I think I agree with his main points. The problem that I see is that, if you get rid of it, how do you deal with Warlock Giants? I'm not a game designer, so I don't have a good answer, but it's definitely a real problem that doesn't have many better solutions that exist, if any.
jdodge1019: hasjghsalghsakljghs is from vermont
jdodge1019: vermont is made of liberal freaks and cows
jdodge1019: he's not a liberal
jdodge1019: thus he is a cow
I dunno. I mean, when you think about it, each class already has removal.
The real issue is having no neutral spells. While I get it's done for a reason, that means you end up with "spells on a stick" type cards like BGH. I think the main way you can fix BGH is to up the cost on it? Or change the effect... have it change the attack or health to 1 or something instead of straight up removing it. Make it easy to kill, but don't just straight up drop a dude and kill a dude for it.
Having it as a legendary, therefore capping it as a 1-of, would be good... and furthermore, having it cost 2 more mana would make it a later play and usually mean a 1-for-1
It could even be like... I dunno. I like the idea of BGH having to sac itself to kill something, but I don't know how to do that. Maybe if it had charge and the Emperor Cobra effect.
But that would make it borderline worthless against decks that run heavy taunt to guard larger bodies (and would act as a better-than-silence on non-belcher taunts). Feels a bit iffy.
Could make it deathrattle, but then it'd have to be random (as there are no controlled deathrattle effects) and probably wouldn't get played.
I saw a suggestion that they could make giant a race (just like dragon) and turn bgh into an anti-dragon anti-giant card.
Or they could just nerf BGH to be less cost-efficient, so you actually have to decide if having it for the matchups it helps is worth having a weak card in other matchups.
If I were on the balance team, I'd look at the impact of making it a 4|1 for 4, with the same battlecry.
i'd support making BGH legendary. I think the card cost is around what it should be
I have two big objections with the card:
1. It's a bit TOO meta gamey. It's ONLY ever a good card if your opponent plays a 7+ attack card, obviously, so it's this pretty huge meta game outguessing that feels kind of... petty. This objection isn't solved by changing its health to 1, it's only increased.
2. The stated weirdness where 6 attack cards are better than 7 attack cards all else equal.
In post 1608, zoraster wrote:i'd support making BGH legendary. I think the card cost is around what it should be
I have two big objections with the card:
1. It's a bit TOO meta gamey. It's ONLY ever a good card if your opponent plays a 7+ attack card, obviously, so it's this pretty huge meta game outguessing that feels kind of... petty. This objection isn't solved by changing its health to 1, it's only increased.
2. The stated weirdness where 6 attack cards are better than 7 attack cards all else equal.
I actually think making it more meta gamey is the answer. I see it as a classic "hate card", a card you can tech in to deal with certain matchups but isn't good for general inclusion.
4|2 for 3 is too good when the battlecry isn't used, however (only one point off efficient), so including BGH is a low risk decision for every deck. If it were a risky inclusion, it'd be more appropriate to use it only when you expect to need it, and be healthier for the metagame.
Spoiler: Elements the Game comparison
In another CCG I play, Elements, there's a card called Rain of Fire. It's basically like flamestrike, a pricey board wipe. There's another card called Fractal that gives its user tons of creatures. Rain of Fire doesn't see much use in the general case, but when a player expects some sort of Fractal based deck with lots of small creatures, Rain of Fire is a powerful and devasting inclusion.
What is the decisionmaking process on whether it's likely to be included? With hearthstone literally the only way to decide that is a general feeling of what's being played by the largest number of people recently. We don't even get to know our opponent's class before starting.
1) Whether your deck does well enough against other matchups to make including it for some matchups worth it.
2) Tournament play. I'm of the opinion that any competitive game including Hearthstone should be balanced around tournament play.
I mean you can have that opinion, but it's clearly not shared by Blizzard as the game doesn't offer the things you would expect if Tournament play were a point of emphasis. No replays, no way to watch high legend games through the client, most tournaments are organized as third party affairs, virtually no advanced statistics, etc.
I do see your point there, and think there's a lot of ways Blizzard could step up promoting tournament play (if that is indeed their goal). I think they do want it to be a fairly high part of their goals, and judging by the recently announced path to the 2015 World Championship it looks like they want points to come mostly from tournaments though also somewhat from ladder.
For now, most tournaments are 3rd party, but I think Blizzard's ok with that.
Miracle Rogue and the associated nerfs seem like the best example so far of balancing for tournament play over balancing for ladder. Gadgetzan wasn't especially cancerous for the ladder, but its power in tournament decks made it need a nerf with the GVG release.
beat a mage that played 3 flamestrikes against me in the final game. I had one card left in my deck. I was going to be so mad if he drew flamestrike #4.
I added my information. Kept forgetting about it every time I could get to my ID.
jdodge1019: hasjghsalghsakljghs is from vermont
jdodge1019: vermont is made of liberal freaks and cows
jdodge1019: he's not a liberal
jdodge1019: thus he is a cow
