Hearthpwn

Actually as long as you innervate BEFORE playing the card it works perfectly fine (so long as you have less than 8 mana crystals)

Everything is always worse than it was before and will keep getting worse. Ah yes the good old days...

- Everybody who cant differ between how things actually were before and their idealisation of the past.

First of all: Yes this is purely a whine threat.

One of the great things I love about hearthstone is its incredibly small internet usage (Usually less than 100kb per game) and even with a connection of only 10-20 kb/s you are still able to play the game well.

This last update with a size of a little over 1GB completely kills me... and before you say (just get a better inet connection nub) here my explanation. Im a tropical biologist working at a research station in the savannas of north eastern Ivory Coast, the next city is 200km away and with it electricity etc. Everything we get is through our own solar station and a small satelite dish for internet (via satelite... duh). This allows us a connection of roughly 100kb/s (with good weather) capped at 12 GB per month for the entire station, meaning that each person has roughly 40-60mb they can use per day... The TGT expansion was already pushing it but I managed to pull it off since it was still only a fraction of the size from this patch.

So WHY... WHY is this patch so incredibly large... Guess im gonna have to wait two month to install it when im back in germany... I needs my Hearthstone...

ps. answers like: "you want some cheese with your whine" are completely acceptable

Quote from zaheer12a jump

Wow just managed to hit rank 5 even! Didn't expect it to go this quick :P Secret Pally so good.

Honestly im not suprised. Reaching rank 5 is easy, its what comes after that really becomes a hard grind... I've never really tried to ladder, play 3-4 games a day and end up nearly every season between rank 4 or 5. I tried twice to give it a go at legend (since i reached rank 5 mid season) and gave up after a week because of 1) frustration (if you start to relly care about laddering losse sbecome a lot more frustrating i feel...) 2) the grind and the fact that in the same time it took me to reach rank 5 I managed to climb only to rank 3...

Quote from xbrunnix jump

 i guess the card draw is not really needed, the spell damage is the thing here.

So a kobold geomancer does the trick too ^^

Im sorry but thats just plain wrong. The card draw is the important feature here for the cycle, the spell damage is just a bonus that rarely matters. Do not play geomancer in a freeze mage deck! I think thalnos is a great early game addition to the deck and if you truly want to perfect a freeze mage deck he is needed.

Quote from DarkTycon jump

Quote from ETF89 jump

Quote from Hearthswag jump

Hmm guess my opinion was too strong. Not including comments from 14 year olds about sucking at sucking and so on.

I could see a higher health total being a good idea as it would directly influence the unbalanced amount of aggro out there.

Also isn't it a little sad that making a unique deck means that it will be weaker than the rest?

Im sorry but thats life. If you build something yourself (be it a car, a table or whatever) it will most likely be worse than what the pros build. You can either accept it and play with your unique sub par deck or just netdeck, there is nothing wrong with that.

Also I dont believe the game to be unbalanced. Sure there are some decks that might currently be a bit stronger (patron, secretpala maybe) but its basically impossible to balance a game to the point were all decks on average have a 50% win chance. Every meta have some decks that are slightly stronger than the rest.

Increasing the life total may sound like a good strategy to weaken aggro and combo decks but at the same time it would make control decks much much stronger and only playing control match ups would get really boring quite fast (and I say that as someone basically only playing control). Blizzard also wants to keep the average game time relatively low so that it is something you can do in your free time, in the train/bus etc. Making games last half an hour would strongly go against this.

Game is fine.

Accepting imbalance in a game or even a life situation because it naturally happens is called a naturalistic fallacy, just because something is the way it is, doesn't mean it ought to be. It's fine to have a get back up off the horse attitude, but accepting gross problems or telling people to get good when mechanical game problems have been plague the game for a long time now really isn't helping the problem.

Although the statistics are based on incomplete data, the imbalance in the current game is huge. While personal accounts throughout several threads on hearthpwn have high lighted the problems of the mass paladin problems, paladin is current sitting on top of a 57.93% constructed win rate according to hearthstats, with the closest class being hunter at 55.79%. These percentages line up with the shear power, availability and ease of use of their top decks. Looking at other classes, rogue is at 46.82% win rate across constructed, with shaman barely touching the 50% margin at 50.76%. Most classes hover around the 52% win rate margin (showing a slight bias to uploading winning game information). However even with that bias shaman isn't doing so well and rogue is still heavily negative, that's over a 10% win rate margin according to a large data pool. While only Blizzard has the entirety of best usable data, they do not publicly share their information and this is the best we can offer to our resources. While being skeptical of the data in how representative it is, how random it is and how bias it is is a healthy criticism of the data, all out dismissing such a large pool of collected data as incomplete and just ignoring statics (the hard factor in determining balance) is dismissing objective balance in favor of subjective personal bias. Also note that these 2 bottom classes were mentioned by the OP as the "trash" classes, while he didn't explain why the data supports his answer as well as secret paladin being so powerful. The outlier in this situation is patron warriors incredible power boasting an average win rate of 52.88%, while one can assume the deck is balanced based on win rate here, a combination of data sources is needed to examine this. As stated before the other top decks are easily obtained and easy to play. Patron warrior requires multiple adventure cards such as grim patron and thaurisan with refined versions often running Grom as well (not even considering control warrior decks diluting the win rate). With the barrier to entry higher for warriors than paladins and hunters, there other factor attributed here would be the skill factor and overall decision making. While Patron warrior is widely considered over the top too powerful, it is a hard deck to play involving long games with large amounts of decision making in short periods of time, as well as multiple physical clicks, it's probably not the hardest deck ever but it has a high skill floor (barrier of entry to newer players of the deck). Also worth noting is look at the rank %s, Paladins make up ~27% of ranks 1-5 while warriors make up ~21% of rank 1-2... Shaman and rogues make up 2.4% of rank 1 and even less in ranks 2-3 near about 1%. The class diversity disparity directly correlated to class popularity is shown in the higher ranks, also worth noting is as you get lower in rank, there is a linear decrease in the number of paladins plated and a positive trend in terms with an increase of rogue play showing a huge boon at rank 20 (6.51%) and rank 21(8.52%) . Could it be people who play rogues just all happen to be rank 20 players in terms of quality (and the fact the classes is so unpopular in general)? Kind of hear to but that, warriors are an odd exception supporting the difficulty of entry though cards / skill floor as rank 20 houses ~20% warriors.

Supporting the analysis of the quantitative data, we can use Tempo Storms analysis of the current meta and statistics. While you may dislike or disprove of reynad, he has his current psotion for a reason, he is good at the game objectively and provides a website and team that offer an authority elite perspective at the game, he's probably one of the several sources that offer top end analysis of the game. Currently the top decks are Patron warrior, Secret Paladin, Mech Mage and Dragon Priest, common decks i'm sure everyone has faced on ladder. The description on their tier 1 tags says they are top level decks closest to full optimization   and give the feeling of being "unfair" or "overpowered". It's pretty obvious rogue harbors some pretty horrific decks with 1 at the bottom of tier 3 (a pre-TGT deck) and the other barely even worth mentioning. Mid-Range hunter is tier 2 so there is some merrit to saying losing to hunters could be a factor of player skill as the overall win rate doesn't seam to reflect how strong the deck is, but ignoring the shear power of Secret Paladin at the least (with grim patron also being a contender but less obvious) is really being too optimistic of the current lack luster game balance.

Also while plenty of others have stated, your deck needs to be unfair in constructed and that is true to an extent, unfair advantages still need balancing. Getting a 50% win ratio across all decks is a fantasy but the ideal goal should be to get them as close as possible. As experienced game designers relying on health of the game state improving game balance and features should be one of their top priorities, with no card changes since the under taker nerf post GVG plenty of strategies have gotten out of hand. Star Craft itself was praised for it's good balance while offering asymmetric game play, it wasn't the first game to offer asymmetric game play but when others create such large balance problems people wouldn't catch on as the game becomes boring and repetitive (if one faction wins 80% of the time in some of those failed RTS games, saying oh well life isn't fair you can't balance 50 50 perfectly could be worse isn't a mantra a large corporation selling you a high quality product should do, that's the attitude of an apprentice or young student). Since perfect balance can never truly be achieved and only becomes asymptotically closer to that line, perhaps increasing the degree of proximity to perfect balance is a goal that Blizzard can always improve on.

While not all decks posted by the OP would be considered OP (his freeze mage comment related to the unfun aspects of the deck and non interactivity, not the strength of the deck which is true) there are plenty of truths involved. Not all of the decks need changes but saying the game is currently balanced and "get good" is the solution s a subjective comment that doesn't answer the current problems. The mentality itself is noble but isn't logical sometimes or used in absurd situations. A metaphor would to this would be if in a competition say 2 people competing for strength or speed in a race, one person has a 5 KG weight attached to them while the other has a 30 KG weight to them. While objectively one has a clear advantage and will win more often if they are evenly matched, instead of losing the imbalance in the competition of the weights you simply say no it's fine just train more get stronger when a quantifiable measurement is provided contradicting that statement that there is an advantage at hand, that argument doesn't hold up.

I'm sorry if you disagree and would be very welcome to a counter point but please try to take not just this OP, but the myriad of similar posts on the general hearthpwn forums as a signal that perhaps this could possible be a signal of something wrong. And to others in the thread, your opinion is just as important to this website as the OP, however committing ad hominem and bashing him for his skill is an irrelevant factor here when discussing the balance of the game. It is worth noting however that the OP could be a little less emotional and construct his argument better for future reference, but his point is still reasonably valid in terms of balance problems (although not everything he mentioned really needs to be nerfed). Thank you for taking the time to read this post and please keep this conversation civil.

*Edit* This isn't even addressing the gross arena problems. While weaker constructed classes like shaman and rogue shine more in arena (shaman is still worse than paladin and rogue is a counter pick) warrior has an abysmal performance, paladin again tops the charts in arena with a 62.71% win rate, that's absurd. Arena balance is also important, highly experienced arena players such as Ratsmah and Kripparian have advocated numerous times that paladins are now the strongest class by quite a margin, even topping rogue (Kripp used to think mages were top but swapped opinions) as well as support warrior being by far the weakest. ADWCTA another highly rated arena player and co-runner of the site "HearthArena" has a campaign #arenawarriosmatter due to their very poor performance. In addition to poor expansion card rarity releases and poor hero power not altering the board there are plenty of reasons warrior are so poor in arena atm, Kripaprian alone has several videos in this exact topic (a recent prominent one provided in the source links).

Sources Used:

Hearthstats:  https://hearthstats.net/

Tempo Storm:  https://tempostorm.com/hearthstone/meta-snapshot/meta-snapshot-29-hey-its-me-again

Kripparian's input on Blizzard's arena negligence / imbalance (pertaining mostly to warrior, all chat no game play):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6Pwe2Kc

Indeed a very long text. Though I'll try to touch up on some of your points.

First off some clarification to my points: I never stated for people complaining to "just get better" thats not the point im trying to put across. 

I think you misunderstood also what I meant as a rule of life. I dont mean that life in itself is unfair or anything like it (on the contrary I agree that we should try to keep improving it), my argument was rather towards deck building or "skill" in general and why amateur created decks are inherently worse than ones created by pros (in general). Someone that doesnt play this game 8 hours a day (so lets say 99% of the playerbase) is inherently going to have less experience and less insight towards the power level and synergies between cards and also have less time to refine a deck to perfection and get a proper picture of the meta. Therefore he will most likely create a worse deck that wont be able to compete at top level. That is just something one has to accept, and its ok to do so. Sure you can work on improving your skill but to expect to be as good as a pro is not realistic. If I build a table in my free time I will most likely do a worse job than a carpenter, simply because I invest less time into it. That is what I meant with what needs to be accepted.

On the Statistics part I would truly be careful not to trust them too much. Especially the win% of classes, since just about every class has multiple decktypes (many of which are sub par sure), also im pretty certain the data is skewed towards more skilled players (since they are more likely to be active in sites like this one or tempostorm). That being said I find a win% between 45-55% to be completely acceptable and I find it too optimistic to believe to gain better results.

The statistic that could be considered a problem is the representation of different classes in the meta, with rogue and shaman being underrepresented (here we should indeed try to reach a balanced representation of all classes). Although Blizzard is clearly trying to adress the problem (atleast in Shaman) by trying to make totemshaman viable. The method Blizz is using to balance the game is in my opinion good. Nerfing or buffing cards takes away control from us, making us doubt the "stability" of a card. Its much better to try to adress these problems through expansions.

killing off my own baron geddon (1hp) with the whirlwind effect of my deathsbite to miss lethal...

You think thats unlucky? I was drafting the perfect freeze mage deck and on my last card I got a second pyroblast talk about unlucky... as if that can synergies well with antonidas...

First of all armorsmith is probably one of the best cards you can have for the match up so cutting one out is definately a mistake (kills recruits and breaks divine shield while giving you free armor and working as a soft taunt). I would definately recomend to run double revenge (or 1 WW 1 revenge) Baron Geddon and atleast 1 brawl. Mulligan for fiery war axe, armorsmith and cruel taskmaster. 

If you have a deathsbite out save the WW for their turn 6 Mysterious challenger and combo it with an execute (if you can) otherwise use your BGH on it after avenge triggers. Dont try to get value out of your acolyte just play him on T3 and try to keep your hand small so they cant refill theirs. The deck runs pretty fast out of steam if your able to handle their MC and afterwards its just armor up, shield maiden, defensive alexstrasza and you should be golden.

I disagree with people saying its a bad matchup id say cw is even favoured against secretadin, if played right. I have a 8W/4L record against them. The general opinion cw => bad against paladin is an old opinion based on a meta were pala was mainly mid/control, in which case pala is truly favoured but against the rush variant warrior has some of the best tools to counter it (6 aoe effects in the form of 2 deathsbite, 2 WW/Revenge, Geddon and Brawl).

id say the cards you need the most at the moment are definately

1. 2x mad scientist (that card just makes this deck 10 times better) (for water elemental and novice engineer)

2. Emperor Thaurissan (for Pyroblast, pyro and antonidas together is overkill. There was a time when some people argued pyro>antonidas, but thats long over)

3.Bloodmage Thalnos (-1 Blizzard; although you could arguably also remove the healbot; i personally dont run healbot in my deck and replace the second Blizzard with another explosive sheep).

I play freeze mage around rank 5-2 although I have to agree with the people before me its not an easy deck to play for a beginner and quite counterintuitive, which may be why you have trouble climbing the ladder. If you really wanna play freeze mage look up some people playing the deck on youtube to see how its done

Quote from Sinti >>

Its not bad design, it works as intended, just not as ppl would want to ... it will deal 6 dmg to a targeted minion with a Fire Elemental for example, it will not let u target 2 minions to deal 2x3dmg tho ...

Quote from DeadlyShadow122 >>

Also replace 2 acolytes with Ysera + Justicar

Quote from MrPaladin >>

This is an example of power creep. Why would someone play Ancient Watcher instead of Eerie Statue? The only other conclusion is that Blizzard is promoting a Wailing Soul deck. However, we would need more cards for that deck to be effective.

Quote from siggees >>

Too slow for aggro.

Quote from Ilikemoba >>

I got a bad feeling that this adventure will fail harder than TGT.

Good in arena maybe? Idk

Quote from nurgling13 >>

It's not a Wisp powercreep. Now you can have double the Wisp power in your deck!

Quote from XPythonidaeX >>

It's a nice brawl, but some sort of chat system would have been appreciated.

So that you can actually plan ahead on what to play and such, not just guess. 

If you're bored just stop playing and come back when you feel like it. 

In freeze mage he's too slow? That makes about zero sense. freeze mage is pretty much the slowest deck there is. The deck has so many tools to stall the game. If you can't get freeze mage to survive past turn 4 or 5 on a regular basis, #youredoingitwrong

What I've learnt from magic is that you always play the minimum number of cards possible. Mill strategies are not competitive. 

That said, hearthstone might be a little different. I wouldn't know for sure, so I'd probably give it a shot, depending on the meta. But I tend to believe that the advantage of more consistently drawing into what you really want is simply more advantageous.