I have played in the meta with and without Highlander deck existence. For the last 2 months after the nerf I have been able to climb to rank 5 with Highlander Priest again. This was the first time Im able to play Highlander Priest which was almost unexist between rank 10-5 since year of the Mammoth begin.
We can all agree that the current state of the meta is healthier since the last nerf, I would say most classes have at least 1 playable deck, Highlander Priest and Lock in particular.
So my focus here is to discuss the come back of Highlander deck in the meta, is it an indication that the meta is healthier when they are able to compete?
It would be interesting to see what happen when the new expansion release and to see if Highlander decks are being played as an indication that the meta is healthy.
I have played in the meta with and without Highlander deck existence. For the last 2 months after the nerf I have been able to climb to rank 5 with Highlander Priest again. This was the first time Im able to play Highlander Priest which was almost unexist between rank 10-5 since year of the Mammoth begin.
We can all agree that the current state of the meta is healthier since the last nerf, I would say most classes have at least 1 playable deck, Highlander Priest and Lock in particular.
So my focus here is to discuss the come back of Highlander deck in the meta, is it an indication that the meta is healthier when they are able to compete?
It would be interesting to see what happen when the new expansion release and to see if Highlander decks are being played as an indication that the meta is healthy.
The existence of Highlander decks means they are strong. Thats it. Kabal Highlander archetypes wandered around first 3 Tiers since their creation. But Wild is far away from being healthy(Still healthier than Standard lol). Druid is almost extinct. Highroll is happening one turn earlier thanks to Thekal. A lower ranks are swarmed with bots and part from one tourney the Blizzardf is getting a huge dump on the format.
I still like and enjoy the variety there but the meta and state oif Wild is far from being healthy xD
Razakus priest has always been an excellent deck in wild.
Most wild players are bad players, however, which is why a more challenging deck that requires actual decisionmaking and thinking about your plays such as razakus priest is heavily overshadowed by big priest.
Highlander priest decks were good even before things like the Even Shaman nerf, and yet people said that meta wasn't healthy. I don't think there is any correlation between highlander decks and the quality of the meta.
People are saying this EVERY expansion. No matter what decks are being played people always complain.
Meanwhile I'm just having fun playing.
This x100000. No matter what Blizzard does, people are going to act like they know how to develop a game better than them. Every single expansion "This card is broken" or "This deck is ridiculous" or "Blizzard really done goofed this time". It's almost like most of the Hearthstone community is built around complaining.
Razakus priest has always been an excellent deck in wild.
Most wild players are bad players, however, which is why a more challenging deck that requires actual decisionmaking and thinking about your plays such as razakus priest is heavily overshadowed by big priest.
Just had to step in on your comment that "most wild players are bad players"...
Maybe it just slipped out and you meant something different. But then: what DID you mean???
I dare say that playing wild is far from being easy (thus being hardly a domain for "bad players" )
You should know ALL cards (which are a lot by now) and you have to calculate far more possibilities. Sure, the top tier decks dominate the upper ranks and can be learned in short time. But still I'd say that "bad players" in standard are rather "even worse players in wild.
Standard's obvious challenge is creating viable decks with the restrictions on the usable sets. But therefore stating that most players in wild are bad players is very unreflected and simply untrue.
But feel free to comment on that one, if I just misunderstood your statement!
Razakus priest has always been an excellent deck in wild.
Most wild players are bad players, however, which is why a more challenging deck that requires actual decisionmaking and thinking about your plays such as razakus priest is heavily overshadowed by big priest.
Just had to step in on your comment that "most wild players are bad players"...
Maybe it just slipped out and you meant something different. But then: what DID you mean???
I dare say that playing wild is far from being easy (thus being hardly a domain for "bad players" )
You should know ALL cards (which are a lot by now) and you have to calculate far more possibilities. Sure, the top tier decks dominate the upper ranks and can be learned in short time. But still I'd say that "bad players" in standard are rather "even worse players in wild.
Standard's obvious challenge is creating viable decks with the restrictions on the usable sets. But therefore stating that most players in wild are bad players is very unreflected and simply untrue.
But feel free to comment on that one, if I just misunderstood your statement!
No, you understood my comment exactly right.
You don't nearly need to know 'all' the cards, as the majority are vastly inferior to the few strong ones. I'd argue you need to know as many cards in wild as you do in standard, judging by the amount of top decks that are played in both formats.
Furthermore, there is asolutely no incentive for good players to play wild. Not only is there little to no audience for streamers, there's also no tournaments whatsoever. So pro players have nothing to gain from playing that format either.
And lastly, wild has a lot more broken synergies, that allow for easier, cheaper wins. Even shaman was the most popular deck, by a landslide, before the nerfs for good reason. Thekal + Molten giants and Barnes into Yshaarj are more examples of draw RNG that allows players to win games for no reason whatsoever. These things make playing wild all the more appealing for players who can't win games with their own skillset.
Highlander Decks have always been strong. Sometimes they are not tier 1, but that doesn't mean they can be dangerous to play against.
I feel best part about highlander decks is that there is no exact deck list. Sure there are staple cards to include, but beyond those, the remaining third of the deck can be filled with card choices that matches your play style.
For example, I'm playing a greedy warlock highlander deck.
I liked Reno decks when they were available in Standard, but in Wild I do not like them. I kinda always end up with a hand full of the crap I dont need in that situation, more so with Priest, than with Warlock tho.
If you see Highlander decks other than Priest/Mage/Warlock, that indicates a healthy meta. If you see homebrew decks alongside meta decks, that indicates a healthy meta. I face both of these. Thus, meta is healthy.
Just to note: If you make homebrew decks, you help make meta healthy.
I have played in the meta with and without Highlander deck existence. For the last 2 months after the nerf I have been able to climb to rank 5 with Highlander Priest again. This was the first time Im able to play Highlander Priest which was almost unexist between rank 10-5 since year of the Mammoth begin.
We can all agree that the current state of the meta is healthier since the last nerf, I would say most classes have at least 1 playable deck, Highlander Priest and Lock in particular.
So my focus here is to discuss the come back of Highlander deck in the meta, is it an indication that the meta is healthier when they are able to compete?
It would be interesting to see what happen when the new expansion release and to see if Highlander decks are being played as an indication that the meta is healthy.
Is Genn Reno deck possible tho?
The existence of Highlander decks means they are strong. Thats it. Kabal Highlander archetypes wandered around first 3 Tiers since their creation. But Wild is far away from being healthy(Still healthier than Standard lol). Druid is almost extinct. Highroll is happening one turn earlier thanks to Thekal. A lower ranks are swarmed with bots and part from one tourney the Blizzardf is getting a huge dump on the format.
I still like and enjoy the variety there but the meta and state oif Wild is far from being healthy xD
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
Seems like Blizzard killed the highlander deck in Standard.
Razakus priest has always been an excellent deck in wild.
Most wild players are bad players, however, which is why a more challenging deck that requires actual decisionmaking and thinking about your plays such as razakus priest is heavily overshadowed by big priest.
Highlander priest decks were good even before things like the Even Shaman nerf, and yet people said that meta wasn't healthy. I don't think there is any correlation between highlander decks and the quality of the meta.
Nerf Barnes!
People are saying this EVERY expansion. No matter what decks are being played people always complain.
Meanwhile I'm just having fun playing.
This x100000. No matter what Blizzard does, people are going to act like they know how to develop a game better than them. Every single expansion "This card is broken" or "This deck is ridiculous" or "Blizzard really done goofed this time". It's almost like most of the Hearthstone community is built around complaining.
with hunter/warlock easily
probably priest too
Fun > Meta
Yeah it is. I have a control warlock Genn Reno Kazakus deck which I play for fun in wild sometimes.
Just had to step in on your comment that "most wild players are bad players"...
Maybe it just slipped out and you meant something different. But then: what DID you mean???
I dare say that playing wild is far from being easy (thus being hardly a domain for "bad players" )
You should know ALL cards (which are a lot by now) and you have to calculate far more possibilities. Sure, the top tier decks dominate the upper ranks and can be learned in short time. But still I'd say that "bad players" in standard are rather "even worse players in wild.
Standard's obvious challenge is creating viable decks with the restrictions on the usable sets. But therefore stating that most players in wild are bad players is very unreflected and simply untrue.
But feel free to comment on that one, if I just misunderstood your statement!
No, you understood my comment exactly right.
You don't nearly need to know 'all' the cards, as the majority are vastly inferior to the few strong ones. I'd argue you need to know as many cards in wild as you do in standard, judging by the amount of top decks that are played in both formats.
Furthermore, there is asolutely no incentive for good players to play wild. Not only is there little to no audience for streamers, there's also no tournaments whatsoever. So pro players have nothing to gain from playing that format either.
And lastly, wild has a lot more broken synergies, that allow for easier, cheaper wins. Even shaman was the most popular deck, by a landslide, before the nerfs for good reason. Thekal + Molten giants and Barnes into Yshaarj are more examples of draw RNG that allows players to win games for no reason whatsoever. These things make playing wild all the more appealing for players who can't win games with their own skillset.
Highlander Decks have always been strong. Sometimes they are not tier 1, but that doesn't mean they can be dangerous to play against.
I feel best part about highlander decks is that there is no exact deck list. Sure there are staple cards to include, but beyond those, the remaining third of the deck can be filled with card choices that matches your play style.
For example, I'm playing a greedy warlock highlander deck.
I liked Reno decks when they were available in Standard, but in Wild I do not like them. I kinda always end up with a hand full of the crap I dont need in that situation, more so with Priest, than with Warlock tho.
But why should it be an indicator of anything?
We have no element whatsoever, beyond a co-occurrence.
If you see Highlander decks other than Priest/Mage/Warlock, that indicates a healthy meta. If you see homebrew decks alongside meta decks, that indicates a healthy meta. I face both of these. Thus, meta is healthy.
Just to note: If you make homebrew decks, you help make meta healthy.