Whirlpool costs what it should, being a better and thus more expensive twisting nether.
It’s just that the meta is not one where a card like whirlpool would shine. Buffing it wouldn’t change that.
Even locks aren’t doing that great on the meta with twisting nether, and they have access to their colossal which is better than twisting in some ways.
You can’t really say “It’s a better Twisting Nether and therefore should cost more” and then turn around and say “Twisting Nether isn’t good right now either.” It’s not Power Creep for an expansion card to be better than an unplayed Core Set card, that’s just the barrier for entry into competitive play. It needs to be significantly better or it probably won’t see play.
Of course, the problem with Priest right now has nothing to do with late-game aoe.
Cost needs to be 6. Does not silence. Priests only real board clear. Epic spell, 9 too much, 6 is just right.
Um… yes I really can. A card can cost what it “should” but still not be meta viable.
It’s like saying a degree in underwater basket weaving is more expensive than a degree in hair styling for snakes, but neither are very competitive in the meta that is getting a good job.
Yeah, that’s one of my points. Buffing those cards (or those degrees) won’t do much if the meta stays the same.
…I suppose if WW3 happens and the nuclear fallout mutated humans to live in water and snakes to grow hair (and become useful to humans somehow that we keep them around)_, maybe those degrees would become much more sought after…
Why are we printing all of these pointless cards that are designed to not see play, then?
It’s a an interesting card but by the time you can play it or get it in hand on 9 it’s not going to really effect that match outside of a few select decks. Even worse is that more than half the time nobody would care if you did it because so many decks are just going to finish you off with spell anyway.
Sturgeon’s law bro. Look it up.
Cards aren’t “designed to not see play”
Devs are - and this should be obvious based on their track record - not gods. They’re not even psychics. They don’t know what cards will or will not see play.
Anyone can come up with new card ideas. But most of them won’t be meta. It’s not a deliberate phenomenon. It just naturally happens.
But we just had a talk about how a card of roughly similar powerlevel, with the same immediate impact and slightly less long term impact, isn’t good enough to see play in a different class. Hasn’t been good enough to see play in quite some time. I’m not a game designer, but I know this game places a huge emphasis on stuff happening now, in the moment, when a card is played. Whirlpool is not designed to see play.
You can look at it and say to yourself that Whirlpool isn’t a strong card. I saw it and said it was bad. Well, no, I said “Cross Priest AOE off your Bingo Card” and then said it was bad. Too many powerful cards are; 1) spells or hero cards, 2) legendaries, 3) come out way before Whirlpool, or 4) do too much the turn they are played for removal to matter.
I don’t think Whirlpool sees play at 8 mana, is what I’m saying. I don’t think it ever sees play for the qualities that make it better than Twisting Nether, and–looking within the Priest class–9 mana for Whirlpool is overcosted, because it’s a significantly weaker gimmick than Plague of Death.
And I’m getting a little ranty right now, but I spent like a year waiting for them to address the glaring weakness in Priest design and they never do. It’s a class that has to win on board, because there’s like one damage spell that goes face in the class, but they never print good frickin’ minions for it. They print card generation so you have to random into the power level that other classes just have in their 30 card deck.
In your view, is the priest weak?
Technically, First is correct. But I sympathize with Sage more.
Whirlpool should cost more than Twisting Nether. But Whirlpool shouldn’t cost 9. Twisting Nether should cost 7. Whirlpool should cost 8.
But it is your fault to main a class knowing the risks. It’s the wrong way to approach a collection card game and the wrong way to approach markets.
“I put all my money in Enron because it looked like such a winner, but I am not at fault for losing all my money when the company was a fraud.”
I think you’re 100% liable for not diversifying your portfolio and you assumed all the risk when you invested. As someone who was working in that industry when it happened (my first career (after I left the service) was as a financial writer for shareholder communications with an investment company that manages about a quarter trillion in assets) our analysts refused to put a dime in the company because we couldn’t determine how they were making actual money from the business model. We were right, there was no money.
The point is that you don’t blame stupid investors (priest mains) only stupid managers (managers) and I assume there are many incompetent managers and therefore diversify to dilute the risk to myself and my constituents.
Fact is Priest is weak because Blizzard wants it to be weak. They don’t want it having the foothold it once did because then the instant-gratification mobile gaming crowd whines and moans about long games or how much they hate playing against priest wah wah. $$$ talks, Blizzard walks and shoves Priest off the plank into a cesspool of mediocrity. Boar priest isn’t good in an aggro-heavy meta. Maybe it’s different at legend where priest has more time to actually play it out and get their win con…but at lower standard ranks, playing boar priest is basically free wins for the opponent. I’m starting to agree with those who say they may as well just delete priest, since Blizzard doesn’t ever want it to have decent decks that can be played at lower ranks.
Actually, that is NOT a fact. It is your opinion. And you are entitled to your opinion, as poorly reasoned as it may be. But your claim is certainly NOT a fact.
Priest IS weak, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
No, a card being bad for the meta, even if it’s been a long time, does not mean it’s “not designed to see play”
It just means the meta hasn’t favored a card like it for a long time.
Last year’s meta was a little more favorable. Locks weren’t top tier, but twisting did see more play, as control locks had soul fragments and corrupt package to go with it, resulting in a very grindy slow deck that punishes other slow greedy decks (like priests ;p)
This happened all without nerfing or buffing twisting nether, thus demonstrating the meta has more to do with it than an individual card being "designed’ to not be played.
A meta is made up of cards, not the other way around. When an individual card is designed, it doesn’t know how the rest of the meta will look like. It’s only after every card has been designed then played (by actual players live, not play testing) that we see which cards made it in the meta.
This extends to overall class design of priests. Class designs - and class identity- were made before/independent of metas. That most metas do not favor the design priests got is unfortunate, but that’s not something you can fix with a card buff or two. Nor would changing priest design (they already did a priest “rework” once, that didn’t work as well as people hoped)
You could maybe stretch it to make or cost 7 mana, if you at the same time make it a legendary so you only can run 1 copy.
Nah, Priest design has always tended to be “It can beat one thing”. Sometimes that one thing is the Meta Tyrant and Priest is good, sometimes it’s something pointless.
So you’re taking the position that “You can’t know what’s meta until it’s live” and I’m saying “A mostly identical card exists and has been too weak for a very long time, so making a card that’s mostly the same and costs more will probably be bad.” Like, I remember Nether being the first card cut in Warlock Quest decks, or not making the cut to begin with.
Putting all that aside, Blizzard regularly nerfs and hardly ever buffs. Why not err on the side of too powerful when nerfs seem to roll out every few weeks? Look at Switcheroo. That had some obvious abuse scenarios, and they printed it anyway. Now, I’m not saying they should’ve printed Whirlpool at like 6 mana or something crazy like that, but they could’ve priced it a bit more aggressively and then put it to 9 if it was ever too good.
Like I said, I consider it weaker than Plague of Death for the same cost. At 9 mana, you don’t get to target something particularly good to remove from your opponent’s hand or deck, it’s just a slight bonus to not dying this turn. Even at 8, I don’t think that changes.
You have misunderstood my comment. My objection was not to his claim of Priest being weak (although that’s a somewhat subjective term). My objection was to his claim that Blizzard wants it to be weak. That is purely opinion.
Now the team has naturally rotated out by now, but there was a comment probably 5+ years ago that Priest was envisioned to be this “Tricky Class” that was intended to be around a Tier 3 strength level.
Just wait until they add more discover cards for priest again. It will be soul mirror 2.0 with five discovered each game except much more powerful since the priest can remove tons of cards from the opponent deck and hand.