Blizzard Explains Why It Gives "Bad Cards" To New Hearthstone Players

[RJ 17]

Snip.

As I said to someone else in this topic:

Or I could, you know, say "screw that game and it's crappy matchmaking" and just play something else instead.

I'll stick to MtG to get my trading card fix. At least in that I've already got a very large library of cards that I can casually play with my friends and know that we're all about on even levels in terms of card strength.

 

[Neonsilver]

Hearthstone is Pay to Win, yet claims it's Free To Play. Someone - such as myself - wanting to get into Hearthstone will start playing it figuring that they could grind out some free packs and be at least moderately competitive, only to find out that those willing to invest cash into the game will have a distinct - and according to this interview: game-intended - advantage over those who don't.

This interview implies a greater advantage than there actually is when it comes to the quality of cards. Don't get me wrong, it'll be a long while before a F2P player can put together a Freeze Mage, a Handlock, or a Wallet Warrior, but you can in fact play semi competitive decks at a low budget. For example, this Face Hunter [http://www.icy-veins.com/hearthstone/hunter-face-aggro-rush-tgt-deck] deck for the low low price of 1460 dust is run by a pro Hearthstone streamer that consistently hits legend. Or this Paladin deck [http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/313487-tgt-legend-eboladin-very-cheap-deck] for 1740 dust. Also top 200 legend. Both of these decks have exactly 1 epic and the rest are rares/commons/basics.

They're not super fancy, but I more or less ran similar versions of these decks while I built up my card library just as a means of generating gold and therefore more packs/dust. I dunno if you've given up on HS, but hey, there they are if you wanna give em a shot.

That's not to mention the fact that a lot of times, the really common/most played cards for a lot of classes are, in fact low rarity cards. Wild Growth, Kill Command, Fireball, Truesilver Champion, Shadow Wordeath, Deadly Poison, Fire Elemental, Hellfire, Execute, these are all basic cards that see pretty much guaranteed play in even the highest level decks for their respective classes. Commons are all over the place too with Muster for Battle, Piloted Shredder, Shielded Minibot, Mana Wyrm, Sorceror's apprentice and many many more.

I get it. It sucks losing to people with a lot of Legendaries when you don't have any. But most of the good ones save for Bloodmage Thalnos cost at least 6 and there's plenty of cheap decks that can kill a player by the time 6 mana rolls around. Take a look around, you might find something you're interested in.

I would like to point out that 1000+ dust is still quite expensive and disenchanting cards just to be able to build a deck can bite you in the ass in the long run. While you might be able to play rather successful for a time, newly introduced cards can make your previous deck nearly useless and if you didn't grind enough in the meantime you might be in a worse position than before.

I only played the game during the past two months and the only reason I'm able to get at least close to a single digit rank is because I got lucky once with a golden leeroy jenkins in a pack. Disenchanting that gave me enough dust to create a working aggro deck. Otherwise I probably would have stopped playing already.

But as I said new cards can make an old deck useless, the new adventure cards certainly are annoying for me. Reno Jackson as well as Brann Bronzebeard can ruin an entire game for me and unfortunately I didn't grind enough to really build a new deck.

 

[mike1921]

His argument only works for the complexity of cards, not the power level. It's a steaming load of bullshit that it's some task to learn the game mechanics that you need to be slowly eased into and even with that incredibly stupid premise it still doesn't justify that there are cards that are strictly better than other cards without adding any complexity. Ice rager is strictly better than magma rager and neither has any card text. And jesus christ, the progression argument, "as your decks become more powerful", your decks are supposed to be more powerful because you get more tools to make a deck reach a specific goal not because this individual card is better than that in literally every circumstance.

If you don't want dr. boom and war golem looked through the same lens do not make them directly comparable. Make war golem an 8/8 or even an 8/9 so there is SOME trade off, it still wouldn't even be played copetitively.

 

[iller3]

Yep this is a game you'll never find me ever even just "trying". Bad or nonexistent matchmaking you say???
...yeah that Torpedos this Liar's fragile house of Cards that he was building about this being a "Game Design" strategy.

If the Matchmaking was near FLAWLESS, then yeah he'd have a point about this being "for the new player's sake and growing skill". But this is clearly a slimey P.R. stunt to try and rebrand Pay to Win & STEEP vertical progression as something else. ..And that's before even addressing the reality of how much R.N.G. is in this game and how that's almost always anti-skill

 

[shteev]

It's really sad to see the old War Golem vs Doctor Boom debate being rolled out again. War Golem is not the baseline for how much power cards should have for 7 mana... it's well below the baseline. And yes, it *is* fine to give new players starting cards which are well below the baseline in power, so long as you also give them enough better cards so that as soon as they figure out how bad it is, they never have to use it again.

The problem with Doctor Boom is not that it's better than War Golem... it's that it's better than everything else, as well.

 

[CaitSeith]

If this is the case gold/pack farming should be re-invented for hearthstone, the power-creep is what stopped me from playing, I'm not going to shell out 50 euro's every few months just to stay in the game without getting mauled.


And even then spending 50 euro's might not even get you close to receiving the cards that you want. (I mean in the beginning I bought like 80 packs and I got a golden Ysera and nothing else.)


Edit:

-As a specific example Brode points to Dr. Boom, referenced in power creep debates because it resembles the Basic (but weaker) War Golem. According to Brode the comparison is misleading, because War Golem was a barely-used card to begin with. "His existence has increased the power level of the game, but it's nothing to do with War Golem," he explains. "War Golem could not exist and he [Dr. Boom] would still get played in high level decks. War Golem is bad because it's bad - it has nothing to do with Dr. Boom and they shouldn't necessarily be looked at through a lens together. Dr. Boom doesn't represent power creep because War Golem exists. War Golem is just bad and was never played - it's not like people took out War Golem for Dr. Boom."-

This is the only thing I can see from his point of view because it's true, it does not however dispell the fact that Dr.Boom is a must have card that one can only acquire from GvG packs.

There are some cards from the Adventures that make it even worse in that regard.

So, there are no 7 mana old cards that can counter it or replace it?

EDIT: The wiki says that Dr. Boom can be obtained through Goblins vs Gnomes card packs, through crafting, or as an Arena reward.

 

[CaitSeith]

Blizzard is shooting for the absolute lowest of the low when choosing who to design their games around

I watched a Hearthstone tournament a couple of months back - it was the one held during BlizzCon so it was a fairly large and well publicised event. It really turned me off the entire game, since when I watched the finals, I felt treated like an idiot. The commentators were stopping and explaining what common cards do. You know, to the people watching the tournament, presumably those would be ones who are interested in Hearthstone, therefore, presumably they would know what the common cards do. But n. o. And that happened all the time.

Imagine you're watching the basketball finals or something and the commentators start to explain what "dribbling" is and what the objective of the game is then go on and explain the advanced concepts of what a team is and how to recognise players who are in the same team.

Every. Match.

Of. The. Finals.

And what was also annoying is their constant yammering about how oh so very important the winners trophy is. They even outright said "Well, the winner gets few hundred thousand dollars but that's nothing compared to getting the title of Hearthstone champion!". The final nail in the coffin was when they interviewed one of the semifinalists and he expressed his happiness of going this far and stated that he was just happy with participating and wasn't too concerned with the prise. The commentators then started discussing how that was an odd thing to say and how the prise was totally cool, yo, and it's the bestest thing in the world.

Basketball is about 100 years old and practiced all over the world by people of different social classes. Hearthstone isn't even 2 years old, and it's played by only a fraction of PC or cellphone/tablet owners. They definetly need to improve the way they present the tournaments; but there is nothing wrong in helping the audience to understand what's happening. Poker Tournaments are good in telling the audience who has the advantage on each hand (even if the viewers have never played Poker in their lives).

 

[CaitSeith]

Hum this sounds like the exact ideal opposite of most decent card games I play/know off, usually the best outcome is to make every card useful in some respect, or at least try to.

But hey Hearthstone is more successful then any other online ccg I play so maybe it's got the right idea ;/

OK, which decent card games do you play/know off?

 

[DoPo]

Basketball is about 100 years old and practiced all over the world by people of different social classes.

While true, I'd still argue that not all people would be familiar with all the aspects. Yet, people who watch basketball (or any other sport/tournament) would most likely know the basics. The stuff that was being explained in the Hearthstone tournament (again, the finals), was the basics.

Poker Tournaments are good in telling the audience who has the advantage on each hand (even if the viewers have never played Poker in their lives).

See, if we're going to make a comparison with poker, then it'd be the equivalent of the comentators explaining the following:
- the concept of discarding cards and receiving new ones (for classical poker)
- what with the cards on the table (texas hold'em up)
- the concept of having a combination of cards
- which cards are higher than other cards, e.g, pair of 2s loses to a pair of 8s

Also, the comentators would also have to explain these every game. I don't think that's exactly the same as saying that player A has a better chance of winning a round than player B - that would be more advanced concepts there.

So, there are no 7 mana old cards that can counter it or replace it?

Hah. That would be a joke. No, there are no 7 mana cards that can effectively deal with Dr. Boom. These are the ones that kind sorta can maybe help:

Ancient of War [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/242-ancient-of-war] with taunt can maybe delay things, but the bombs are almost definitely going into it and the explosions can still cause havoc. If the opponent has a low amount of health left, the bombs might even kill him.

Rend Blackhand [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/14438-rend-blackhand] can maybe deal with Dr. Boom, but not with the bots. It's essentially the same as Big Game Hunter, but we're talking 7 mana cards here. Also, it's a newer card than Dr. Boom, but it's the only other 7-drop that can somehow deal with Dr. Boom directly.

If you expand this to be "Several cards with a cost of 7 mana, and having luck on your side", then maybe but then again, that just means that Dr. Boom effectively costs the opponent several cards, and the opponent having the correct cards at the correct time, and most likely an entire turn, and some luck. It's still a pretty effective thing for a 7-drop.

That's not taking into account the opponent using pre-existing creatures on the board, but even then, they'd need to expend several and risk losing evein more due to the bots. So, even then Dr. Boom makes a good bang[footnote]pun intended[/footnote] for your mana.

And finally, there is the combination of using pre-existing creatures on the board with playing cards from your hand. Again, under most circumstances, Dr. Boom is really effective as the opponent has to spend several cards in order to deal with just one.

 

[CaitSeith]

Basketball is about 100 years old and practiced all over the world by people of different social classes.

While true, I'd still argue that not all people would be familiar with all the aspects. Yet, people who watch basketball (or any other sport/tournament) would most likely know the basics. The stuff that was being explained in the Hearthstone tournament (again, the finals), was the basics.

Poker Tournaments are good in telling the audience who has the advantage on each hand (even if the viewers have never played Poker in their lives).

See, if we're going to make a comparison with poker, then it'd be the equivalent of the comentators explaining the following:
- the concept of discarding cards and receiving new ones (for classical poker)
- what with the cards on the table (texas hold'em up)
- the concept of having a combination of cards
- which cards are higher than other cards, e.g, pair of 2s loses to a pair of 8s

Also, the comentators would also have to explain these every game. I don't think that's exactly the same as saying that player A has a better chance of winning a round than player B - that would be more advanced concepts there.

That's the goal that tournament broadcast should aim for. Poker doesn't need to explain any of that because they present the bottom line to the public: the cards and winning odds for each player. The Hearthstone broadcast seems to be trying to include a tutorial in their comments. Tutorials are already bad enough when they break the games' pacing; but tutorials in tournament broadcasts? They definitely need a better way to present the bottom line in a less intrusive way. Yeah, my point is, give it time. Hearthstone tournaments are still pretty young and there is lots of room for improvement.

EDIT: By the way, showing the odds in Poker is less intrusive than the narrator explaining why a flush wins over a straight (or what a flush or a straight are)

 

[squid5580]

Basketball is about 100 years old and practiced all over the world by people of different social classes.

While true, I'd still argue that not all people would be familiar with all the aspects. Yet, people who watch basketball (or any other sport/tournament) would most likely know the basics. The stuff that was being explained in the Hearthstone tournament (again, the finals), was the basics.

Poker Tournaments are good in telling the audience who has the advantage on each hand (even if the viewers have never played Poker in their lives).

See, if we're going to make a comparison with poker, then it'd be the equivalent of the comentators explaining the following:
- the concept of discarding cards and receiving new ones (for classical poker)
- what with the cards on the table (texas hold'em up)
- the concept of having a combination of cards
- which cards are higher than other cards, e.g, pair of 2s loses to a pair of 8s

Also, the comentators would also have to explain these every game. I don't think that's exactly the same as saying that player A has a better chance of winning a round than player B - that would be more advanced concepts there.

That's the goal that tournament broadcast should aim for. Poker doesn't need to explain any of that because they present the bottom line to the public: the cards and winning odds for each player. The Hearthstone broadcast seems to be trying to include a tutorial in their comments. Tutorials are already bad enough when they break the games' pacing; but tutorials in tournament broadcasts? They definitely need a better way to present the bottom line in a less intrusive way. Yeah, my point is, give it time. Hearthstone tournaments are still pretty young and there is lots of room for improvement.

EDIT: By the way, showing the odds in Poker is less intrusive than the narrator explaining why a flush wins over a straight (or what a flush or a straight are)

Basketball is about 100 years old and practiced all over the world by people of different social classes.

While true, I'd still argue that not all people would be familiar with all the aspects. Yet, people who watch basketball (or any other sport/tournament) would most likely know the basics. The stuff that was being explained in the Hearthstone tournament (again, the finals), was the basics.

Poker Tournaments are good in telling the audience who has the advantage on each hand (even if the viewers have never played Poker in their lives).

See, if we're going to make a comparison with poker, then it'd be the equivalent of the comentators explaining the following:
- the concept of discarding cards and receiving new ones (for classical poker)
- what with the cards on the table (texas hold'em up)
- the concept of having a combination of cards
- which cards are higher than other cards, e.g, pair of 2s loses to a pair of 8s

Also, the comentators would also have to explain these every game. I don't think that's exactly the same as saying that player A has a better chance of winning a round than player B - that would be more advanced concepts there.

So, there are no 7 mana old cards that can counter it or replace it?

Hah. That would be a joke. No, there are no 7 mana cards that can effectively deal with Dr. Boom. These are the ones that kind sorta can maybe help:

Ancient of War [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/242-ancient-of-war] with taunt can maybe delay things, but the bombs are almost definitely going into it and the explosions can still cause havoc. If the opponent has a low amount of health left, the bombs might even kill him.

Rend Blackhand [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/14438-rend-blackhand] can maybe deal with Dr. Boom, but not with the bots. It's essentially the same as Big Game Hunter, but we're talking 7 mana cards here. Also, it's a newer card than Dr. Boom, but it's the only other 7-drop that can somehow deal with Dr. Boom directly.

If you expand this to be "Several cards with a cost of 7 mana, and having luck on your side", then maybe but then again, that just means that Dr. Boom effectively costs the opponent several cards, and the opponent having the correct cards at the correct time, and most likely an entire turn, and some luck. It's still a pretty effective thing for a 7-drop.

That's not taking into account the opponent using pre-existing creatures on the board, but even then, they'd need to expend several and risk losing evein more due to the bots. So, even then Dr. Boom makes a good bang[footnote]pun intended[/footnote] for your mana.

And finally, there is the combination of using pre-existing creatures on the board with playing cards from your hand. Again, under most circumstances, Dr. Boom is really effective as the opponent has to spend several cards in order to deal with just one.

Chillmaw can counter boom if you have a dragon (and the bombs don't kill it). Lightbomb also deals with boom for 1 mana less

 

[rcs619]

It's really sad to see the old War Golem vs Doctor Boom debate being rolled out again. War Golem is not the baseline for how much power cards should have for 7 mana... it's well below the baseline. And yes, it *is* fine to give new players starting cards which are well below the baseline in power, so long as you also give them enough better cards so that as soon as they figure out how bad it is, they never have to use it again.

The problem with Doctor Boom is not that it's better than War Golem... it's that it's better than everything else, as well.

I honestly think people exaggerate how good Dr. Boom is. He's mostly used because he's a very solid 7-drop (7-mana tends to be a fairly weak category, especially among neutral cards), and helps fill in a mana curve with a strong body.

The vast majority of the time, Dr. Boom dies instantly (because every single class in the game has at least 2 copies of an instant-kill card, and sometimes more, (not to mention Big Game Hunter) and all that's left to deal with are his boom-bots. He forces a reaction, but he's not impossible to counter, and his impact on the game as a whole is usually minimal.

I consider Dr. Boom more useful as a shield for more important minions. I assume he will be instantly killed when he's played, but that's fine because it means my other big scary guys are less likely to get one-shotted.

Hah. That would be a joke. No, there are no 7 mana cards that can effectively deal with Dr. Boom. These are the ones that kind sorta can maybe help:

Ancient of War [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/242-ancient-of-war] with taunt can maybe delay things, but the bombs are almost definitely going into it and the explosions can still cause havoc. If the opponent has a low amount of health left, the bombs might even kill him.

Rend Blackhand [http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/14438-rend-blackhand] can maybe deal with Dr. Boom, but not with the bots. It's essentially the same as Big Game Hunter, but we're talking 7 mana cards here. Also, it's a newer card than Dr. Boom, but it's the only other 7-drop that can somehow deal with Dr. Boom directly.

If you expand this to be "Several cards with a cost of 7 mana, and having luck on your side", then maybe but then again, that just means that Dr. Boom effectively costs the opponent several cards, and the opponent having the correct cards at the correct time, and most likely an entire turn, and some luck. It's still a pretty effective thing for a 7-drop.

That's not taking into account the opponent using pre-existing creatures on the board, but even then, they'd need to expend several and risk losing evein more due to the bots. So, even then Dr. Boom makes a good bang[footnote]pun intended[/footnote] for your mana.

And finally, there is the combination of using pre-existing creatures on the board with playing cards from your hand. Again, under most circumstances, Dr. Boom is really effective as the opponent has to spend several cards in order to deal with just one.

Shield Slam, Execute, Crush, Bash + Creature/Weapon, Equality, Aldor Peacekeeper, Keeper of Uldamon, Evicerate, Assassinate, Blade Flurry, Hex, Lava Burst, Force of Nature, Savage Roar (to be fair, Druid tends to suffer from a lack of hard removal in general), Polymorph, Polymorph: Boar, Fireball + creature/ping, Shadow Word: Death, Lightbomb, Auchenai + Circle + Stuff, Mind Control, Hellfire + Creatures, Implosion + Creatures, Shadowflame, Siphon Soul, Twisting Nether, Hunter's Mark, Kill Command, Freezing Trap.

For neutral responses, Big Game Hunter is also very good and just about every deck should try to nab one for emergencies.

You shouldn't base a creature's power on how well equally-priced minions can respond to it. You need to look at the broader picture. That's the main reason Blizzard never lowered Dr. Boom to a 6/6. It would actually be a tiny *buff* to Dr. Boom, since Big Game Hunter would be completely ineffective on it.

Granted! I do think the boombots could do with a tiny nerf. 1-3 damage instead of 1-4 would probably be more reasonable.

 

[Politrukk]

If this is the case gold/pack farming should be re-invented for hearthstone, the power-creep is what stopped me from playing, I'm not going to shell out 50 euro's every few months just to stay in the game without getting mauled.


And even then spending 50 euro's might not even get you close to receiving the cards that you want. (I mean in the beginning I bought like 80 packs and I got a golden Ysera and nothing else.)


Edit:

-As a specific example Brode points to Dr. Boom, referenced in power creep debates because it resembles the Basic (but weaker) War Golem. According to Brode the comparison is misleading, because War Golem was a barely-used card to begin with. "His existence has increased the power level of the game, but it's nothing to do with War Golem," he explains. "War Golem could not exist and he [Dr. Boom] would still get played in high level decks. War Golem is bad because it's bad - it has nothing to do with Dr. Boom and they shouldn't necessarily be looked at through a lens together. Dr. Boom doesn't represent power creep because War Golem exists. War Golem is just bad and was never played - it's not like people took out War Golem for Dr. Boom."-

This is the only thing I can see from his point of view because it's true, it does not however dispell the fact that Dr.Boom is a must have card that one can only acquire from GvG packs.

There are some cards from the Adventures that make it even worse in that regard.

So, there are no 7 mana old cards that can counter it or replace it?

EDIT: The wiki says that Dr. Boom can be obtained through Goblins vs Gnomes card packs, through crafting, or as an Arena reward.

Yes, but to craft you need dust, to get dust you need to buy cards with gold or money.

you get 1 daily quest a day that can range between 40-100 gold if I'm not mistaken.

every 3 wins also nets you 10 gold.

the 40g quest is about the quest you have 80% of the time.

a pack costs 100g, an adventure wing comes in at 800g if I'm not mistaken.

taking the 40g quest standard that means you need to play 20 days to open one wing, one wing offers 3 cards and a legendary + a class related quest.


back to Dr.Boom.

Legendaries cost around 1600 dust to craft, if one is going to disenchant all their cards that they bought with gold, the average return is about 5-20. per card.

Do you see how that could add up to ridiculousness?




edit:

I was only responding to your edit.

The point with Dr.Boom is that there's very little you can do to wipe it out completely especially as we're talking normal cards here (so this excludes legendaries).

I think there is a fair argument for saying that there's nothing inside the old card setup that could counter it directly.

Dr.Boom is a big hitting minion that summons 2 additional minions that can attack and will deal damage upon destruction.


edit2:
I fully acknowledge the dr.boom power potential and the cost in time/gold to get him because I spent the time on it myself to craft him when I was still an active player.

The thing is, Dr.Boom is just one card, there are several of these in the game at the moment and other more balanced cards that came with the standard game have been sufficiently nerfed.

take starving buzzard as a prime example of that.

 

[Politrukk]

Shield Slam, Execute, Crush, Bash + Creature/Weapon, Equality, Aldor Peacekeeper, Keeper of Uldamon, Evicerate, Assassinate, Blade Flurry, Hex, Lava Burst, Force of Nature, Savage Roar (to be fair, Druid tends to suffer from a lack of hard removal in general), Polymorph, Polymorph: Boar, Fireball + creature/ping, Shadow Word: Death, Lightbomb, Auchenai + Circle + Stuff, Mind Control, Hellfire + Creatures, Implosion + Creatures, Shadowflame, Siphon Soul, Twisting Nether, Hunter's Mark, Kill Command, Freezing Trap.

you're taking out of the equation that Dr.Boom is both Boombots and the main guy himself.

So if we're talking 1 for 1, there is no card that can counter it aside from the complete board clear cards (and even those let the boombots deal damage) and outside of that you're always stuck with either boom or the bots.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

So, there are no 7 mana old cards that can counter it or replace it?

EDIT: The wiki says that Dr. Boom can be obtained through Goblins vs Gnomes card packs, through crafting, or as an Arena reward.

Yes, but to craft you need dust, to get dust you need to buy cards with gold or money.

you get 1 daily quest a day that can range between 40-100 gold if I'm not mistaken.

every 3 wins also nets you 10 gold.

the 40g quest is about the quest you have 80% of the time.

a pack costs 100g, an adventure wing comes in at 800g if I'm not mistaken.

taking the 40g quest standard that means you need to play 20 days to open one wing, one wing offers 3 cards and a legendary + a class related quest.


back to Dr.Boom.

Legendaries cost around 1600 dust to craft, if one is going to disenchant all their cards that they bought with gold, the average return is about 5-20. per card.

Do you see how that could add up to ridiculousness?

Like WoW level of ridiculousness? I think I kinda see the point here.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Guys it's f2p. It's expected of you to at least buy the wings (They're worth their price btw).
Sure you can go and don't spend a dime, but why do you complain about grind then? You paid nothing, don't grind and play something else.
In the end it's a card game. Card games are expensive, that's just how this goes.

You can't really expect to compete with no cardpool in a constructed format. That's what limited formats are for - and the Arena provides a very good expirience for players that just started. And also a way to A. get a cardpool B. sustain your gold.
Playin' decent in Arena + finish quests + doing Tavernbrawl is more than enough for any casual to get something going on.


Also to the article or more precisely Mr. Brode: Don't call them bad cards. Simple (as he did call them later on) is the correc term.
That's what MTG always did, specially in the now gone Coresets. They're way more basic for newbies to grasp.

But if it's a smart thing to do - i'm not sure. MtG got rid of the Coresets because they realized TCG's always have a pretty high barrier of entry, because you have to know the cards, the mechanics, the meta etc. anyway to compete in any from or fashion.


Edit: On Dr.Boom: He's imbalanced and everbody who played any TCG for a certain time knows this.
He's always at least a 2-for-1 but regularily 3- or 4-for-1's. The 2for1 is usually only possible if you've BGH - his hard counter. And if your hardcounter still 2-for-1's himself you reached the realm of OpAsFuck.
Also there's no bad time to play him. He's good from behind, good on curve, good when ahead and a good topdeck.

 

[DoPo]

taking the 40g quest standard that means you need to play 20 days to open one wing

Once again, you are grinding wrong. It's takes around half that time to grind the gold.

Besides even if we take your figures, you are still overestimating the time - you will be getting gold from wins while doing quests, so even if we assume you are after the absolute minimum gold you can have get per day, while still doing quests, we are actually looking at 50g per day on most days. Sure, some quests do not require you to win (kill X creatures, for example), but those are fewer than the "Win 3 times with X or Y class" ones, so on average you still have more than 45g per day.

Legendaries cost around 1600 dust to craft, if one is going to disenchant all their cards that they bought with gold, the average return is about 5-20. per card.

Just to expand on that - the vast majority of times, a card pack yields 40 dust. A card pack costs 100g. For 150g you can play arena and a decent run would give you a card pack plus a bit of other rewards so if you're OK at arena, you'll probably be getting a bit more value of your gold there.

Still, at any rate, it does take a long time to get the dust for a legendary. While disenchanting other legendaries helps, it's almost always not cost efficient - disenchanting a card gives you 1/4 of its crafring cost, so since each legendary card is 1600 dust, you need to disenchant 4 to craft another legendary. And most of the times you don't want to be disenchanting them, unless you get a double.

 

[DoPo]

That's the main reason Blizzard never lowered Dr. Boom to a 6/6. It would actually be a tiny *buff* to Dr. Boom, since Big Game Hunter would be completely ineffective on it.

Sure, but that's the wrong approach - if Dr. Boom were to be lowered to a 7/4 or 7/5 or somewhere there, he is is still in BGH range, yet can also be death with easier.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Sure, but that's the wrong approach - if Dr. Boom were to be lowered to a 7/4 or 7/5 or somewhere there, he is is still in BGH range, yet can also be death with easier.

The problem isn't Boom's body. Well, 7/4 would change something vs Mage at least. The problem are the boom bots.
Unless you've a board clear you're lookin' at 4-10 damage Dr.Boom brings to the table without counting him at all.
Make him drop only 1 Bot, so he loses the 4-1 trade potential or make them deal a fixed amount of damage (2) per bot instead of 1-4. The latter would be even better, but Blizz loves their RNG because it "tells good stories" (but fuggs up professional play).

 

[DoPo]

Sure, but that's the wrong approach - if Dr. Boom were to be lowered to a 7/4 or 7/5 or somewhere there, he is is still in BGH range, yet can also be death with easier.

The problem isn't Boom's body. Well, 7/4 would change something vs Mage at least. The problem are the boom bots.
Unless you've a board clear you're lookin' at 4-10 damage Dr.Boom brings to the table without counting him at all.
Make him drop only 1 Bot, so he loses the 4-1 trade potential or make them deal a fixed amount of damage (2) per bot instead of 1-4. The latter would be even better, but Blizz loves their RNG because it "tells good stories" (but fuggs up professional play).

I know. I was, however, only addressing the "but Dr. Boom can't be nerfed to 6/6!" which is an argument I tend to see more than I really need to. Because, yes, he can't. No, that doesn't mean his stats can't be altered.

As for his boom bots - yes, I've already mentioned that they are a big problem. Again, that doesn't mean they can't be adjusted to be less of a potential problem. One way is to remove the RNG, as you suggested, another one is to keep it - make him summon 0-2 bots, for example and he is not that reliable. Lower the boom bots damage by 1, so they do 0-3 and that can also do it. These numbers may need a bit of tweaking, you could even mix and match these approaches but it's not like it's impossible to make Dr. Boom formidable yet not as powerful.