Hearthpwn

I agree the meta's a little too ridiculous at the moment. As a control player if I have to consider on turn 1 whether or not I have to coin doomsayer because if I wait to play it on 2 it will almost certainly die, then aggro is maybe probably too strong. It's for sure too strong when I have to consider not coining doomsayer, because there's actually a pretty decent chance it dies on their turn 2 anyways and I'll need the coin later. That should only happen if someone's teched in crazed alchemist, which is a thing aggro decks used to have to do, rather than, you know, just playing on curve and having seven damage they can ship on turn 2 at little to no cost.

Bottom line. Players complain we need a balanced meta. Here's a patch that creates the most balanced meta yet as far as diversity among decks, classes, competitive archetypes goes.

Now the same players complain the meta's crap because they can't rank easy. Meta is crap too hard...

Seperating the boys from the men MSG did... 

It seems the community is rather divided at the moment on whether the current meta is healthy or unhealthy, stale or diverse, and fun or not-fun. If I had to put money on it, I am sure the majority of people feeling positive would be people leaning towards an aggro play style, while those on the negative end are more control based.

So? What is the situation really... According to Ben Brode and Dean Ayala from their live stream the current meta is quite diverse and they consider the state of the meta based on diversity and win rates as healthy. Except they admit that the pirate package used by Warrior, Shaman and Rogue is higher than they like, and might intervene at some point.

Now, is it fun though? For me, after playing the last two years and loving the game, I'm struggling to have fun at the moment. Some will agree, and others will disagree with me; and that's ok... I just like it better when games are about skill and strategy, instead of seeing who can kill the other person before turn six.

Quote from Hansie_007 >>

It seems the community is rather divided at the moment on whether the current meta is healthy or unhealthy, stale or diverse, and fun or not-fun. If I had to put money on it, I am sure the majority of people feeling positive would be people leaning towards an aggro play style, while those on the negative end are more control based.

So? What is the situation really... According to Ben Brode and Dean Ayala from their live stream the current meta is quite diverse and they consider the state of the meta based on diversity and win rates as healthy. Except they admit that the pirate package used by Warrior, Shaman and Rogue is higher than they like, and might intervene at some point.

Now, is it fun though? For me, after playing the last two years and loving the game, I'm struggling to have fun at the moment. Some will agree, and others will disagree with me; and that's ok... I just like it better when games are about skill and strategy, instead of seeing who can kill the other person before turn six.

I hate reno decks. so I hate this meta

The only tier 1 decks are pure face and probably some ape could be trained to take Legend now. Skill is not rewarded at all and even players who are good turn to brainless clicking face so they can get some points. This is by far the least competitive meta since Undertaker, the most brainless one and far from the most diverse one. HS turned into a joke.

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

you realize that the meta is totally cancer if lifecoach starts grinding face shaman all day long . i have to give him credit though, he played kind of a creative rogue for a few games and got put back into the dumpster by this aggrofiesta

Just go full pirate warrior on the face and watch the tears coming down! fcking cancer

Quote from dsacxz0 >>

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

So there are 3 main  types of decks atm that are played almost the same way and are 90%+  of the matches from rank 5 to highest legend

1)Face decks(face shaman,face warrior)

2)Reno decks

3)Miracle rogue

Fanboys:''DIS IS THE MOST DIVERSE MUTA EVA''

Bullshit my dears there are mostly 3 decks with different skins.

It seems to have very polarized matches

i just wanna see Reno gone 

bored of Brann / Kazakus and Reno / Ice Block or Reno / whatever

reno deck= RNG

aggro deck win or loses turn 6

really stupid meta

play other deck  than loses to random greedy deck. ie: stupid cw with 20 legendary+10 spell.

Quote from Toymachine >>

Quote from Draconian >>

There's always some random idiot during the beginning and then at the climax of a meta to always complain "worst meta ever".

This is the most diverse yet competitive meta I've seen since beta. ADAPT or EXIT is my advice to you rather than making silly rant threads like this one.

It has been a long time since I laughed at something I've read on the internet, but you made it :) 

Most diverse yet competitive... what are you talking about? It's about the same or less diverse than before MSG, it's just that 25% Mid Shamans is now 25% pure Face Warrior/Sham. The only tier 1 decks are pure face and probably some ape could be trained to take Legend now. Skill is not rewarded at all and even players who are good turn to brainless clicking face so they can get some points. This is by far the least competitive meta since Undertaker, the most brainless one and far from the most diverse one. HS turned into a joke. 

"ADAPT or EXIT"    Nice way to say how you spam Face Shaman/Warrior games all day long. 

Quote from kloklon >>

Quote from dsacxz0 >>

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

 Again, not true. Dragon Priest and Renolock for example are considered Tier 2 Decks and still have decent and really enjoyable laddering capabilities.

Patches and Reno need to GTFO. Then it might be better, who knows.

Quote from kloklon >>

Quote from dsacxz0 >>

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

 Again, not true. Dragon Priest and Renolock for example are considered Tier 2 Decks and still have decent and really enjoyable laddering capabilities.

Well, better Reno tri-class decks, pirates and jades than midface shaman rules all.

My really only complain for this meta is hunter and paladin unplayable.

Quote from hebbe84 >>

Quote from kloklon >>

Quote from dsacxz0 >>

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

 Again, not true. Dragon Priest and Renolock for example are considered Tier 2 Decks and still have decent and really enjoyable laddering capabilities.

 That's not really what he's saying though. He's saying that the strongest decks are so strong that "fun" decks are almost impossible to climb with. Which is true to a certain extent. The "power" of fun decks is that no one knows your decklist and has no real clue what to expect. If you're facing aggro shaman or warrior it doesn't really matter though since they kill ineffecient decks in 5-6 turns most of the time.

Quote from hebbe84 >>

Quote from kloklon >>

Quote from dsacxz0 >>

The problem of this meta is T1 decks are far stronger than any other decks, nearly no chance to come up with something new and actually win some games.

 Again, not true. Dragon Priest and Renolock for example are considered Tier 2 Decks and still have decent and really enjoyable laddering capabilities.

 That's not really what he's saying though. He's saying that the strongest decks are so strong that "fun" decks are almost impossible to climb with. Which is true to a certain extent. The "power" of fun decks is that no one knows your decklist and has no real clue what to expect. If you're facing aggro shaman or warrior it doesn't really matter though since they kill ineffecient decks in 5-6 turns most of the time.