Auto-conceding to a specific card isn’t bad design. It can, sometimes, be bad piloting; sometimes you can actually still win. But if you’re the beatdown (and when playing against a better control deck, a control deck is the beatdown) it is perfectly normal to concede when the opponent has clearly stabilized in a way that you’re not going to be able to overcome. There’s no bad design indicator there at all, it’s a truly ancient CCG principle that has never not been a thing.
There are far more autoconcedes against Zilliax (Perfect Twinned) than there are against Brann, in the meta overall. Yet you’re focused on Brann because of your deck preference.
I would one hundred percent endorse your idea for the card over what it currently is, but I think when they design cards now, they think how can we maximize profit for as little investment as possible.
The effect you suggest would require it’s own coding and testing at a reasonable gaming company, but for blizzards dev team they would probably assign the task to their most junior member and not require any testing. So what we would get is a literally broken effect on launch that either results in a godly warrior or unplayable warrior for the 3 to 4 weeks it takes them to fix the buggy interactions.
Essentially their power creep is not only bad for the health of their game, but also for the maintenance of the game from a developer perspective. Because there’s so much card generation and RNG effects in the game, nearly every possible card interaction gets excersied at some point, and they hit corner cases they never tested or expected all the time.
All I am gonna say is you remove Boomboss from standard and Brann is suddenly a very subpar card.
This just shows that the cards that come in the future will work too good with Brann. Therefore they preemptively nerfed it. This card was gonna get nerfed from the start.
I mean, what it does to Ox, Ignis, Fizzle, Zola, and Inventor Boom are not negligible. Warriors don’t need boomboss to crush slower decks post Brann. Almost everything they have can do it. We have the rest of the year for new battlecries to overpower the card further.
And even if Brann becomes not the best late game counter, they can go back to Odyn OTKs…
It’s mostly Brann holding that deck back anyway. It’s better against early aggression flood decks.
Answer me this scrottie, why is warrior not tier one and only tier two? Wouldnthose bigger fish be fried if brann warrior was tier 3 or 4 say by something like reno shaman with bettwr early game clears?
Because it doesn’t have a strong matchup spread and the playerbase is slowly starting to exploit that fact. What’s remarkable is that the deck was ever Tier 1 in the first place; the only reason I can give to that is a confluence of multiple instances of extreme luck.
Go attempt to play any late game deck, they can’t compete.
Highlander Paladin. Worst matchup is Brann Warrior
Highlander Shaman. Worst matchup is Brann Warrior
Dragon Druid. 2nd Worst matchup is Brann Warrior
Rainbow Death Knight. 2nd Worst matchup is Brann Warrior
Plague DK was heavily favored against Brann Warrior. That has flipped.
Rainbow Mage. 2nd Worst matchup is Brann Warrior
It’s not that the matchups are just unfavorable, it’s that they can’t even compete in the meta because of the oppressive matchup and high play rate.
You’re majorly bias here because you’re purposefully playing a deck that farms Brann Warrior.
Nerf Brann Warrior and you open up the meta allowing many of those decks to possibly get into Tier 3 or 2 territory.
You have a weird definition of a not strong matchup spread.
It’s being targeted hard exactly because it has a great matchup spread.
It’s weak to exactly one thing: a few early game aggressive decks with lots of off board damage, which like, 3-4 things can do. It beats EVERY other strategy in the game.
I don’t know why he can’t see it. It’s clear as day to anyone not playing the favored matchups.
The only decks doing well are the decks that beat Brann Warrior. There might be 1-2 that don’t beat it doing well because they are doing well against the other decks that beat Brann Warrior. The entire meta is determined by whether or not you beat Brann Warrior. It’s crystal clear.
I mean, he is right that this would be true about any meta where there was a deck being played at this rate almost regardless of the tier.
Where he isn’t correct is the idea that the deck is weak simply because a few decks can beat it and those few decks have become a large portion of the meta in response.
We have had massively played decks before that have a pretty wide variety weaknesses (plague DK comes to mind). Brann warrior is not that.
You’re still not acknowledging that Handbuff Pally and Excavate Rogue — and Shopper DH — are Tier 2 (or better) decks that lose to Reno Warrior. Yes, there are a lot of Tier 4 decks that have Warrior as their worst matchup, but… they’re tier 4 decks lol who cares. The point is that there’s not one not two but three direct refutations in evidence of the idea that a deck can’t succeed if it has a bad matchup against Reno Warrior. Excavate Rogue is even a little bit value-y.
It’s true that I play a deck that farms Reno Warrior and it’s true that I have a bias. I know because for just a few minutes at one point I misread the Zarimi Priest matchup and included that as one of the decks that Reno Warrior beats, when it’s the other way around. But the thing is, I’m aware that I have a bias, and that’s why I’m trying to use evidence from VS to win my points a little bit more than “personal experience” (the way Altair/Kassadin would, especially if they were top 350 Legend currently). I’ve been using a bit of reasoning in recent posts, but I’m aware how reasoning can easily transform into rationalizing. I’m not a moron in the self-awareness department, friend, I know that my current rank brings with it ego, and with ego comes bias, and I’m trying to work around that.
Perhaps I didn’t do a great job of that overall and got a bit into the weeds of opinion, but I’m trying to get back on the fairway here with the VS data. And again, this clearly shows Tier 2+ is possible without beating the most popular deck.
They’re tier 4 because of Brann Warrior for crying out loud.
When you basically default -20% in win rate because of its existence, it’s a problem.
If it wasn’t for Brann Warrior, Highlander Shaman would be doing nicely. It’s got a good matchup spread. But because of the Brann matchup, it’s pretty much DoA.
Guarantee you Highlander Shaman shoots to Tier 2 if Brann is sufficiently nerfed.
You can’t honestly take a look at this https://i.imgur.com/rFfFj4y.png
and honestly tell me that Highlander Shaman, Dragon Druid, Rainbow Death Knight, Plague DK and Rainbow Mage are bad primarily because of Reno Warrior. In every case their #1 problem is the other 75ish% of the meta.
If Brann Warrior was utterly deleted, based on the rest of its matchup spread Reno Shaman could never be Tier 1, ever. Tier 2 is its max potential even in that case. And Brann Warrior isn’t going to be deleted, it’s going to be nerfed. Reno Shaman won’t get higher than Tier 3.