Does Pirate War really need a nerf?

The deck’s average power level is really nothing spectacular, but your wr suddenly skyrockets every time you manage to draw Ancharr. Even with this tweak, I still think it’s the best card in the deck.

2 Likes

Idk but every time I’ve fought against Pirate Warrior I have to say they have always found a way to increase the attack/durability of Ancharr. I don’t see this nerf to matter all that much.

1 Like

first time i see a " did a tier 1 deck really need a nerf " thread

1 Like

No. Because it loses handily to Galakrond Warrior. And I play Galakrond Warrior. And I don’t want a deck I’m strong against to become less popular.

All jokes aside though, Ancharrr is currently a reasonably strong weapon and it additionally has a very powerful draw effect attached (doubly so considering how many pirates have weapon synergy). I think what was announced is a reasonable nerf, toning down the weapon’s power whilst not completely gutting the archetype.

Personally though, I would have scaled down Parachute Brigand, which, especially in Wild, can give PW some crazy early turns (most commonly, 4/4 stats + 1/3 weapon for 1 mana on turn 1).

It’s IMO not much of a nerf, getting to deal 2 damage and draw one less time should not be much of an issue for a well built Pirate Warrior. There will obviously be matches where that 1 durability is the deciding factor, but if it causes a player to lose the majority of their games, they were probably doing something fundamentally wrong.

The card is still really good.

1 Like

This weapon is still just backbreating vs zoo where it still 4 v 1 the zoo player. They had to nerf it. It was one of the best weapons ever made before. Its still rock solid. Its arcane intellect but as a tutor with 2 damage attacks for the same cost of 3. Let that sink in how op that is.

1 Like

I think under the normal circumstances in Hearthstone history, maybe not.

The influx of card changes this expansion has a little to do with those cards being quite powerful, but it’s mostly that we wanted to try a different approach to the cadence we make card changes.

The changes I feel were absolutely necessary this expansion were the ones to Galakrond Shaman. It was really the only archetype that was at a power level unacceptable under any past circumstance. Even after the first round of changes, there turned out to be an undiscovered deck that played a little slower and was even more powerful than the version being used during the first couple weeks. During playtesting, we honestly just thought that Galakrond Shaman was an incredibly fun deck to play and wanted to push it to a level where it would be considered one of the more powerful decks. We pushed too far, it happens.

As far as the rest of the changes, I think in the past we would have waited a little longer to take action. There are some advantages and disadvantages to waiting. One of the advantages is that the fewer changes you make, the more I think players are motivated to deckbuild and create new solutions rather than depend on us to make balance changes to things that might appear to be slightly out of line. In general, it’s probably healthier for the game if your first reaction to a powerful strategy is to try and find ways to beat it rather than join along and ride the wave because investing time into finding alternatives is undermined by constant changes.

One of the core disadvantages is that change happens less frequently. If there is something that frustrates you, maybe you can play a different strategy but maybe you don’t enjoy that strategy as much. Maybe you don’t own the cards for it. Maybe your favorite class is just weak to whatever the popular deck is and you don’t get to play it. Some of these things are very hard to avoid, but a faster rate of change makes it so you are less likely to be frustrated by a particular thing for too long. Change can be fun. Expansions aren’t just fun for players with the new cards, they can be fun for players playing old strategies too because the meta environment totally changes.

So, why are we trying something different? Some of it has to do with research. We dug through a bunch of data trying to find out what the behavior of players is when they have a strategy they play get nerfed. I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume that a dedicated Shaman player might see a large decrease in play if their deck is nerfed in a way that makes them less excited to play it. It turns out, data hasn’t really backed up that theory in a way we might have expected. We’ve done this kind of research in the past, but as Garrosh might say, times change.

Of course, we’ve just started on a track to a different strategy. It’s possible we’ll find that over time increasing the cadence of change fatigues players in a way we would only find out after sticking to the strategy for a longer period. It’s possible that because we’re opting to change more cards more often, we’ll end up changing cards players didn’t think needed changes at a rate that makes people unhappy. We look to the audience for feedback on that, so let us know!

27 Likes

I say keep the changes coming; it’s really a breath of fresh air in long runs; my concern and I think other people who agree’s concern is the consistancy: like, let it be a thing; more changes, more often; on reasonable levels tho so that people do not see Humongousongolongolohogongously dust builds shattered in a matter of hours.

Also I think that YES, I get very frustrated when there is a class/classes I really want to play but can’t. I don’t know how many other agree but I find it one of the most frustrating things. If changes occur more often tho, a class viability might change too alltogether in an instant. Further reason to keep the changes coming. I am thinking Mammoth Shaman and Warrior level of frustration to be clear.

4 Likes

I think Dev have the burden of such decisions. Overall, it could be a positive move and experience in the long haul.

However, with changes, it create unrest and concerns. MORE frequent, clear and maybe empathic communications are required, both prior and post changes.
Players can better react and plan, without the unnecessary frustrations.

It IS an area where it falls way below expectations.
But, this is a good start.


add:


(some additional info that seen on reddit)

1 Like

with 3 expansion a year and 3 adventure. (now 1 come with cards), the cost of the game already increased. Frequent changes means FTP players will lose alot of dusts when come to crafting and dusting. Changes is good, but please keep those players in mind. You do not want to create so much uncertainty. Last time, i feel comfortable crafting T2 decks simply because they tend to escape nerf. But if even T2 decks get nerf, its quite overwhelming actually.

3 Likes

I like this patch.

My biggest concern is that you guys don’t commit to doing this on a transparent schedule.

There’s plenty I don’t like about WOTC, but their balancing schedule adds predictability that helps their players better plan for when to build new decks and when to wait for the balance patch.

5 Likes

I prefer frequent changes even though most of the decks I played got hit. When people play the absolute best decks on ladder then it comes with the risk that it might get nerfed, or they can build slightly weaker decks and not have to worry about it. I used dust crafting zentimo and electra knowing Shaman might get nerfed again but did it anyway because it was the best deck to climb at the time at least for me.

1 Like

Then you probably isn’t a free to play player which is fine actually. But this patch actually hit T2 decks too which is my issue. I don’t play the best deck on ladder most of the time so i escape nerf very frequently until this patch… oh well.

I personally think that the steady amount of changes this past few months has been great. I’ve played this game since just after launch and even though it’s been extremely aggressive meta lately it doesn’t feel like any one class just completely fails. I prefer control style myself but I personally enjoy the challenge of building towards making something work. I think you guys have done a great job recently on staying on top of things, thank you. Keep on keeping on, never stop never stopping!

1 Like

Frequent card changes can only be supported with a complete overhaul of the refund policies.

As it stands, if the Devs go along with nerfing decks every couple of weeks, the f2p community will just walk away from the game, and with good reason.

3 Likes

That might have been true if the nerfs were like the ones for older expansions (i.e. nuke the card from orbit and ensure it never sees play again exept if you misclick in your deckbuilder)

As these nerfs stand, I don’t think any of the affected decks have been made “unplayable”. Their power level has been toned down, but I think they are still viable (e.g. nerfing SoR hasn’t much affected my experience as Galakrond Warrior).

4 Likes

On the off-hand chance this is read I’ll address my two concerns with the increased pace of nerfing. One concern can be controlled by you, the devs, but the other is about the community in general.

My first concern is on how the increased pace of nerfing (also buffing?) might destroy archetypes based on how nerfs were done. Galak Shaman nerf #1 didn’t kill the deck and as you alluded to another version was found but we merely need to jump back to the Mage nerfs where you saw nerfs which absolutely harmed an archetype and a class in a dramatic way. If your nerfs, overall, are more like nudges then this is fine but if they’re tossing a deck out then it becomes a MAJOR issue quickly as archetype stability will be an issue and cost will dramatically increase.

The second concern, which is more community focused, is that a faster and more consistent nerf strategy will cause people to stop focusing on their decks and games and instead focus on “just nerf it” focus. Part of what makes CCGs, to me, is the tinkering and designing for a meta. Essentially the ‘second meta wave’ after a meta establishes and poking holes into that meta. What we’ve seen in DoD is that the ‘second wave’ has barely been allowed to take shape before major changes. My concern if the idea is for a monthly shake-up is that the game never hits a full evolution cycle on decks-counter decks and we’re, instead,just constantly playing v1 of decks and, to a degree, begin to not consider tech options as much as the changes just come in too quickly to justify counter-meta decks.

4 Likes

So far DoD nerfs have seemed to be fairly decent, although I’ll be interested to see how Zoolock does with the Rites nerf as I think that one is actually th emost likely to cause an archetype issue.

Remember though Mothasa… we’re not that far removed from Mage getting nuked by a nerf wave.

1 Like

Will there be any changes in wild format in the future?

1 Like

And yet, both nerfed cards (Galaxy and CC) are still in use. Though I do believe that Galaxy was overnerfed (I think that pros like Kibler and Kripp were correct in hypothesising that Blizzard didn’t want to risk making too tame a nerf after having buffed the card once), we’re still a far cry from, say, the Innervate, Charge and Warsong Commander nerfs.