Hearthstone 20: What is your Quest?

[Spore]

Regarding the nerfs:

Druid:
1) Innervate gives 1: This one is really weird as counterfeit coin exists. It also potentially ruins the - already weak - ramp druid decks. It's already a card that only provides tempo, and druid runs off of tempo. This nerf pulls down all druid archetypes (which was likely the idea). I do not approve.

2) Spreading Plague to 6: This punishes large boards but considering the lack of AoE removal of Druid (and the implied synergy with Strongshell Scavenger) I feel this card would've been fine on 5.

I would have liked to see a nerf for Ultimate Infestation. Maybe not "draw 5 cards" but "add 5 random Deathknight cards" to your hand. Or a nerf to Jade Idol - Choose one: "Summon a Jade Idol" or "add one Aya Blackpaw" to your hand.

Warrior:
3) Fiery War Axe to 3: Why? don't get me wrong Pirate Warrior isn't pleasurable to play against. But I feel the control decks suffer a worse fate here? Warrior is already T3 without any nerfs so why nerf an integral part of these decks? They should not have done this.

I would have liked nerfs to Upgrade (costs 2 now) or even give the Southsea Captain the Murloc treatment (give your Pirates +1 attack).

Shaman:
4) Hex to 4: ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????

Neutral
5) Murloc Warleader gives +2 attack: Reasonable as non-Murloc deck ideas for Paladin included a heavy amount of Murlocs.

[Destro_Yersul]

I would have liked to see a nerf for Ultimate Infestation. Maybe not "draw 5 cards" but "add 5 random Deathknight cards" to your hand. Or a nerf to Jade Idol - Choose one: "Summon a Jade Idol" or "add one Aya Blackpaw" to your hand.

Ultimate Infestation and Jade Idol are both fine, and not the problem with Druid. Also, given the power of the Death Knight cards, 'add 5 random ones' is actually a buff.

[Nerocite]

So, brawl is "An Evil Exchange" (Rafaam vs Kel'Thuzad). Got lucky with Rafaam and first fight ended up being a cake walk (won with 45+ health remaining).

I won as KT with the power of the Heigan Dance Squad (thanks Duplicate!)

[Psyren]

Amaz suggested that Jade Idols should start at 0/0 - that that would slow the deck down enough to not be the monster it is currently while still leaving it good.

[Seerow]

Amaz suggested that Jade Idols should start at 0/0 - that that would slow the deck down enough to not be the monster it is currently while still leaving it good.

But that nerfs every other jade deck out there. Jade Rogue has yet to actually be good, and Jade Shaman isn't really a thing so much as a side package to evolve shaman. I would rather see a jade nerf targetting Druid specifically. Not that it looks like Blizzard considers that even on the table.

[Psyren]

But that nerfs every other jade deck out there. Jade Rogue has yet to actually be good, and Jade Shaman isn't really a thing so much as a side package to evolve shaman. I would rather see a jade nerf targetting Druid specifically. Not that it looks like Blizzard considers that even on the table.

Those decks have nothing to lose though. They're already bad, so nerfing them further means basically nothing at both a competitive and casual level. Evolve Shaman will just run something else for example. But nerfing something more universal like Innervate instead of Jade Idol hurts everybody.

[gomipile]

I'm really sick of strict nerfs to classic and basic cards. If the card was on curve before, it's not on curve after a strict nerf. This punishes loyal customers who should have a base of classic and basic cards to build around in every new rotation.

Continuing to reduce the number of viable cards in Classic and Basic feels like a cash grab.

If the cards need to be changed, adjust them in multiple dimensions simultaneously so that they remain on curve. For example, Innervate could have been adjusted to a 3 mana boost that costs 1 mana, or 4 for 2. That would slow down the early game and still be a nerf, but not reduce the card to below the power curve for Druid.

[Psyren]

I liked the "0 mana, refresh 2 crystals" idea. Lets you maintain tempo without providing true ramp.

Turning it into just another coin feels lazy and uninspired.

[Destro_Yersul]

I liked the "0 mana, refresh 2 crystals" idea. Lets you maintain tempo without providing true ramp.

Turning it into just another coin feels lazy and uninspired.

I do agree that changing it to refresh two would have been better. Or making it a chose one: refresh two, or gain one this turn. I think that would help it fit with Druid's class identity even better, though with Fandral around it might have been a concern.

[Anarion]

I'm really sick of strict nerfs to classic and basic cards. If the card was on curve before, it's not on curve after a strict nerf. This punishes loyal customers who should have a base of classic and basic cards to build around in every new rotation.

Continuing to reduce the number of viable cards in Classic and Basic feels like a cash grab.

If the cards need to be changed, adjust them in multiple dimensions simultaneously so that they remain on curve. For example, Innervate could have been adjusted to a 3 mana boost that costs 1 mana, or 4 for 2. That would slow down the early game and still be a nerf, but not reduce the card to below the power curve for Druid.

The cards were not on curve. They were ahead of curve. Now they are on curve, perhaps a little below in some cases. But, like, counterfeit coin is run competitively and has been since its release.

Also, as a loyal customer, I do not feel punished at all. This punishes people who are somewhat loyal, but don't really spend money, so it's difficult for them to build up important cards for their collection right out of the gate when new cards release.

[Hamste]

I don't really like saying x card is run in another deck so it should be run here.

Counterfeit coin has been run in miracle rogue and extreme aggro rogue only I think. Miracle Druid hasn't really taken off with innervate and one with coin instead is even less likely. Rogue just has better low mana spells than druid (along with draw and combo) and can pull off miracles better. It is kind of like how darkbomb saw a lot of play with warlock but if you gave it to mage they probably wouldn't play it or how many neutral cards see play in some decks but not all of them (for example doomsayer sees play in mage because they have a lot of freeze but if you gave it only to hunters it would never see play)

[Psyren]

I do agree that changing it to refresh two would have been better. Or making it a chose one: refresh two, or gain one this turn. I think that would help it fit with Druid's class identity even better, though with Fandral around it might have been a concern.

I'd say Fandral is strong enough as it is, and they need to be very careful which "choose one" cards they print in future.

The cards were not on curve. They were ahead of curve. Now they are on curve, perhaps a little below in some cases. But, like, counterfeit coin is run competitively and has been since its release.

I don't disagree that Innervate might have been a little too good, but this is a bad example - Counterfeit Coin is competitive because of its synergy with its class' Combo mechanic. Druid doesn't have that, so adding coins to your deck is weaker, and the increased homogeneity isn't good either. I personally feel they should have tried harder to come up with a balanced coin alternative.

[Zevox]

Amaz suggested that Jade Idols should start at 0/0 - that that would slow the deck down enough to not be the monster it is currently while still leaving it good.

I'm glad they didn't do anything like that. There's no reason to nerf Jade, it's been around for a while and not been a problem. If there's a problem, it rests with the new cards, because prior to the release of Frozen Throne the meta was reputedly pretty balanced (aside from Hunter and Warlock not having viable decks). It's incredibly frustrating for them to nerf something that clearly isn't the source of whatever problem supposedly needs fixing, just as with Hex now, or (I still feel) Small-Time Bucaneer back in Gadgetzan. Overdoing nerfs just kills fun needlessly, and as others pointed out nerfing Jade as a whole in particular would also needlessly hit Jade Rogue and Shaman, which is most definitely not nothing to those who enjoy playing those decks (one of them being me).

Still don't like what they are doing - aside from Spreading Plague, which at least actually targets one of the theoretical issues here - but at least it wasn't that.

[Anarion]

I don't disagree that Innervate might have been a little too good, but this is a bad example - Counterfeit Coin is competitive because of its synergy with its class' Combo mechanic. Druid doesn't have that, so adding coins to your deck is weaker, and the increased homogeneity isn't good either. I personally feel they should have tried harder to come up with a balanced coin alternative.

I don't disagree that "the coin" is a boring card effect. But they did explain themselves on that one, in that they wanted to a) demonstrate that gaining mana is a druid class identity, b) make it simple for new players to understand, and c) stop problematic cases. "Refresh 2 mana crystals" is confusing (what does "refresh" mean to a new player?), and also leaves open some 14 mana turn abuse cases even though it stops the turn 5 Ultimate Infestation. They could probably have made a card that read "gain 2 mana this turn, you can't cast more than 10 mana worth of cards or any card whose cost is higher than your total mana crystals this turn" to solve all abuse cases, but that is super complex and hard to parse.

Also I'd make the same argument about some of the other nerfs. In paritcular, Fiery War Axe has always been giving more than it should for 2 mana forever, and Hex is 2 mana cheaper than Assassinate and far less conditional than Shadow Word Death. The other two are more complex changes to more complex cards.

[Rodin]

Also I'd make the same argument about some of the other nerfs. In paritcular, Fiery War Axe has always been giving more than it should for 2 mana forever, and Hex is 2 mana cheaper than Assassinate and far less conditional than Shadow Word Death. The other two are more complex changes to more complex cards.

I dunno, the progression seems fairly clear to me.

5 mana - Kill a creature unconditionally.
4 mana - Kill a creature, create a 1/1 Beast.
3 mana - Kill a creature, create a 0/1 Beast with Taunt.

That Taunt matters, and Hex is now just plain worse than Polymorph in almost all cases.

[Psyren]

I dunno, the progression seems fairly clear to me.

5 mana - Kill a creature unconditionally.
4 mana - Kill a creature, create a 1/1 Beast.
3 mana - Kill a creature, create a 0/1 Beast with Taunt.

That Taunt matters, and Hex is now just plain worse than Polymorph in almost all cases.

To play devil's advocate, Hex can be used defensively too, say to give yourself a taunt creature in an emergency. So I don't think it's worse than Polymorph even now. Having said that, i don't think it needed a nerf either.

[Hamste]

I just got hit 6 times in the face by two bombers on me and my opponent's turn 2. I probably still would have lost but that was brutal.

[Legoshrimp]

I'm really sick of strict nerfs to classic and basic cards. If the card was on curve before, it's not on curve after a strict nerf. This punishes loyal customers who should have a base of classic and basic cards to build around in every new rotation.

Continuing to reduce the number of viable cards in Classic and Basic feels like a cash grab.

If the cards need to be changed, adjust them in multiple dimensions simultaneously so that they remain on curve. For example, Innervate could have been adjusted to a 3 mana boost that costs 1 mana, or 4 for 2. That would slow down the early game and still be a nerf, but not reduce the card to below the power curve for Druid.

The main problem is they shouldn't have put the classic and basic set in standard permanently. It makes balancing harder, and pisses off lots of people whenever they make a needed change.

[Zevox]

The main problem is they shouldn't have put the classic and basic set in standard permanently. It makes balancing harder, and pisses off lots of people whenever they make a needed change.

Completely disagree. If they hadn't, that would be far worse - players shouldn't be completely dependent on the newest cards that way.

Unfortunately, if they keep nerfing the good cards from the classic set, it may end up that way anyway.

[Destro_Yersul]

I don't disagree that "the coin" is a boring card effect. But they did explain themselves on that one, in that they wanted to a) demonstrate that gaining mana is a druid class identity, b) make it simple for new players to understand, and c) stop problematic cases. "Refresh 2 mana crystals" is confusing (what does "refresh" mean to a new player?)

It occurs to me that they could say 'refill' and that might be simpler, since Wild Growth is already gaining you Empty mana crystals, and it's easy to visually see the difference between an empty crystal and a full one.

[Legoshrimp]

Completely disagree. If they hadn't, that would be far worse - players shouldn't be completely dependent on the newest cards that way.

Unfortunately, if they keep nerfing the good cards from the classic set, it may end up that way anyway.

Sorry I should have said more, but I more meant the normal way card games do it were there is some set of cards that are in standard for each year that will probably include a lot of staples, but they can make changes more fluidly. It could also include cards from non standard expansions. It would also mean they would be less forced to make changes to cards that destroy wild decks.

An easy solution to the standard issue is make whatever is in the standard set a basic card.

[Psyren]

The main problem is they shouldn't have put the classic and basic set in standard permanently. It makes balancing harder, and pisses off lots of people whenever they make a needed change.

No. Just, no.

I don't disagree that "the coin" is a boring card effect. But they did explain themselves on that one, in that they wanted to a) demonstrate that gaining mana is a druid class identity, b) make it simple for new players to understand, and c) stop problematic cases. "Refresh 2 mana crystals" is confusing (what does "refresh" mean to a new player?), and also leaves open some 14 mana turn abuse cases even though it stops the turn 5 Ultimate Infestation. They could probably have made a card that read "gain 2 mana this turn, you can't cast more than 10 mana worth of cards or any card whose cost is higher than your total mana crystals this turn" to solve all abuse cases, but that is super complex and hard to parse.

Two points here:

1) New players learn the way we all learned, by playing. Not all the mechanics need to be obvious. The cards that make Jade Golems don't tell you each one is bigger than the last. (The golems themselves do, but only on mouseover in the fine print.) When you have multiple Secrets out, e.g. Spellbender + Counterspell or Redemption + Sacrifice, the game doesn't hold your hand through those interactions, you figure out what happens by playing.

2) I don't think 14 mana on turn 10 is an abuse. You have to sit on both your Innervates all game to pull that off, and if you can do that without getting your face punched in you were probably winning anyway. The far worse abuse is 10 mana on turns 6-8.

Also I'd make the same argument about some of the other nerfs. In paritcular, Fiery War Axe has always been giving more than it should for 2 mana forever, and Hex is 2 mana cheaper than Assassinate and far less conditional than Shadow Word Death. The other two are more complex changes to more complex cards.

I don't disagree on Hex, and in fact I made the point a couple of posts back that it is already better than Polymorph because it has a defensive use in a pinch - especially on a class that can make unlimited cannon fodder creatures.

As for War Axe, I was honestly fine with it at 2, but I'm not going to shed too many tears at an aggro deck getting nerfed.

[Legoshrimp]

No. Just, no.

Well that was a pointless response.

I am pretty confident hearthstone would be more interesting if it didn't always have the entire classic and basic set in standard. Also it would be easier to remove problem cards without destroying any decks that use them.

[Zevox]

Well that was a pointless response.

I am pretty confident hearthstone would be more interesting if it didn't always have the entire classic and basic set in standard. Also it would be easier to remove problem cards without destroying any decks that use them.

Hearthstone's plenty interesting as it is - there's absolutely no need to remove all stability from it by not having the baseline of the Classic set. Bad enough that they still feel free to alter them like this.

[Talion]

Hearthstone's plenty interesting as it is - there's absolutely no need to remove all stability from it by not having the baseline of the Classic set. Bad enough that they still feel free to alter them like this.

Nerfs aside, I do believe the core of the issue is how Standard vs Wild was implemented. Blizzard opted to take what is basically the easy route, and at this point I think it's safe to say that its giving everyone headaches (them for balance issues, us for losing options we've worked to open up and the fear of having to start over every time a new set is released).

At the time, they were very upfront about what they were doing and why, and in most regards I do think they were on the right path. This was helped with the twofold generosity they displayed with the old cards (dust refunds and bonuses in particular, in addition to the easy access cards for the "Whispers of the Old Gods" set they released around that time). However, as time has passed, it doesn't seem to be working to (at least at this point) anyones expectations.

If they had given themselves more time, and possibly reached out to the community a bit, they might have come up with different options. Just off the top of my head I could see:

1. Not making any set 'standard', but adding either new or existing cards to the 'basic' list (say, 5-10 cards per class, and another 10 - 20 neutral).

2. Not making any set 'standard', but giving easy access to a lot of cards for the latest set when it comes out/you log on for the first time when the set is active. This could be either in the form of packs and a legendary (ala Whispers) or just a set of cards that provide the intended feel of the expansion. These could be handed out without effort or via simple unlocks the way Basic cards are.

3. Not making any set 'standard', but instead creating a form of the "Hall of Fame" that features a bunch of cards from each expansion that are on the right scale of balance for the game and flavor for the expansion. These would be chosen at the end of the expansion's run (aka when the cards have had time to demonstrate their value, but a new set is coming out).

4. Keeping Classic as the 'Standard', but having been *much* more thorough in their initial nerfing period, along with the relevant compensation. This would have shaken up the meta something fierce, and probably annoyed a *lot* of people at the time, but would avoid future grievances.

Edit: 5. Creating an entirely new set for 'Standard' play, much the same way as Classic currently acts, but with more balanced cards that leave more room for future design.

Not to say that any of these are perfect (or even great) options, but there were certainly other possibilities. To be honest, I'm rather interested to see any other options everyone can think of in this hypothetical scenario.

[heronbpv]

I remember, back when they announced the standard rotation, of people arguing that they shouldn't just use basic + classic as the evergreen set, mostly because the power levels of these collections were all over the place (e.g. Druid being the worst offender, and Priest being unplayable). The best suggestion I heard, at the time, was to revise the standard set first, both to clarify each class identity, as well as to give some sort basic deck-skeleton people could always have at hand, varying in flavor at each rotation.
I still think it's the best suggestion for the game, moving foward, and although people are in their right to complain about the changes to the classic cards they are doing right now, these are, indeed, the very root of the problems with the current meta. Have they made the proper changes to the classic + basic set back then, changing busted cards like Fiery Win Axe and Innervate right of the bat, we wouldn't be in this situation once again (remember Shamanstone? Yeah, I liked it, but I was in love with midrange Shaman back then).

[Hamste]

I'm still wishing for warlockstone to return...or at least a meta where I can play a good warlock deck again.

[Psyren]

Well that was a pointless response.

I didn't feel like repeating Zevox's points.

I am pretty confident hearthstone would be more interesting if it didn't always have the entire classic and basic set in standard. Also it would be easier to remove problem cards without destroying any decks that use them.

This is better - rotating pieces of classic could be palatable, especially if they do so on a longer timeline. Magic does something similar with its core sets - some cards stay in perpetually, while others get taken out to see what happens. I don't see a way for them to do that without earning a lot of enmity though.

[Rodin]

I'm still wishing for warlockstone to return...or at least a meta where I can play a good warlock deck again.

We're pretty close to that now, if Pavel's performance in the playoffs is any indication. Sure, tournament meta is not ranked meta, but he was able to dominate pretty thoroughly with Gul'dan Handlock. Compare that to last expansion, where Warlock was just a joke class.

[gomipile]

But, like, counterfeit coin is run competitively and has been since its release.

Tell me how many Combo cards Rogue has vs Druid?