What really makes me feel weird is how, in all this time, they were unable to find a proper way to balance priest, mage and warlock so they have a win condition.
Nobody asks for them to be literally tier 1, but at least give something to rely on. Why they keep printing meme “funny” cards like Temporus or Deck of Lunacy if not even the devs want them to be meta defining? They literally said “We never wanted Deck of Lunacy to be in a meta deck” ------- then why did you created it in the first place if you don’t want it to be playable??? What’s the point of designing such a card if you actually don’t want it to work?
And I would have half-understood if a class like Hunter that is in tier 1 no matter what would get such a card because anyway they won’t ruin the class with 1 experimenting card so there they can test. But with mage/priest/warlock that have huge problems?? You experiment with classes that need help and adjustement? It doesn’t make any sense.
Lol, those Paladin stats.
But hunter is the problem XD
First of all, massive props to Aegaeon for compiling this information, that must have taken a minute or two !!
Really very revealing, basically we have the usual suspects Druid, Hunter, Paladin, Rogue,Shaman and Warrior, who are usually there or thereabouts, with DH comfortably joining that group since release ( and Druid dropping off recently, although currently strong).
There’s an obvious bias against the control classes of Priest and Warlock, which tbh I can understand, and Mage seems to be an unfortunate victim of being the ‘starter’ class, which sees too much play relative to it’s power.
Not sure if this will ever change, I’m sure Blizzard have done their research and found folks dislike playing vs control, maybe they can make Zoolock a thing again, but all attempts at tempo Priest have been a wash ( well I suppose dragon priest was a bit tempo’y).
Maybe they need to start folks with a random class from now , then eventually Mage won’t be overplayed!?
Exactly. I have been saying this for years. All We want is a dedicated playstyle that
survives from one expansion to the next.
Hunter has one. Paladin has one. Warrior has one. Mage had one, until the new Team 5 took over.
Now Mage gets overhauled every single card set, with the result being that it has no continuity or synergy from one expansion to the next. So when it’s one “gotcha” card is nerfed, then it rots in the bottom tier for the remainder of the expansion.
Mage hasn’t been given nearly as much as players who criticize it claim, and these figures prove that.
I don’t think tutorial starting with mage has such an effect, even tho I’ve seen many people saying this.
5 years ago when I started playing I’ve looked at the classes and chose the one with the prettiest portrait, didn’t even look at the cards or the playstyles the class has. Even as new players, I hardly beleive they just go with the tutorial one for the whole time they play the game. I think it’s more about alot of people having a passion for playing a spell class.
I think you’re spot on and Team 5 needs to recognize this.
Many players play the class for the style, irrespective of power.
I don’t see why that is reason to continually break and remake the class
Mage identity is about getting spells from outside the deck. This could have a bonus effect of lower pressure - “I didn’t play bad, I just had bad luck this time” - as well as makes the deck feel different every time.
In other words, it’s fun and accessible.
People suggested a better way for ages now.
Let the players have a class ban.
Competitive players gonna use it competitively and who just not wanna see mages not gonna see mages.
That to not talk about reducing polarization and putting more decks into the playfield by consequence.
Opening the game to be balanced by facts rather than perception.
That doesn’t do anything but screw more people over. It’s been discussed to death and class ban is a bad solution.
Except mage is over played is a fact, not a perception. The game is balanced around facts, you just don’t like the facts they are using.
They do it because it’s a pretty sensible archetype and hard to balance. A control deck’s final dream is to properly beat aggro but, at the same time, having enough tools to interrupt combos(at least being to a 50-50% match); and is hard to balance such a situation without getting over 50% winrate.
That control decks problem is fully a devs fault(and I say that even if I respect them and appreciated alot of decisions they made lately). The problem is that, any deck, at some point, should have a proactive move and that should be at 10 mana. But control doesn’t have it. ----> I remember when mage in the past was using old Alexstrasza and winning with it. Why can’t we have something similar now?? Like, if it’s a 10 mana card, f*s I want to see a “Deal 20 damage” type of crazy thing because, you know, I got to 10 mana! I should see the reward of being able to survive until that turn. But actually we have no such thing, instead we got a 10 mana 1/1 cleave “poisonous, rush”…
Maybe we shouldn’t need cards like Dirty Rat, Illucia, Mutanus if we could have a way to win later like Loatheb+Alexstrasza or something, but we don’t so here we are.
So literally making a class underpowered because people like to play is a good solution for you?
I literally said how someone can
factually fit those people in by making the metagame less impacted by classes popularity.
It also has literally been “discussed” by people that not even an idea of the actual impact and speculated without having done proper research.
That’s not how a ban would function in this game. It’s one thing if it’s a format where you bring multiple decks and one is banned by the opponent, it’s a different animal to blanket ban a counter.
It would not help the meta and would cause more problems than it solves.
Yes, actually. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest and the game is better for it, imo.
I play lots of decks and lots of classes. I don’t have any personal attachment to any class or deck.
please, please tell me you realize most of that was Paladin getting carried by Baku
In a format with a single class the impact is simple.
It gonna make people come with solutions that other people not gonna ban.
Bring to the equation a solution that isn’t that obvious.
It’s more likely going to make priest play 70% mirror matches, tbh.
It’s a fail idea for HS despite what you believe.
Paladin got 190 weeks at tier 1 in the ranks pre legend Man. It’s nearly 50 months. It’s almost 4 years.
Over half the games life, Paladin has had at least a single deck at tier 1.
Yes, mostly on the brain dead Odd Paladin deck that was the main factor in odd/even cards getting sent to the shadow realm
If it makes priest 70% mirrors it only gonna proof something is actually wrong with priest.
Also they shouldn’t have a problem with mirrors since most of they say to like grindy games so much.
What really surprised me is that, for all the talk about how Shaman HP and discordant base sets, it’s arguably better than Mage.
I knew for a fact priest was bad, but i believed Mage Evergreen ability to lob at least 18 damage to face would keep It, you know, Evergreen. I wouldn’t really say Mage was bad before those stats. At least, i expected the fairly tight synergies to leave it better than Shaman.
So their fun is less important than your fun, got it.
We know there are things wrong with priest in much of the ladder. This is not news.
But playing the same deck more than half you games isn’t fun, and you kinda make a circle here back to my point that popularity is a factor in balance because they need people to keep playing.