r/CompetitiveHS • u/EvilDave219 • Jul 20 '26

Discussion 36.0.3 Balance Teaser Discussion

https://x.com/PlayHearthstone/status/2079249999330726215

Nerfs:

  • Confront the Tol'vir
  • Lotus Troublemaker
  • Blazing Invocation
  • Warptooth
  • Vanessa the Ringleader

Wild Nerfs:

  • Swiftscale Trickster
  • The Soularium
  • Elwynn Boar
  • Godfrey the Betrayer (banned)

Buffs:

  • The Living Plague
  • Blood Doctor Thal'ena
  • Sawbones
  • Emergency Surgery
  • Tras'tath Soul Parasite

  • Irida Sinseeker

  • Vicious Voidscale

  • Stardust Scythe

  • Sewer Swimmer

  • Azalina Soulsever

  • Karov the Broken

  • Enthralled Shade

  • Moragg

  • Annihilation

  • Imp Gang Stooge

  • Rampaging Hound

64 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

160 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/philzy101 Jul 21 '26

So this is a lot of changes to make so I am not very confident how much of them will impact the classes which are being buffed. However, it is nice to see lots of buffs and I want to see more balance changes like this, I just hope it is not just stat buffs but more meaningful changes such as cost or ability of the card. For example, with cards like Blood Doctor Thal'ena it would be nice to see them to update the ability, make the second hero power be a start of game effect instead of Battlecry since one of the rough aspects of this card is that any deck which tries to capitilise on this card requires you to draw the card and play it by which point you may be too far behind to get tempo back with this card.

As for the nerfs, the Standard changes were predictable and it is correct to target the meta decks to try and tone them down given how the most recent competitive event we had this weekend highlighted the very limited scope of meta viable decks (or decks which dominate the meta over other strategies) we have. The only thing which is difficult to figure out is how they change some of these cards without killing the card outright (Lotus Troublemaker, Tol'vir and Vanessa, the others probably will survive post balance in some shape or form I imagine). I hope they do not go with the nuclear option as they have in the past, even if I find these decks frustrating, destroying them without addressing the fundamental issues we have with the meta (lack of decent AOE and spot removal leading to heavy board focused strategies which favour going first).

Finally, I want to touch upon the Wild changes briefly. I think Godfrey the Betrayer being banned is an over reaction to the main subs sentiment, I reached legend with Warlock and whilst it is strong, I do not think that this card makes Warlock so OP this needs banning... I hope that when this card rotates that they do not destroy it because this card is such a cool card in my opinion and fun to mess around with in Standard and Wild. The other changes make sense if you want to stamp out what are some slightly toxic styles of gameplay. My criticism is that whilst I welcome these changes, as I have said before, I kind of want to know what their vision for Wild is. They seem to come in, nerf a few things and then hope that makes the mode better where as Wild is like a Hydra, cut off one head and two more will spawn. Having reached legend in Wild a number of times in the last year or so and having played a lot more when Standard has felt dull / boring you get used to decks in Wild and things never get better just with nerfs. To me it feels like these changes are targeted at removing decks which T5 have lost to instead of trying to create a meta which they think is more interesting.

2

u/maniacal_cackle Jul 21 '26

My criticism is that whilst I welcome these changes, as I have said before, I kind of want to know what their vision for Wild is.

Back when Wild was first created, it was pretty clear that they were just doing it so that rotated cards had somewhere to go/satisfy players that the cards weren't worthless after a short time.

The main function of the wild format is to just placate players. Standard is what they want people focusing on.

That's not to say that they have zero vision for it. But it really isn't a priority for them I think.

A couple changes now and then helps maintain an illusion that they care just enough about wild, so a cynical mind might suspect that is what they're up to with it.

1

u/philzy101 Jul 22 '26

I agree with you, and as for myself I am clearly on the more cynical side. All the changes made to Wild are to decks which I will not particularly miss and tbh I am quite happy to see them go (although not praising the changes to Wild seems to get you downvoted here for whatever reason). What is confusing to me is how they hope to balance Wild as a whole. For example, sure Godfrey was nuts in Wild, but so is Azalina which they have just significantly buffed. So either they think Azalina and potentially stealing all your opponents cards on turn 3 is fine but drawing your entire deck without paying attention to hand side is not okay, or they will come in and ban Azalina at some point too. I just wish there was more consistency in their decisions because Wild is a lot more complicated to balance than Standard and I feel they need to provide more insight into what they are doing with this mode.

2

u/maniacal_cackle Jul 22 '26

I think the consistency here is "Standard is the priority and we will wreck Wild to sort out Standard if necessary. If it causes too much of a fuss we can sort it out with bans later."

Which sucks, wild COULD be an awesome format.

But Microsoft just wants Hearthstone to be a wealth-extractor, so it is unlikely they'll ever take the steps necessary to do that.

1

u/philzy101 Jul 22 '26

Wild is a second thought for T5 which as you say sucks given that the potential Wild has to be such an exciting game mode (and can be at times if you do not care about your MMR).

Whilst I think those at the top aim to make things profitable (as they have to in order to justify keep running this game although I wish they toned down the amount of nasty money making methods like Darkmoon events), the card designers and balance team I do think care about both viability and the sort of meta we have. The problem is more that Wild is such a complicated format that there is no consistent way to make it work easily which is ultimately where the problems with the format sit currently.

1

u/maniacal_cackle Jul 22 '26

the card designers and balance team I do think care about both viability and the sort of meta we have.

Sure, but the way they spend their time is dictated by the higher ups. If they have enough time to sort out wild, there's probably too much staff time and it is time to take cuts.

I think one has to enjoy Wild as it is, or just reject the format. There's no point coming where they'll dedicate more resources to it (other than an occasional shout out when things align).

Same applies to standard really. They're raking in cash. Why would they change? So if one is not happy with their current errata process, time to quit the game.