Hunter will get some sort of card draw almost certainly next expansion. The problem is it almost certainly will be a trash like Ball of Spiders that will not see any play even in Arena.
Hunter is already have sticky minions, but not having a heal or a decent taunt relatively slow Hunter can't survive early "go to face" tactic.
If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.
I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.
And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?
If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.
I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.
And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?
Is my arguement no longer terrible?
BLIzzard has proven time and time again that when it comes to statistics regarding class balance they can't tell heir ass from their elbow, so no. It's why we look at third party sources when it comes to data collection and figuring out which decks are overpowered and what deck is underpowered.
If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.
I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.
And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?
Is my arguement no longer terrible?
BLIzzard has proven time and time again that when it comes to statistics regarding class balance they can't tell heir ass from their elbow, so no. It's why we look at third party sources when it comes to data collection and figuring out which decks are overpowered and what deck is underpowered.
Yeah absolutely. Because the last thing that Blizzard do is to stat track their games and see how the meta works. They just blindly throw new content into the mix in all of their games and ignore what everyone else says.
It's OK to be wrong sometimes but please don't try and justify the indefensible.
If your standard for whether or not a class should be viable is that they can't have ever been overpowered in the past then literally every single class in the game shouldn' be viable. There have been class much stronger than undertaker Hunter ever was but you don't see the same arguement being used to prevent them from even becoming viable. Your "arguement" is terrible.
I was looking to find some stat that would cover off what I said but was unable to. Then Ben Brode confirmed today Undertaker Hunter as the official Blizzard licensed worst deck.
And if it comes from Blizzard it must be true, right?
Is my arguement no longer terrible?
BLIzzard has proven time and time again that when it comes to statistics regarding class balance they can't tell heir ass from their elbow, so no. It's why we look at third party sources when it comes to data collection and figuring out which decks are overpowered and what deck is underpowered.
Yeah absolutely. Because the last thing that Blizzard do is to stat track their games and see how the meta works. They just blindly throw new content into the mix in all of their games and ignore what everyone else says.
It's OK to be wrong sometimes but please don't try and justify the indefensible.
Midrange Shaman was STRONGER than undertaker was and that is true if you look at thre stats from both of those eras (both population and winrate). Winrate wise Grim Patron Warrior above undertaker Hunter as well but it was a bit more difficult to play so it didn't see the popularity Undertaker did.
Lastly, if Blizzard actually tweaked their games based on the data they wouldn't have so many games that are so inherently unbalanced. They like to add fun, quirky stuff for the fun aspect of it without hashing out the consequences of things like mechanics. This latest hearthstone expansion is only a single datapoint in the history of Blizzard games. So Hunters do need help and it WOULD be good for the game to have Hinters as a bauble class whether you want to admit it or not.
Control hunter isn't a thing cause hunter's heropower itself
Top deck is cheat
And CW's hero power so good at controlling a board.
What hunter needs are:
-card draw (borderline op)
-sticky minions to enanche board presence and synergies
Top deck is cheat
I think CotW at 8 wouldn't be much of a problem, since you rarely get to turn 8 anyway.
Shanking ankles since 2015.
Hunter will get some sort of card draw almost certainly next expansion. The problem is it almost certainly will be a trash like Ball of Spiders that will not see any play even in Arena.
Hunter is already have sticky minions, but not having a heal or a decent taunt relatively slow Hunter can't survive early "go to face" tactic.
Moreover hunter should soon find a sostitution for quickshot
Top deck is cheat
I think a legendary with a battlecry version of the Steamwheedle Sniper effect would be pretty cool.
Top deck is cheat
Bvanscoy is obviously right here
Top deck is cheat