Hunter has, for quite awhile, been very bad as a truly competitive deck. Yet, it is highly played at lower levels because of its simplicity.
Because it’s so highly played at lower levels, is that causing Blizzard to purposely prevent it from getting good? Thinking being if it’s actually at the same level of say, Razakus, it will be far too oppressive at lower levels.
What’s to be offended by? It’s a well established fact that just about for the entirety of the year of the mammoth Hunter has not been truly viable if you are trying to play optimally.
I would like it to be good, but it’s just been so long for it to be that, maybe it is intentionally.
The problem with giving something to the Hunter class is ... if you miss by just the slightest bit, it will wreck a meta. The class is actually quite viable, especially considering the tools it has to work with. It is consistently the class that has been used to do f2p legend runs, and is usually the fastest way to get through early ladder steps.
I really liked the Spell Hunter idea in the beginning, but it fizzled out fairly quick. The new hybrid hunter still isn't bad, and I have seen streamers play some other versions that have done well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland I wanna write her, name in the sky I wanna free fall, out into nothin' Gonna leave this, world for awhile
Hunter is a difficult class to balance. Hero power and most of the basic + classic cards give Rexxar way too burst potential. In order for Hunter not to wreck every class that's lacking some serious healing tools, it has to have some weaknesses. I agree with you that it's been a though Standard year for Hunters, nevertheless it's far from being the worst class out there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
English isn't my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.
Hunter is an awesome class. I don’t care what people say, spell hunter is super fun and powerful and big Hunter is definitely an archetype that is viable. I have fun with both those archetypes and have solid win rates.
No it is not intended to be a subpar class just because it was not a great tier during the last few years. Hearthstone is four times older than your account and even existed during BETA as well. There has been more than 25 ‘best decks’ that everyone hates like Razakus, Pirate Warrior etc etc. Hunter had a few of them. And will again in the future.
What’s to be offended by? It’s a well established fact that just about for the entirety of the year of the mammoth Hunter has not been truly viable if you are trying to play optimally.
I would like it to be good, but it’s just been so long for it to be that, maybe it is intentionally.
If you are interested, I'd suggest looking for an old Omnistone video - during Frozen Throne spoiler season, Mike Donais was interviewed by Firebat and Kibler, and they discussed lots of things, including the state of Hunter. Donais explained that the top class during Un'Goro, according to Blizzard's internal data, was Hunter, and they proceeded to have a nice discussion about the difficulties of balancing a class which ordinary players can pilot effectively without making the class too oppressive at higher rungs on the ladder.
Also - HSReplays tracks over one million games each day. Currently, the Standard ladder is dominated by Paladin, with a class win-rate over 2% ahead of the next-best class. There is a cluster of four classes, including Hunter, at 49%-50%. Hunter currently fields three different viable builds, with two of those among the top ten decks currently on ladder. To a large extent, the community perception of Hunter being a weak class simply isn't reflected in the data.
Hunter is my only class that still isn't Level 60. I've been playing since early beta. I think mainly it's the hero power, which basically forces the majority of hunter decks to be aggro (or midrange/hybrid). Unless the hero power could also target minions-- ( Steamwheedle Sniper ) anyone--but that would just make it really unbalanced. Cards like Dinomancy are just too slow and control-oriented for what a Hunter deck is trying to accomplish.
Anyways, I don't believe Blizzard would intend for any class to be subpar, hunter got so many great cards in KaC after all. The problem seems to me that compared to other classes, there's just not as much variety with hunter decks (at least in terms of viability). The hero power literally encourages aggro/going face more than any other hero power in the game.
Hunter is a terrible class for balance perspective.
Give him a very good 1 drop class or neutral like undertaker = Broken meta, hunters is 80% of the ladder.
Give him a very good late game/finisher like CotW for 8 manas = Broken meta, hunter become 50% of the ladder and no more than 50% because in that time shaman is broken too and get the other 50%.
There is no middle ground for hunter, or broken or weak, not terribly bad like shaman and warrior is now but far from good.
Hunter is by nature and from its core an aggresive class, just looking at the hero power is 2 consistent damage to the enemy hero but the problem is that Blizzard is trying to push into it a lot of cards that would suit a control style deck, but the class just has a couple cards for this so it always ends up as an aggresive and mostly smorc class and I firmly believe that Blizzard is scared to let Hunter be the king of the meta again, during alpha Hunter was busted af and then we all know how pleasant the undertaker hunter meta was.
The best players in tournaments and high legend ladder are only going to play the best couple of the decks. And hunter has not been played at those levels in a very long time.
Translation is: it has not been good for a long time.
Hunter is weak because blizzard is always SO careful when giving them stuff. Because as people have said, it gets broken real quick.
Also, even though hunter isn’t considered top tier in competitive formats right now (although Orange brought it to HCT), it’s still running over people at the low ranks. It often dominates the 20-16 ranks. And there’s a lot of casual players there. If anyone can pilot hunter effectively, gotta be careful, because giving a pro these tools will be nearly unstoppable!
Say what you wanna say, but hunter is great in wild. Not sure about standard, but its certainly playable.Its a class that is either really underpowered or really overpowered. Barely an in between
Hunter is overall the easiest class to play but it's the hardest one to give stuff too because of the tools it already has, namely the hero power, which by itself promotes a more face is the place type of play. This is why creative hunter decks are few and far between
The best players in tournaments and high legend ladder are only going to play the best couple of the decks. And hunter has not been played at those levels in a very long time.
Translation is: it has not been good for a long time.
No it is not intended to be a subpar class just because it was not a great tier during the last few years. Hearthstone is four times older than your account and even existed during BETA as well. There has been more than 25 ‘best decks’ that everyone hates like Razakus, Pirate Warrior etc etc. Hunter had a few of them. And will again in the future.
Hunter is a terrible class for balance perspective.
Give him a very good 1 drop class or neutral like undertaker = Broken meta, hunters is 80% of the ladder.
Give him a very good late game/finisher like CotW for 8 manas = Broken meta, hunter become 50% of the ladder and no more than 50% because in that time shaman is broken too and get the other 50%.
There is no middle ground for hunter, or broken or weak, not terribly bad like shaman and warrior is now but far from good.
This - Blizzard has realised the problem of the hunter class now from experience. If you ever want the hunter class to be top of the meta again I suggest you start asking them to nerf the hero power.
Hunter has, for quite awhile, been very bad as a truly competitive deck. Yet, it is highly played at lower levels because of its simplicity.
Because it’s so highly played at lower levels, is that causing Blizzard to purposely prevent it from getting good? Thinking being if it’s actually at the same level of say, Razakus, it will be far too oppressive at lower levels.
I think Hunter mains everywhere should be offended by this statement.
What’s to be offended by? It’s a well established fact that just about for the entirety of the year of the mammoth Hunter has not been truly viable if you are trying to play optimally.
I would like it to be good, but it’s just been so long for it to be that, maybe it is intentionally.
The problem with giving something to the Hunter class is ... if you miss by just the slightest bit, it will wreck a meta. The class is actually quite viable, especially considering the tools it has to work with. It is consistently the class that has been used to do f2p legend runs, and is usually the fastest way to get through early ladder steps.
I really liked the Spell Hunter idea in the beginning, but it fizzled out fairly quick. The new hybrid hunter still isn't bad, and I have seen streamers play some other versions that have done well.
I wanna glide down, over Mulholland
I wanna write her, name in the sky
I wanna free fall, out into nothin'
Gonna leave this, world for awhile
Hunter is a difficult class to balance. Hero power and most of the basic + classic cards give Rexxar way too burst potential. In order for Hunter not to wreck every class that's lacking some serious healing tools, it has to have some weaknesses. I agree with you that it's been a though Standard year for Hunters, nevertheless it's far from being the worst class out there.
English isn't my first language, so please excuse any mistakes.
Hunter is an awesome class. I don’t care what people say, spell hunter is super fun and powerful and big Hunter is definitely an archetype that is viable. I have fun with both those archetypes and have solid win rates.
No it is not intended to be a subpar class just because it was not a great tier during the last few years. Hearthstone is four times older than your account and even existed during BETA as well. There has been more than 25 ‘best decks’ that everyone hates like Razakus, Pirate Warrior etc etc. Hunter had a few of them. And will again in the future.
Hunter is my only class that still isn't Level 60. I've been playing since early beta. I think mainly it's the hero power, which basically forces the majority of hunter decks to be aggro (or midrange/hybrid). Unless the hero power could also target minions-- ( Steamwheedle Sniper ) anyone--but that would just make it really unbalanced. Cards like Dinomancy are just too slow and control-oriented for what a Hunter deck is trying to accomplish.
Anyways, I don't believe Blizzard would intend for any class to be subpar, hunter got so many great cards in KaC after all. The problem seems to me that compared to other classes, there's just not as much variety with hunter decks (at least in terms of viability). The hero power literally encourages aggro/going face more than any other hero power in the game.
Forever Zoo: 2013-present
Hunter is a terrible class for balance perspective.
Give him a very good 1 drop class or neutral like undertaker = Broken meta, hunters is 80% of the ladder.
Give him a very good late game/finisher like CotW for 8 manas = Broken meta, hunter become 50% of the ladder and no more than 50% because in that time shaman is broken too and get the other 50%.
There is no middle ground for hunter, or broken or weak, not terribly bad like shaman and warrior is now but far from good.
Hunter is by nature and from its core an aggresive class, just looking at the hero power is 2 consistent damage to the enemy hero but the problem is that Blizzard is trying to push into it a lot of cards that would suit a control style deck, but the class just has a couple cards for this so it always ends up as an aggresive and mostly smorc class and I firmly believe that Blizzard is scared to let Hunter be the king of the meta again, during alpha Hunter was busted af and then we all know how pleasant the undertaker hunter meta was.
The best players in tournaments and high legend ladder are only going to play the best couple of the decks. And hunter has not been played at those levels in a very long time.
Translation is: it has not been good for a long time.
Hunter is weak because blizzard is always SO careful when giving them stuff. Because as people have said, it gets broken real quick.
Also, even though hunter isn’t considered top tier in competitive formats right now (although Orange brought it to HCT), it’s still running over people at the low ranks. It often dominates the 20-16 ranks. And there’s a lot of casual players there. If anyone can pilot hunter effectively, gotta be careful, because giving a pro these tools will be nearly unstoppable!
Say what you wanna say, but hunter is great in wild. Not sure about standard, but its certainly playable.Its a class that is either really underpowered or really overpowered. Barely an in between
Hunter is overall the easiest class to play but it's the hardest one to give stuff too because of the tools it already has, namely the hero power, which by itself promotes a more face is the place type of play. This is why creative hunter decks are few and far between
Define definition
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Must be careful when you wish something cause it might become true :D
P.S. Hunter rocks
Top deck is cheat