They Pushed Too Far?

Multiplayer Discussion
1

2 manas 4/6 taunt lifesteal.

4 manas 4/6 taunt, draw a card, summon a free dragon.

I can understand push some strategies for decks, but they don’t make these cards insanely overbusted for so abismal low cost?

I see some dark gift cards here and there, but the imbue cards are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful and consistent, or the imbue decks needs a break spine nerfs, or the dark gifs class cards need to be buffed hard.

How many time you see dark gifs class cards being played and how many times you see imbue cards being played?

The balance in this game simple don’t exist.

3 Likes
2

Yeah, this is a tad bit too much

I just came to that same conclusion yesterday. I don’t know what took me so long, but it’s clearly broken and can auto-win the game on the spot

On the other hand, I’m against nerfing it. Let’s see how the addition of the new expansion influences the probability of that scenario

3

I not 100% against it.

While i understand how someone can get frustrated it is a fact that hearthstone needs more variance RN.

And in a world of cheap tutoring more variance means strong Mulligan hands.

4

You mean easier mulligan? Because higher variance = higher consistency of the deck => higher individual strength of cards and/or combos = easier mulligan?

5

Kinda.

The decks are looking at opponents who Will 100% of the time have their cards on curve.

So whatever has to happen have to happen before that. It means that the decks have to have explosive Mulligan hands and ideally more than 1 or otherwise we are stuck with tutorstone.

And i say more than 1 for the reason that have only 1 explosive start per deck is Just as repetitive as tutoring.

If i was blizzard i would Just nerf the hell out of tutoring without even care about game balance and start balancing the game after the consequences hit. But that is a too optimistic thing to happen.

6

Not neccessarily

That’s the way it works for aggro, but for midrange/tempo it’s different, since you have more time to draw your combo pieces to overtake the game in one board flip

And for control it very well may be if they’re up against aggro, but otherwise, they’re pretty flexible when it comes to mulligan

It’s all relative, I’m afraid

7

Not with the tutoring we have i think.

That would be relative with well priced tutoring but blizzard is making thing like :

2 mana tutor Minions with almost vanila status.

Those things aren’t even losing tempo to tutor cards so the tempo to put they down is the more or less the same to put down well structured decks.

8

Why not? Imbue Pally’s Maul tutors an 8-cost and a 7-cost card. Plenty of time for non-aggro decks to draw their win-cons

You’re so tunnel-visioned on a concept of tutoring that you’re overgeneralizing and putting them all in the same compartment. They are not all the same.

Some tutor high-cost cards, some tutor low-cost cards, some tutor win-cons, some tutor contextually-dependant solutions to problems, some tutor just to thin out the deck

You’re going to have to be a lot more specific and precise to reach support in your wild dreams for standard (which I absolutely support, btw)

9

And a 4x2 weapon so not only it’s a small tempo gain Tool as any weapon(trade health for tempo it’s their thing) but it’s 1 card tutoring 2.

We are more in this rabbit hole than most people notice because we are talking of 4 cards in this case.
Absolutely any deck who can slot in those 4 cards copies(not need 2 renewing Flames) can make this happen regardless of the rest of the structure.

I not saying they’re some monstruous BS that can’t be dealt with but i saying that they will be a prevalent metagame force as long as some drastic changes not happen.

And as by Drastic changes we kinda have some small list of options that deal with in different ways and from head i can think of 3:

  1. Those tutors get arbitrary nuked Just for their play patterns. Not even considering balance before they die.

  2. The game gets more explosive at start because that is the part not affect by tutoring.

  3. Devs decide it’s time to bite the bullet and incentivize better deckbuilding by introducing disruption cards that aren’t just tech cards.

I guarantee all are impopular in their own ways.
No one like when cards get nuked Just because.
No one likes that amount of powercreep.
And no one likes not getting to play their cards.

Still i can see devs pointing to 2 not only because of that card in specific but because it fits the metagame rotation this game does.

10

But it won’t have the same effect/synergy with the rest of the cards

Imbue Pally is this good because of numerous things that coincided:

  • nerfing of Rogue, DK and Pally’s strongest deck (Drunk)
  • buffing Pally’s Imbue mechanic from 2 mana to 1 mana cost
  • great synergy between the tutored cards and the general idea of the deck when it comes to win condition being great in the current meta.

Possibly some more I forgot. Anyway, this last factor points to relativity based on meta and explains why it came from lower ranks instead of higher ones for a change. It’s almost too easy to be this good, right? And you blame tutoring for that, which we already know doesn’t make sense in this case.

Sometimes it’s not obvious that a combination of cards has such a strong synergy because it’s hard, if not impossible, to picture a priori how a deck will fare in the future when you don’t even know what the meta will look like in the future. And sometimes it’s obvious no matter what meta brings. So this conclusion of yours cannot be based on reality because reality is essentially random.

If they prove to be toxic, but somehow, Blizzard never choses that way and I understand why. It would be essentially the same as admitting failure of design, which, for a game-design company, is the biggest fail possible. Why do that when you can change another aspect of the card and reach the same balance levels? This turns an existential problem into one of optimization, which is too tempting of a justification not to adopt. It’s guaranteed by the evolution.

Ofc, I’m talking about nerfs such as 1-mana higher cost for the tutor card or if that tutor card is a weapon, like it often is, its stats are toned down a bit.

The only toxic mechanics that get changed are the ones which are about to get rotated to Wild anyway, where its broken design is considered normal and if it wasn’t broken, it wouldn’t even be played at all.

As I said, incorrect for most cases. Only correct when battling as or against aggro decks. Tendency, on average, is quite the opposite, slower early game because tutoring cards have lower stats than vanilla cards with tendency to suddenly explode (making the meta look like combo even when it’s not obviously so)

This is hard to categorize. I believe this line falls under the category of a “vacuous statement”, or “Gobbledygook”. Perhaps even sophistry. Not sure about Platitude, pseudo-intelligent and bs statements, but maybe it could be interpreted that way as well

Anyway, I forgot the exact word I’m looking for, but these words are in the semantic vicinity of it.

In other words, it’s meaningless. Political.

“By introducing disruption cards that aren’t just tech cards”.

In the context this sentence is used, a card game, any disruption card is contextual, ergo, a tech card. If it’s not “just a tech card”, then it’s a powerhouse (Zilliax, Shalangdrassil), a staple card (Pop-up Book or even better, class legendaries in general) or an unplayable crap (too many examples to count, and in general, every powerhouse card that got nerfed down to unplayable levels).

If they do that, it’s probably because the whole world is evolving to be faster and faster, along the lines of a kid with ADHD when it comes to attention span

They still have to keep going faster and faster while giving sort-of-balanced experience for many different player types, which means different metas and with it, different game lengths, so it changes in a wave-like, cyclical pattern

2-steps forward and 1 step back, I think, which is literally what it looks like when they change rewards in the game (remember quest rewards scandal, and now arena rewards scandal, it’s always the same Door in the face/2-steps-forward-and-1-step-back technique - they first give you an unreasonable offer which enrages you and sets up an absurd anchor, and that helps negotiate with you a different, lower offer, which is still higher than you’d normally accept if you weren’t primed by the anchor offer)

That’s been their approach in everything since I got back 2 and something years ago. At this point, I’m willing to bet “2 steps forward and 1 step back” is the company’s credo and a mantra emphasized on every in-house document which includes text in it.

And if it isn’t, it definitely should be. It would at least mean they’re aware of their own actions and the consequences of those actions.

11

Can you explain this buff? Why shaman ability cost 2? It’s only 1 target and random. So paladin for 1 mp have 2 big tokens and shaman for 2 mp- only 1.

1 Like
12

Yes, I can. The reasoning for that is the same as the reason for why interest rates exist. With time, there is more and more money circling around, which means that, for same number of people, there is more money per capita in future than there is today. That means that by investing the money now you can expect future profits. Now, if you are loaning someone the money out, you didn’t have that money to invest in hopes of future profits, so you have to ask the loanee to compensate for it (hence, the interest rate).

In other words, because money is worth less in future than it is worth now, you have to discount the price of a good/service that will only pay up in the future (discounting), to compensate for the fact that my money would be better off invested rather than spent.

So in other words, the lower mana cost of Imbue pally is to compensate for the fact that the effect of the mana spent will come some time in the future instead of right now. If there was any other class whose imbue mechanic gave its effect in the future instead of immediately, that class, too, would have its imbue cost down to 1.

The same reasoning partly explains why the neutral imbue cards appear better than vanilla ones (because most of the card’s functionality is contained in the future, the farther in the future the higher the reward/effect). Same works for class Imbue cards, but the effect there is less noticeable because class cards always have more value than neutral ones

13

you must not have been here for galakrond