February 2019 Balance Update - Feedback Thread

Play Mode Discussion
Prev 1 11 12 13 16 Next
While my MtG:A plan is still very much on track I'm not sure how much I'll be spending on HS.


I agree. Historically, I have bought the April set release bundles for Hearthstone not because I needed to spend cash but because I considered it my contribution to the game's profitability. I've always seen Hearthstone as a simpler, streamlined CCG that is generally enjoyable. It's not perfect, but it accomplishes the brain puzzle/tickle that I like and it is very low impact on time and resources. My once-a-year cash investment has always seemed like a very reasonable investment because the game itself has been solid.

For the first time, I think that I'm going to just get the April set with nothing but quest gold. Instead, I'll use the cash to buy some more into MtGA. Why? Frankly, if Hearthstone doesn't get on the stick and do a full rotation of the Classic/Basic set, then I no longer consider it a long-term investment.

I'll play it for free, but only until the point where its benefits outweigh its problems. By not doing a Classic Core rotation, Team5 is doing nothing but pushing the game's problems down the road rather than resolving the problems. There will come a point where the game will have more problems than benefits ... and then? MtGA becomes my primary CCG, and Hearthstone becomes secondary, or I drop it completely. I hope it doesn't come to that point, but so far Team5 hasn't really given me much reason to think they're willing to grapple with the journeyman work needed to clean things up.
Yeah I mean they could easily rotate stuff in from old sets too! Like no reason we can't have Naxx back in for a year. More cards is better. It might be harder to balance but making different combinations of the expansions in and out ever year would be much more fun.

If there happens to be some problem due to "design space" then make a nerf or two it for that year. It's a digital CCG it was practically designed for this!
02/01/2019 09:46 AMPosted by TheRiddler
While my MtG:A plan is still very much on track I'm not sure how much I'll be spending on HS.


I agree. Historically, I have bought the April set release bundles for Hearthstone not because I needed to spend cash but because I considered it my contribution to the game's profitability. I've always seen Hearthstone as a simpler, streamlined CCG that is generally enjoyable. It's not perfect, but it accomplishes the brain puzzle/tickle that I like and it is very low impact on time and resources. My once-a-year cash investment has always seemed like a very reasonable investment because the game itself has been solid.

For the first time, I think that I'm going to just get the April set with nothing but quest gold. Instead, I'll use the cash to buy some more into MtGA. Why? Frankly, if Hearthstone doesn't get on the stick and do a full rotation of the Classic/Basic set, then I no longer consider it a long-term investment.


I am really questioning any future purchases as well. At least until I either see their April nerf/HOF announcements or see a designer insight video.

My hearthstone play and pay will go down until I know the value of the investment.

I might skipped CCGs altogether and pay Civ 5&6 and Total War until I get bored.
02/01/2019 08:48 AMPosted by Archvile
Why don’t you just remove the classic set and give us a full refund? This nerf really sucks, and you won’t be done until you nerfed virtually all usable classic/basic cards to oblivion.

id take a full classic(and maybe basic) rotation out and a core set even without dust refund aslong they unerf most cards aswell.
id aslo take baku and genn rework/nerfs/removal without dust refund, with the apripriate cards unerfed(coldblood, flame tonque,lvl up etc)
01/31/2019 08:23 PMPosted by Boreas
01/31/2019 07:34 PMPosted by EdwardCoug
DK Rexxar is and has been the most problematic card in standard for a while now. I don't understand why this card wasn't touched. Hunter's Mark wasn't the problem. Spellstone was bad but nowhere near Rexxar.


i lost more games to the spellstone than rexxar

they usually play rexxar and no zombeasts are seen until 2 turns later in most games


We're probably playing different decks. I play a lot of late-game, value-oriented decks. I'm usually able to deal with spellstone but get outvalued by Rexxar. It sure doesn't feel balanced when an aggressive deck outvalues your value deck because of one card.
I find it hilarious how people call for nerfs on other classes but then they get their own classes nerfed a couple weeks later. XD

I also find it funny that people expect old cards to stay unchanged. It's kinda stupid to add more cards if you aren't planning on making future changes to the game. Most classic cards in time will become balanced if they show signs of abuse with future expansions planned. The Devs are two expansions ahead of what is current so making balance changes earlier than later is far better for the game. Eventually the warlock and priest class will see it's own share of balance changes. If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.

It must be rough being so worked up over a magical card game because you feel like you are so entitled to keep your cards from being changed in order to help balance the game. First world problems haha.
02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
The Devs are two expansions ahead of what is current so making balance changes earlier than later is far better for the game.

Here is why I don't have a ton of faith in the "future" proofing idea:
Fiery War Axe: They have yet to give anything for 'normal warrior' to be a top-end Control deck and Baku Warrior doesn't want it at all, lol

Double nerf to Blade Furry: It took 4 or 5 expansions, if memory serves, for a card to even come close to justifying the double nerf on this card (Kingsbane). The no face damage was fine but then bumping up mana... really?

Rockbiter: "Nah guys it'll still see play" yeah.... let me know when it does outside of Hagatha

Again.... I get 4/5ths of these nerfs and while I may not agree with all of them I think the cards are still usable but Flametongue Totem... really? The card isn't over the top good, it isn't carrying the class, and unless they want to release a ton of decently stated Whirlwind minions it isn't limiting design space.

02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.

No, but is nerfing core cards instead of putting in a rotation of core cards OR dealing with the core card issue better?
Pirate Warrior: Let's hit FWA and kill Warrior for awhile

Ramp on Druid: Let's attack BOTH Wild Growth and Nourish instead of UI which created the core issue

Those are probably the two worse in terms of just missing the mark AND doing to to, in my view, avoid nerfing an expansion card which is what was more needed.
02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
I find it hilarious how people call for nerfs on other classes but then they get their own classes nerfed a couple weeks later. XD

I also find it funny that people expect old cards to stay unchanged. It's kinda stupid to add more cards if you aren't planning on making future changes to the game. Most classic cards in time will become balanced if they show signs of abuse with future expansions planned. The Devs are two expansions ahead of what is current so making balance changes earlier than later is far better for the game. Eventually the warlock and priest class will see it's own share of balance changes. If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.

Anyone else find this week entertaining? Let the downvotes commence lol.


The problem is we don't know their plans. And their plans develop slowly. So there is no way to fuel optimism.

It took 18 months for a card to make up for Blade Flurry. FWA is still waiting for it's due. Druid is in the cemetry. But Patches was kept around for months. Now tempo mage, aggro rogue, and control Paladin are on the wait list.

There must be logic behind their decisions but we are never told how they think. The Unknown scares people naturally and a less than stellar track record does not help.

Just tell us the aspects of each class and which classic cards are iconic. Or throw it away. The drip is a killer.
02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
I find it hilarious how people call for nerfs on other classes but then they get their own classes nerfed a couple weeks later. XD

I also find it funny that people expect old cards to stay unchanged. It's kinda stupid to add more cards if you aren't planning on making future changes to the game. Most classic cards in time will become balanced if they show signs of abuse with future expansions planned. The Devs are two expansions ahead of what is current so making balance changes earlier than later is far better for the game. Eventually the warlock and priest class will see it's own share of balance changes. If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.

Anyone else find this week entertaining? Let the downvotes commence lol.


You literally ignored any and all previously made arguments.
02/01/2019 11:23 AMPosted by Lykotic
Ramp on Druid: Let's attack BOTH Wild Growth and Nourish instead of UI which created the core issue


but the issue everyone complained about here was people being able to ramp into UI
If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.


I don't disagree with the general argument. Yes - metas are supposed to evolve the game and classes will wax and wane from set to set. That's fine by me. I don't expect class viability to be statically frozen in time. That's not what's being talked about here (not by me anyway).

My concerns are more 30,000 foot level than that. CCGs - as a game genre - have an established cycle. That cycle is that every 2 years or so, you must update the "Core" set. Otherwise it has too much influence and the game becomes locked into repeating patterns and has too many limits on card design. The Core-Set updates are the reason why MtG is still a going concern rather than just another dead fad like Pogs. They allowed MtG to avoid problems, remain relevant, and maintain player interest.

Hearthstone is almost 5 years old now ... and they haven't done a core set rotation once. They should have done one in 2016 ... and then another in 2018. Instead, they've let the Classic/Basic set limp along set after set, perpetuating its problems, stifling card design, and forcing them to do these bizarre one-off nerfs to Classic cards so as to 'balance' sets they haven't even released yet ... all while newer cards that are problematic (UI, Genn, Baku, etc) go untouched.

I observed closely in 2016-17 when they went past the date where a set rotation typically occurs without doing what I thought was necessary. There were rumblings ... but nothing too problematic. In fact, the WotOG and Ungoro metas were quite good. So I figured the problems that a lack of set rotation creates were not strong enough to overcome the game's overall condition. They'd done something I didn't think was feasible ... apparently with good results.

But late 2017 was when the wheels started coming off the cart. A couple overtuned sets in a row exacerbated the lack of rotation issues, and those issues have been slowly metastasizing through 2018. Historically, I've been confident that Hearthstone as a game was robust enough to weather the issue. I'm not quite as confident in that now.

I'm not going all Chicken Little and saying the game is "unplayable" or other such nonsense. The game is still fun, easy to enjoy, and very affordable. But I see problems down the road. Leaving the Classic set unrotated is creating a slow-motion train wreck. Team5's behavior doesn't leave me thinking those problems are going anywhere.

If they keep bulldozing past the real problem (Classic set needs a rotation) then I don't see how the long-term prospects for the game can avoid being plagued with a continuance of these issues. And if there is another bad expansions which takes those problems to the point where they outweigh the overall positives?

(shrugs)
02/01/2019 11:34 AMPosted by Boreas
02/01/2019 11:23 AMPosted by Lykotic
Ramp on Druid: Let's attack BOTH Wild Growth and Nourish instead of UI which created the core issue


but the issue everyone complained about here was people being able to ramp into UI

And ui caused the problem together with plague for removing their weakness. way less weakness to aggresion and huge draw removing drawback of ramping.
02/01/2019 11:34 AMPosted by Boreas
02/01/2019 11:23 AMPosted by Lykotic
Ramp on Druid: Let's attack BOTH Wild Growth and Nourish instead of UI which created the core issue


but the issue everyone complained about here was people being able to ramp into UI

Because UI made up for the trade-off.

Let's go back to Big Druid and before that older pre-rotation Druid Ramp strategies:

Big Druid: You Ramped for one or two spike plays but were then out of steam and had to either waste a turn playing Nourish for card draw and hoped to have Earthen Scales as a nice tack on or had to hope your opponent couldn't answer. There was risk to the strategy and while it was powerful (low t1, high t2) it wasn't broken and never had above 5-6% play rate because of the fact it was a high risk strategy

Older Ramp: Tended to focuses on getting to the combo (SR+FoN) before the nerf to the strategy. I agreed with the nerf to one or the other but the Ramping was light (I don't think Nourish was run at all) and was specific to one deck.

UI's issue: Combo, Infinite Value, Big Druid (Wild at the time).... you ran UI and all the Ramp because the Draw 5, Deal 5, and play 5/5 (armor less important) regained A LOT of the issues Ramping caused. Don't get me wrong, Spreading Plague kind of compounded the issue of the Ramping mitigation but the core issue was that UI recovered A LOT of the drawback of heavily ramping traditionally which was card advantage. Riddle and I agree on this.... what needed to be addressed was UI's card draw (and I say maybe minion too) and to cover UI they decimated the class through nerfing BOTH. Maybe one is okay but not both.
Thanks. Fantastic news, just brilliant. Rexxar should of been 8 mana, but nevertheless, great.
I’m just shocked that we’ve had 2 nerfs since RR and Priest was untouched.

Diamond spell stone for the win!
Rotate out cards from the basic and core set. There is no reason they can't rotate and bring in new cards from the basic and core set and to help appease people they could give full dust for the cards. They can also bring the cards back at later dates.

Rotating these sets instead of nerfing them is the appropriate way to handle things.
It's a good thing people still play this game! Where are all the guys who still enjoy this game at? Having fun playing your so called game? Guess what? it's not your game it's Blizzards. Vote with your wallet and get out like the folks who are WOKE.
02/01/2019 11:34 AMPosted by Boreas
02/01/2019 11:23 AMPosted by Lykotic
Ramp on Druid: Let's attack BOTH Wild Growth and Nourish instead of UI which created the core issue


but the issue everyone complained about here was people being able to ramp into UI


A problem that did not exist before cards like UI were introduced.
Meaning, once they are gone, the ramp mechanic will be even more of a joke.
02/01/2019 10:55 AMPosted by Tman15tmb
I also find it funny that people expect old cards to stay unchanged. It's kinda stupid to add more cards if you aren't planning on making future changes to the game.


People invest time and/or money to get those cards. Of course they want them stay unchanged. That's a very basic principle, and Blizzard failed big time in Hearthstone.

I'm okay with rare fixes if something is absolutely broken. But it should be timed well, like right on year rotation, and not when people already crafted their decks.

These mid-expansion nerfs send the message that nothing is constant, and make everyone uncertain when building decks. The investment should pay off. Crafted cards should have longevity.
If you aren't willing to adapt to change than I strongly suggest finding a different game because Hearthstone is always evolving and decks old and new will never play the same expansion to expansion.


I just wanna get grabbed from this comment to speak about my experience.
I got so much fed up with hs and these nerfs i started playing LoL after a very long break. And while the 2 games are trully different i wanna speak about the way the 2 designer teams view their games:

- LoL is evolving to. As a matter of fact many people suggest that its actually evolving to fast to catch up. Still the LoL designer team has shown repsect to their old playerbase. For ex in order to keep the game fresh sometimes they totally makeover older heroes but still they re keeping their main idea intact. So an older player can actually log in to LoL and play something totally new without paying anything else. Had the LoL team wanted more money couldnt they simply create new ones and leave the old ones dead?
In hs the old cards need to die so that the new ones be bought. Why cant the old cards change in a way to still be playable and still freshen up things a bit? Or as many people suggest why cant the evergreen set rotate and be changed with something else?

-LoL has done so many changes in gameplay throuh the years. Adding the feature of in game voice call , changing the map, adding new modes (Aram and one that changes every week), new items, new quests, different ranked mode etc are just a few of them
Whats the last hs change in gameplay we saw?

- LoL is the most f2p game i ve ever seen. If you spent enough time you can get everything and still the designers desided to give you for free the only thing you actually may wanted to buy: Skins. And this is the reason i ve actually decided to support LoL today with my money. Cause it doesnt see me like a huge wallet.
What has Hs done for the f2p and new player experience. Nerf all the basic and classic cards and destroy more than 10 decks? And yeah a week of dust and gold wont compensate them for all the destruction it brought.

- Some people suggest that hs seems bad cause many people got bored of it (5 year old game). LoL is a 10 year old game and keeps its playerbase intact.

My point is there are good design teams and bad design teams. T5 is a bad design team. They dont respect the new players, they dont respect the old players, they dont do any trully ''fresh'' change to the game and the only things they change are for cashgrab purposes. Anyone who wishes to continue this road may do so but at his own risk.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum