even if the proposed rule change were guaranteed to leave wild a peaceful, tranquil place for years to come I'd still say the price was way too high. Getting cards to 0 is absolutely fundamental to a ton of combo decks. Chopping my arm off might permanently cure my RSI but that still sounds like a bad deal to me.
Yes, it would, in the same way nerfs would, just with some side-effects.
I should remark i precised my hard-rule suggestion, excluding end-of-turn effects from it.
Getting cards to (0) from battlecry, spell or aura may is not fundamental (many OTKs do not need (0) already, and variations of Emperor Thaurissan could be printed in the future), but availability of such a discount in the same turn, sooner or later leads to problems that will take months or years to nerf, while the game is more of a frustration than a fun activity.
Either way, as i said, timely and thorough nerfs would obviously be fine. But since that isn't the case, nor it's any likely to be, a new hard-rule on all discount cards (except end-of-turn effects) would still be a fair solution to the current situation, and any future ones from the same issue. While not really breaking the usual metagame fundamentals.
Afterall, at some point they printed Reckless Experimenter. They just need to extend that to any non-end-of-turn cards.
But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.
In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.
I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.
If you think the devs don't care about wild at all, why on earth would they institute a rule-change with wide-ranging consequences for all hearthstone formats on behalf of wild? Why would that be more plausible than targeted nerfs to cards that only exist/see play in wild? That doesn't follow for me at all. I agree that the devs are rather conservative, but that would make them less inclined to go for radical changes, not more so.
With enough nagging from the community, Barnes got nerfed even though Res Priest was not a problem in terms of balance. It was and is vastly overrepresented despite being Tier 2. It might come at a glacial pace, but the devs do, sometimes, make changes for wild.
The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.
And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.
I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).
Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more.
I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.
And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.
And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).
Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.
Despite the growing variety of portraits, i find myself using the original ones for most classes, and will definitely use the 1k ones as soon as i get there (hopefully at least for Rogue and Hunter).
And i would still use them, even if i had alternate heroes.
The only exceptions are:
Lunara for Druid (her colour palette is perfect for Druid).
Would definitely use Khadgar or Medivh for Mage, but i do not own either of them.
Would use Magni for Warrior, but i don't care about Warrior anyway.
Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).
All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.
All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).
Wild needs a new hard-rule: no card can be discounted below (1) mana.
Additionally: make Sap and Beneath the Grounds into reasonable Neutral legendary Battlecry cards ffs.
That couple of things together would fix Wild for a very long while, avoiding spikes, and allowing any deck a tech card against major synergies. No nerf required.
Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.
Isn't the problem really with passive reduction auras (Mechwarper, portal, Sorcerer's Apprentice, etc.) more than one-time cost reductions like Galvaniser, Emperor T and the like? I think that by instituting a hard rule against reducing cards to zero a lot of non-problematic OTK comboes would become collateral damage.
It's not the most elegant solution, but I think adding the line "this cannot reduce a card's cost below (1)" as and when needed is the least invasive fix. For example, I'm not convinced that adding the line to Sorcerer's apprentice is the best solution as the card has been central to just about every mage deck in the game. I think it'd be better to target key cards in the secretmage deck with nerfs than to take out a card that's crucial to cyclonemage, freezemage, Exodia mage, etc.
Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.
But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.
In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.
I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.
Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).
All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.
All of them revolve around discounting specific cards to (0).
The game needs a new hard-rule: no battlecry, spell or aura can discount a card below (1) mana.
Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.
EDIT: i made my hard-rule suggestion more precise, leaving out end-of-turn effects, by virtue of their non-immediate impact.
Other than deck storytelling, Inspector is better than Eater in non-Mage matchup, and flare can be countered by Counterspell, so it requires you to waste another small spell in the same turn, in the majority of cases.
Inspector has the only downside of coming a bit late.
Nerf should be applied indeed, because the issue is not just relevant for the Brawl.
And it is Mechs and Secrets now, but what else in the future?
eg. what if they print a Mage Spell: (2) Deal 1 damage. Repeatable this turn only.
It looks abysmal on its own, but with Sorcerer's Apprentice it becomes a machine-gun. It would be a problem at (3) as well.
It is just too easy to reach (0) in HS, and build additional synergy/madness upon that.
They should also add a weekly reward, exactly as we have it in Tavern Brawl.
1x Classic or Latest pack per week, if you get top4 in a BG.
I am positive about them adding something like that once the mode gets out of Beta.
___
As for the gameplay, i'd love more tribes, and i wouldn't mind at all to have a generally more diluted pool. I don't like consisten powerspikes in Constructed, and i don't like them in BG.
Fun(Variety) > Fun(Power).
I am surprised with Reno Mage on t2. I expected it to be on t1.
I meet some Odd Rogue and Even Shaman in my usual grind to r4/3, and i am honestly not so surprised. If anything because Shaman can use Devolve, and Odd Rogue can be pretty fast as a deck, while consistent.
I still think Aluneth Mage, Sniplock and Mechadin are broken and meta-warping, with only extremely narrow weaknesses.
Eh. So you agree ladder is mediocre, despite being the current top mode for Constructed...
Standard and Wild Brawliseum should be additional permanent modes.
Currently having a blast with Reno Burgle Rogue and Reno Paladin (both are homebrews built with (6) as curve top). Both have fair chances against current Wild cancers.
In particular, i am absolutely in love with Mojomaster Zihi. The troll lady won me so many games for which i wouldn't have had enough Value/impact.
Hopefully, the new expansion will bring some decent Dragon package to fit in those two decks.
So, after 3 months, how would you evaluate this card?
Immediate impact is obviously low, but it provides some nice steam on the long run.
Is he worth decreasing the reliability of tutors on Zephrys the Great (Call to Adventure, Witchwood Piper)?
Is he worth 1600 dust?
Uhm, ok, i apparently entered the spam filter for some reasons.
Before reading here, i posted 3 times in the same thread ('Wild needs CPR', thinking of some connection issue on my side), so i guess i made things worse?
Either way, how can i get out of it?
I've never really been a spammer, at worst i am a fast replier, and you all know it, i hope.
PS: could you please delete my latest replies in the aforementioned thread, except the very latest one?
I should remind you that i updated my original suggestion, leaving out end-of-turn effects.
With that being said, since when Wild is divided into two subcommunities, one of which is unimportant? Are you being an elitist jerk? I do hope i misunderstood you.
Also, nerfing the current top tiers will in fact improve the viability of ALL decks (proportionately ofc, an off-meta deck will still struggle, but there's a difference between struggling and getting bashed), by virtue of the obvious fact that current top tier is meta-warping.
We are in front of yet another AK47 Druid situation, but worse, and split in 3 different decks. That is, Tempo decks that can unleash Combo-level of power, or, otherwise seen, Combo decks with Tempo pace. They are degenerate because they break the meta paradigm (where Combo decks kick in with their power exclusively in the late turns, say no earlier than 9-10 mana).
Finally, i don't really care of what solution is found (at this point i could even take the third mode suggestion, as Griffior said), as long as it is a serious and timely solution, but certainly we can't dismiss the matter with a superficial "hate thread".
@griffior
There is a huge difference between current top tiers, and when we had Odd Paladin and Even Shaman at the top.
In the same way there is a difference between POWERFUL vs BROKEN.
And it's not just a matter of power, it's also a matter that current top decks are basically Tempo AND Combo (power from hand) at the same time!
They can build insane boards in the same turn, and you can only hope to hold a counter at the right time, or you're screwed.
So no, if they nerfed the current trio of top decks, the new ones would be obviously very powerful, but not equally broken (Renodecks would probably stabilize on top, with classic Combo rising as meta police, and Odd/Even Tempo to lock the balance).
(And unnerfing some cards would do little to no good on its own, even tho i'd certainly appreciate Yogg unnerfed).
I expect Wild to be very powerful, NOT broken.
Now i want this set more than DoD itself.
Yes, it would, in the same way nerfs would, just with some side-effects.
I should remark i precised my hard-rule suggestion, excluding end-of-turn effects from it.
Getting cards to (0) from battlecry, spell or aura may is not fundamental (many OTKs do not need (0) already, and variations of Emperor Thaurissan could be printed in the future), but availability of such a discount in the same turn, sooner or later leads to problems that will take months or years to nerf, while the game is more of a frustration than a fun activity.
Either way, as i said, timely and thorough nerfs would obviously be fine. But since that isn't the case, nor it's any likely to be, a new hard-rule on all discount cards (except end-of-turn effects) would still be a fair solution to the current situation, and any future ones from the same issue. While not really breaking the usual metagame fundamentals.
Afterall, at some point they printed Reckless Experimenter. They just need to extend that to any non-end-of-turn cards.
The radical change would spare them from repeatedly coming back to Wild and nerf things.
And it would spare us all years of frustration before the nerfs actually hit.
I do not think they don't care about Wild. I think they care too little, and too rarely. I deem their glacial pace extremely insufficient - hence the radical change hypothesis still holds its value, at least as much as a set of timely nerfs (now and in the future, when similar problems with (0) will certainly happen).
And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.
And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).
Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.
Despite the growing variety of portraits, i find myself using the original ones for most classes, and will definitely use the 1k ones as soon as i get there (hopefully at least for Rogue and Hunter).
And i would still use them, even if i had alternate heroes.
The only exceptions are:
Surely targeted nerfs would be the best solution.
But since the devs are so incredibly reluctant with nerfs in Wild, WHILE being also so eager to release stupidly out-of-place-cards (Arcane Flakmage shouldn't exist at all), a hard-rule would fix the issue now, AND in the future as well, with future flawed cards.
In other words, they release flawed cards and they know it. Things are ok until a synergy abuses the flaw to its full potential. A hard-rule would proactively fix the flaw, by preventing it from becoming real (in Combo with other cards), whenever in time, for any present and future card.
I also dislike hitting Exodia Mage or other OTK with what i proposed, as well as QMage (which is one of my preferred decks ever) but since i have no faith in them applying the right nerfs in Wild, and since i am 100% sure that new flaws would appear not far in the future, because of their inherently flawed design policy, i would go with some brutal hard-rule, and be done with it.
Sniplock is probably the biggest problem, but Secret Mage (post SoU) and Mechadin (post Crystology-completely-unnecessary-buff) are also broken (not just OP, but broken).
All these three decks are capable of repeated insane spikes of power. Unhealthy for fun purposes.
The game needs a new hard-rule: no battlecry, spell or aura can discount a card below (1) mana.
Right now Wild at rank 5 and higher is a complete trashbin. No variety is possible at all (unless you like to suffer), against those meta-warping topdecks.
EDIT: i made my hard-rule suggestion more precise, leaving out end-of-turn effects, by virtue of their non-immediate impact.
If you are in early experimentation phase and don't want to be bothered with conceding, play against Innkeeper.
But if you want to face another human player, you must expect them to use their best chances to win, according to their own terms.
Casual is not a dumbed down place. That is just a misinterpretation. Casual is just a place where a loss or concede have no consequency.
Casual != low tier decks
Actually, that's more likely at floor ranks in ladder!
In fact, Wild just needs only few but clear meachanic/design restrictions. Stuff like:
- no cards discounted to (0) (limit of discount to (1), even for stacked discounts).
- mana-based synergies count the expended mana, not the discounted price.
- no ridiculously cheap summons based on deck or graveyard.
Or similar ones (i didn't consider all the possible cases here).
There is still plenty of design freedom within those boundaries.