If Artifact Hunter Cost 3

[kevin2hard]

I was playing a game vs well known s rank player the other day on ladder (which you can now check out my youtube kevin2hard to see who it was) he was using sajj and artifact hunter was in his build. it was a very interesting game as one wrong move could be lethal.

Although artifact hunter may seem slow to some i wonder what if artifact hunter was a 3 mana card the metagame would change immensely would you all agree? I sure would not mind as a lyonar player going into turn 4 regalia is optimal in some cases… i think we should vote or declare a temporary cost reduction to AH for a month and see how powerful this meta can be.

This is just a tip for the Devs (as they do listen to the community) if its too dominant then they can just nerf it back to 4 mana. Since my post of reaching s rank with a grandmaster zendo kaleos deck Ive seen a slight rise of zendo on ladder even tho they mostly used it for reva (the deck normally kills you turn 6-7 thats one of the reason AH too slow for ladder) but in any case just saying that because some top builds you won’t really need AH.

So guys it’s nothing permanent if you all like the thought share your comments and give this post a like

[raqyee]

Where do I even start?

• asking for a card to be buffed for a month just so we can see how good it is
• implying devs will take you seriously
• thinking his kaleos deck had any impact what so ever on the meta
• publicly asking for likes

???

Oh well, here’s a proper answer anyway because I wouldn’t want to sound toxic or anything. AH at 3 mana would be really damn strong and I doubt there is any need for a discussion. It would be run in every deck that plays artifacts and probably in some decks that also don’t play artifacts but will play one purely for the sake of draw.

[kevin2hard]

bruh relax how long did it take kron to be nerfed…i said a month cause we all know when something seem too broken ppl will complain more than the usual just like kron. and I’m just giving examples relax

[raqyee]

“hey devs u shold buff this card but if its too strong u can just easy nerf it back so its okay”

Do you seriously not realize how ridiculous that sounds? Bruh.

[dewize]

I tried to find the good parts of this post and here’s what I got

• Improved writing
• Improved formatting
  It’s a start.

On topic, I think there should be a PTR where they test stuff like this, reworks, with S Rank players. But not this one, because it’s a bad one.

[ancientmage]

If I PTR were to exist I think limiting it to only S-rankers would be rather inhibiting, while they are on average the best players in the game the opinion of those outside the S-rank meta would matter as well imo.

PS. Highest I’ve reached right now is Diamond so I’m not really familiar with S-rank, just my thoughts on your idea.

[dewize]

You’ve got a point. But I just wonder if that wouldn’t be harder to handle to host a PTR for more players.

[kevin2hard]

i think s rank is a bit overrated ive used kaleos 2 months ago n reached s rank with the greatest of ease thanks to zendo but i choose to use ziran since its more challenging for me to play and beat the meta. As long as i got free legendary n epic each month thats all that matters to me.

[raqyee]

They already have their team that tests the cards that consists both of extremely good players and I imagine some baddies too. And they did mention in the devtalk how the balance the cards taking into consideration both types of players. There’s really no need for such test servers. Not only because they already got their test teams, but because S rank players themselves tend to be awful and really biased. And diamond players are even worse in that that department.

Despite some CPG’s errors, I’ll rather rely on them to test the cards in a way they see fit in order to avoid things like one time S rank players that literally think they defined the meta with their deck suggesting a 3 mana Artifact Hunter with reasoning “oh you can just nerf it back if it’s too strong, kek”.

[ancientmage]

S-rank is exactly what it says on the tin, a rank, sometimes an average player will reach it just by grinding. I wouldn’t call it ‘overrated’, but it’s definitely not a sure-fire way to determine someones skill level.

[kevin2hard]

yes they got their testing team however this post was meant to raise attention as AH may be a forgotten card as more powerful cards come into play… the fact that skorn is at 4 and most in faction cards test 4 mana slot AH will almost never see play as this game gets more cards.

[ancientmage]

What’s wrong with that? Not every card needs to be Meta Defining, or even have a big place in the meta, or even A place in the meta. Sometimes a card like Artifact hunter can be put in your deck as a tech choice if you run a lot of artifacts. It’s not supposed to be something you run and shove artifacts in your deck to accomodate it, it’s a tech choice for artifact centric decks.

[kevin2hard]

well ye obviously tech card but still slow overall i want a chance to put presure turn 3 then regalia turn 4… if u really want to know why turn 9 dawns eye artifact hunter just makes sense as a lyonar player when late game occurs. not quite meta defining for lyonar players mostly for sajj but it could play an impact all over who knows… im already maining 2 rust crawlers in my ziran deck

[tundranocaps]

While I have to say I agree with Raqyee’s bullet-points, and that the methodology suggested here is incredibly flawed and harmful to the game (a balance whiplash twice in the span of a month would be terrible, just look at the November and October mid-month patches whipping us back and forth), I actually disagree with his point on Artifact Hunter.

Would Artifact Hunter be good at 3 mana? Yes. It’d be good enough to get played. 3 mana is where value minions appear, and this would be sort of like a toned-down version of pre-nerf Spelljammer, on-curve stats for 3 with 1 card guaranteed draw. And not any card, but a specific type of card that on the whole has more cons than pros (there’s a reason most artifacts don’t see play, and it mostly has to do with the drawbacks of the card-type, not just the actual artifacts printed).

So me? I would be fine with AH at 3. Most other 3 drops either give you higher value over time (Sojourner / Ki Beholder), better bodies (Silverguard Knight), or more noticeable tempo swings (Falcius). I’d probably switch it to being 2/4 over 3/3, to make the value the point, but yeah, go for it. I’ve actually discussed this with some other players recently. I think it’d be good enough to see play, but not good enough to warp the meta.

[hellcat]

I wonder what would happen were saberspine tiger buffed to 1 mana for a month. Devs can change it back later no biggie. Please like my comment.

[raqyee]

I’m not saying it will warp the meta, I’m just saying it’s extremely strong. 3 mana 3/3 that instantly draws you a card with the only negative side being how it draws you a specific card which is depending on the deck not negative what so ever and even if you don’t want to the artifact there is still a replace mechanic in the game to help with that. So it’s only really bad when you topdeck it in situations where artifact won’t help you at all. Let’s not forget how it being 3/3 means it trades with 2 drops early on so it can safely be played early on. Even as a 2/4 I’d say it’s as good as the old jammer, maybe better. I didn’t want to write this paragraph because I thought it was fairly obvious and a general consensus how the card would be broken but it looks like I was mistaken. What am I missing here?

[tundranocaps]

I don’t think it’d be broken, that’s where we differ.

Let’s say we had old Jammer back, but it was changed to OG: Draw 1 card. While I accept tutoring is in general stronger than drawing a random card, I don’t think it’s the case with artifacts. Now, would this changed Jammer be OP? It’d still gaurantee replace itself, but the opponent couldn’t make use of it, but you won’t be able to draw multiple cards off of it.

I don’t think such a Spelljammer would’ve been too strong. I think it’d have been just fine to see play, without being too strong. It’d likely have been auto-included, due to dearth of 3 drops in some lists, just as Healing Mystic and Primus Fist still see a lot of play. I think the optimal case for the 2/4 3 mana AH would be so much lower than the optimal case for old Jammer, which is the big difference.

Even “Not optimal”, old Jammer usually got 2 cards for aggressive lists, and by that point the game was over.

[kvewgir]

yeah and change thumping wave to 0 mana and make it add 2 other thumpings to your hand, it would be a beautiful meta

[excogitator]

I think that a fairer charge would be to change its stats back to 3/5, or make it a 4/4. A 3/3 for 3 that fetches an artifact seems decent on its own, with the potential to be broken. Changing a card for one month and then swapping it back seems extremely risky ad gives the impression that the Devs don’t know what to do with the game.

Honestly, I would love to see a “test server” for Duelyst. This will be a separate server, open for only a few days a week, with a slightly modified version of the game. Some rule changes, like the Artifact defiler change you proposed, will be implemented there for the community to try out. This way, the community can get feedback from player testers without impacting the main game. (I got this idea from Scrolls, and how they used a test server get community feedback on the balance of new expansion cards)

[raqyee]

Here’s the video for folks that didn’t see it. It’s really insightful and I recommend giving it a watch.