VS Data Reaper #222

The major problem with Mage is the style of play doesn’t play well with the design of Hearthstone.

Hearthstone was designed as a minion based board control game. Taunts and other things were designed with that expectation in mind.

When you make a spell heavy class, you are playing a part of the game as your main arsenal and the other part of the game can be ignored. Imagine playing Monopoly but you no longer are playing to grab property and build hotels and houses and instead you’re focused on amassing a win via Chance and Community Chest cards.

The game doesn’t have a lot of anti-spell stuff, but it has a lot of anti-minion stuff. That’s why Mage design feels bad to lose to, because you don’t feel like you’re losing to the basic principle of the game.

This isn’t the fault of Mage players. It’s the fault of the design. If they want spells to play a major role in the game, and indeed base an entire class around casting spells, they probably should have designed the game a bit better to allow interaction with it. I can come up with a thousand different clever ideas of what this would look like, but ultimately we have what we have.

Because of this, it’s very easy for that spell based class to quickly become a problem or quickly be garbage.

The game wasn’t designed in a way to be ‘spell friendly’. What I mean by this, is that if I said I had a 10 damage minion that can hit your face, what can you do about it? Well, I have a turn to prepare. I can kill it with a spell. I can taunt it. I can kill it with a minion. I can bounce it back to your hand. I can do allllllllllll sorts of things to it (dormant it, shuffle it into your deck, make it miss its attack, etc etc etc)…there’s a LONG list of things you can do to a minion. And, you get to prepare (assuming no charge).

Now what can you do against a spell that’s cast from hand and deals 10 damage to your face? Well…the list is much much smaller than it is for a minion. The list is extremely small on what you can do to stop it.

That’s the main problem. That’s why the spell/minion thing is not balanced. Now I understand it’s not balanced because a spell is used and gone, and a minion lasts until removed, but that’s exactly part of the imbalance.

Things like this in other games are balanced around the opponent being able to react and balanced around an interaction of players. Most card games have interactions with each other on each other’s turn. The inability to react to your opponent in this game on their turn is a massive limit in design, and it’s part of the problem why losing to a chain of spells sucks - you can’t do anything about it or your options to do something about it are so miniscule.

8 Likes

Well said. I was thinking about posting something explaining that very distinction between spells and minions, but figured Mirrorshroud already understood this.

1 Like

Who gives a ?

This is the single worst card I have ever encountered in this game. I HATE it. It should NEVER have been made.

100% fire the people who thought anything about this card was good game play.

I wish I could cuss on this forum because I would be firing on this dumptserfire BS card HARD.

Again, whatever person though putting broken duels treasures into standard was a good play should be out of a job.

1 Like

I dislike the card also, but it really does suck in Priest overall. It might be better come rotation in Priest.

Either way, I don’t think you have to worry about the card because of Priest. It’s most certainly Druid’s gross manipulation of the card that’s reason for concern at the moment.

I dislike how most of the treasures are spells, many of which go face. I think it would be far better if they had more minions in the treasure pool.

1 Like

Druid is gross all around, imo.

Sure, sure, so then solar > arbor the board full of bombs… which just happened to me. I held most of the bombs up long enough, but the 16 attack Kaza was too much. I had 1/8 chance to topdeck smite and win, though, lol.

Even the aggro taunt version feels unfair when one can arbor up a full board on turn five and basically otk nearly anyone. Or do it twice on turn 7 …

Edit: As wrong as the design has been lately, I am a little shocked Kaza isn’t “tradeable”

I didn’t say it would be ideal lol but it’s definitely better than deal 7 damage to all enemies for FREE…and then deal 48 damage for 12.

1 Like

The effects are just too much for standard by any metric. It doesn’t matter if it is minions or spells or both.

If they want to keep this card, the treasures need to be detuned something fierce.

The one that pissed me off the other night was the silence and destroy. It isn’t enough to destroy the minions, you have to cancel their deathrattles so I have zero protection from your next spell that is lethal.

The card just sucks and it’s especially bad when it drops on four or five.

1 Like

I 100% agree with you. I think it should be 9 mana minimum with no real way to discount it. But I don’t think it gets changed, we’re stuck with this for awhile.

1 Like

This is the real reason you want the card gone you cant stand control , even when rotation comes and the card only sees play at turn 8 you will still hate it.

I dead against a nerf to the card just because of Druid other classes have made it clear that Kazakusan isnt a problem.

Duels treasures are too powerful for standard. Locusts was too powerful for Duels and was removed I heard. All of this points to Kazakusan at bare minimum costing 10 mana (or just not being released at all). So they decide to release it at 8 mana in a meta where lightning bloom and absurd ramp exist. Very good decision making.

2 Likes

I have no issues with control.

I have issues with stall fatigue no win condition snooze fest value control.

That is basically dead in this game and good riddance.

Edit: And it’s a crappy control card at best because in a control deck it’s only a wincon if you are 100% you can win with it so it won’t be played until the deck is basically empty, which is absurdly slow in the current meta. This means that if it isn’t at the back of the deck in the draw it’s just a dead card in your hand.

Thats untrue because you cant stop hating on Kaz Priest and it doesnt win like that.

The devs did indeed say they where getting rid of fatigue control but they also said they where going to give Control win cons and Kaz is just that .

Why do you think they made the card??
Non stop whines in the player base about unplayable control , it was all a cover to hate on quests.

You at least have been consistend on the hate of the playstyle but it doesnt change the fact you have to suck it up sometimes and live on a meta you dont like every full moon.

Been 3 years since Control ruled the meta its about time it gets a turn.

Because they are incompetent morons who have no idea how the things they make will actually be used by the players.

Don’t hold your breath, play a different card game.

I understand it, but I also think that it is less true than ever that spell forward classes are ruining the game.
Druid has plenty of spells and so does Shaman and so does Hunter and Pally, and i havent seen anyone saying that they need nerfs. Shaman can damage face just like mage used to but I havent noticed anyone here complaining.
Perhaps mage needs real minions and the same attention to detail that other classes get?
Some of the classes I mentioned are literally running deck styles that were stripped from mage for being too good. just sayin’

If you did a one to one comparison card by card of Burn Shaman to Quest Mage and the metas they existed within, I don’t think they’d be the same. Functionally similar but when you account for how it interacts with the opponent in terms of a consistent clock, it’s different.

Although giving Shaman Snowfury Guardian/freeze package was an interesting choice considering the stance they took with Freeze Mage, but they’ve already shown they can be inconsistent with previous design choices/corrective action if it suits pushing hype for a new product.

im not comparing Shaman to Quest mage. Im comparing it to freeze mage.
Shaman is capable of freezing your board and stalling until they have lethal, same as the old freeze mage sans Ice block, but shaman has healing and other tricks to make up for that lack.
The class can use face spells to finish same as mage used to, yet somehow no one says anything.

Shaman typically has had to contend with overload constraints and lack of card draw, which are things that didn’t hamper Mage as much. It’s only now that shaman has access to multicaster and overdraft that this is less of an issue. The player still has to make sure they meet the spell school requirement while juggling board control and staying alive or opportunity cost of burning with overdraft now or trading it away.

Overdraft should not exist if they are gonna give shaman the same burn that mage once enjoyed.
Overload was created for a reason. Mage had burn, but it didn’t have a great many things that Shaman does. Again; for a reason.

They probably thought the freeze package would be weaker in Shaman because Shaman is relatively weaker in the burn department compared to Mage due to the overload drawback.

Well, I dont see it. Im a terrible deckbuilder and an average player, so maybe im wrong, but honestly? All i see is Team 5 repeating the same patterns with mage over and over.
I think they should just admit they don’t have a clue how to design the class and get rid of it and give me my dust and gold back.
Im tired of there always being a caveat for other classes.
Hunter is always good. Always.
Pally has been really good for a very long time now.
Druid is positively sickening now.
And Shaman? Well it was crummy for a long time, but it irks me that the playstyle was lifted from mage and given to them.