On October 14 2015 03:10 hunts wrote: Stupid change. Few people were good enough to even play patron well, and even at the top level patron was on the decline. Beyond stupid to nerf an entire deck like this, especially when it is the most skilled deck in the game. Reminds me of how they killed miracle rogue and made the game that much more bland.
I disagree. Nerfing miracle rogue made the game significantly more interesting. There was more new deck crafting and innovation the week after that nerf than there was with the last expansion release.
The blandest the game has ever been was the 3 months before the undertaker nerf. That is followed closely by the 3 months prior to this Grim Patron nerf. I do agree with many people that it is not the specific change I would have chosen, but the game will be unambiguously better for it. I'm really glad they decided to do something, and my true complaint is that I wish they wouldn't let the problems fester for so long.
What innovation and new deck crafting? By killing decks like patron and miracle rogue all they do is bring about the same old "boringly fight for board" in slightly different flavors of vanilla. I honestly believe the only reason HS is doing well at all is because they have no competition. If MTG were to make a good online client, and add the possibility of free or cheap to play like HS, I honestly believe HS would simply die due to blizzards stupid decision making and gigantic hard on for making things bland and simple.
Ben Brode said charge is the hardest mechanic to balance (being that you have to provide the tools - the reaction - in advance) so I understand the reason behind this severe change; they want to fix two problems at once. Get rid of the current patron's OTK and not have to deal with charge in the future anymore.
Starving Buzzard was much in the same vein - at the time it was very problematic and it limited future design. Ball of Spiders (okay, yes it's a bad card) probably wouldn't exist if Starving Buzzard was never changed. You have to think about the present and future.
On October 14 2015 03:10 AssumedNewb wrote: Warsong Commander was nerfed once : at game start it gave charge to any creature, which created decks (ab)using Molten Giand and Panda for an easy OTK
Since it was already nerfed once, it got the same treatment as Starving Buzzard : it they have to nerf a card a second time, this time it will be nerfed into oblivion.
Starving Buzzard, Gadgetzan Auctioneer, Undertaker, Warsong Commander : when they consider a card both too strong and unhealthy, they swig the nerfbat with great violence.
I wouldn't have mind Dr Balanced becoming 7/5 meanwhile.
The one thing those cards (Buzzard, Gadgetzan, Undertaker, Warsong Commander) have in common is they have/had a powerful effect triggered by a certain class of cards (respectively; beasts, spells, deathrattle minions, minions with <=3 attack) which limited all such cards. Cheap spells indirectly make Gadgetzan stronger, so for example, introducing spare parts made Gadgetzan stronger because the spare parts became card draw.
Such cards are incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to make well-balanced, because they will often be critical components of decks that use them and so entire decks types can appear or disappear with even slight changes to the card, or a change can have no effect at all. And even if some semblance of balance has been reached, it will all change when new synergising cards are introduced.
(However, Dr. Boom has no such problems, it is individually a very strong card but it does not interact with a whole class of cards the same way. It is the opposite of the cards above. It fits into most decks as an after-thought, whereas the cards above are often designed around those cards.)
The very same detail which makes these cards difficult to balance is what makes them so important to the continued health of the game: they generate archetypes all on their own. If there were no cards with powerful and unique interactions, then every deck would be some variant on a reliable curve, some removal, and maybe some card draw. Constructed would be nothing more than optimized Arena. It's not like removing those interesting cards is the only way to stop broken decks, either. You can just nerf some of the enablers, like Thaurissan or Conceal. Sure, there are some limitations down the line if you leave the core cards in place, but it would have been nice to actually see a Gadgetzan Spare Part deck before watching the card vanish from existence.
On October 14 2015 04:46 hunts wrote: I honestly don't think ball of spiders would ever see play even if buzzard wasn't nerfed.
I agree completely, but the point still stands true. They could be developing the next expansion right now and have some awesome cards that simply can't exist because Warsong Commander is a thing. Directly quoting the article, "we felt this change was necessary to help expand both future design space and...."
Okay I get the nerf but you all realize this is going to change nothing when it comes to the amount of diverse decks there are right?
Without patron nothing to punish midrange decks like paladin meaning that the heavier control matchups get phased out and the meta becomes a shit ton faster. Its basically going to be months of Druids / Paladins / hunter with a bunch of aggro decks sprinkled in
Is this change good for the game as a whole? Undoubtedly yes. But I do think they went overboard with it to a significant extent. There were plenty of other ostensibly sensible solutions being thrown around by the community, and they go ahead and do this? Basically eliminating the card from the game, even in arena? If they're going to do that at least make it a 3/3 so it doesn't make warrior even MORE of a shit-tier class in arena. But I digress.
This nerf reinforces the pattern we've seen before of charge being a very difficult mechanic to balance, and players not having enough tools to counter it because, as are the limitations of digital card games, there are no cards that players can voluntarily activate when it's the opponent's turn and react properly with. As people have stated and I've complained about for months, druid would almost never be seen if it weren't for The Combo, another charge-centered interaction that significantly shapes the meta. Instead of either doing nothing or nerfing such cards into oblivion, there should be some type of Loatheb or Mana Wraith-like effect that impacts charge cards.
It seems to me, for all the talk Blizzard gives about their preferred strategy of balance being introducing new cards, they do a piss poor job of actually identifying what cards are needed (Twilight Guardian being the only notably major recent exception that I can think of.)
On October 14 2015 04:59 NovaAurora wrote: Is this change good for the game as a whole? Undoubtedly yes. But I do think they went overboard with it to a significant extent. There were plenty of other ostensibly sensible solutions being thrown around by the community, and they go ahead and do this? Basically eliminating the card from the game, even in arena? If they're going to do that at least make it a 3/3 so it doesn't make warrior even MORE of a shit-tier class in arena. But I digress.
This nerf reinforces the pattern we've seen before of charge being a very difficult mechanic to balance, and players not having enough tools to counter it because, as are the limitations of digital card games, there are no cards that players can voluntarily activate when it's the opponent's turn and react properly with. As people have stated and I've complained about for months, druid would almost never be seen if it weren't for The Combo, another charge-centered interaction that significantly shapes the meta. Instead of either doing nothing or nerfing such cards into oblivion, there should be some type of Loatheb or Mana Wraith-like effect that impacts charge cards.
It seems to me, for all the talk Blizzard gives about their preferred strategy of balance being introducing new cards, they do a piss poor job of actually identifying what cards are needed (Twilight Guardian being the only notably major recent exception that I can think of.)
"players not having enough tools to counter it because, as are the limitations of digital card games, there are no cards that players can voluntarily activate when it's the opponent's turn and react properly with."
This is not a limitation of digital card games, it's a limitation of blizzards simple appeal to the lowest common denominator lazy game system. MTG has an online client with 100x the interactions that HS has, plenty of instant speed cards that can be played on your opponents turn.
On October 14 2015 04:59 NovaAurora wrote: Is this change good for the game as a whole? Undoubtedly yes. But I do think they went overboard with it to a significant extent. There were plenty of other ostensibly sensible solutions being thrown around by the community, and they go ahead and do this? Basically eliminating the card from the game, even in arena? If they're going to do that at least make it a 3/3 so it doesn't make warrior even MORE of a shit-tier class in arena. But I digress.
This nerf reinforces the pattern we've seen before of charge being a very difficult mechanic to balance, and players not having enough tools to counter it because, as are the limitations of digital card games, there are no cards that players can voluntarily activate when it's the opponent's turn and react properly with. As people have stated and I've complained about for months, druid would almost never be seen if it weren't for The Combo, another charge-centered interaction that significantly shapes the meta. Instead of either doing nothing or nerfing such cards into oblivion, there should be some type of Loatheb or Mana Wraith-like effect that impacts charge cards.
It seems to me, for all the talk Blizzard gives about their preferred strategy of balance being introducing new cards, they do a piss poor job of actually identifying what cards are needed (Twilight Guardian being the only notably major recent exception that I can think of.)
"players not having enough tools to counter it because, as are the limitations of digital card games, there are no cards that players can voluntarily activate when it's the opponent's turn and react properly with."
This is not a limitation of digital card games, it's a limitation of blizzards simple appeal to the lowest common denominator lazy game system. MTG has an online client with 100x the interactions that HS has, plenty of instant speed cards that can be played on your opponents turn.
I'm gonna be fair to Blizzard, which is rare for me. They succeeded in making an extremely streamlined and overall quite cleverly built system which allows players to get used to the interface very quickly, generally permits the game to progress at a rapid pace, and leaves relatively little room for errors operating the interface to decide the game. This form which they made naturally prevented all kinds of same-turn responses. This is why Charge has been and continues to be such an issue. However, I don't think that removing Charge is necessarily the answer: instead, it's possible to just remove or nerf the OTK aspects of it (via greater use of Icehowl-style mechanics).
Loatheb-style effects should definitely be a bigger thing, though. Hate cards can help muffle anything.
On October 14 2015 05:57 Volband wrote: Finally. Better late than never. Seeing all the delusional patron tears are just icing on the cake.
Just remember that this nerf is going to be the reason the ladder becomes even more aggro / mid range heavy. This isn't that great of a change given it removes the biggest check on those decks. While the patron tears are delicious the ladder is gonna suck until the next set
Another archetype bites the dust. I'm not impressed by Blizzards balance team. Not at all. This could've been handled better. For instance, by changing Frothing Berserker to only gain attack from damaging your own minions. This would accomplish smaller Berserkers obviously, but most importantly: It would solve the problem of the opponent not being able to play cards in fear of the Berserker.
Back to just one Warrior archetype it is. That said; I made a Bolster Hobgoblin deck and no I never played Patron apart from the very beginning when I wasn't already bored of it.
On October 14 2015 05:57 Volband wrote: Finally. Better late than never. Seeing all the delusional patron tears are just icing on the cake.
Just remember that this nerf is going to be the reason the ladder becomes even more aggro / mid range heavy. This isn't that great of a change given it removes the biggest check on those decks. While the patron tears are delicious the ladder is gonna suck until the next set
Annoying deck will always exist, to each their own. Super-aggro facehunters, million years long freeze mage games, insanely draw (therefore luck) based decks, annoying mid-range decks who just doesn't let you put that Ragnaros down, etc. Everyone has his/her own hated decks.
I don't care if all I'm gonna see on the ladder is [insert ANY deck here], hell, maybe it will discourage me from playing the game until the next adventure/expansion hits. But I do not care. Why?
Because Patron was simply broken. No other (current) deck has ever made me afraid to play and not to play cards at the same time. It was a joke, and a terrible experience from game to game. I even hated beating them, I just didn't feel good after the games. The deck is (soon was) a contender for the all time most broken decks which ever existed with the old Buzzard+UTH. There is only one reason this deck should get any grief - it had a high skillcap, but that's all.
But do not pretend this deck had a high skill entry. Yeah, I saw people playing warsong+armorsmith and ending the turn without attacking. This was on rank 19. But even at lower 10s people could do the basic math. I just can't bear it when patron-fans keep talking about how hard the deck was.
Crying over keeping some decks in check is also pointless. Geez, Blizz releases new content rather frequently, so no one has to worry. Dang it, I can even play my Midrange Pally now for ~1,5 months at least. Unheard of!
Whether Warsong had to be killed or not... that one is debateable, but as long as Blizz keeps their word and try their best to give Warriors a new identity beside control, I am fine with that.
Edit: though Blizz should just "disable" it for Arena. That portion of this gutting was pretty bad. Arena Warriors have enough problems as it is.
To be honest I think for blizzard this is less of a balance issue and more a design space issue. With Warsong Commander in the game you are cutting off all future cards with three and under attack and special abilities, by the way I just realized that Warsong Commander + Emperor Cobra could have been a thing if Warrior didn't have a ton of cheaper removal already, but that's still the point, with Warsong Commander in play every single card you make with three or less attack can't be 'cool', so you can't make a 2/10 legend with some cool on hit attack because Warsong Commander. I think changing it is a must going forwards. I hope you guys like playinga against zoo and pally, cause here, they, come!
On October 14 2015 05:57 Volband wrote: Finally. Better late than never. Seeing all the delusional patron tears are just icing on the cake.
Just remember that this nerf is going to be the reason the ladder becomes even more aggro / mid range heavy. This isn't that great of a change given it removes the biggest check on those decks. While the patron tears are delicious the ladder is gonna suck until the next set
Keep in mind that taking away the combo-deck that combo'ed so strong it denied almost all defensive decks will allow for decks with taunt to return. No longer is the Sludge Belcher just a liability that gives an extra Patron Patron was actually one of the reasons WHY there was so much mid-range and aggro on the ladder, you had to kill your opponent by applying super pressure before the unstoppable combo hits.
Now I can finally go back to playing control Priest And all the other decks I shelved because of too much Patron.
On October 14 2015 06:28 IcemanAsi wrote: To be honest I think for blizzard this is less of a balance issue and more a design space issue. With Warsong Commander in the game you are cutting off all future cards with three and under attack and special abilities, by the way I just realized that Warsong Commander + Emperor Cobra could have been a thing if Warrior didn't have a ton of cheaper removal already, but that's still the point, with Warsong Commander in play every single card you make with three or less attack can't be 'cool', so you can't make a 2/10 legend with some cool on hit attack because Warsong Commander. I think changing it is a must going forwards. I hope you guys like playinga against zoo and pally, cause here, they, come!
Exactly. I'm not saying entirely killing off Warsong was definitely a good decision, but if some people really think Blizz has been failing to come up with anything for months, so they panicked and did this... yeah, no.
Look at Hunter. They had zero identity, just a bunch of random minions and spells with a useless hero power. Now not only they have a very powerful aggro and mid-range deck, the beast and lock-and-load archetypes are already set in motion, all they need is more cards to emerge in the future. Slowly but surely Hunter is growing into a pretty good class design and health wise. Yes, I hate losing vs smorc hunters, but I know that we need them.
Shaman, on the other hand is still struggling, so let's hope Blizz will do a better job with Warriors.
EPT
and no I never played Patron apart from the very beginning when I wasn't already bored of it. 
