Tinkmaster Nerf / Naturalize Rework

Posts: 31
With the next patch to come Tinkmaster will no longer fill the "hard" removal slot in competitive druid decks.
By "hard" i mean a way to get rid of creatures despite their power/toughness stats.

If you ask me, i do agree the card might've needed some reworking. But I wouldn't go as far as making it so unreliable/situational.
I'd go for something like:

Tinkmaster Overspark
Cost: 4
Stats: 2/2
Battlecry: Transform an ENEMY minion into a 5/5 Devilsaur
(maybe 4/4 if you think the higher cost plus lack of 1/1 option is too much of a nerf)

But I think it is unlikely that, once already announced, they'll take back that change.
So maybe, if the reason for such a rework is that the card saw play in almost every high end deck, there might be a way to fill the gap left by Tink without going back to the "must be in every deck" problem.

As it is, Druids relied on Tink to deal EFFICIENTLY with big minions such as Rag and Ysera.
Please note that by saying "EFFICIENTLY" i mean doing 1 for 1 'ish trades instead of having to use 2+ cards to do so.

My suggestion would be to rework the Naturalize spell since, in its current form, is too much of a disadvantage to be used.
I know it is "hard" removal for ONE mana, but giving your oponent 2 cards is very dangerous and likely to cause more problems than the minion we wanted to get rid of in the first place.

I'd suggest that the card be reworked as a Druidish version of hex/poly but not as good.

My take on a new Naturalize would look something like:

Naturalize
Rare
Cost: 4
(Heck...even 5 if a "drawbackless" Druid "hard" removal sounds THAT bad)
Effect: Transform an enemy minion into a 2/2 Treant.

It is not as good (or easy to get) as Assassinate, Hex, Polymorph and the resulting Treant Cannot be directly dealt with the Druid's hero power (like Mages can do with the polymorphed sheep).

But it does get the job done, like Tinkmaster, without being a OP card with the "must have in every single deck" tag (which seems like its what drove Bliz to change nerf Tink in the 1st place).

Please tell me what you think.
(It would surely make my day to know what Blizzard thinks about it)
Any other suggestions and/or constructive criticism are welcomed.

Thank You
Edited by idc1993 on 3/11/2014 10:54 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 508
Interesting design decision on Naturalize. In my opinion, if I'm going to give my opponent a 2/2, it needs to cost less than 4 since Polymorph makes 1/1 sheeps.
Reply Quote
Posts: 66
I love this idea, but it should probably cost 2 mana with a downside like giving the opponent a 2/2
Reply Quote
Posts: 470
I disagree. Druid was denied free hard removal for a reason and you want to rework and give them one for a low cost? A 2/2 is nothing late game. I would agree with the OP that it should be higher cost with a 2/2 downside, but make it a tree that cant attack but has taunt. Thats one annoying tree.
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
03/10/2014 10:54 PMPosted by CraftySalv
Interesting design decision on Naturalize. In my opinion, if I'm going to give my opponent a 2/2, it needs to cost less than 4 since Polymorph makes 1/1 sheeps.


03/11/2014 01:07 AMPosted by Pawwz
I love this idea, but it should probably cost 2 mana with a downside like giving the opponent a 2/2


My thought process for making Naturalize a strictly worse spell than polymorph was that, beacuse Druids are more flexible than other heroes and have lots of "damage" removal, people tend to think that they are meant to not have a DECENT "hard" removal spell.

So, I thought that making the spell a little bit more sittuational (viable to hit mid to late game units only) that would close the gap without it being OP or overly criticised for its utility.

Also, as Druids are known for heavy mana ramp and usage of big minions themselves, the higher cost (5 at MOST now that I think of it) plus the 2/2 Treant (as opposed to the 1/1 Sheep) would not be that big of a deal for its playability.

After all, a 4 mana spell that turns a minion into a 2/2, and you can run 2 of, is better than a 3 coster legend that might turn it into a 5/5.

My point is that, even at 5 mana (even better if it'd be 4), my reworked version of Naturalize would still be a viable (if not better) replacement for Tinkmaster in Druid decks.
Reply Quote
Posts: 215
why not increase the cost by one or two and only have it draw one card instead of two?
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
03/11/2014 09:03 AMPosted by Groovin
why not increase the cost by one or two and only have it draw one card instead of two?


Although viable, that's still card disadvantage since you're spending a card to get rid of theirs while they get to replace the card you destroyed (even more if the card already did that by itself...Azure Drake for exemple).

Another important thing to keep in mind is that a Druid "Polymorph" negates any deathbattles the minion might have (Cairne Bloodhoof disaproves this).
Edited by idc1993 on 3/11/2014 9:56 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,111
Well, the truth is, minions like Ysera ought to see more play. Not every class should have a general counter to annoying "interesting" minions. This game is already leaning way too far in the direction of all-out early aggression and this is a change in the right direction at giving "high cost/risk" decks a chance.

Here's the thing: Don't think of it as a nerf. Think of it as a buff...to control Druid decks which can Innervate for the annoying "finisher" earlier than most other classes. Every neutral card nerf can be a buff if you look at both sides of the coin.
Edited by Ulyanasaurus on 3/11/2014 10:19 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
03/11/2014 10:15 AMPosted by Ulyanasaurus
Well, the truth is, minions like Ysera ought to see more play. Not every class should have a general counter to annoying "interesting" minions. This game is already leaning way too far in the direction of all-out early aggression and this is a change in the right direction at giving "high cost/risk" decks a chance.

Here's the thing: Don't think of it as a nerf. Think of it as a buff...to control Druid decks which can Innervate for the annoying "finisher" earlier than most other classes. Every neutral card nerf can be a buff if you look at both sides of the coin.


Hard removal never DID stop stuff like Ysera and Rag from seeing play.

They just had to be played carefully (high risk/high reward) and having in mind how much of the oponent's hard removal had already been used in order to ensure they weren'tt likely to be hit by those.

If a class doesn't have counters to neutral cards that are likely to be used in almost every deck, that would make said class weaker to others who got said counters.

Being forced to make bad trades for getting rid of something, while other classes can do it in a 1 for 1 'ish fashion, is the first step into making a class strictly more vulnerable (thus weaker) to widely used stuff.

It would be like having to stream a youtube video on an old film camera while your friends get to do it using a digital one.

Buffing the weak end rather than nerfing the strong one (when viable) is healthier to the game's fun factor.

Its better to introduce strong strategies than to make existing ones unviable.
Edited by idc1993 on 3/11/2014 10:47 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,111
03/11/2014 10:43 AMPosted by idc1993

Hard removal never DID stop stuff like Ysera and Rag from seeing play.

They just had to be played carefully (high risk/high reward) and having in mind how much of the oponent's hard removal had already been used in order to ensure they weren'tt likely to be hit by those.

If a class doesn't have counters to neutral cards that are likely to be used in almost every deck, that would make said class weaker to others who got said counters.

Being forced to make bad trades for getting rid of something, while other classes can do it in a 1 for 1 'ish fashion, is the first step into making a class strictly more vulnerable (thus weaker) to widely used stuff.

It would be like having to stream a youtube video on an old film camera while your friends get to do it using a digital one.

Buffing the weak end rather than nerfing the strong one (when viable) is healthier to the game's fun factor.

Its better to introduce strong strategies than to make existing ones unviable.


I never said Tink "stopped" those cards from being played, just there would be more of them around now that every deck and its dog didn't have a Tink in it. This one card was bringing an unreasonable amount of risk to all kinds of interesting strategies, making them more risky than they ought to be. There is already more than enough built-in risk in including high-cost minions in decks.

Some classes are always going to have better hard removal than others, but some classes have Innervate to get those "annoying" minions out a 2-4 turns earlier than others. Yeah, you can either whine about being forced to make bad trades because you don't have Tink, or you can make another player whine about being forced to make bad trades because they don't have Tink.

The changes you proposed simply danced around the issue instead of solving it: Efficient removal of high-cost minions more "annoying" than a 5/5 Devilsaur shouldn't be in every moonshined modderfogging deck. It's not healthy for the game, especially because the game balance is already so heavily tilted in favor of the early all-out aggression.

Tink was a luxury, not a necessity, and it was a luxury that came at too high a cost of making the game a lot less interesting than it could be.
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
03/11/2014 11:25 AMPosted by Ulyanasaurus

Hard removal never DID stop stuff like Ysera and Rag from seeing play.

They just had to be played carefully (high risk/high reward) and having in mind how much of the oponent's hard removal had already been used in order to ensure they weren'tt likely to be hit by those.

If a class doesn't have counters to neutral cards that are likely to be used in almost every deck, that would make said class weaker to others who got said counters.

Being forced to make bad trades for getting rid of something, while other classes can do it in a 1 for 1 'ish fashion, is the first step into making a class strictly more vulnerable (thus weaker) to widely used stuff.

It would be like having to stream a youtube video on an old film camera while your friends get to do it using a digital one.

Buffing the weak end rather than nerfing the strong one (when viable) is healthier to the game's fun factor.

Its better to introduce strong strategies than to make existing ones unviable.


I never said Tink "stopped" those cards from being played, just there would be more of them around now that every deck and its dog didn't have a Tink in it. This one card was bringing an unreasonable amount of risk to all kinds of interesting strategies, making them more risky than they ought to be. There is already more than enough built-in risk in including high-cost minions in decks.

Some classes are always going to have better hard removal than others, but some classes have Innervate to get those "annoying" minions out a 2-4 turns earlier than others. Yeah, you can either whine about being forced to make bad trades because you don't have Tink, or you can make another player whine about being forced to make bad trades because they don't have Tink.

The changes you proposed simply danced around the issue instead of solving it: Efficient removal of high-cost minions more "annoying" than a 5/5 Devilsaur shouldn't be in every moonshined modderfogging deck. It's not healthy for the game, especially because the game balance is already so heavily tilted in favor of the early all-out aggression.

Tink was a luxury, not a necessity, and it was a luxury that came at too high a cost of making the game a lot less interesting than it could be.


You do have a valid point, but you are forgetting something.

Yes, Druids can Innervate big threats early, bit that only means the oponent is likely to not have spent his hard removal at that point, so there's a really good chance he'll use it on the Innervated threat and get a nice 2 for 1.

For Druids Tink was not a luxury, he was a band-aid to the real problem (talking exclusivelly about Druids here) which is lack of viable hard removal (thus...struggle to deal with big beefy threats).

I also agree that some classes will always have better removal than others.

But not having it at all is a completely different story.

While most classes have viable damage based removal AND hard removal, why do other have to have only one of them?

My suggestion is only to give Druids a hard removal that does not give your oponent an advantage but is still subpar when compared to what other classes have.
Reply Quote
Posts: 53
Again with this? As druid, I can say druids has a HUGE toolbox, by the turn 6/7 most of the time they are leading in card advantage by 2/3, and from there they can keep extending... and you want them to have a tool to kill big minions easy? no way... druids are ok as they are now, we have healing abilities, good AOE, good single target, good minions, if you want good single removal too, there's something wrong with you.
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
Not necessarally GOOD.

Just not unplayable.

After all, having nearly unusable cards is just as much of a detriment to the game.
Edited by idc1993 on 3/11/2014 12:36 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 53
03/11/2014 12:29 PMPosted by idc1993
Not necessarally GOOD.

Just not unplayable.

After all, having nearly unusable cards is just as much of a detriment to the game.


Naturalize it's by no means unusable, It's just not a polymorph, nor a hex. You want a reliable spell, naturalize is jut that spell you will use to finish your opponent, if you want to grind the board/hand, you have a lot more of resources.

Naturalize + Force of nature + Savega Roar = 10 mana. Do I need to say something else?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,111
03/11/2014 11:51 AMPosted by idc1993

You do have a valid point, but you are forgetting something.

Yes, Druids can Innervate big threats early, bit that only means the oponent is likely to not have spent his hard removal at that point, so there's a really good chance he'll use it on the Innervated threat and get a nice 2 for 1.

For Druids Tink was not a luxury, he was a band-aid to the real problem (talking exclusivelly about Druids here) which is lack of viable hard removal (thus...struggle to deal with big beefy threats).

I also agree that some classes will always have better removal than others.

But not having it at all is a completely different story.

While most classes have viable damage based removal AND hard removal, why do other have to have only one of them?

My suggestion is only to give Druids a hard removal that does not give your oponent an advantage but is still subpar when compared to what other classes have.


Druids do have hard removal, it just comes with its own card/mana efficiency quarks, as single-target damage/multiple damage/minion cards do with every class. Not every multi-target damage is going to be Swipe; not every minion is going to be Ancient of Lore. You get your card advantage exploiting your classes' strengths and may have to cough some of it up covering your classes' weaknesses.

Yeah, sure, Warlocks would love to rework Hellfire into "Swipe Clone But Worse" the way you tried to rework Naturalize and Tink, but none of it constitutes a necessity.
Reply Quote
Posts: 31
Tell me one other class specific hard removal that has a drawback such as giving your oponent +2 card advantage...

I understand what you are saying.

My point is that I'd trade the awesome 1 mana cost Naturalize has for a normal (even slightly high) mana cost any day of the week IF that meant not having to give up card advantage (a drawback no other hard remmoval has) to play it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,111
03/11/2014 02:45 PMPosted by idc1993
Tell me one other class specific hard removal that has a drawback such as giving your oponent +2 card advantage...

I understand what you are saying.

My point is that I'd trade the awesome 1 mana cost Naturalize has for a normal (even slightly high) mana cost any day of the week IF that meant not having to give up card advantage (a drawback no other hard remmoval has) to play it.


We had already established that you would want Druids to stay overpowered. We were simply pointing out why it would be a bad idea. It's like Hellfire vs. Swipe. Some classes simply aren't meant to do some things well, and Tink was covering Druid's supposed weakness too well.

I wouldn't be surprised that the Tink nerf was meant in part to target the overall power of the pre-patch Druid. With most control decks nerfed into oblivion, the "solidness" of the Druid class has placed it heads and shoulders above the other classes.

I like the strategy of not hitting the class directly, but rather to highlight its supposed weakness that didn't turn out to be much of one due to a neutral card. This nerf hits the mark quite well. I can now win with Druid without feeling as if the class simply has a substantial advantage over all the nerfed-into-the-ground classes.

There were stupid nerfs (Mind Control nerf to a class already struggling, for example) and then there were good nerfs. This was one of the good nerfs which hit the right class (Druid is too strong; Priest is too weak; the other seven are about right, with maybe Mage leaning toward weak).

IMO this nerf was supposed to hurt Druid more.
Edited by Ulyanasaurus on 3/12/2014 3:10 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 829
Druid is OP HELOU?

WHoou the hell need removal when you start to spam 9-cost legendaries and X X/X taunts by turn 5 till the end of the game where x = infinity
Edited by Husky on 3/12/2014 3:14 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 210
...
Edited by Senecus on 8/9/2014 1:13 PM PDT
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]