yeah they should never change any card ever all because it would give kripp a little extra dust to his mountain of it. wouldn't want to chance making the game better at the cost of that.
Hey Kripp! Awesome vid as always man. The biggest thing I find is that there is a difference between something that is just a bad card, and a bad card with potential. Bad cards are okay as long as they have potential. For example, Hemet Nesingwary is the biggest piece of crap ever right now, but if some crazy strong beasts come out and dominate the meta game, he could probably become a decent card - he has potential, and it's great for bad cards that have potential to exist. But when a card is just bad and has no potential, it sucks and the card is totally useless, and super unfun to use and play with. Yes bad cards should exist for the sake of arena, but there's different types of bad cards, and at least in my eyes, every bad card should have some kind of potential to succeed in a specific situation, otherwise the card is just totally forgotten and completely unused.
Kripp, you're thinking idealistically. Blizzard doesn't care as much about the quality of the card game as they do about it's ability to rake in millions of dollars. Blizzard makes more money by keeping lots of cards shitty. People buy more packs trying to get the good cards that way.
Didums222 thats what I thought. Why would they buff cards (especially basic/common ones) if they can make new expansion and make some $$ - only more f2p players which as we can see latetly they dont like.
Didums222 I would actually buy more packs if some of these changes were made. I have all the neutral legendaries I want, so I just don't buy packs anymore. But, if Nozdormu was any good (a counter to Patron Warrior, for example), I would try to get it too and probably end up giving Blizzard some money
sp33dzer0 That's not even the point. First its not like nightblade was the only change he suggested and second of course it would slow down pack purchase. The older cards just cant compare with the newer ones. Not just in stats but also in fun. Grim Patreon is a fun card, the sounds are memorable, the effect can be super rewarding and the deck even works surprisingly good. War golem and many other cards are just boring as fuck and on top of this bad. The game is not fun if you have to play creature on creature, trading the whole game because nobody has game changing combos or effects. If you start the game and you just face people with fun mechanic cards and you are stuck with lame ass pieces of shit, you are probably going to buy packs. Sure it wont shut down the whole card purchase and most likely it will be hardly noticeable but it will allow people to experience some of the mechanics you can play with later in the game. Also he is still right by saying blizzard wont change anything. Those are easy changes, its literally just changing numbers and copy paste code. Still they let us sit there with almost no card changes.
Guilherme Fratin Wisp is playable though. There was a tier 3 aggro Paladin deck not too long ago that used Wisp (among other things) to power out Sea Giants and Frostwolf Warlords.
Guilherme Fratin Rogue dream: Turn 1 double wisp into 6/6 VanCleef (going first) or double wisp coin sinister strike (or something like that) into 10/10 VanCleef (going second). Or even, turn 1 coin double wisp double prep-shiv into a 14/14 VanCleef. That's the biggest one possible, I think.
My idea for silverback is to add a battlecry that gives you a banana, that is useful and not overpowered because if you use that on himself he is a 2/5 for 4 mana which is bad, but the potential of the banana is very huge so that would make the card playable and is also thematic
Ragingisky yeah its a cool idea but obviously not balanced, thats why he said at the end a team of devs with weeks worth of time could probably come up with better and more balanced ideas than he did
Its not that op. If u r against aggro deck, which you see more than not now, i could barely see how keep dropping rager win you the game. And tbh id rather face endless rager for any class and regardless class im playing, than some real sick ones, say, huffer and arcane golem.
Ragingisky I'd like it better if it was more like "deathrattle: put a Basalt (cooled magma) Rager in your hand, a 1-5 for 0 mana, or something to that nature.
Bad cards exist for newer players to better understand the basics of Hearthstone. Not only are they simple enough to understand, they also present a sense of accomplishment upon upgrading by replacement. To an experienced player they appear useless but to a team of developers they're vital in maintaining a growing community.
After wasting а lоt of timе i finаllу fоund оut а working HeееaarthStonе Cheаts .It’s Wоrking, vеrу еаsу usе. > Hеarthstоnе Bаd Cаrds Do Not Nееd Тo Еххxxist
Heres one for the Crocolisk. Make it a 2/2 with stealth and give it Ambush. Ambush triggers the next time your opponent plays a minion that fits a certain criteria (costs x mana, has x attack/health etc) and destroys it. This fits the Crocolisk itself, it being an ambush predator, and also allows for an interesting way to stall out face/weenie decks.
HammerOfDan I was about to comment something similar until I saw this comment. How about make it a 2 mana 2/3 with Stealth and Ambush' but Ambush means "Attack any attacking enemy minion" meaning it's like a taunt but the attacker can go through with his attack if he has high enough health. This means it acts like a taunt to small health or charged minions but high health creatures can get 2 kills this way so it's a really anti-face beast. Also you can give Ambush to the Jungle Panther as well
HammerOfDan I kinda like that idea, but I feel like that's a bit extreme. You could make it just say "Ambush: Deal attack damage of this creature to the first minion that enters the battlefield." That way they wouldn't be afraid of maybe adding the effect to other cards.
Blizzard have already said in their official forums a while ago that 'bad' cards need to exist because it gives the players choices and allows them to determine what are good cards and what are not. It's like having bad items in MMORPG's, it allows noobs to show everyone how big of a noob they really are.
X Kobe and a lot of these cards will still be generally bad, just not so bad that you could NEVER use them. They'll fit into niche decks, so you'd only see them if someone built decks around those cards exact uses. They'd still be bad, but alright under certain circumstances. I feel that is not only still in the spirit of what Blizzard was looking for, but implements the idea of teaching new players even better. It takes a lot more to recognize/come up with situations in which a card would do enough to become playable than it is to look at a card, think "yeah that sucks" and never touch it again.
X Kobe If you're a bad player, then you will pick suboptimal cards anyway. You'll put antique healbots as a 2 of in your face hunter deck. Or flame imps in your control warlock because you want "something to do on turn 1". The argument just doesn't hold up.
***** I wasn't talking about low stat items or cheap items as they're there for the purpose of leveling up or for players with less gold, but items with a similar stat coefficient as amazing items but are never used because they're so useless for a particular class. An eg. would be a staff that has +attack power for a mage archetype. No good players would equip such an item, but you can bet there are noobs out there who would.
Nightblade with Stealth sounds pretty cool until you realise it's going to be run in a face deck. Hell, even now you occasionally see Nightblade as a replacement for Leeroy in budget face huntard lists.
I think a couple card changes every few months would be a better idea. Changing cards every couple of weeks introduces too many changes in the meta but making changes every few months gives players(casuals mostly) a chance to become adjusted to the meta
SBroproductions "We can't really mess with Nozzy's Stat Line or Mana Cost. Need to keep that card absolutely horrible just like the other Legendary Dragons, because legendary dragons aren't supposed to be any good, just shiny cards in your collection." --here, I fixed it for you.
abschussrampe Well I mean, Ysera and Alex are both considered to be good Cards. Even Malygos is in same crazy decks. They need to give something to Nozzy that gives him a bit more oomph. Not a simple stat change.
I want Arthas to make an appearance in Hearthstone. Like him being focused around using undead minions and returning destroyed minions back on the battlefield and so forth. Legendary weapon Frostmourne that steals life from your opponent even if used on a minion. There's just so much cool stuff you can do with this. I really want to see all Troll cards be classified as trolls and gain 1 health regen at the end of your turn.
Hеarthstоnе Itеm Тoоl v2.0 is 100% undetectablе, sо yоur account will be safe. Wе set mоnthlу rеsоoourсes limit and wе аre using the bеst Anti-ban sсript. Yоu cаn get а lоt оf gоld and аrсanе dust in hеаrthstonе in 5 minutes !!★◆ twitter.com/aa2f9bfb42ce15555/status/754573659260329984 ★◆ Heаrthstоne Bad Cаrds Dо Nоt Nеed Tо Ехist
PaladinusSP Only because they are designed badly with too great potential. If anything get rid or reduce the cost reduction from portalled cards... I feel like Blizzard keeps trying to ramp up on card strength each expansion thus making any future expansions feel weak in comparison. Blackrock Mountain already feels weak overall compared to GvG.
***** lol That was a dumb as fuck comment. If a godlike card is 100 points in rating, a shitty card is 0, and a mediocre card is 50, then making any poor card mediocre will push the average rating of all cards up. This means that Godlike cards will be closer to the average rating, so they will become slightly worse. Do you even logic bro?
Silverback Patriarch: 3 Mana, 1/4 Taunt, This card gains +1 Attack when there is at least one other Beast-Type card on your side of the field. Dalaran Mage: 3 Mana, 1/3, Spell Damage +1. Deathrattle: When this unit dies, choose one of your units and it gets Spell Damage +1. War Golem: 7 Mana, 6/7, This card cannot be targeted by spells and hero powers. River Crocolisk: 2 Mana, 2/3, This card gets +1 Health when there is at least one other Beast-type card on your side of the field. Magma Rager: 3 Mana, 5/1, Deathrattle: When this card is destroyed not by battle, choose one of your opponent's monster and deal 2 damage to it. Nightblade: 5 Mana, 4/5, When this card attacks one of your opponent's Taunt monsters, deal 2 damage to your opponent. (That'll teach them to rely on Taunts :-P)
Guus van Voorst I kind of like silverback, though I think it should gain +1 per beast. Dalaran is fine too. War Golem got better stats, (out of BGH range) and a good ability. How are you going to remove it without running your whole board into it? I think an 8 mana 7/7 with the same ability might be more balanced. River Croc is fine. Magma Rager is still terrible. Nightblade is too specific, and the 2 health is pretty irrelevant, so I think it's still bad.
Guus van Voorst magma rager is not possible because blizzard dont want let you target anyting(since secrets are random or minion on action) at enemy turn
Dear Kripparino, I was in a deep coma that the doctors though they could never get me out of. But one day I heard a noise. The noise said, "heyguyshowsitgoingkripparianhere." Then I immediately got up to skip the Kripp. You saved my lief thx bro.
The only one I kind of disagree with is River Crocolisk. I think the stuff at least has to make thematic sense. War Golem, its a golem, should repair itself and stuff. But why does a crocodile give back health?
As poster of that 60 card list, Glad to see you followed up your previous video, I really like some of your idea's, especially two cards a week much better than 10 a month! The river croc buff doesn't really fit with the law or theme of the card, but I would love to see control hunter become a thing.
YES to a Nozdormu change! I've wanted to be able to play it forever. I always thought making it an 8 mana 6/10 would be nice, but a 6 mana 5/8 is much cooler; the earlier you can play it or the more stuff you can play along with it, the better.
If you made these "bad" cards good, there would just be a flow of other cards that would replace them as bad. In order for cards to be considered "good" there needs to be bad ones.
Jesse Golden Not necessarily, there are a subsets of good cards. Relevant and irrelevant. For example, darkiron skulker is a very good card, but it is irrelevant since it doesn't fit into the meta. Then you take cards like wisps, war golems and patriarchs that are plainly bad, not fitting in any meta or deck.
Ainsley Elliott Exactly. Making bad cards good does't make other good cards bad, only irrelevant cards, that become relevant make other relevant cards irrelevant. Kripp is talking about making bad cards good and not about making irrelevant cards relevant for the current meta. He wants that currently bad cards gain the chance to be potentially cycled into the meta, not more.
Austin Bentley What I mean is, if bad cards got an upgrade, it could push irrelevant cards back into the meta. I didn't explain myself well. There are a lot of good cards that are irrelevant because there isn't a deck to support them. However, this could be changed if bad cards were good, as whole new decks could be born. I'm all for it, I'm so bored of playing against the same deck archetypes and being forced to join in because nothing else is good enough.
Jesse Golden Not exactly, if you buff "bad" cards, "good" cards are still good, but you are adding new options depending on the type of deck you want to build. That would open the range of posibilities and make some decks that are useless right now being used. Some decks are just bad because they don't have a suitable option of card in certain slots.
Jesse Golden Yeah I agree. The idea is good but, by buffing certain cards, aren't you starting an endless cycle of continuously improving existing cards in order to make them relevant? To the point where cards wind up with ridiculous stats like 49 atk 49 hp? It just seems like it wouldn't work in the long term like he's thinking it would
I really like these ideas, but the one thing I think that is needed is that Blizzard would need to warn players waaaaay in advance that they were doing these kind of regular changes, and then make the changes apply primarily to basic and adventure set cards. For example you have to really consider the amount of time people put into this game. I've been playing on and off for the past year and a half. I've only purchased Nax with money, and then bought the first wing of Blackrock with gold. I KNOW that Blizzard rarely EVER changes cards since I've started playing so when I open bad cards I just dust them. I'm nowhere near completing the set as I usually only play enough to do dailies and even then I miss quite a few because I mostly play other games, so yeah, when I get bad cards I want them to go towards better cards. Just a few weeks ago I finally managed to craft Boom. The point is, the first legendary I ever opened was Nozdormu. I tried and tried to use it in a deck but it was never good enough and I was really disappointed by the results...so I dusted it. Used it to craft some cards for a cheap Shaman deck, as I had only been playing for about a month or so so I didn't have much. The point is I feel like f2p players who don't spend a whole lot of time playing will feel really screwed if a card they recently dusted gets buffed and becomes good.
Double Humped Swagger Hah, I feel you, when I started playing a couple years ago my first Leg was Nozdormu. Back then there wasn't all this common media about Hearthstone because it was still in closed beta but I tried soooooo hard to fit him in decks and he just wasn't good. I eventually dusted him though :\. 3-4 rares of your choice when you're just starting out is a pretty good deal, especially as a f2p player.
This would definitely motivate free-to-play players and new players to want to play because the decks they can make would be a lot more interesting and fun rather than some generic control/aggro deck with boring cards since they don't have a lot of cards
SomebodyPerfectly Balancing: War Golem either as a 5/5 with full heal, or 6/6 with 'heal 3 damage at start of turn' Croc 'Battlecry: Deal 1 damage to enemy hero', Magma rager gives a 3/1, Nightblade as a 4/3
It was just an exapmle how to make cards more fun or player, what he showed might be or still underpowered the point is what they CAN do to make them played even in gimmick decks. My idea though: magma rager 3 Mana 5/1: change health and attack around on your opponents turn, so it doesn't just get pinged.
Just a response to the various buff ideas you mention: Daloran Mage: spell damage has the potential to be really powerful, if you would make it a 1/4 with spell damage+2 you'd have to increase the mana cost from 3 to 4 to keep it balanced. War Golem: Make it a regenerating 5/5 for 7 mana and I think that's actually balanced... but even then, maybe a bit strong (the only reason Gargoyle is so unused is that it's got 1 power, so even if it stays on the board it doesn't do much) Young Dragonhawk: I unconditionally agree with you on this. River Crocolisk: eh, maybe. Lifegain somewhat goes against the flavor of the card, though. Silverback: maybe? I think there's a reason Blizzard chose to make all the "costs 1 less for each minion that died this turn" cards have very high base costs. Magma Rager: you're onto something here, but make the card it puts in your hand NOT an actual magma rager, just a no-text 3-cost 5/1. So you only get 1 extra card, instead of infinitely looping them. Eye for an Eye: good idea.
well the bad cards can be used to teach new players what are value? without the bad cards then theres no customization at all? new players would play the exact same cards as pro players and there would be even less variety there is now in net decking
Anal Leakage You can't just put 30 good cards into a deck and expect to have a good deck. This is why bad cards don't need to exist. The cards the Kripp highlights in this video literally have no place in *any* potential deck at the moment. Buffs to these cards would make them reasonable options in *some* decks, which is the way every card should be.
One change I would love to see is a small "side deck" where you could change your deck depending on which class you are facing. Let's face it, some cards are not needed against some classes. The blob comes to mind for example.
Miister Cloud You can still have a terrible deck with 30 good cards, Arena drafts would just be more about picking the right cards in your decks situation, other than just picking the best ones
SomebodyPerfectly Obviously you can but with sites like heartharena (i think that is the name) people will end up with much more powerful decks on average, making it feel more like constructed.
Miister Cloud i think arena would be more balanced if there is less bad cards.you would pick a better card for your deck in 3 good cards instead off picking a yeti out off wisp elven archer yeti trio
I was discussing with a friend a few days ago a card that used to see almost no play at all: Commanding Shout. Now, thanks to Grim Patron decks, it does see some play. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of cards are useless until some new cards are introduced that may make them relevant.
Relicon HD tell that to my phone ;) seems confused about english/german SoulerVids yeah sure but the ideas he has sound very much like he is joking.. in the next video he asks for the option to have more copys of legendary cards per deck and then for an arena-style gameplay mode with only your friends because it's "so social" ..
One thing they can do is add a fun new buff. Like "Battlecry: Randomly gain windfury, taunt, +1 attack, +1 health, +1 spell power, draw a card, or something" Where the set is 2 or 3 of a number of different buffs. Or "Deathrattle: Give another minion a random buff"
ben8929 That's completely untrue. I see those cards used all the time in both arena and at Rank 20 in the ladder, as well as in casual mode decks. People use these cards because they don't have better options for their deck ideas. It's how the game and the business model work. Ridiculous idea to buff them.
suejak1 If you see war golem in constructed it's just because you are playing against someone who doesn't know anything about this game. Boulderfist ogre is a far better alternative and it's a basic card. Same for dalaran mage: there are more decent 3 drops, like the shattered sun cleric, that are basic. If someone uses these carda it's not because he doesn't have better ones, it's just because he is noob. If you are talkin about arena, than someone could be forced to pick a war golem because the other two options are complete trash.
ben8929 Your opinion on whether Boulderfist Ogre is objectively better isn't relevant to the point: people don't have better options for their deck ideas. If you're making a spell power-centric deck (very common deck idea at Rank 20), you try out Dalaran Mage along with all the other basic spell power cards. Maybe you already have Boulderfist Ogres and want another similar card, so you can have 4x buff creatures. Accordingly, you take 2x ogres and 2x golems. You people need to get your heads out of the sand. Not everybody is as hardcore as you, most of the playerbase is noobs, and more importantly discovery and experimentation are a huge part of the fun. Discovering which cards are good and which aren't is part of the fun.
suejak1 nah, if you would want 4 lategame cards you would probably rather use 2* Boulderfist and 2* Stormwind Champion, or if it's a Spelldamage Deck 2* Archmage instead of Champion.
This is so very true and everyone of your suggestions are very intresting. I accually even think Blizzard would earn money on this idea. As you said Hearthstone differ a lot from traditional card games. What Blizzard would like to to is to whenever you get a new card in a pack it sparks you fantasy for what that card could be used with. They want you to stay in the game and keep playing and working towards a finished deck. The more they get you to fanticies about a deck and wanting to try it the more they will get you to buy packs to find those last pieces in the puzzle. And the more packs you get the more ideas for decks you get. When you get a bad card in a pack that makes you stop this process and that only takes you further away from buying more pack. Either you think "crap a bad card... oh fuck it I should go do something else" or you think "Ok let´s disenchant this then" which is counter to buying the cards through packs. Or something like that ... maybe not... Oh well I totally agree with your statement that no bad cards is needed. Only "interesting cards". They must not be best for everything, they can be good at a very specific thing.
I think for the River Crocolisk, something more in line with what crocs do would be better. Maybe something like battlecry: randomly get a claw/bite card from your deck, or possibly freeze a minion for one turn as the croc grapples with it or something
It's a very interesting point you brought up, buffing cards that nobody plays can't make the game "worse". But the interesting thing i found, is that many of the "bad" cards are actually EPIC. Yeah you have things like silverback and war golem, but those cards are in the basic set, and basic already is the best set (the best hero specific cards). Back to the epic cards, there are many epic cards that run some kind of gimmick, like hobgoblin or recombubulator. But there are cards that are aweful: Bestial Wrath, Gladiator's Longbow, Wee Spellstopper, Shadowbomber, Patient Assassin,Cogmaster's Wrench, Kidnapper, Demonheart, Anima Golem, Hungry Crab, Mini-Mage. And as you pointed in other video, many legendary cards see no play (most GvG heroe specific save Malganis).I can get the idea behind cards like Tinkmaster or Tauren Chieftain, they are cards that are "fun" to play, just because the unexpected factor, it's okay if they don't belong to arena or ranked. But Hemet is just a really really really expensive (and pointless) tech card, The Beast? Grull? when do you ever see someone playing those if not out of Unsatable Portal. Hearthstone is a very consistent card game, you can make decks around ONE card or a THEME (like pirate, or enrage, or secrets), sometimes, just adding a tiny bit of synergy you can make a whole deck viable (Patron).
Love this change, would make a lot of people happier at the start of their hearthstone experience. Buffing river crock with healing for newer players might also have been a genius move because hunter feels so prevalent at the early ranks. Love to see Noz the bozz getting some attention here too.
Buffing cards is counterproductive because they suddenly can keep up with the powercreep, meanwhile they could release the same card under a new name with better stats again in a new expansion which will not only fill the card pool but also ensure that there is a certain amount of packs sold.
I think buffing cards is absolutely the way to go. But i feel as if instead of just adding slight tweaks to increase their overall power, the buffs should be pseudo-counters for exceptionally powerful cards and/or combos. The changes should be focused on improving the meta by giving responses or protection from dominant decks. For instance: If warrior continues to dominate, some anti-weapon or anti board clear mechanics could be introduced to the poor creatures. Bloodsail corsair could be given immunity to spell damage and gain bonus health per attack of the enemy weapon. If quartermaster becomes a major force, wisp could be given a battlecry to steal the bonus attack/power of all enemy minions..
Kripp I agree with you that a lot of the cards you pointed out are sub-par, but the reason they are like that is because most of them are part of the Basic set. See how there is no symbol on the back of them? Not even a hearthstone swirl? That's because when you start the game you have a set list of cards that have very simple stats/text/etc to not confuse new players. Also, a lot of those cards are used in the tutorial of the game and are meant to not be complex. I feel the idea is great (like maybe if we changed Stoneskin Gargoyle to heal at end of turn or something) but altering basic cards is not going to happen.
I agree about your point when you look at it in constructed. But for arena, well , the crappy cards actually make it intresting. I'm kind of surprised you don't see that, being mainly an arena player
Was skeptical, but this was really interesting. :) Really good suggestions. If old cards start being useful again, classic packs should be mixed back in.
I've said this before. I really want them to put in more cards like Nozdormu, that punish people for taking too long on their turn. But perhaps with a bit different effects. For example a minion that heals your hero for 1 every 5 seconds of the enemy's turn or something like that. Or why not a time bomb, if either player takes more than 15 seconds on their turn everything on the board dies.
I honestly really like all of these ideas. I'm not sure if it's because your ideas are good or if it's because I simply want a lot of the basic cards buffed. Probably both.
I agree with the idea, in theory. In practice, what criteria should be used to decide what cards to buff? If the devs are free to decide, someone's gonna be unhappy. If you want to check what cards are/are not played in high legend decklists, what's to say that the cards not played are not bad but just in a bad spot in the actual meta? Should we ask the community to create a list, and change the most featured X cards each week? How many people will actually care about this? I don't know, sounds like a ton of work for something that probably won't change constructed play much (there will STILL be better cards after the buffs, and those will be the only ones played), while in arena trying to work witth sub-par cards is part of the fun.
Your legendary changes are on point. I like Nightblade too. The others were terrible. Here's what I would do for the dalaran mage. Battlecry: add a a random mage card with mana cost (3) or less to your hand. For the crocolisk: this minion gains 1 health for each point of damage it deals when it attacks. (Would let it punch through annoyotron etc) Silverback: battlecry gain 1 to 3 bananas. War golem: damage done to this minion is reduced by 2.
While I think that some of these changes you suggested would be kinda sweet I do think bad cards serve a useful function in the game. Looking at it from the perspective of we competitive players can be a little myopic, but game designers/developers are trying to please a larger audience. Bad cards serve the function of separating good players from bad. It's an area where the better player can gain an advantage, and where a player can feel a sense of accomplishment when he/she gains the knowledge that "oh, this kinda card is bad." It creates a feeling of progression that doesn't exist in a world of largely flat power level. I don't know if you're an M:tG guy, but Mark Rosewater (magic's head designer) wrote an article or two and did a podcast on the function of bad cards. While a digital card game is a different animal I think a lot of those points apply to hearthstone.
I completely agree with this, and I think Ben Brode's reasons for not buffing weak cards were really irrelevant and mislead. However I do think it's worth retaining the few bad cards in the basic decks - simply because when people first start playing the game, it's less clear what makes a good card. You want them to be able to have a few definite 'worse' cards to swap better things for. But this would only be a few cards.
Absolutely on point here. The constructed game shouldn't be about good or bad cards, but flexible and niche cards. Sylvanas and Dr Boom go into like every midrange and control deck because they're consistently great. This is fine. You have your tech cards like Kezan Mystic and Harrison and MCT that see a fair amount of play dependant on the meta. Then there are "bad" (niche) cards like Hungry Crab and Sacrificial Pact which 99% of the time are utter garbage but sometimes, SOMETIMES they are the card you need in a specific situation to win the game. When Blizz finally makes Murloc Shaman viable maybe we will actually think about Hungry Crab, in a manner akin to how Nozdormu is actually a good counter to Patron Warrior, a deck that didn't exist until a couple of months ago. This is fine also. And then there are just useless garbage cards like War Golem and Reckless Rocketeer and a few others that Kripp mentioned here that really serve no function whatsoever. These need fixing. There is no reason for them to be so utterly redundant. Why on earth would you pick Silverback Patriarch when Gnomeregan Infantry exists and THAT's not even remotely usable. As a 3 mana taunt it is obsoleted and as a 3 mana beast it is also obsoleted (Animal Companion, Druid of the Flame). These cards need some way to stand out- not necessarily be good, but be niche enough to where people actually consider them.
I don't think Blizz will go back to change old cards. Instead, I could see them introduce cards that make old cards useful, such as Light of the Naaru and Muster for Battle. Like, for Magma Rager - I could see a Shaman DD card where it's like - 3 cost, Overload (1), Deal three damage, summon a Magma Rager. Additionally, in the future maybe old cards will get buffed if they gain types - such as Harvest Golem when it gained the Mech-type when GvG came out. Honestly, it'd be nice if Hearthstone adopted the Pet Battle System's Minion types such as Humanoid, Flying, Aquatic, Magic, Undead, Critter. Beast, Mech, and Dragon are in the game already.
The River Croc is actually fine as a 2/3 Beast. It's just the alternate version of Bloodfen Raptor. Having more Health than Damage means it's able to combo better with buff cards that buff both stats. That's how I feel.
Kripp, you already asked the dev about this in one of the Value Town's episodes, I believe. The dev said that they do not want to buff cards, or change cards, because as they release new cards, the old "weak" cards may become more useful. So he said that they would like to buff cards, but not directly, only by introducing new cards which would may have synergy with the old ones. So despite of the fact that I agree with you, I don't think this is gonna happen.
I do think certain "baseline" cards need to stay vanilla for new players' sakes - like Crocolisk. Crocolisk gives a measuring stick by which you can judge other cards, and isn't SO terrible as to be undraftable in arena. Cards like Young Dragonhawk, on the other hand - yeah, go for the buffs.
"Timmy is what we in R&D call the "power gamer." Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells." "Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenaline rush of competition." "Johnny likes a challenge. Johnny enjoys winning with cards that no one else wants to use. He likes making decks that win in innovative ways. What sets Johnny apart from the other profiles is that Johnny enjoys deckbuilding as much as (or more than) he enjoys playing. Johnny loves the cool interactions of the cards. He loves combo decks. Johnny is happiest when he’s exploring uncharted territory." I'm a Johnny. What are you?
For example the River crock: "If 1 adjecent minion is a beast. Give rivercrock +1 attack for each adjecent minion that is a beast." Making it possibly a 4/3 making it capable of doing "plays"
Most of the cards Kripp picked are indeed terrible in constructed, but they are also base cards that you get automatically when you first start with Hearthstone. Tagging on an extra ability is not really an option because beginner cards are meant to be simple. So for that matter, I do prefer the 5/5 nightwish, the 5/2 magma rager, the 2/4 patriarch, 2/4 dalaran mage and the 7/9 war golem.
There are a couple of things that must be considered IMHO in this topic. The first one is that we are talking basically about basic cards, AKA "the cards you have when you start playing the game". I think it's completely fair (and also completely following the rarity system in the cards) that basic cards are overall worse than common, common worse than rare and so on, so you get better cards, therefore better decks, the more you play the game. That's called game progression. For instance, if you give the Dalaran Mage, a basic card, +2 spell power, that card is as good as the Soot Spewer, a rare one (and class restricted, which are overall better than neutrals), which is absolutelly not fair. To summarize this first point, I think it's not that bad (hey! I didn't say "it's good", I said "not that bad") to have basic cards that lose value when compared to common or better cards. What is actually really really bad is to have rare, epic or even legendary cards that are absolutelly useless (Patient Assassin? Anima Golem? Shadowbomber?). That's unacceptable. The second point is that we have not to forget that this game is a themed game based on the Warcraft lore. A healing River Crocolisk is just a huge WTF. I know it was only an example, but I guess you can get the point of what I'm saying. Anyway, some cards need a change, and that's a fact, but I would focus more on the rare+ cards, specially the epic+ cards that we have gathering dust in our collection instead that putting basic and common cards to the same value level than rares, epics or even legendaries.
Bad is a matter of perspective. If you remove all the worst cards in a game you simply wind up with the least of whatever is left becoming the new worst. Likewise as new cards come along often previously OP cards often become trash. Bad cards are unavoidable. Generally cards are not made bad on purpose, they just kind of happen naturally and are unavoidable. Any set of cards you design you are going to wind up with a bunch that are amazing, a bunch that are fair, and in the end the rest are just going to be useless. If in the design process you recognized the bottom worst cards and either just buffed them then you have not actually fixed anything. Your buffed cards either will still be trash, or simply push some other okay card into the bottom tier and that card would become the trash. Alternatively you could cut the card entirely but then at best you just prolong the inevitable until a set or so down the line when some new card replaces the previous cards and obsoletes some of them. In the meantime you wind up with a less diverse game with deckbuilding choices being far too obvious to be challenging. Which actually shines a light on the actual value of bad cards in terms of making a good card game. Part of what makes a card game compelling is the need to weigh cards value and power with each other and use them to build a good deck. The less bad choices available, the worse a game is at fulfilling that. However; I do agree that buffing cards is a good idea. Buffing cards to give players options against trouble cards is preferable whenever possible to nerfing a card. A buff to a card like Nerub'ar Weblord for instance might actually be better than nerfing Doctor Boom for instance. Weblord as printed is fine, but there are so many cards that are worth playing or must play that have battlecry that its ability is actually as much a drawback as an advantage. It could easily be a 2/4 or a 1/5 and still be fairly costed. It might even be fair as a 3/3, which is a good statline that is both balanced and aggressive. However some cards are really just too game breaking sometimes and are better off nerfed than trying to throw answers at them.
In a card game while I often go with the concept "no bad card" just bad use of a card. I do realize that even with this concept there will always be sub-optimal cards. Cards that are okay but just not that good (boulderfist orgre for example). Playing other card games like netrunner made me realize that there needs to be bad cards like Millhouse Manastorm and Majordomo Executus or Angry Chicken. The thing is that there needs to be mechanics in the game that pull these cards out, much like arena where sometimes you get nothing but bad cards or a bad card makes a choice of 3 an easier choice of 2. other things such as other players pointed out that Majordomo Executus was a nerf to Sneeds old Shredder. Also while Millhouse manastorm is the worst minion to play he is the best minion to come out of Piloted shredder. So with the bad cards there needs to be a way to pull those into the game just to keep everyone on their toes and I think GvG did that great. I want to see some (0 cost cards get pulled into the game some more.) The other thing that needs to be done to "bad cards" is there needs to be a way to play them that is not all that bad. Take Angry Chicken. Put blessing of kings on it and all of a sudden a 5/5 that turns into a 10/4 after taking 1 damage. Target dummy would be good if a free corruption was put in place. So bad cards need to be drawn out into the game at some semi-controlled intervals, also bad cards need to be able to be played in an optimal fashion that is viable. But bad cards are still needed to dilute the card pool. Otherwise the fine tunning will see many good cards never in play.
I agree with pretty much everything, I absolutely love the nozdormu idea, just thinking about the card actually having those stats and that mana cost made me exited to figure out how to build a deck with it. I also liked your nightblade idea, but I think it should be a 4/3, very few AOE spells deal 4 damage, but a lot deal three, so I think it having 4 health is a tiny bit too good.
I don't like the proposed Nozdormu change at all. For the dragon aspects, I like the idea of them all being 9 mana bruisers that all have effective abilities with a big impact on the game. The proposed change is absolutely a huge buff, but it removes the aesthetic of a monolithic dragon aspect. I'd rather he get an additional ability for when he comes into play: perhaps he blinds all enemy minions when he enters play, so they can't attack (like frost nova, but with sand and an 8/8 on the board).
That river Crocolisk would be intersting in freeze mage to prevent some of the early aggression, and also vs freeze mage as a cheap heal after Alexstrasza. Nightblade with stealth might end up in face hunter. These are all really good ideas
There are some good ideas in this, though one thing you've got to keep in mind when suggesting changes, especially when adding text to a card, is the card itself. Like what the card is depicting, and how what it does represents what the card is. The fact that every card in Hearthstone is basically a translation of what something in the Warcraft universe did applied to the rules of card game is one of the many things that gives this game its Blizzard Polish™ and makes it such a cool game. The suggested River Croc and War Golem changes were examples of this for sure. To me it doesn't make sense that a crocodile would heal the player when its played. There is a case for the War Golem having the gargoyle effect but, whereas it made total sense on the gargoyle cos that's exactly what it does in WoW, I don't think any golems do that in Warcraft games so it doesn't really make sense.
I feel like crappy cards are an integral part of arena balance and variation. You want arena drafts to have a large range in how good/bad they are as it's more gratifying to players who can outplay opponents that have a better deck and it also helps distinguish players that can consistently find the best turns in all situations due to the increased variation.
The main value from "introducing new cards" in the form of buffing old cards, is that it increases the quality of the game and would make a lot of old players return. An increase in player base = an increase in sales.
When they first announced BRM, I felt that they should change Gruul (The Dragonkiller) completely: Make him cost less mana with less stats, but make his battlecry : Destroy a dragon. It would an awesome card for priests, since it would be a way to deal with Twilight Drake, Azure Drake, Malygos, and Ysera.
What I do not agree with is the fact that you suggest changes to basic cards such as the War Golem and the River Crocolisk, and here's why: These cards have no rarity and are basic for a reason, they provide the basis of the game, they give new players an idea of how the stat distribution looks like in this game, when they see a River Crocolisk or a Raptor they know that 3/2 or 2/3 are the expected stats for a 2 drop, as long as they do not have any other abilities. Those cards do not need to be changed, instead it is the job of the cards from expert sets such as GvG to provide cards that evolve from a basic 2 mana 2/3 into something more interesting, complicated and possibly better. If you really want a 6/6 with the Stoneskin Gargoyle ablility, or a 3 mana Voidwalker that can get discounted, just wait and see what comes in the next expert sets, because those cards might be in there. As for changing Legendaries that are generally not played and are kind of a feel-bad-pull out of a pack, I agree with the video. If you (Blizzard) don't want to nerf Dr. Boom because it would feel bad, maybe change Nozdormu or Hemet because it feels bad to even pull them instead of the Doctor, for example. Alright, im out. Violet Gun~
![[Hearthstone] Gang Up Is Crazy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yoRxMyX-7KQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Hearthstone] Gang Up Is Crazy](/img/tr.png)
![[Hearthstone] Top 10 Most Overdue Changes](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NyDrjen_2vE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Hearthstone] How Good Is Grim Patron?](/img/1.gif)
Kripp just wants cards buffed so he can disenchant at full price.
Oh my god. That explains why he is so passionate about all the buffs and nerfs.
CakeFladudle Just what i thought of.
yeah they should never change any card ever all because it would give kripp a little extra dust to his mountain of it. wouldn't want to chance making the game better at the cost of that.
CakeFladudle why would buffing a card make it disenchant for more?
Skjaldetjald You can refund for full price after buffs/nerfs.
Hey Kripp! Awesome vid as always man. The biggest thing I find is that there is a difference between something that is just a bad card, and a bad card with potential. Bad cards are okay as long as they have potential. For example, Hemet Nesingwary is the biggest piece of crap ever right now, but if some crazy strong beasts come out and dominate the meta game, he could probably become a decent card - he has potential, and it's great for bad cards that have potential to exist.
But when a card is just bad and has no potential, it sucks and the card is totally useless, and super unfun to use and play with. Yes bad cards should exist for the sake of arena, but there's different types of bad cards, and at least in my eyes, every bad card should have some kind of potential to succeed in a specific situation, otherwise the card is just totally forgotten and completely unused.
Jeremy "Gaming Curios" - Guides and Top 10's ohai, you watch kripp o.O?
But - b-but how do i skip the Kripp ;-;
I agree
Jeremy "Gaming Curios" - Guides and Top 10's Many of Kripp's suggestions give cards potential, which is what's most important.
Jeremy "Gaming Curios" - Guides and Top 10's This ain't League o.0
Kripp, you're thinking idealistically.
Blizzard doesn't care as much about the quality of the card game as they do about it's ability to rake in millions of dollars.
Blizzard makes more money by keeping lots of cards shitty.
People buy more packs trying to get the good cards that way.
If the card is still subpar people will still buy packs. Making nightblade stealth doesn't stop any amount of pack purchase
sp33dzer0 i would totally stop buying packs if the make nightblade with stealth.
Didums222 thats what I thought. Why would they buff cards (especially basic/common ones) if they can make new expansion and make some $$ - only more f2p players which as we can see latetly they dont like.
Didums222 I would actually buy more packs if some of these changes were made. I have all the neutral legendaries I want, so I just don't buy packs anymore. But, if Nozdormu was any good (a counter to Patron Warrior, for example), I would try to get it too and probably end up giving Blizzard some money
sp33dzer0 That's not even the point. First its not like nightblade was the only change he suggested and second of course it would slow down pack purchase.
The older cards just cant compare with the newer ones. Not just in stats but also in fun. Grim Patreon is a fun card, the sounds are memorable, the effect can be super rewarding and the deck even works surprisingly good. War golem and many other cards are just boring as fuck and on top of this bad. The game is not fun if you have to play creature on creature, trading the whole game because nobody has game changing combos or effects. If you start the game and you just face people with fun mechanic cards and you are stuck with lame ass pieces of shit, you are probably going to buy packs. Sure it wont shut down the whole card purchase and most likely it will be hardly noticeable but it will allow people to experience some of the mechanics you can play with later in the game. Also he is still right by saying blizzard wont change anything. Those are easy changes, its literally just changing numbers and copy paste code. Still they let us sit there with almost no card changes.
Kripp you legend , the thing about nozdormu and grim patron is so true good stuff
Milos Macura omg your picture are terrifying lol
Balloon boy improve you're grammar
Your*
NerrevarHD Hilarious
NerrevarHD that u didn't get the joke ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Hemet Nesingwary, 5 mana 6/3, Battlecry: Destroy a Hunter
Best idea ever
dotanuki now THAT can change the meta. I vote yes
Omg lol
I have to, totally agree
dotanuki SMOrc I MUST ATTACK THAT HERO WITH TAUNT! SMOrc
buff wisp to 7/7 that summon 2 1/1s that deals random damage with deathratle OpieOP oh wait
fritt wastaken
AHAHAHAHA OH LOOK LE DR BOOM REFERENCE! MAN YOU'RE SO FUNNY AND ORIGINAL LEL XDDDDDDD
MrFreakman0 ty ^^
fritt wastaken No way, man. Change it to, like, 7 mana too. That way no one would complain about it being unbalanced.
Wisp: 0 mana, 1/1, Battlecry: you gain a mana crystal this turn only.
Guilherme Fratin turn one, you go second your starting hand is innervate x2, wisp x2, then you draw Dr. Boom... GG
Guilherme Fratin Wisp is playable though. There was a tier 3 aggro Paladin deck not too long ago that used Wisp (among other things) to power out Sea Giants and Frostwolf Warlords.
Christian Milke Did this deck also run target dummy?
Iirc, the deck was pre gvg. It was basically shockadin with appropriate fatties. Sort of like how sea giants started getting teched into zoo post gvg.
Guilherme Fratin Rogue dream: Turn 1 double wisp into 6/6 VanCleef (going first) or double wisp coin sinister strike (or something like that) into 10/10 VanCleef (going second).
Or even, turn 1 coin double wisp double prep-shiv into a 14/14 VanCleef. That's the biggest one possible, I think.
My idea for silverback is to add a battlecry that gives you a banana, that is useful and not overpowered because if you use that on himself he is a 2/5 for 4 mana which is bad, but the potential of the banana is very huge so that would make the card playable and is also thematic
***** 3 mana for the Silverback Patriarch and 1 mana for the banana means it would cost 4 mana overall.
Zecketh Omg it's the potential banana! Almost sounds like a B-name for a hero. xD
That magma rager change is op as fuck to everyone other than mage.
Ragingisky yeah its a cool idea but obviously not balanced, thats why he said at the end a team of devs with weeks worth of time could probably come up with better and more balanced ideas than he did
Ragingisky I think it would be fine as long as the mana cost is increase by +1
Ragingisky I think you should only get the card back if the rager dies before your next turn.
Its not that op. If u r against aggro deck, which you see more than not now, i could barely see how keep dropping rager win you the game. And tbh id rather face endless rager for any class and regardless class im playing, than some real sick ones, say, huffer and arcane golem.
Ragingisky I'd like it better if it was more like "deathrattle: put a Basalt (cooled magma) Rager in your hand, a 1-5 for 0 mana, or something to that nature.
This has happened once before. It was fucking awesome. It was Bane of Doom, and now the card's not only playable, but also fun as hell.
Bad cards exist for newer players to better understand the basics of Hearthstone. Not only are they simple enough to understand, they also present a sense of accomplishment upon upgrading by replacement. To an experienced player they appear useless but to a team of developers they're vital in maintaining a growing community.
Bad Hearthstone RUclipsrs do not need to exist Kappa
Aha
Mike W you're right, good job krip isn't one of them :)
Mike W Nice Pickle bro
Mike W TUCK FRUMP
There's no skipperino kripperino today kidderinos!
You are correctinno, Based Mackserinno.
Ivan Kicks Puppys Risky click of the day right there.
Came here from the ben brode video cause he said i need to go here,now he says i need to go even further
trу this сhеаt fоr hеаrthstоооonе nоw >>>> twitter.com/eb01863c092a0cbca/status/754573659260329984 Hеаrthstоnе Bаd Cаrds Dо Nоt Nееd То Ехist
After wasting а lоt of timе i finаllу fоund оut а working HeееaarthStonе Cheаts .It’s Wоrking, vеrу еаsу usе. > Hеarthstоnе Bаd Cаrds Do Not Nееd Тo Еххxxist
Heres one for the Crocolisk. Make it a 2/2 with stealth and give it Ambush. Ambush triggers the next time your opponent plays a minion that fits a certain criteria (costs x mana, has x attack/health etc) and destroys it. This fits the Crocolisk itself, it being an ambush predator, and also allows for an interesting way to stall out face/weenie decks.
HammerOfDan cool idea
HammerOfDan I was about to comment something similar until I saw this comment. How about make it a 2 mana 2/3 with Stealth and Ambush' but Ambush means "Attack any attacking enemy minion" meaning it's like a taunt but the attacker can go through with his attack if he has high enough health. This means it acts like a taunt to small health or charged minions but high health creatures can get 2 kills this way so it's a really anti-face beast. Also you can give Ambush to the Jungle Panther as well
Have you ever seen any other card game with ambush ability?
We're recommending it becomes a thing and what it should do
HammerOfDan I kinda like that idea, but I feel like that's a bit extreme. You could make it just say "Ambush: Deal attack damage of this creature to the first minion that enters the battlefield." That way they wouldn't be afraid of maybe adding the effect to other cards.
Blizzard have already said in their official forums a while ago that 'bad' cards need to exist because it gives the players choices and allows them to determine what are good cards and what are not. It's like having bad items in MMORPG's, it allows noobs to show everyone how big of a noob they really are.
well there are too many bad cards in HS limiting diffrent types of decks
X Kobe A bad card should be bad relative to the deck you're using, it shouldn't be shit for the sake of being shit. It doesn't teach anybody anything.
X Kobe and a lot of these cards will still be generally bad, just not so bad that you could NEVER use them. They'll fit into niche decks, so you'd only see them if someone built decks around those cards exact uses. They'd still be bad, but alright under certain circumstances. I feel that is not only still in the spirit of what Blizzard was looking for, but implements the idea of teaching new players even better. It takes a lot more to recognize/come up with situations in which a card would do enough to become playable than it is to look at a card, think "yeah that sucks" and never touch it again.
X Kobe If you're a bad player, then you will pick suboptimal cards anyway. You'll put antique healbots as a 2 of in your face hunter deck. Or flame imps in your control warlock because you want "something to do on turn 1". The argument just doesn't hold up.
*****
I wasn't talking about low stat items or cheap items as they're there for the purpose of leveling up or for players with less gold, but items with a similar stat coefficient as amazing items but are never used because they're so useless for a particular class. An eg. would be a staff that has +attack power for a mage archetype. No good players would equip such an item, but you can bet there are noobs out there who would.
Nightblade with Stealth sounds pretty cool until you realise it's going to be run in a face deck. Hell, even now you occasionally see Nightblade as a replacement for Leeroy in budget face huntard lists.
TheStrongestBaka Nooooooooooo not more cancer
TheStrongestBaka i dont think you get the video... It doesnt really have to be like that, is just an example
TheStrongestBaka no one uses leeroy anymore
Nathan Stuver i was just up against a hunter on ladder who used leroy in a face deck at rank 12.
Nathan Stuver I saw Leeroy in a a lot of face Hunters.
KRIPPARRIAN, MY FAVORITE HEARTSTONER
"Hertstone"
Lion Reichelt hurtstone
Bjarke Erichsen Saltystone
Keegan Wray Also the ONLY hearthstoner on youtube lolz
He said on stream he only smokes PVC... you know, that plastic piping stuff?
I think a couple card changes every few months would be a better idea. Changing cards every couple of weeks introduces too many changes in the meta but making changes every few months gives players(casuals mostly) a chance to become adjusted to the meta
Every few months? Lol, at the very least every season they should change a handful of cards
We can't really mess with Nozzy's Stat Line or Mana Cost. Need to keep that thematic cohesion with the other Legendary Dragons.
SBroproductions "We can't really mess with Nozzy's Stat Line or Mana Cost. Need to keep that card absolutely horrible just like the other Legendary Dragons, because legendary dragons aren't supposed to be any good, just shiny cards in your collection." --here, I fixed it for you.
abschussrampe Well I mean, Ysera and Alex are both considered to be good Cards. Even Malygos is in same crazy decks. They need to give something to Nozzy that gives him a bit more oomph. Not a simple stat change.
SBroproductions Dragon Consort no longer Paladin only? :D
SBroproductions Well since everyone is playing on mobile nowadays , Nozdurmu can really fuck your opponents up big time.
I want Arthas to make an appearance in Hearthstone. Like him being focused around using undead minions and returning destroyed minions back on the battlefield and so forth.
Legendary weapon Frostmourne that steals life from your opponent even if used on a minion.
There's just so much cool stuff you can do with this.
I really want to see all Troll cards be classified as trolls and gain 1 health regen at the end of your turn.
a legendary weapon that steal health, yeah, so fun, mostly if the guy is bashing your head with it
Oor make him a solo adventure boss... You wouldn't get him as a card at the end but it would be cool
Hеarthstоnе Itеm Тoоl v2.0 is 100% undetectablе, sо yоur account will be safe. Wе set mоnthlу rеsоoourсes limit and wе аre using the bеst Anti-ban sсript. Yоu cаn get а lоt оf gоld and аrсanе dust in hеаrthstonе in 5 minutes !!★◆ twitter.com/aa2f9bfb42ce15555/status/754573659260329984 ★◆ Heаrthstоne Bad Cаrds Dо Nоt Nеed Tо Ехist
Bad cards need to exist to balance RNG stuff like unstable portal, shredders, etc.
PaladinusSP Only because they are designed badly with too great potential. If anything get rid or reduce the cost reduction from portalled cards... I feel like Blizzard keeps trying to ramp up on card strength each expansion thus making any future expansions feel weak in comparison. Blackrock Mountain already feels weak overall compared to GvG.
***** lol That was a dumb as fuck comment. If a godlike card is 100 points in rating, a shitty card is 0, and a mediocre card is 50, then making any poor card mediocre will push the average rating of all cards up. This means that Godlike cards will be closer to the average rating, so they will become slightly worse.
Do you even logic bro?
Silverback Patriarch: 3 Mana, 1/4 Taunt, This card gains +1 Attack when there is at least one other Beast-Type card on your side of the field.
Dalaran Mage: 3 Mana, 1/3, Spell Damage +1. Deathrattle: When this unit dies, choose one of your units and it gets Spell Damage +1.
War Golem: 7 Mana, 6/7, This card cannot be targeted by spells and hero powers.
River Crocolisk: 2 Mana, 2/3, This card gets +1 Health when there is at least one other Beast-type card on your side of the field.
Magma Rager: 3 Mana, 5/1, Deathrattle: When this card is destroyed not by battle, choose one of your opponent's monster and deal 2 damage to it.
Nightblade: 5 Mana, 4/5, When this card attacks one of your opponent's Taunt monsters, deal 2 damage to your opponent. (That'll teach them to rely on Taunts :-P)
Nope
Guus van Voorst
I kind of like silverback, though I think it should gain +1 per beast.
Dalaran is fine too.
War Golem got better stats, (out of BGH range) and a good ability. How are you going to remove it without running your whole board into it? I think an 8 mana 7/7 with the same ability might be more balanced.
River Croc is fine.
Magma Rager is still terrible.
Nightblade is too specific, and the 2 health is pretty irrelevant, so I think it's still bad.
those are some pretty good idea and they might improve control hunter
Guess Golem could also get 7/6 stats instead...
Guus van Voorst
magma rager is not possible because blizzard dont want let you target anyting(since secrets are random or minion on action) at enemy turn
Blizzard doesn't want to put Their ideas in free cards, just sell them on expansions...
Blizzurt listn Kripperino pls
armagedoc66 also want that Hemet change!
Dear Kripparino, I was in a deep coma that the doctors though they could never get me out of. But one day I heard a noise. The noise said, "heyguyshowsitgoingkripparianhere." Then I immediately got up to skip the Kripp. You saved my lief thx bro.
The only one I kind of disagree with is River Crocolisk. I think the stuff at least has to make thematic sense. War Golem, its a golem, should repair itself and stuff. But why does a crocodile give back health?
As poster of that 60 card list, Glad to see you followed up your previous video, I really like some of your idea's, especially two cards a week much better than 10 a month! The river croc buff doesn't really fit with the law or theme of the card, but I would love to see control hunter become a thing.
I saw 1 view count on Kripperino vid, now i can die in peace
YES to a Nozdormu change! I've wanted to be able to play it forever. I always thought making it an 8 mana 6/10 would be nice, but a 6 mana 5/8 is much cooler; the earlier you can play it or the more stuff you can play along with it, the better.
If you made these "bad" cards good, there would just be a flow of other cards that would replace them as bad. In order for cards to be considered "good" there needs to be bad ones.
Jesse Golden Not necessarily, there are a subsets of good cards. Relevant and irrelevant. For example, darkiron skulker is a very good card, but it is irrelevant since it doesn't fit into the meta. Then you take cards like wisps, war golems and patriarchs that are plainly bad, not fitting in any meta or deck.
Ainsley Elliott Exactly. Making bad cards good does't make other good cards bad, only irrelevant cards, that become relevant make other relevant cards irrelevant. Kripp is talking about making bad cards good and not about making irrelevant cards relevant for the current meta. He wants that currently bad cards gain the chance to be potentially cycled into the meta, not more.
Austin Bentley What I mean is, if bad cards got an upgrade, it could push irrelevant cards back into the meta. I didn't explain myself well. There are a lot of good cards that are irrelevant because there isn't a deck to support them. However, this could be changed if bad cards were good, as whole new decks could be born. I'm all for it, I'm so bored of playing against the same deck archetypes and being forced to join in because nothing else is good enough.
Jesse Golden Not exactly, if you buff "bad" cards, "good" cards are still good, but you are adding new options depending on the type of deck you want to build. That would open the range of posibilities and make some decks that are useless right now being used. Some decks are just bad because they don't have a suitable option of card in certain slots.
Jesse Golden Yeah I agree. The idea is good but, by buffing certain cards, aren't you starting an endless cycle of continuously improving existing cards in order to make them relevant? To the point where cards wind up with ridiculous stats like 49 atk 49 hp? It just seems like it wouldn't work in the long term like he's thinking it would
The idea with Noz is simply an amazing point! Good video :-)
+2 spell dmg for 3 mana sounds OP to me
would be played in every rouge deck
I really like these ideas, but the one thing I think that is needed is that Blizzard would need to warn players waaaaay in advance that they were doing these kind of regular changes, and then make the changes apply primarily to basic and adventure set cards. For example you have to really consider the amount of time people put into this game. I've been playing on and off for the past year and a half. I've only purchased Nax with money, and then bought the first wing of Blackrock with gold. I KNOW that Blizzard rarely EVER changes cards since I've started playing so when I open bad cards I just dust them. I'm nowhere near completing the set as I usually only play enough to do dailies and even then I miss quite a few because I mostly play other games, so yeah, when I get bad cards I want them to go towards better cards. Just a few weeks ago I finally managed to craft Boom. The point is, the first legendary I ever opened was Nozdormu. I tried and tried to use it in a deck but it was never good enough and I was really disappointed by the results...so I dusted it. Used it to craft some cards for a cheap Shaman deck, as I had only been playing for about a month or so so I didn't have much. The point is I feel like f2p players who don't spend a whole lot of time playing will feel really screwed if a card they recently dusted gets buffed and becomes good.
The great gameplay famine continues but i an one for commentary.
Yes I watch the VODS
I would love to see that Nozdormu change go through. Just imagine what crazy games there could be?
Hemet was my first legendary and only atm...xD
Craft bgh with when u dust him
shuvo rahman I was thinking the same but nah I'll keep him for sentimental purposes
Double Humped Swagger i feel u bro ;D
Double Humped Swagger Hah, I feel you, when I started playing a couple years ago my first Leg was Nozdormu. Back then there wasn't all this common media about Hearthstone because it was still in closed beta but I tried soooooo hard to fit him in decks and he just wasn't good. I eventually dusted him though :\. 3-4 rares of your choice when you're just starting out is a pretty good deal, especially as a f2p player.
Double Humped Swagger That, along with milhouse, is the only legendary I've ever disenchanted. I recommend you do the same bro
This would definitely motivate free-to-play players and new players to want to play because the decks they can make would be a lot more interesting and fun rather than some generic control/aggro deck with boring cards since they don't have a lot of cards
Kripp's proposed card buffs were insanely OP. Please get a professional proposing buffs and don't take Kripp's examples seriously
Mike W Only wargolem, croc and Magma Rager seem op to me, maybe Nightblade
WHAT
Mike W "Please get a professional proposing buffs " rlly? is a casual game not a esport, just because blizz want it to be does not make it
Mike W not
SomebodyPerfectly Balancing:
War Golem either as a 5/5 with full heal, or 6/6 with 'heal 3 damage at start of turn'
Croc 'Battlecry: Deal 1 damage to enemy hero',
Magma rager gives a 3/1,
Nightblade as a 4/3
I actually really like all of Kripp's ideas for these old cards!
New Magma Rager is WAY too overpowered.
***** You're kidding right? It would automatically be 2 in every deck.
It was just an exapmle how to make cards more fun or player, what he showed might be or still underpowered the point is what they CAN do to make them played even in gimmick decks.
My idea though: magma rager 3 Mana 5/1: change health and attack around on your opponents turn, so it doesn't just get pinged.
Jonathan Bohn yeah I think it should be Deathrattle: If a Magma Rager hasn't died this game, summon a Magma Rager.
It would be, but not competitively. At its current configuration, it's never used.
Just a response to the various buff ideas you mention:
Daloran Mage: spell damage has the potential to be really powerful, if you would make it a 1/4 with spell damage+2 you'd have to increase the mana cost from 3 to 4 to keep it balanced.
War Golem: Make it a regenerating 5/5 for 7 mana and I think that's actually balanced... but even then, maybe a bit strong (the only reason Gargoyle is so unused is that it's got 1 power, so even if it stays on the board it doesn't do much)
Young Dragonhawk: I unconditionally agree with you on this.
River Crocolisk: eh, maybe. Lifegain somewhat goes against the flavor of the card, though.
Silverback: maybe? I think there's a reason Blizzard chose to make all the "costs 1 less for each minion that died this turn" cards have very high base costs.
Magma Rager: you're onto something here, but make the card it puts in your hand NOT an actual magma rager, just a no-text 3-cost 5/1. So you only get 1 extra card, instead of infinitely looping them.
Eye for an Eye: good idea.
If Dalarin Mage had spell damage plus two then arcane explosion would be a four mana board clear. That would make my quarter master deck very sad :(
King Arthur **5 mana** math isn't hard 3 (Dalaran mage) +2 (arcane explosion)
Ryan McFall Woops, my bad. Thanks for pointing out the misplay.
Ryan McFall I must of been thinking of the arcane missiles cost.
King Arthur no problem
Tis but a flesh wound!
Krip Blizzard should hire you hands down. Like this simple idea would literally make the game so much better.
Finally!
well the bad cards can be used to teach new players what are value? without the bad cards then theres no customization at all? new players would play the exact same cards as pro players and there would be even less variety there is now in net decking
Anal Leakage Uhm, so why do you think that there will be less decks if there are more usable cards with different concepts?
Anal Leakage If they buff the shit cards then more cards are viable to use meaning the game would become more varried not less varied O.o
Anal Leakage You can't just put 30 good cards into a deck and expect to have a good deck. This is why bad cards don't need to exist. The cards the Kripp highlights in this video literally have no place in *any* potential deck at the moment. Buffs to these cards would make them reasonable options in *some* decks, which is the way every card should be.
you completely ignored what i just said. lol.
"bad cards dont need to exist"
im saying that yes they do need to
One change I would love to see is a small "side deck" where you could change your deck depending on which class you are facing. Let's face it, some cards are not needed against some classes. The blob comes to mind for example.
Dont bad cards help arena? So you don't have a deck of 30 good cards.
Miister Cloud You can still have a terrible deck with 30 good cards, Arena drafts would just be more about picking the right cards in your decks situation, other than just picking the best ones
SomebodyPerfectly Obviously you can but with sites like heartharena (i think that is the name) people will end up with much more powerful decks on average, making it feel more like constructed.
Miister Cloud i think arena would be more balanced if there is less bad cards.you would pick a better card for your deck in 3 good cards instead off picking a yeti out off wisp elven archer yeti trio
Ali Eren I think class cards are the only way arena can be balanced or unbalanced. Everything with neutral cards is RNG.
yeah that is what i am saying you can make neutral cards dont suck soo its less rng
I was discussing with a friend a few days ago a card that used to see almost no play at all: Commanding Shout. Now, thanks to Grim Patron decks, it does see some play. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of cards are useless until some new cards are introduced that may make them relevant.
This Video is a freakin Joke
Must be following after you then.
What random capital letters
soulseek2 No I'M pretty Sure it's about hearthstone card Buffing Ideas
Relicon HD tell that to my phone ;) seems confused about english/german
SoulerVids yeah sure but the ideas he has sound very much like he is joking.. in the next video he asks for the option to have more copys of legendary cards per deck and then for an arena-style gameplay mode with only your friends because it's "so social" ..
soulseek2 haH a. what a, stOry mark
One thing they can do is add a fun new buff. Like "Battlecry: Randomly gain windfury, taunt, +1 attack, +1 health, +1 spell power, draw a card, or something" Where the set is 2 or 3 of a number of different buffs. Or "Deathrattle: Give another minion a random buff"
The bad cards are used by a new players that got ZERO cards and just default starter cards.... jeez much logic needed hm?
War golem and Dalaran mage are not even used by new players, they are just so bad that there are better alternatives in the basic cards
ben8929 That's completely untrue. I see those cards used all the time in both arena and at Rank 20 in the ladder, as well as in casual mode decks.
People use these cards because they don't have better options for their deck ideas. It's how the game and the business model work. Ridiculous idea to buff them.
suejak1 If you see war golem in constructed it's just because you are playing against someone who doesn't know anything about this game. Boulderfist ogre is a far better alternative and it's a basic card. Same for dalaran mage: there are more decent 3 drops, like the shattered sun cleric, that are basic. If someone uses these carda it's not because he doesn't have better ones, it's just because he is noob. If you are talkin about arena, than someone could be forced to pick a war golem because the other two options are complete trash.
ben8929 Your opinion on whether Boulderfist Ogre is objectively better isn't relevant to the point: people don't have better options for their deck ideas. If you're making a spell power-centric deck (very common deck idea at Rank 20), you try out Dalaran Mage along with all the other basic spell power cards. Maybe you already have Boulderfist Ogres and want another similar card, so you can have 4x buff creatures. Accordingly, you take 2x ogres and 2x golems.
You people need to get your heads out of the sand. Not everybody is as hardcore as you, most of the playerbase is noobs, and more importantly discovery and experimentation are a huge part of the fun. Discovering which cards are good and which aren't is part of the fun.
suejak1 nah, if you would want 4 lategame cards you would probably rather use 2* Boulderfist and 2* Stormwind Champion, or if it's a Spelldamage Deck 2* Archmage instead of Champion.
This is so very true and everyone of your suggestions are very intresting. I accually even think Blizzard would earn money on this idea. As you said Hearthstone differ a lot from traditional card games. What Blizzard would like to to is to whenever you get a new card in a pack it sparks you fantasy for what that card could be used with. They want you to stay in the game and keep playing and working towards a finished deck.
The more they get you to fanticies about a deck and wanting to try it the more they will get you to buy packs to find those last pieces in the puzzle. And the more packs you get the more ideas for decks you get. When you get a bad card in a pack that makes you stop this process and that only takes you further away from buying more pack. Either you think "crap a bad card... oh fuck it I should go do something else" or you think "Ok let´s disenchant this then" which is counter to buying the cards through packs.
Or something like that ... maybe not... Oh well I totally agree with your statement that no bad cards is needed. Only "interesting cards". They must not be best for everything, they can be good at a very specific thing.
I think for the River Crocolisk, something more in line with what crocs do would be better. Maybe something like battlecry: randomly get a claw/bite card from your deck, or possibly freeze a minion for one turn as the croc grapples with it or something
It's a very interesting point you brought up, buffing cards that nobody plays can't make the game "worse". But the interesting thing i found, is that many of the "bad" cards are actually EPIC. Yeah you have things like silverback and war golem, but those cards are in the basic set, and basic already is the best set (the best hero specific cards).
Back to the epic cards, there are many epic cards that run some kind of gimmick, like hobgoblin or recombubulator. But there are cards that are aweful: Bestial Wrath, Gladiator's Longbow, Wee Spellstopper, Shadowbomber, Patient Assassin,Cogmaster's Wrench, Kidnapper, Demonheart, Anima Golem, Hungry Crab, Mini-Mage. And as you pointed in other video, many legendary cards see no play (most GvG heroe specific save Malganis).I can get the idea behind cards like Tinkmaster or Tauren Chieftain, they are cards that are "fun" to play, just because the unexpected factor, it's okay if they don't belong to arena or ranked. But Hemet is just a really really really expensive (and pointless) tech card, The Beast? Grull? when do you ever see someone playing those if not out of Unsatable Portal.
Hearthstone is a very consistent card game, you can make decks around ONE card or a THEME (like pirate, or enrage, or secrets), sometimes, just adding a tiny bit of synergy you can make a whole deck viable (Patron).
Love this change, would make a lot of people happier at the start of their hearthstone experience. Buffing river crock with healing for newer players might also have been a genius move because hunter feels so prevalent at the early ranks. Love to see Noz the bozz getting some attention here too.
Buffing cards is counterproductive because they suddenly can keep up with the powercreep, meanwhile they could release the same card under a new name with better stats again in a new expansion which will not only fill the card pool but also ensure that there is a certain amount of packs sold.
I think buffing cards is absolutely the way to go. But i feel as if instead of just adding slight tweaks to increase their overall power, the buffs should be pseudo-counters for exceptionally powerful cards and/or combos. The changes should be focused on improving the meta by giving responses or protection from dominant decks.
For instance:
If warrior continues to dominate, some anti-weapon or anti board clear mechanics could be introduced to the poor creatures. Bloodsail corsair could be given immunity to spell damage and gain bonus health per attack of the enemy weapon.
If quartermaster becomes a major force, wisp could be given a battlecry to steal the bonus attack/power of all enemy minions..
Great card ideas and thanks for uploading daily (even under rough circumstances) as always!
Kripp I agree with you that a lot of the cards you pointed out are sub-par, but the reason they are like that is because most of them are part of the Basic set. See how there is no symbol on the back of them? Not even a hearthstone swirl? That's because when you start the game you have a set list of cards that have very simple stats/text/etc to not confuse new players. Also, a lot of those cards are used in the tutorial of the game and are meant to not be complex. I feel the idea is great (like maybe if we changed Stoneskin Gargoyle to heal at end of turn or something) but altering basic cards is not going to happen.
I agree about your point when you look at it in constructed. But for arena, well , the crappy cards actually make it intresting. I'm kind of surprised you don't see that, being mainly an arena player
That nozdormu change would be amazing.
Was skeptical, but this was really interesting. :) Really good suggestions. If old cards start being useful again, classic packs should be mixed back in.
I've said this before. I really want them to put in more cards like Nozdormu, that punish people for taking too long on their turn. But perhaps with a bit different effects. For example a minion that heals your hero for 1 every 5 seconds of the enemy's turn or something like that. Or why not a time bomb, if either player takes more than 15 seconds on their turn everything on the board dies.
I honestly really like all of these ideas. I'm not sure if it's because your ideas are good or if it's because I simply want a lot of the basic cards buffed. Probably both.
I agree with the idea, in theory. In practice, what criteria should be used to decide what cards to buff? If the devs are free to decide, someone's gonna be unhappy. If you want to check what cards are/are not played in high legend decklists, what's to say that the cards not played are not bad but just in a bad spot in the actual meta? Should we ask the community to create a list, and change the most featured X cards each week? How many people will actually care about this? I don't know, sounds like a ton of work for something that probably won't change constructed play much (there will STILL be better cards after the buffs, and those will be the only ones played), while in arena trying to work witth sub-par cards is part of the fun.
I love this video. Do something like this again. I like seeing you're ideas for ur buffs
Your legendary changes are on point. I like Nightblade too. The others were terrible. Here's what I would do for the dalaran mage. Battlecry: add a a random mage card with mana cost (3) or less to your hand.
For the crocolisk: this minion gains 1 health for each point of damage it deals when it attacks. (Would let it punch through annoyotron etc)
Silverback: battlecry gain 1 to 3 bananas.
War golem: damage done to this minion is reduced by 2.
Flamewaker is the 3 mana +2 SP you're looking for!
Each spell +2 damage(regardless if it did damage or not lol)
And it's a 2/4 as old Dalaran :)
While I think that some of these changes you suggested would be kinda sweet I do think bad cards serve a useful function in the game. Looking at it from the perspective of we competitive players can be a little myopic, but game designers/developers are trying to please a larger audience.
Bad cards serve the function of separating good players from bad. It's an area where the better player can gain an advantage, and where a player can feel a sense of accomplishment when he/she gains the knowledge that "oh, this kinda card is bad." It creates a feeling of progression that doesn't exist in a world of largely flat power level.
I don't know if you're an M:tG guy, but Mark Rosewater (magic's head designer) wrote an article or two and did a podcast on the function of bad cards. While a digital card game is a different animal I think a lot of those points apply to hearthstone.
I completely agree with this, and I think Ben Brode's reasons for not buffing weak cards were really irrelevant and mislead. However I do think it's worth retaining the few bad cards in the basic decks - simply because when people first start playing the game, it's less clear what makes a good card. You want them to be able to have a few definite 'worse' cards to swap better things for. But this would only be a few cards.
Absolutely on point here. The constructed game shouldn't be about good or bad cards, but flexible and niche cards. Sylvanas and Dr Boom go into like every midrange and control deck because they're consistently great. This is fine. You have your tech cards like Kezan Mystic and Harrison and MCT that see a fair amount of play dependant on the meta. Then there are "bad" (niche) cards like Hungry Crab and Sacrificial Pact which 99% of the time are utter garbage but sometimes, SOMETIMES they are the card you need in a specific situation to win the game. When Blizz finally makes Murloc Shaman viable maybe we will actually think about Hungry Crab, in a manner akin to how Nozdormu is actually a good counter to Patron Warrior, a deck that didn't exist until a couple of months ago. This is fine also.
And then there are just useless garbage cards like War Golem and Reckless Rocketeer and a few others that Kripp mentioned here that really serve no function whatsoever. These need fixing. There is no reason for them to be so utterly redundant. Why on earth would you pick Silverback Patriarch when Gnomeregan Infantry exists and THAT's not even remotely usable. As a 3 mana taunt it is obsoleted and as a 3 mana beast it is also obsoleted (Animal Companion, Druid of the Flame). These cards need some way to stand out- not necessarily be good, but be niche enough to where people actually consider them.
I watch your videos everyday (and a few other HS best) and this is the first time o felt _compelled_ to thumbs up. Great ideas, Kripparrian
I don't think Blizz will go back to change old cards. Instead, I could see them introduce cards that make old cards useful, such as Light of the Naaru and Muster for Battle.
Like, for Magma Rager - I could see a Shaman DD card where it's like - 3 cost, Overload (1), Deal three damage, summon a Magma Rager.
Additionally, in the future maybe old cards will get buffed if they gain types - such as Harvest Golem when it gained the Mech-type when GvG came out. Honestly, it'd be nice if Hearthstone adopted the Pet Battle System's Minion types such as Humanoid, Flying, Aquatic, Magic, Undead, Critter. Beast, Mech, and Dragon are in the game already.
Kripp needs to work as a consultant for Blizz.
The River Croc is actually fine as a 2/3 Beast. It's just the alternate version of Bloodfen Raptor. Having more Health than Damage means it's able to combo better with buff cards that buff both stats. That's how I feel.
Kripp, you already asked the dev about this in one of the Value Town's episodes, I believe. The dev said that they do not want to buff cards, or change cards, because as they release new cards, the old "weak" cards may become more useful. So he said that they would like to buff cards, but not directly, only by introducing new cards which would may have synergy with the old ones.
So despite of the fact that I agree with you, I don't think this is gonna happen.
I do think certain "baseline" cards need to stay vanilla for new players' sakes - like Crocolisk. Crocolisk gives a measuring stick by which you can judge other cards, and isn't SO terrible as to be undraftable in arena.
Cards like Young Dragonhawk, on the other hand - yeah, go for the buffs.
"Timmy is what we in R&D call the "power gamer." Timmy likes to win big. He doesn’t want to eke out a last minute victory. Timmy wants to smash his opponents. He likes his cards to be impressive, and he enjoys playing big creatures and big spells."
"Spike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players’ decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenaline rush of competition."
"Johnny likes a challenge. Johnny enjoys winning with cards that no one else wants to use. He likes making decks that win in innovative ways. What sets Johnny apart from the other profiles is that Johnny enjoys deckbuilding as much as (or more than) he enjoys playing. Johnny loves the cool interactions of the cards. He loves combo decks. Johnny is happiest when he’s exploring uncharted territory."
I'm a Johnny. What are you?
Love your suggestions- and btw, today and yesterday was the best vids in a long while :)
For example the River crock:
"If 1 adjecent minion is a beast. Give rivercrock +1 attack for each adjecent minion that is a beast."
Making it possibly a 4/3 making it capable of doing "plays"
Most of the cards Kripp picked are indeed terrible in constructed, but they are also base cards that you get automatically when you first start with Hearthstone. Tagging on an extra ability is not really an option because beginner cards are meant to be simple. So for that matter, I do prefer the 5/5 nightwish, the 5/2 magma rager, the 2/4 patriarch, 2/4 dalaran mage and the 7/9 war golem.
Something I've been saying for ages. You don't need bad cards to teach quality to new players, or how to make good plays.
There are a couple of things that must be considered IMHO in this topic.
The first one is that we are talking basically about basic cards, AKA "the cards you have when you start playing the game". I think it's completely fair (and also completely following the rarity system in the cards) that basic cards are overall worse than common, common worse than rare and so on, so you get better cards, therefore better decks, the more you play the game. That's called game progression. For instance, if you give the Dalaran Mage, a basic card, +2 spell power, that card is as good as the Soot Spewer, a rare one (and class restricted, which are overall better than neutrals), which is absolutelly not fair.
To summarize this first point, I think it's not that bad (hey! I didn't say "it's good", I said "not that bad") to have basic cards that lose value when compared to common or better cards. What is actually really really bad is to have rare, epic or even legendary cards that are absolutelly useless (Patient Assassin? Anima Golem? Shadowbomber?). That's unacceptable.
The second point is that we have not to forget that this game is a themed game based on the Warcraft lore. A healing River Crocolisk is just a huge WTF. I know it was only an example, but I guess you can get the point of what I'm saying.
Anyway, some cards need a change, and that's a fact, but I would focus more on the rare+ cards, specially the epic+ cards that we have gathering dust in our collection instead that putting basic and common cards to the same value level than rares, epics or even legendaries.
Bad is a matter of perspective. If you remove all the worst cards in a game you simply wind up with the least of whatever is left becoming the new worst. Likewise as new cards come along often previously OP cards often become trash.
Bad cards are unavoidable. Generally cards are not made bad on purpose, they just kind of happen naturally and are unavoidable. Any set of cards you design you are going to wind up with a bunch that are amazing, a bunch that are fair, and in the end the rest are just going to be useless. If in the design process you recognized the bottom worst cards and either just buffed them then you have not actually fixed anything. Your buffed cards either will still be trash, or simply push some other okay card into the bottom tier and that card would become the trash. Alternatively you could cut the card entirely but then at best you just prolong the inevitable until a set or so down the line when some new card replaces the previous cards and obsoletes some of them. In the meantime you wind up with a less diverse game with deckbuilding choices being far too obvious to be challenging.
Which actually shines a light on the actual value of bad cards in terms of making a good card game. Part of what makes a card game compelling is the need to weigh cards value and power with each other and use them to build a good deck. The less bad choices available, the worse a game is at fulfilling that.
However; I do agree that buffing cards is a good idea. Buffing cards to give players options against trouble cards is preferable whenever possible to nerfing a card. A buff to a card like Nerub'ar Weblord for instance might actually be better than nerfing Doctor Boom for instance. Weblord as printed is fine, but there are so many cards that are worth playing or must play that have battlecry that its ability is actually as much a drawback as an advantage. It could easily be a 2/4 or a 1/5 and still be fairly costed. It might even be fair as a 3/3, which is a good statline that is both balanced and aggressive.
However some cards are really just too game breaking sometimes and are better off nerfed than trying to throw answers at them.
Finally, finally kripp talks about something important, i would even say fundamental to hearthstone
If Kripp ever took up game design, I would 200% get into that ASAP. He's got some savvy, creative ideas. Down with bad cards!
In a card game while I often go with the concept "no bad card" just bad use of a card. I do realize that even with this concept there will always be sub-optimal cards. Cards that are okay but just not that good (boulderfist orgre for example). Playing other card games like netrunner made me realize that there needs to be bad cards like Millhouse Manastorm and Majordomo Executus or Angry Chicken. The thing is that there needs to be mechanics in the game that pull these cards out, much like arena where sometimes you get nothing but bad cards or a bad card makes a choice of 3 an easier choice of 2. other things such as other players pointed out that Majordomo Executus was a nerf to Sneeds old Shredder. Also while Millhouse manastorm is the worst minion to play he is the best minion to come out of Piloted shredder. So with the bad cards there needs to be a way to pull those into the game just to keep everyone on their toes and I think GvG did that great. I want to see some (0 cost cards get pulled into the game some more.)
The other thing that needs to be done to "bad cards" is there needs to be a way to play them that is not all that bad. Take Angry Chicken. Put blessing of kings on it and all of a sudden a 5/5 that turns into a 10/4 after taking 1 damage. Target dummy would be good if a free corruption was put in place. So bad cards need to be drawn out into the game at some semi-controlled intervals, also bad cards need to be able to be played in an optimal fashion that is viable. But bad cards are still needed to dilute the card pool. Otherwise the fine tunning will see many good cards never in play.
Kripp never let us down about releasing a daily HS video :D
I agree with pretty much everything, I absolutely love the nozdormu idea, just thinking about the card actually having those stats and that mana cost made me exited to figure out how to build a deck with it.
I also liked your nightblade idea, but I think it should be a 4/3, very few AOE spells deal 4 damage, but a lot deal three, so I think it having 4 health is a tiny bit too good.
I don't like the proposed Nozdormu change at all. For the dragon aspects, I like the idea of them all being 9 mana bruisers that all have effective abilities with a big impact on the game. The proposed change is absolutely a huge buff, but it removes the aesthetic of a monolithic dragon aspect. I'd rather he get an additional ability for when he comes into play: perhaps he blinds all enemy minions when he enters play, so they can't attack (like frost nova, but with sand and an 8/8 on the board).
That river Crocolisk would be intersting in freeze mage to prevent some of the early aggression, and also vs freeze mage as a cheap heal after Alexstrasza.
Nightblade with stealth might end up in face hunter.
These are all really good ideas
Aggressive paladin.
Kripp why'd you give them the idea.
Please, as someone from the future, undo this, for all our sakes.
There are some good ideas in this, though one thing you've got to keep in mind when suggesting changes, especially when adding text to a card, is the card itself. Like what the card is depicting, and how what it does represents what the card is. The fact that every card in Hearthstone is basically a translation of what something in the Warcraft universe did applied to the rules of card game is one of the many things that gives this game its Blizzard Polish™ and makes it such a cool game.
The suggested River Croc and War Golem changes were examples of this for sure. To me it doesn't make sense that a crocodile would heal the player when its played. There is a case for the War Golem having the gargoyle effect but, whereas it made total sense on the gargoyle cos that's exactly what it does in WoW, I don't think any golems do that in Warcraft games so it doesn't really make sense.
Good thoughts, but some buffs doesn't make sense. Why would the river croc give your hero extra health?
Jonathan Gréen he was just throwing an idea on that one
Jonathan Gréen What do you mean? You've never used a crocodile bite to treat an open wound?
I feel like crappy cards are an integral part of arena balance and variation. You want arena drafts to have a large range in how good/bad they are as it's more gratifying to players who can outplay opponents that have a better deck and it also helps distinguish players that can consistently find the best turns in all situations due to the increased variation.
The main value from "introducing new cards" in the form of buffing old cards, is that it increases the quality of the game and would make a lot of old players return.
An increase in player base = an increase in sales.
Best use for bad cards: Make a new vs mode where you draft the deck for your opponent. I'm sure there will be tons of dead cards there!
When they first announced BRM, I felt that they should change Gruul (The Dragonkiller) completely: Make him cost less mana with less stats, but make his battlecry : Destroy a dragon. It would an awesome card for priests, since it would be a way to deal with Twilight Drake, Azure Drake, Malygos, and Ysera.
What I do not agree with is the fact that you suggest changes to basic cards such as the War Golem and the River Crocolisk, and here's why:
These cards have no rarity and are basic for a reason, they provide the basis of the game, they give new players an idea of how the stat distribution looks like in this game, when they see a River Crocolisk or a Raptor they know that 3/2 or 2/3 are the expected stats for a 2 drop, as long as they do not have any other abilities. Those cards do not need to be changed, instead it is the job of the cards from expert sets such as GvG to provide cards that evolve from a basic 2 mana 2/3 into something more interesting, complicated and possibly better.
If you really want a 6/6 with the Stoneskin Gargoyle ablility, or a 3 mana Voidwalker that can get discounted, just wait and see what comes in the next expert sets, because those cards might be in there.
As for changing Legendaries that are generally not played and are kind of a feel-bad-pull out of a pack, I agree with the video. If you (Blizzard) don't want to nerf Dr. Boom because it would feel bad, maybe change Nozdormu or Hemet because it feels bad to even pull them instead of the Doctor, for example.
Alright, im out.
Violet Gun~