why do you expect people to think when checking this thread and find you are ranting about capitalism?
You could ask what I meant, or is that beyond your powers of communication?
I think every class has gotten the same treatment, although spellcasters have received more,
and the numbers Aegeon posted support that.
I have already explained what I meant about the Capitalism remark to others.
You can accept that or you don’t have to .
It doesn’t matter to me.
But, if you don’t believe me and choose to interpret my remarks as only what you think I meant, then why respond to me at all?
It’s rather like when others say: “If you don’t like the game, why are you still playing?”
If you think everything I say is slanted and untrue, then why engage with me at all?
I am not compelled to answer players I think are being purposely inaccurate, or just trying to stir up emotions.
I would hope you aren’t either.
Here is the original remark. Not taken out of context, the entire remark.
I never mentioned Mage at all. Others chose to interpret what I meant with the same bias that they accuse me of constantly.
My accusation of Blizzard’s motivations may not be accurate, but that is a different argument.
Now, can We please get back on message?
thinking about the stats more it´s pretty perplexing how often warrior is allowed to be good given that the class has seen quite a few control decks at t1+ while priest is kept very low.
Why is it ok for them when warrior is a dominating control class but not priest? Or if it´s not on purpose, why is it so much harder for them to design properly strong priest decks?
1 Like
Not just Warrior, but looking at the spread of which classes are more represented and which are less, I think that weapons may have a big role in boosting some classes over others. Unlike spells where the ability to hit face is pretty limited to a small set of spells, almost every weapon can go face. And while weapons are slower at putting out their damage than spells are, they are significantly more mana-efficient when they get in multiple attacks. Finally, since their attacks are split over multiple turns, they’re also more flexible than spells since you can use a weapon for board control one turn and face damage another turn.
Just looking at Warrior then, one of the few times when they really dropped out of T1/T2 for most of an expansion was K&C, shortly after the FWA nerf.
Obviously weapons are only one single factor. For example, thinking about classes as a whole and not just potential control decks, the ability to summon swarms of little minions has also historically been quite effective: Token Druid, Murloc Paladin, Dude Paladin, Even/Odd Paladin, Zoo Warlock, etc.
3 Likes
A lot of these stats come from when the game had the classic set. So we need to remember that a lot of the way classes used to be designed was either feast or famine based on whether the classic set helped them or not.
Priest healing is incremental and generally small and can’t be done when at 30 health. Which means they can be vulnerable to burst or high damage combos. Armor gives a buffer against that and can be done at any time.
Priest used to have a lot of thief type stuff, and that can be unreliable.
Also Warrior has weapons which are just great for either offense or defense.
It’s also just hard to make and balance games.
Amen to that.
In a game type with integers only, just one Mana or Health more or less - that’s enough to make or break cards. Any real game developers that might lurk here put aside, armchair mode is king in the forums - sometimes so much a different game might be the better way:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/game-dev-story/id1557657042
It would also be interesting to know the breakout of t1 and t2 decks by class only for the end of an expansion when the meta is solved.
For example, face hunter decks tend to pop up at the beginning of most metas but are generally not around once the meta is solved. In this circumstance does the face hunter deck really deserve credit for t1 status? Some decks live on preying on the weak as metas are solved.
Weapon sure seem´s one common denominator, would be interesting to see if the top shaman decks were rather weapon dependant or what makes shaman so feast or famine-y - if spell based shaman struggles and weapon shaman strives we kinda might be on to sth.
Based on these figures I have started my own investigation of how long decks were allowed to exist at tier S,1, or 2 before being crushed.
For instance; no minion mage was nerfed in less than ten weeks,
leaving mage with no competitive deck for the rest of the expansion
as Wailing Caverns gave the class nothing.
I think there are plenty of decks that lasted far longer, and I think it will be illuminating to see which classes were nerfed quickly, and which were allowed to dominate for an extended period.
1 Like
To the best of my knowledge, Spell Mage didn’t fall lower than Tier 3. Like, Priest lived in Tier 3 for most of the early history of Hearthstone, I never declared the class dead or incapable of competing. I saved that for when it was a Tier 4 class with sub 45% winrates in Karazhan. A T3 deck is a competitive deck.
It’s not strong, but you can compete with it.
Okay…
The problem with mage is that it is incredible underwhelming to play when anything is constant nerf based on nothing but “bad feelings”.
Because:
- When you play and win with something but after a week it gets nerf it is common to pass by your read if you would win before if it was already nerf.
That because nerfs people wanting or not are blizzard going here and saying:
“Hey .This was messed up and were correcting it.”
- Because play with something that you know that wasn’t overpowered but was nerf anyway feels as being handcapped.
While i have self control to not be a jerk by doing that every time someone come here to say how marvelous mage is. All i want to do is bring my deck list and say:
“Climb to legend with that same class I used of you dare. If you can’t I demand a formal apology”.
Because I know that atleast half of the people talking that just can’t.
It’s kinda underwhelming to play at a semi competitive level when everyone including the company is always questioning your wins by the dumbest reasons possible.
1 Like
I could not agree more. Every deck that I have investigated so far in mage wasn’t nerfed for power or win rates, but for, (as you said) “bad feelings”.
I will say that No minion wasn’t nerfed as hard as most mage decks have been in the past, but not giving Mage anything of note in WC really hurt the class and left it with nothing until the next full expansion, if then.
I am researching this as well as I can. I am not a statistician, and so I am not very good at this sort of thing, but it seems like every nerf Mage has received for the past four or five years has left the class in the lower tiers for the remainder of the expansion.
Like you said: They give Mage a powerful deck that depends on one card generally, and then nerf it until it isn’t competitive for the duration of the expansion
I should add that other classes have received nerfs of this nature and that is what i am attempting to compare and examine.