that a lot hate for discount card effects be fixed if Cost could not go bellow 1?
only people mad I would imagen are people who like spamming 6 mana spells for 0 mana
(not say should fix it but just saying because I got thinking when I was running spell Priest and play around 21 mana for 0 mana and guy I vs rage quit)
People who think spells being able to be reduced to 0 is an inherently problematic mechanic arenât the people whose opinion you care about when balancing things.
We had about 6 months of people crying their hearts out because Cyclone Mage is reducing spells to 0! boohoo, meanwhile the deck was tier 2 the whole time.
People just want something to justify their losses.
I know funny part was even after spending 21 mana worth of spells for 0 mana i could not do anything to win that ironic part
I take it this is about wild? âCause without discounts, mage in standard needs their spellsâ costs adjusted (lowered). In other words, Incanterâs Flow is necessary. Hell, itâs still not enough because mage just sucks.
I was playing Priest (but god I might got away with a lot more if I was in wild)
I guess it depends on how that reduction can be played around by the opponent, or prevented, or the limitations of the reduction (for this turn only; the next spell you play; spell school reduction; individual spell reductionâŚ)
guest your right about that
Ultimately hard say because lowering cost of stuff is a powerful tool like how Deathrattles back in their early days wear perfect +1 abilities
Of course its a problem and everyone who doesnt see that should be disqualified from every balance discussion ever.
What happens when you can play significantly strong cards without any cost? Maybe ask Warlock who experienced the first banned card ever in the games history. Or maybe just go to any other popular card game and ask there?
It is at a cost. In the case of mage, youâre spending (for example) an entire turn to play IF. Then if youâre running DoL, you have another empty turn. It is at a cost. Itâs akin to Skull of Gulâdan and its outcast reduction effect. The cost was 6 mana (and hand setup) to reduce the cost of your next 3 cards.
See? Thatâs why youâre wrong, itâs the Salt talking. Look at standard. Look at Druid discounting all the deck spells to 0 and the Minions to 1 and playing their whole deck in a single turn.
Look at Mage, historically.
Being able to consistently apply massive discounts tĂ´ whole decks, or do combos for 0 is frequently (not always) broken.
Being able to chain 0 mana spells because you reduced a bunch of 1 mana and 2 mana spells that make other spells is whatever. We are looking at those strategies, right now, and they are being throughly beaten by simply putting minons down and hitting face.
Cyclone Mage existed for several rotations and It made to high tier 2 tops with the cyclone package, and thatâs with all support in the world.
I donât necessary think thatâs an issue, what would be nice to see though is if they had way to limit the amount of copies a card is played per match to 2. To avoid scenarios of having 3-4 solarium primes, or envoy rustwixs, our 3 soul mirrors.
It does get a little annoying when your opponent seems to pop out copies when youâve just used all your cards to counter the previous copies of a particular card. I have a tendency of saying âoh COME ONâ lol, when I see 3 soul mirrors. 
Nope, its not the Salt talking, because i am playing Aggro and dont really care about mana discounts. What is actually talking here is rational thinking.
We are also talking about all classes, not just Mage. Being able to discount cards to 0 ressource cost is and will always be a problem for the game and for developing new cards. Its also incredible that you think a deck or a card is perfectly fine because its not considered Tier 1. Do you actually understand that Tier 1 just means a more consecutive winning rate to other decks?
So basically it would be perfectly fine to create a legendary card for Warlock that costs 5 Mana and destroys the enemies deck completely. Since its only 5 Mana, one copy and can be played on Turn 4 as fastest, Aggro Decks should still be able to win against that deck easily. It shouldnt have much of a high winrate, but wouldnt you agree that a 5 Mana destroy the opponents deck immediately would be kind of a mistake?
This was such a God forsaken jump in logic i barely followed you.
Reducing spells cost is a Mage characteristic since Classic. Other classes can do It, but theyâre not as good or consistent. And any way, i referred to Druid and Priest in my posts.
Mate, priest is already doing It in standard. Itâs tier two. Rogue is also doing It. Mage is doing It, at tier 3. Druid is doing It and Itâs the worst deck in the meta. Reducing spell costs is Just another mechanic by itself, and is no more problematic than Cyclone Mage during the mana giant era, where the entire deck was about reducing spell costs with multiples pay offs to achieve incredible, overpoweribg, towering ranks as tier 2.
Never Said that, but mostly, If a strategy isnât overpowering the meta, itâs objectively Fine. I donât know what you think itâs the problem there, other than you dislinking X by principle. Yes, priest is cheating tons of mana and playing several cards for 0. How problematic is priest? How good are Tenwu and Octobot at carrying rogue? How good is incanterâs flow right now?
Yes, and why do you think that metric isnât so important? You understand that when a deck is Tier 1, itâs mostly using a hard to attack startegy and leading the meta, right? If a strategy is never actually leading the meta, whatâs the problem with It? It feels bad?
I donât know How you got here, but a 5 mana destroy your enemy deck canât be a thing for several reasons, lol. It seems you think spell reducing strategies are only beatable by Aggro, to which i point at Warrior, beating every spell reducing deck with both midrange and Control.
IMO: reducing cost to 0 is fine for main deck cards. It becomes a problem once generated cards also get to 0 (with the exception of intentional situations of course like a generated Wisp, or a generated Strongman thatâs Corrupted, or all the cards generated by YâShaarj).
So all thatâs necessary is simply the Echo ruling where generated cards canât cost less than 1 (but as mentioned, can be overruled by effects or original cost that sets it to 0).
Discover/random generating itself isnât also inherently bad. That was changed because it was becoming a problem. It might not have been a problem, but Blizzard has to keep making cards.
They keep pushing boundaries. Eventually they cross them and have to make changes.
Some form of global discount limit will probably have to happen at some point.
Random yes
discover no
(reason Discover get a pass is because still a chance someone will get a card they need and grab wrong one out 3 picks but with Random you get 1 card with fact most Random generating cards often narrow down to good ones mean Random more likely get a good card about 50% the time as discover got 75% but also got chance pick wrong that is control by the player)
I Fâing love the Discover mechanic.
People who cite âtiersâ should not be taken seriously when talking about game balance. Itâs an asinine and arbitrary concept with respect to game design. I also challenge the notion that Mage has been tier 2 for some time: Mozaki, DoL, APM, Secret, etc. absolutely dominate higher elos, but letâs assume youâre right (youâre not):
Balance isnât always about outcome, necessarily, itâs about the experience during gameplay. An asymmetrical experience, wherein one player is able to do things that so wildly exceed what the other player can do is asymmetrical and should be avoided - especially when that player is able to reliably and consistently do it. It doesnât matter if the deck has a healthy win rate, itâs an unhealthy game experience that kills enthusiasm and player engagement.
The problem is the nature of spells: the ability to play from your hand with immediate effect essentially removes any agency from your opponent. If you are able to have zero board presence and in one turn neutralise your opponentâs entire board while also dealing 30+ damage to the enemy hero from hand, youâve successfully created such an abnormal asymmetry that your opponent will walk away viewing that as a horrible game experience - not based on any merit either, but simply by virtue of you drawing your set piece (which, combined with the absurd card draw that Mage has, is almost a given).
To put it simply, spells should never be 0 mana. Especially when those spellsâ respective classes can so easily generate more spells. In every other facet of this game there exists some limit to what you can do: you can never have more than seven minions, you can only have ten cards in your hand, you can never draw more than your deck, your minions (for the majority of use cases) wonât pose an immediate threat until the following turn, etc.
But for some reason, when it comes to spells (whose effects are immediate and often the most deadly), there exists absolutely no limit - you can cast as many as the rope permits. For this reason they absolutely should be limited to 1 mana to enforce some semblance of a limit.
Ok.
Weâre clearly talking about standard, and you can check Mage past achievements Just on the next thread over, but do Go on.
So? If the players does incredible, unfathomable things and historically still loses, does It matter?
So, is this about flamewaker Mage? What do you want me to say dude? That IS one problematic deck. Note that i say âmostâ times reducing spells to 0 arenât a problem, because historically, itâs a poor strategy. But If you throw together enough of anything, something is bound to come out. Blame not the interaction: itâs pretty balanced when people Care for Itâs balance. Blame wild.
I can only say that i donât know what youâre talking about. The way you talk make It seems those spells are coming from thin Air. Decks like Flamewaker Mage are literally all deck generation and draw.
Your whole thread seems like a hate letter to Flamewaker, which is understandable, but a heavily, heavily biased look when historically, the strategy is consistently not a meta problem. Itâs a you problem because you think itâs pretty bad when the ocasional deck that goes over the top with It goes off.
Which again, itâs understandable, but those decks are a small, small fraction of all decks that benefited from reducing spells to 0, and saying a whole mechanic has to be changed for It is quite frankly asinine. The game, more specifically, wild, Just need tighter balance.
For reference: Meta Power of Classes over time based on VS reports
For reference:
Hey loser! It wasnât me!
Hey loser! It wasnât me!
Hey loser! It wasnât me!
Blizzard keeps making mechanics that abuse 0 cost spells. Theyâll keep crossing that line until it gets destroyed. One way or another.