Alice Moonflowyr Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/19288409377 Warsong Commander's current iteration The new text will read "Your Charge minions have +1 Attack" I put "nerf" in quotes as it's much more of a sledgehammer than a nerf, and completely utterly kills Patron Warrior rather than simply nudging it's power level down a little bit. It also makes Warsong Commander pretty much 100% trash and completely unusable in a competitive sense. Was this hard of a nerf REALLY necessary to hit Patron Warrior? Could they have done something else to make Patron Warrior less "oppressive" without completely ruining the deck? Is completely gutting Warsong justifed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Card's terrible now, lol. Let's see how it long before people realise Paladin as a class is actually Anthrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mido9 Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Two of his excuses for nerfing it were super shitty:"Being a 2/3 is the soul of the card""Its text is confusing for players"I mean really. It could be an 0/2 and nobody would even notice because its effect is its whole soul, and its text is clear as day. It really shouldve been buffed to 3/3 or 2/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinolovania Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 The nerf was justified, but this was certainly overkill, yeah. Not getting obliterated by 40+ damage turns will be nice, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 The fact is, as it is right now, it's a inferior say Raid Leader or Dire Wolf Alpha. It really should give +2 attack or something if they don't want it to be flat out worse than some generics. And Patron will be missed. It was a fun deck to watch at least, and really high skill cap to play. It did not deserve to actually be nerfed out of existance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Fascist Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Two of his excuses for nerfing it were super shitty:"Being a 2/3 is the soul of the card""Its text is confusing for players" Why do all companies except like Wizards of the Coast spew out bullshit buzzwords when they do something like this? Instead of just saying they felt the card was too good and thus we're nerfing it, we have to keep the "soul" of the card and typical Blizzard nonsense of assuming everyone who plays Hearthstone is a drooling ape who can't make sense of simple English (or whatever language they are reading the card in). What the f*** is the "soul of the card" supposed to mean? Pixels on a server have souls now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PprkXykU5xM Since this is probably super relevant to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poc Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 "in Hearthstone, the least fun things are charge and direct damage to the hero" Hearthstone really is some kind of Bizzaro MTG, Thank god I uninstalled this game months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werewolfjedi Posted October 20, 2015 Report Share Posted October 20, 2015 The fact is, as it is right now, it's a inferior say Raid Leader or Dire Wolf Alpha. It really should give +2 attack or something if they don't want it to be flat out worse than some generics. And Patron will be missed. It was a fun deck to watch at least, and really high skill cap to play. It did not deserve to actually be nerfed out of existance. unfortunately, from the ben's text himself, the change was done because, " it limits our ability to make cards in the future." which makes sense from a design standpoint, but it points more to the fact it should have never existed then in the first place.and patron warrior being held up by this one card for it's OTK ability, means it has to be the targeted card regardless to fix the fact the deck could slam 50 damage on the god play setup in one turn from a double empty board. regardless of how long the game has gone in terms of turns. that kind of power is unacceptable, since you can't respond to it, you can only try to kill them first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 21, 2015 Report Share Posted October 21, 2015 That still doesn't explain why when nerfing the card they made it worse than some basic minions. I can understand the design aspect of it and appreciate that, but even when it comes to just removing it as a block for card design, that doesn't excuse making the card actually worthless. Also Patron was still the most skill intesive deck in Hearthstone by a long margin. Setting up silly amounts of damage from an empty board with no set-up isn't unique to Patron, it's present in Druid as well. Patron however required a lot more cards for the combo, it required you to manage resources effectively to ensure you could still actually combo whilst dealing wit on board threats, ensuring you were drawing enough, or not too much depending on the match-up, requiring very precise damage calcs. Like worse decks exist for relative arguments about game health than Patron, so I don't think it's that valid of an argument for Blizzard to just target Patron for these reasons. Especially whilst Secret Paladin exists, and arguably ramp druids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizarus Posted October 22, 2015 Report Share Posted October 22, 2015 Patron definately needed the hammer, I don't care how much skill it took to play it correctly. It was a staple in every tournament because you don't have to worry about matchups at all and it performs well in a game where matchups has such a huge influence on everything, so Patron + 2 anti patron decks became the norm. At the end of the day, this is a casual game, and Blizzard knows casuals don't want to play in a Tele-Dad meta. Blizzard also loses money if they allow only 3 classes to be played competitively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Althemia Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 The card shouldn't have existed in the previous iteration anyway due to how it's been a problem every single time it was a passive effect. Changing Warsong, however, should have definitely been something in order to help Arena Warrior a lot more than Constructed Warrior if they were going to make it something near enough completely different like this. Even a 3 mana 3/3 that gave something charge like Windspeaker would have been fine. This is honestly just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 The card shouldn't have existed in the previous iteration anyway due to how it's been a problem every single time it was a passive effect. Changing Warsong, however, should have definitely been something in order to help Arena Warrior a lot more than Constructed Warrior if they were going to make it something near enough completely different like this. Even a 3 mana 3/3 that gave something charge like Windspeaker would have been fine. This is honestly just pathetic.I'd honestly just make it a 2 cost and say "Things that enter with 3 or less attack gain +1-3 attack" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodrigo Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 I'd honestly just make it a 2 cost and say "Things that enter with 3 or less attack gain +1-3 attack" That sounds way too strong. Tournament Medic? Snapjaw? Imp Master? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Althemia Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 That sounds way too strong. Tournament Medic? Imp Master? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerion Brightflame Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 There is a much larger pool of cards with 3 or less attack. Admittedly it still wouldn't make the card too good, but it would give it a higher chance of being relevent, and probably spawn some kind of tempo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Althemia Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 There is a much larger pool of cards with 3 or less attack. That's why I only chose the ones with 1 attack. :P Was more of an in jest thing anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 I'd honestly just make it a 2 cost and say "Things that enter with 3 or less attack gain +1-3 attack"Well, I mean, its kinda luck dependant, 2 seems solid but almost too solid to just put there though. Plus, with 3 health it won't exactly live very long to create anything toooo massive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Althemia Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 Well, I mean, its kinda luck dependant, 2 seems solid but almost too solid to just put there though. Plus, with 3 health it won't exactly live very long to create anything toooo massive. A 2/3 for 2 does have a likely chance of surviving being played on turn 2 which means that playing a Spider Tank or even a Druid of the Flame on curve creates 3 mana Lost Tallstrider/Yetis or even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinny Posted October 27, 2015 Report Share Posted October 27, 2015 A 2/3 for 2 does have a likely chance of surviving being played on turn 2 which means that playing a Spider Tank or even a Druid of the Flame on curve creates 3 mana Lost Tallstrider/Yetis or even better.Or even turn 1 with a coin... I mean... Maybe it's ok? Should still probably be a 3/3 for 3 then... Turn 1 would just be a bit ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.