In my last thread, I asked if there was a rock paper scissors element to HS and its archetypes. There was a sense that it was, even if it was a little murky. "In HS it's a little more defined. Control suffers against Aggro and Midrange. Aggro suffers against Tempo and Combo. Tempo loses to Midrange and Control. Combo loses to Control and very slightly Tempo. Midrange suffers against Combo and Aggro." Accepting that as generally being the case, I have a series of questions about how people focus their decks. Let's assume there a sense that you generally should commit yourself to one of the archetypes (ie Aggro, Midrange, Combo), although feel free to debate that premise, too!
1a-Is it generally better to try to focus on playing to the strengths of the deck and make an Aggro deck more "all in" and "decisively an Aggro deck", or would it be better to, acknowledging that Aggro tends to suffer against Tempo and Combo, try to add in a little Control to your deck to potentially have some answers for them?
1b-Going with the example above if you do try to address some weaknesses, and this is kinda "looking for math" question, where is the line where you've added enough Control cards to be able to expect them to make a difference against Tempo and Combo decks? And where is the line where you've overcompensated to the point of losing your deck's identity? How valuable is that identity vs accommodating for weaknesses?
1c-High level bonus question. With regards to that, does the answer to 1b vary depending on what type of archetype you're playing? Such as, it is more important to try to counter for weaknesses in a combo deck than it is a tempo deck, etc.
2a-How do you pick which archetype to pursue? Based on what you're seeing on ladder, such as, I see a ton of aggro and combo, if I came up with a perfect tempo deck I bet I could wreck face? Based off personality, such as I always like Control, or, I really like Druid, but the class really only has a viable aggro archetype available to it?
2b-High level bonus question. Does which archetype you choose vary depending on where you are at in the ladder? Such as, do you start with an an aggro deck, because it is what most consistently gets you through the drudges of level 20-10, but then switch to my combo deck to get me from 10-legend? Do certain archetypes tend to skill cap out at certain levels, such you'll see a ton of tempo people from 10-7, but never again after that?
Would love to hear from the community on these questions as I try to expand my and hopefully others understanding of HS. Much <3...
I made some relevant observations during my legend run with druid a few months ago. The power level of the deck wasn't terrific so I had a lot of time to study the meta compared to my other legend runs. Ranks 5-7 are full of fast tier 1 decks. Ranks 1-5 are full of people playing decks that countered the previous one or two ranks. A pirate warrior dominant ranks lead into a reno dominant ranks, which led into rogue, then face shaman. This means a lot of people working on getting legend are picking their archtypes based on their immediate meta
Based on this information, I adapted my druid multiple times on the way up by rotating mulches, druids of the claw and ancients of war in and out. Unlike most people, I believed the druid vs aggro matchups were very winnable with the right build. I make similar changes to any decks I try to reach legend with. Under rank 5, the meta is too chaotic and you rank up too fast so I never bother adapting my decks there
Being passionate about deck identities is ... a personal weakness of mine. Jade druid innately is a "play fancy big things" yet low power level deck so I was content with the identity of "Jade druid that wins". On the other hand, face shaman was a tier 1 deck so I was compelled and had the freedom to make my own unique hybrids and didn't leave room for adapting to the meta. I don't know if these changes increased or decreased my winrate but it wasn't as important to me as playing something I created myself. My priests were too greedy for their own good
I like attrition and games that go into fatigue, no matter what everyone else is playing. I used to be a control priest and warrior main until MSG when druid killed all the attrition and became the slowest deck themselves. I don't mind playing other classes and archtypes either, as long as it's something I made up myself or a heavily modified (not always for the better) version of a meta deck
In my last thread, I asked if there was a rock paper scissors element to HS and its archetypes. There was a sense that it was, even if it was a little murky. "In HS it's a little more defined. Control suffers against Aggro and Midrange. Aggro suffers against Tempo and Combo. Tempo loses to Midrange and Control. Combo loses to Control and very slightly Tempo. Midrange suffers against Combo and Aggro." Accepting that as generally being the case, I have a series of questions about how people focus their decks. Let's assume there a sense that you generally should commit yourself to one of the archetypes (ie Aggro, Midrange, Combo), although feel free to debate that premise, too!
1a-Is it generally better to try to focus on playing to the strengths of the deck and make an Aggro deck more "all in" and "decisively an Aggro deck", or would it be better to, acknowledging that Aggro tends to suffer against Tempo and Combo, try to add in a little Control to your deck to potentially have some answers for them?
1b-Going with the example above if you do try to address some weaknesses, and this is kinda "looking for math" question, where is the line where you've added enough Control cards to be able to expect them to make a difference against Tempo and Combo decks? And where is the line where you've overcompensated to the point of losing your deck's identity? How valuable is that identity vs accommodating for weaknesses?
1c-High level bonus question. With regards to that, does the answer to 1b vary depending on what type of archetype you're playing? Such as, it is more important to try to counter for weaknesses in a combo deck than it is a tempo deck, etc.
2a-How do you pick which archetype to pursue? Based on what you're seeing on ladder, such as, I see a ton of aggro and combo, if I came up with a perfect tempo deck I bet I could wreck face? Based off personality, such as I always like Control, or, I really like Druid, but the class really only has a viable aggro archetype available to it?
2b-High level bonus question. Does which archetype you choose vary depending on where you are at in the ladder? Such as, do you start with an an aggro deck, because it is what most consistently gets you through the drudges of level 20-10, but then switch to my combo deck to get me from 10-legend? Do certain archetypes tend to skill cap out at certain levels, such you'll see a ton of tempo people from 10-7, but never again after that?
Would love to hear from the community on these questions as I try to expand my and hopefully others understanding of HS. Much <3...
Slay evil immediately...
I made some relevant observations during my legend run with druid a few months ago. The power level of the deck wasn't terrific so I had a lot of time to study the meta compared to my other legend runs. Ranks 5-7 are full of fast tier 1 decks. Ranks 1-5 are full of people playing decks that countered the previous one or two ranks. A pirate warrior dominant ranks lead into a reno dominant ranks, which led into rogue, then face shaman. This means a lot of people working on getting legend are picking their archtypes based on their immediate meta
Based on this information, I adapted my druid multiple times on the way up by rotating mulches, druids of the claw and ancients of war in and out. Unlike most people, I believed the druid vs aggro matchups were very winnable with the right build. I make similar changes to any decks I try to reach legend with. Under rank 5, the meta is too chaotic and you rank up too fast so I never bother adapting my decks there
Being passionate about deck identities is ... a personal weakness of mine. Jade druid innately is a "play fancy big things" yet low power level deck so I was content with the identity of "Jade druid that wins". On the other hand, face shaman was a tier 1 deck so I was compelled and had the freedom to make my own unique hybrids and didn't leave room for adapting to the meta. I don't know if these changes increased or decreased my winrate but it wasn't as important to me as playing something I created myself. My priests were too greedy for their own good
I like attrition and games that go into fatigue, no matter what everyone else is playing. I used to be a control priest and warrior main until MSG when druid killed all the attrition and became the slowest deck themselves. I don't mind playing other classes and archtypes either, as long as it's something I made up myself or a heavily modified (not always for the better) version of a meta deck
Legend with : S65 Freeze Mage, S57 Maly Gonk Druid, S57 "Okay" Shaman, S53 Boom-zooka Hunter, S53 Maly Tog Druid, S52 Wild Tog Druid ft.Blingtron, S50 Quest Rogue, S49 Dead Man's Warrior, S41 Wild Clown Fiesta Druid, S41 Hadronox Jade Druid, S40 Wild OTK Dragon Druid, S35 SMOrc Shaman, S33 Jade Druid, S22 Control Priest, S19 Control Priest