So once again we get to the point where we must ask the age old question... ... which do you prefer or which shall I say.. which one is better/funner/challenging/idk? iyo.... Standard Format or Wild format and why of course ;)?
Wild is the better format by far. There's much more variety in archetypes / classes and the games are more intense due to the higher power level of cards. Standard is much more regimented / netdecked and brews stand less of a chance of winning.
Yes i soon realized the question is swayed more towards wild for the older players that know the old cards and old decks, this month i started playing wild, and i have to admit since you dont know what your playing against,, i am having alot more fun playing rather than in standard nowadays playing hunter lol
Wild is the original format before Standard came among and it is still the most diverse. I believe the diversity will diminish as soon as/if Wild gets just as popular as Standard.
Standard is fun for a little while and then the fun stagnates a month after the expansions. Wild is always fun.
For getting high ranks i do standard, for fun i do wild... That is about sums it up...
Well, this time is over since even in wild there are only Cubelocks and Aggro Paladins running around.
Well i still manage to get to at least rank 14 with Dragon Priest which has not GTG cards (because i don't have any) and/or everyfin is awesome Shaman... But as i get to somewhere between rank 5 and legend in standard every month since May in standard, i don't really care about wild rank...
The power scale is amped up in Wild but otherwise I've found that Wild exhibits some of the same phenomena as Standard. More variety in the initial ranks with decks becoming more limited to a handful of decks in the upper ranks. Though Wild tends to have a bit more variety. I play both.
doesn't matter, wild is EXACTLY the same as standard.
Not really. You stand a much higher chance of winning with home brewed decks in wild than standard because at least in wild you have more options to support your homebrewed win condition with more powerful support cards or neutral staples. In standard you have fewer of both of those so if you try to homebrew your win conditions have to be much more restricted to more or less only include specific synergies to stand a chance to be a threat to meta decks.
doesn't matter, wild is EXACTLY the same as standard.
Not really. You stand a much higher chance of winning with home brewed decks in wild than standard because at least in wild you have more options to support your homebrewed win condition with more powerful support cards or neutral staples. In standard you have fewer of both of those so if you try to homebrew your win conditions have to be much more restricted to more or less only include specific synergies to stand a chance to be a threat to meta decks.
Must be me then. I'm running into the same decks I'd run into in Standard, just slightly tweaked because there are cards in Wild to support them. Whatever strong cards exist in Wild....that's completely irrelevant because Corridor Creeper, Patches, 4-mana "Summon 3 minions", Keleseth, Scalebane, etc. If you play a 5-mana card for 5-mana worth of value, expect to lose most games. Right now, the entirety of Hearthstone is all about whoever can cheat out the most stuff for the cheapest, not necessarily who can make the best play.
I'm playing some homebrew decks in Wild right now and the more I destroy the original idea and synergy and just add the BS neutral package and pieces of existing netdecks, the stronger my deck gets. Current deck is a Ramp/Astral Tiger Druid deck with N'Zoth + Savage Roar. I cut a lot of it and made it a Jade Druid hybrid...I think have to cut even more just to add 2x Corridor Creeper, and probably delete most of the original synergy so I can add tech cards.
Previously in Hearthstone, in Wild you COULD make a homebrew deck that would probably keep pace or stand a fighting chance against netdecks. If netdecks in Standard were at a 9 power level, homebrew decks were probably a 6 or maybe 7. In Wild, netdecks would be a 9 but homebrew at a 7 or 8 because of the additional support and variety. Now, it's more like...in Wild netdecks are at a 10 (or higher) and homebrew maybe a 4 at best. It's so much harder to keep up using original ideas that it almost feels like what's even the point. Got a creative idea now? Ditch it, netdecks are just so much stronger that it's not even fun to try. I barely want to ramp any more as Druid because every other deck's early game is insane. Even if I have the removal for it...turn 4 or 5 double Corridor Creeper and it's game over.
doesn't matter, wild is EXACTLY the same as standard.
Not really. You stand a much higher chance of winning with home brewed decks in wild than standard because at least in wild you have more options to support your homebrewed win condition with more powerful support cards or neutral staples. In standard you have fewer of both of those so if you try to homebrew your win conditions have to be much more restricted to more or less only include specific synergies to stand a chance to be a threat to meta decks.
Must be me then. I'm running into the same decks I'd run into in Standard, just slightly tweaked because there are cards in Wild to support them. Whatever strong cards exist in Wild....that's completely irrelevant because Corridor Creeper, Patches, 4-mana "Summon 3 minions", Keleseth, Scalebane, etc. If you play a 5-mana card for 5-mana worth of value, expect to lose most games. Right now, the entirety of Hearthstone is all about whoever can cheat out the most stuff for the cheapest, not necessarily who can make the best play.
I think it is (at pleast in part) effected by what rank you are playing at. A lot of standard players seem to switch to Wild with their standard decks of dullness when they want to complete a quest etc - and hence don't challenge as highly for ranks - so I see quite a few of the humdrum decks at the lower spectrum, but they dissapate quite quickly as you get higher.
doesn't matter, wild is EXACTLY the same as standard.
Not really. You stand a much higher chance of winning with home brewed decks in wild than standard because at least in wild you have more options to support your homebrewed win condition with more powerful support cards or neutral staples. In standard you have fewer of both of those so if you try to homebrew your win conditions have to be much more restricted to more or less only include specific synergies to stand a chance to be a threat to meta decks.
Must be me then. I'm running into the same decks I'd run into in Standard, just slightly tweaked because there are cards in Wild to support them. Whatever strong cards exist in Wild....that's completely irrelevant because Corridor Creeper, Patches, 4-mana "Summon 3 minions", Keleseth, Scalebane, etc. If you play a 5-mana card for 5-mana worth of value, expect to lose most games. Right now, the entirety of Hearthstone is all about whoever can cheat out the most stuff for the cheapest, not necessarily who can make the best play.
I think it is (at pleast in part) effected by what rank you are playing at. A lot of standard players seem to switch to Wild with their standard decks of dullness when they want to complete a quest etc - and hence don't challenge as highly for ranks - so I see quite a few of the humdrum decks at the lower spectrum, but they dissapate quite quickly as you get higher.
I recall about a week ago, I was at rank 15 zero stars on a nearly 30 game loss streak (edit: this was at the end of December, so no "beginning of the season" excuses), still queueing into complete rank 1 legend viable decks, that were basically exact standard decklists with a couple cards swapped out.
A lot of us say this every meta....but as someone who's been playing since GvG, this truly is the worst.
Don't think i ran into a mirror match once this month and there isn't that much aggro. Haven't been playing it that long, so things might change, but running into an opponent and having no clue what he might be playing beats playing the same aggro druid/rogue over and over agian.
FWIW - it's much easier for F2Ps to stay afloat in Wild, provided they aren't too late to the party. HSReplays posts a list of the 100 most-played cards in each format - 21 cards from K&C make the Standard list, while only eight make the list in Wild. Similarly, 41 cards from K&C have a play-rate above 2% in Standard, while only eighteen have a similar play-rate in Wild. Those sorts of numbers will decrease over time for each new expansion, so Wild F2P accounts will only "need" a fraction of the cards that might otherwise be required to pilot a handful of competitive decks for a Standard F2P account.
in the last 10 months I mostly played wild (and arena). every month I went to rank 5 or better. last month I stopped at rank 10, this month I'm at rank 14 and I dont know if I will play more or not... I mostly see locks and priests with some paladins. If you want to have fun with weaker decks then just forget it. I really thought that we will have a few more expansions before wild gets unplayable but I'm not sure about it anymore. It's almost at that point already.
The only reason why wild is more diverse is because less people play it. All the people that promotes wild dont see their mistake, if more people play wild will become more competitve and always with the same powerful/cards of all the expansions. With the same amount of players would be strictly worse than standard.
So once again we get to the point where we must ask the age old question... ... which do you prefer or which shall I say.. which one is better/funner/challenging/idk? iyo.... Standard Format or Wild format and why of course ;)?
Side Note- ive been playing since may 2015
Wild is the better format by far. There's much more variety in archetypes / classes and the games are more intense due to the higher power level of cards. Standard is much more regimented / netdecked and brews stand less of a chance of winning.
Less FotM and tryhards in wild.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
I agree wild is more fun but it really sucks if you came late to the party and dont have older expansions
Yes i soon realized the question is swayed more towards wild for the older players that know the old cards and old decks, this month i started playing wild, and i have to admit since you dont know what your playing against,, i am having alot more fun playing rather than in standard nowadays playing hunter lol
Wild. Standard sucks.
doesn't matter, wild is EXACTLY the same as standard.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Not exactly. And it will slowly change over time.
Wild is the original format before Standard came among and it is still the most diverse. I believe the diversity will diminish as soon as/if Wild gets just as popular as Standard.
Standard is fun for a little while and then the fun stagnates a month after the expansions. Wild is always fun.
For getting high ranks i do standard, for fun i do wild... That is about sums it up...
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
The power scale is amped up in Wild but otherwise I've found that Wild exhibits some of the same phenomena as Standard. More variety in the initial ranks with decks becoming more limited to a handful of decks in the upper ranks. Though Wild tends to have a bit more variety. I play both.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
A lot of standard players seem to switch to Wild with their standard decks of dullness when they want to complete a quest etc - and hence don't challenge as highly for ranks - so I see quite a few of the humdrum decks at the lower spectrum, but they dissapate quite quickly as you get higher.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Wild feels so much better then standard.
Don't think i ran into a mirror match once this month and there isn't that much aggro.
Haven't been playing it that long, so things might change, but running into an opponent and having no clue what he might be playing beats playing the same aggro druid/rogue over and over agian.
FWIW - it's much easier for F2Ps to stay afloat in Wild, provided they aren't too late to the party. HSReplays posts a list of the 100 most-played cards in each format - 21 cards from K&C make the Standard list, while only eight make the list in Wild. Similarly, 41 cards from K&C have a play-rate above 2% in Standard, while only eighteen have a similar play-rate in Wild. Those sorts of numbers will decrease over time for each new expansion, so Wild F2P accounts will only "need" a fraction of the cards that might otherwise be required to pilot a handful of competitive decks for a Standard F2P account.
in the last 10 months I mostly played wild (and arena). every month I went to rank 5 or better. last month I stopped at rank 10, this month I'm at rank 14 and I dont know if I will play more or not... I mostly see locks and priests with some paladins. If you want to have fun with weaker decks then just forget it. I really thought that we will have a few more expansions before wild gets unplayable but I'm not sure about it anymore. It's almost at that point already.
The only reason why wild is more diverse is because less people play it. All the people that promotes wild dont see their mistake, if more people play wild will become more competitve and always with the same powerful/cards of all the expansions. With the same amount of players would be strictly worse than standard.