Read my post and tell me where I did any such thing.
What I did was pose a question. And if you have to resort to straw men instead of actually answering it, doesn't speak well to your "points".
In fact, I'll do you one better. Name me one point in my post where I EVER pointed out ANY specific class as being "oppressive" in today's meta?
I'll save you the time, you can't, because I didn't say word one about any of them.
im referring you to the post below, you are mixing two concepts "bad meta" and "black spots in the meta", when that black spot is too big it ruins the entire meta or you can call it "bad meta".
you dont have to menttion everything man! as you haven't mentioned you are human or machine.
the motivation for this question is "you guys complaining rn, have you ever been satisfied with the meta, and reducing them to a whinning kids,
You should take a trip out to the corn fields, you would love all the strawmen they have set up there.
Come back any time you're ready to stop putting words in my mouth and have an actual discussion.
Or, you know, actually answer the question I actually asked, instead of what you insist I have asked.
Last I checked, asking a question was the exact OPPOSITE of trying to shut people up, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some guy who actually reads what you say as it is without putting my own little spin on it.
So I'd like to issue a challenge to everybody -always- complaining about the meta- Were you EVER satisfied with it? I mean, come on. Hearthstone's been around for five years. Are you really going to tell me they got it wrong every single time throughout all these expansions and adventures we've had? Really?
The problem isn't that they collectively fuck up an entire expansion. The issue is that 95% of the expansion is great, except for certain problem cards that they fuck up so majorly, that they take forever to fix. Even though the community is collectively calling for nerfs for (sometimes) months.
Let's look at some examples.
Saronite Chain Gang was such a botched combo with Shudderwock. But this card took fucking months to fix. Almost every Shaman game during the Saronite/Shudder era was just hitting turn 10, and then watching the Shaman play with themselves while they repeatedly bounce 1 mana Shudderwocks to hand.
Raza and Mind Blast.same problem, though he was much slower. Still saw a nerf due to his creation of an uninteractive board. Watching Priests play 0 mana hero powers and mind blasts was NOT fun. Again, people knew these nerfs were coming for months.
Doomguard is another example. Allowed to combo with Carnivorous Cube, creating completely unbeatable board states (again) for months until they finally rotated Doomguard to Hall of Fame.
Ice Block was in the same boat as Doomguard. Featured in OTKO Mage decks that created a completely uninteractive board state. Two turns of spamming card draws with zero possible counterplay was often enough to draw out their combo pieces. Took years till it was Hof'd
Grim Patron Warrior went through several iterations of OTKOs. Each one taking an insulting amount of time to balance. Again, these decks dominated the ladder and even pro play. It took a long time for them to eventually get gutted, and for them to invent the Standard meta and rotate Thaurissan.
Caverns Below wasn't super slow to nerf, but still could have been faster, since it was equally as dominant as DH on launch.
And then there's the whole pirate meta. Again, having to wait until they nerfed Patches and the other card was ridiculous. Because everyone KNEW they were going to get nerfed. It just took too long.
---
Most of the cards and combos I listed were from different metas, and were a black spot on each one. For the metas where these combos were nerfed after a few weeks instead of the next month, the remaining time in the expansion was mostly enjoyable.
Again, your misconception is that the meta is 100% bad, because deck X is bad. The issue is that there are singular decks that bring down an otherwise great meta. Blizzard just keeps the high popularity decks around for a few weeks before nerfing them to drive up pack sales and disenchant rates.
If Blizzard didn't act fucking stupid and buffed/nerfed in a timely manner, then this would be the best TCG on the market. But currently, it's looking like Legends of Runeterra might overtake it after launch, since it has a far better new player experience, is far cheaper, has no pack RNG, and even their draft format is far easier to run infinitely. (7 wins at a 50% winrate is max reward)
It's also unfortunate that this is the worst meta since Mean Streets of Gadgetzan. They fucked up the card draw for Priest, Shaman, Paladin and Warrior so bad that they may as well not exist, with the exception of Res Priest. A deck so awful in design it slows the game down so much that I stopped playing, and ruined the playability of the game on my lunch breaks.
You should take a trip out to the corn fields, you would love all the strawmen they have set up there.
Come back any time you're ready to stop putting words in my mouth and have an actual discussion.
Or, you know, actually answer the question I actually asked, instead of what you insist I have asked.
Last I checked, asking a question was the exact OPPOSITE of trying to shut people up, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some guy who actually reads what you say as it is without putting my own little spin on it.
if you dont know the context of your question im sry, but id suggest a simple googling about the context your question is asked.
There is no context to the question apart from what you've artificially inserted to promote this ridiculous persecution complex you're preaching.
I can do it too, put words in your mouth, invent context that isn't there, and argue with that narrative instead of the question actually being asked. That's easy to do! Anybody can do it! I can do it too!
So please, for the love of god, stop advocating for Paladin nerfs. If you're going to just keep putting words in my mouth and arguing with that, I don't see any reason why two can't play at this game.
Of course there can't be a perfectly balanced meta, but that's not the point. I myself loved the late DoD meta, there was a feeling that you could play any deck and do at least decent with it. This meta tho is too aggresive in my opinion, just look at top decks, they are aggro in majority. Also I think DH is a problem (wow how original) and before you call me that guy always complaining, let me just say that I dont think dh as a class is broken, just some cards make it too powerful. Stuff like Priestess of fury, Altruis, or Skull of guldan, can swing and win a game on their own. When I reached legend I started playing numerous control or fun decks, but they loose so much to dh its not even funny. It feels like only decks I'm allowed to play are Galakrond rogue and Ress priest (as much as I hate it). It just feels like dh is too opressive, and choking out control decks out of the meta.
Altruis and Skull are totally ok right now mate. And I agree DH is really good now (its better this way then if it would be unplayable) but it kinda must be that way for now since it have just not enough cards. But if we wanna really do something about the meta its not just nerfing DH but nerfing swinging cards (like you said) That mean lots of Galakrond package and Highlander package. So its not only DH that is opressive... there is just not real ballance and whining about one class will do nothing good (especially when people cry to nerft completly ok cards like Altruis and Skull).
are you serious? its ok to be the best deck in game, lets say 65% WR for the best and 63 second 60 third and so on.
what is not ok is when more than 20 percent of the meta is one class and that class wins near 70% and the second one is far behind like 63%, and the structure of that class(aggro-tempo) rules out almost all the fun decks in game.
this is not ok and the community have a prima facie right here to complain,
DONT TRY TO SHUT THE COMMUNITY UP
when we talking about an oppressive class we know what we are talking about and statistics are our obvious reason
Are YOU serious? Do you think 20% of players started using the deck, and then it became the highest winrate deck? Have you not played in any other expansions? It doesn't matter what deck it is, 20%+ of the hearthstone population will play whatever deck has the highest winrate... DoD release, it felt like 75% of decks on ladder were Galakrond Shaman. They nerfed it into oblivion, and a week later if felt like 75% of decks were Face Hunters.
If they nerf DH into the ground, most of the meta will be Galakrond Secret Rogue.
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but if I paraphrase your entire argument, it is that the problem with hearthstone is that lots of players play the best deck....
When exactly has that ever not been the case?
I suppose the solution is to have all Vanilla cards where their cost equals their attack and health. All spells either heal or deal damage equal to their mana cost... Sounds fun.
are you serious? its ok to be the best deck in game, lets say 65% WR for the best and 63 second 60 third and so on.
what is not ok is when more than 20 percent of the meta is one class and that class wins near 70% and the second one is far behind like 63%, and the structure of that class(aggro-tempo) rules out almost all the fun decks in game.
this is not ok and the community have a prima facie right here to complain,
DONT TRY TO SHUT THE COMMUNITY UP
when we talking about an oppressive class we know what we are talking about and statistics are our obvious reason
Are YOU serious? Do you think 20% of players started using the deck, and then it became the highest winrate deck? Have you not played in any other expansions? It doesn't matter what deck it is, 20%+ of the hearthstone population will play whatever deck has the highest winrate... DoD release, it felt like 75% of decks on ladder were Galakrond Shaman. They nerfed it into oblivion, and a week later if felt like 75% of decks were Face Hunters.
If they nerf DH into the ground, most of the meta will be Galakrond Secret Rogue.
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but if I paraphrase your entire argument, it is that the problem with hearthstone is that lots of players play the best deck....
When exactly has that ever not been the case?
I suppose the solution is to have all Vanilla cards where their cost equals their attack and health. All spells either heal or deal damage equal to their mana cost... Sounds fun.
Admittedly, I was going to post something along these lines, but I was a little too distracted with the freakshow Mr "DONT SHUT US UP BY ASKING A QUESTION" and his nonexistant context about asking a question being the same thing as reducing others to children... I admit it, I can't help myself sometimes, sometimes the low hanging fruit is just too tempting. But now that we're getting back on subject here...
That really is the problem with Hanyaa's post that was actually on topic- what exactly is the difference between "the best deck available in the meta" and "a black spot on an otherwise great expansion"? Where exactly is the line drawn here? At the end of the day, every single archetype mentioned can be boiled down to, well, that was simply the best deck available at the time. If nerfs were made quicker, then does something else get targeted?
In retrospect, perhaps a more accurate way to phrase the question could have been "Has there ever been a 'best deck' in the meta that was not deemed overpowered and needed nerfing?" Because that's essentially the conundrum I'm seeing, just phrased a lot more accurately. I've seen this narrative pushed throughout my entire time playing Hearthstone (since before GvG!) and it's just a little difficult to believe that -every single time- it's that something is actually overpowered, rather than being the best deck available. Am I saying there's never been OP cards printed ever? Of course not. There absolutely have. But no matter how well Blizzard balances the game, there's always going to be a best option. Pure 50/50 balance isn't possible to achieve. And that's certainly no reason not to try, but again- is everything ALWAYS OP? Or is it just the option that happens to be the most powerful as a result of the fact that perfect symmetry simply isn't possible to achieve?
And I'm not saying that there aren't things frustrating about this meta. Far from it! I think it's ridiculous when you see Felscreamer on 4, Priestess on 5. I think it's ridiculous that insanely high value cards can just be pulled out of nowhere, don't even need to be in your deck. I think it's ridiculous when an explorer that Dragonqueen Alexstraza discovers can discover ANOTHER DRAGONQUEEN ALEXSTRAZA.
What I -AM- saying is... where's the line? When does the quote unqoute best deck become too powerful? Has this honestly never been achieved at -all- in Hearthstone history? Isn't that a bit of a ridiculous proposition?
I wouldn’t say I’m going around making threads about how upsetting I think the meta is...
However, my chief complaint with this game is aggro’s prevalence and the ease for netdecking and the auto-complete function. I do not believe I should be able make meme decks and totally shut out all other players, but this game has thousands of cards and the fact that you cannot use a majority of those in standard because a handful of aggressive archetypes lock out games after 6/7 turns robs me of a lot of the creativity I used to find playing this game. I’m not sure what it would take at this point to ‘fix’ this, it’s likely that the developers see this as the way it’s supposed to be? They released DH after all
I lay a lot of the blame at the auto-complete feature. I suspect that a lot of players feeling like they want to make a new deck slot a few cards they like in and press complete deck, and end up with what is essentially a netdeck.
"I wouldn’t say I’m going around making threads about how upsetting I think the meta is..."
Then I clearly wasn't talking about you.
You're just... entirely off base here, though. Netdecking is a thing everywhere now. Pros make decks, people look up what decks the pros are using. It's a thing with every game. Not even just card games. It's part of the culture we live in now, and it isn't going to change, like it or not. Not to mention the entire thing is very off topic to the actual discussion.
Exactly. The whining is inevitable. There will always be 10-20% that are upset about the top deck, regardless of what it is, and those people will always be loud about it. They'll will find a forum to cry about it, and in attempt to find the rest of that 10-20% of people who agree with them, so they can reassure eachother that the problem is with the game, and not their playing. The second someone suggests otherwise, they lose their composure. Somehow people take a suggestion that they are incapable of adapting to the meta as a slight on their intelligence. As if the better you are at Hearthstone, the higher your IQ.
That's also why when you suggest the game requires any degree of skill, they go ballistic. They read it as, if the game requires skill, and they can't do well, then they aren't as smart as they think they are, therefore the game must me all luck based and unfair.
Obviously the game has little to so with intelligence. Some geniuses are bad at math, that obviously doesn't automatically make them stupid. The skill in this game is learned, and while someone who isn't very smart might not be able to adapt winning strategy to this game, I'm certain not all top players are of some sort of supreme intellect.
In response to the rest of your comment, there is no line. The entire idea of Hearthstone is to be an exciting game. In each expansion, they need to power creep to make it "more exciting" than the last. It's the only way they'll hold attention. If every expansion was just more of the same, the rate of new players would disappear, the existing playerbase would dwindle, and there would be a steady incline of people losing interest.
Regardless of the inevitable "THIS EXPANSION IS THE END OF HEARTHSTONE" posts we see every single expansion, Blizzard seems to be doing a very good job of increasing their playerbase consistently. They don't do this by putting out a game that's all the same, they do it by constantly trying to attract more people with flashy things.
The fact is there's quite a few different TCG games out there, and if people don't like the direction of Hearthstone, there's nothing preventing them from switching to a game more of their liking. Hearthstone is going to keep evolving, regardless of the 0.5 percent of players who are constantly threatening to quit. They have a business model that seems to be working amazingly for them, and changing it anytime soon would be ludicrous.
They are first and foremost a money making business. The last thing they care about is keeping the game the same so that FTP players who can't adapt will be happy. The bigger the swings in the game, the more people will spend.
IMHO we should leave wild out of this discussion. We all know HS has been following a tendency to attract casual players, and they've completely forgotten about wild.
Having said that, I think that there have been certain times where the meta was a bit boring, playing against the sames classes over and over (Shamanstone, Grim patron warr, Raza priest...). However, as someone above said, you almost always had a chance of winning against them.
But the powerlevel of the last expansions just makes the game nastier. There are cards that completely turn the tides in 1 turn, and I think that is not healthy for the game. I am not talking about combo decks, those were fun and not as easy to pull of as right now. I'm talking about having a complete control over a match and then BAM!, you lost all your advantage.
There will always be an OP deck, thats OK and you can counter it (most of the time). What you CANNOT counter, is the amount of OP cards that a deck can include right now, and that is what is making hearthstone more tiresome now.
This expansion was centered around DH, they had to give it new cards and they seem to have forgotten about the rest of classes. Let's hope next expansion the even that a little.
I wouldn’t say I’m going around making threads about how upsetting I think the meta is...
However, my chief complaint with this game is aggro’s prevalence and the ease for netdecking and the auto-complete function. I do not believe I should be able make meme decks and totally shut out all other players, but this game has thousands of cards and the fact that you cannot use a majority of those in standard because a handful of aggressive archetypes lock out games after 6/7 turns robs me of a lot of the creativity I used to find playing this game. I’m not sure what it would take at this point to ‘fix’ this, it’s likely that the developers see this as the way it’s supposed to be? They released DH after all
I lay a lot of the blame at the auto-complete feature. I suspect that a lot of players feeling like they want to make a new deck slot a few cards they like in and press complete deck, and end up with what is essentially a netdeck.
Aggro is part of the game if you like it or not. I could easily say its not fair to have heal or good removals cuz that could shut down all good aggro/token decks so control decks in that case lock down all good aggro decks. XD
And net decking is nothing bad... how anyone could think it is...
IMHO we should leave wild out of this discussion. We all know HS has been following a tendency to attract casual players, and they've completely forgotten about wild.
Having said that, I think that there have been certain times where the meta was a bit boring, playing against the sames classes over and over (Shamanstone, Grim patron warr, Raza priest...). However, as someone above said, you almost always had a chance of winning against them.
But the powerlevel of the last expansions just makes the game nastier. There are cards that completely turn the tides in 1 turn, and I think that is not healthy for the game. I am not talking about combo decks, those were fun and not as easy to pull of as right now. I'm talking about having a complete control over a match and then BAM!, you lost all your advantage.
There will always be an OP deck, thats OK and you can counter it (most of the time). What you CANNOT counter, is the amount of OP cards that a deck can include right now, and that is what is making hearthstone more tiresome now.
This expansion was centered around DH, they had to give it new cards and they seem to have forgotten about the rest of classes. Let's hope next expansion the even that a little.
I guess they dont forget but do this op purpose. Think what would happen if all classes get cards as good as DH. Noone would play that new class... and people would complain, again. XD
If you're reading it that way, it's your own insecurity... They have simply asked people with a problem with the current meta if and when they were happy with a current meta. It gives a more clear example of what they are trying to compare this meta to, and clarifies the discussion... for example:
"I hate this meta!!" On it's own means nothing at all... Did they hate the last meta? Did they hate the last 3 metas? Maybe they just hate this game, but can't stop playing for some reason.
If they've hated the game since UnGoro, then they probably will never like Hearthstone again. The game us unlikely to get less flashy.
If they loved the last meta, then it's probably just DH giving them problems...
See... The OP's question turns "I hate this meta" which is complete nonsense on it's own, into 3 potential discussions.
No one is "silencing" anyone. They're asking for clarity, and giving people a chance to elaborate on their view.. I'd say that's the opposite of silencing someone... If you can't answer the question, then there's bigger issues.
I have played since the open beta. I have rarely complained about the meta and in those first several years, was usually disappointed when nerfs came out. I often thought the meta could handle the issues without them. I do not object to aggro, control or combo and have happily played all three.
One of the things that have frustrated me most are cards that when drawn, have the ability to effectively undo the rest of the game. The prime offender to that was Reno--I hated that card, but thought it good for the game because it made control viable at the time. When they made another push for highlander, they made Kazakus--this is where I really thought they got it right. The card was very strong (worth playing highlander for it), but did not win the game outright. Despite it's rng element in the choices it offered, it allowed a more skilled player to profit. (Side note--this is why I never objected to Grim Patron. It was only giving high winrates from the best of players--most people were terrible with it.) Now we have Zephyrs. I have despised that card more than just about any other. I can no longer play around a class's strengths and weaknesses as I am vulnerable to any card from the entire classic set if you happen to draw Zephyrs. You can navigate the game to a point in which the opponent's class cannot come back, but they drew Zephyrs and the game is over....
I have also been deeply disappointed in the balance of the game. An earlier poster cited The Caverns Below. That card was derided by nearly everyone at release as a piece of garbage. It was quite a long time before people figured out how strong it was. I cannot blame Blizzard for missing that in testing. What I do find ridiculous are the metas in which on day one, a single ridiculously overpowered deck rises to the top. How could they not see Tempo Demon Hunter (at release) in testing? How did they not realize Galakrond Shaman was ridiculous? It feels like I am playing in a beta version when a new set is released and I did not have that experience in the earlier years of the game.
Less of a problem with the current meta, but the last major complaint I would have would be rng cards. I know it was always cited by the developers as part of the charm. For the most part, heavy rng cards were relegated to the fringes. There were some that would rise to competitive decks (Sylvanas, Ragnaros, Brawl), but those were strong cards even when they missed. While it feels bad to have Rag miss the needed target over multiple turns or have Brawl leave the only relevant minion up, I accepted that level of rng. Where I get irate though are cards like Yogg Saron or his Puzzle Box. I am completely losing the game, but let's see if the rng will shine my way and hand me a win.
I enjoy the game and grateful that Blizzard made it. But this past year, I have played a lot less than I once did.
I keep seeing people complaining about Priestess of Fury.. Has anyone even seen her in a deck post nerf? All of the top DH decks are the Tempo ones that don't run her... The 1 mana nerf that everyone was complaining was too weak? Literally seems to have made the card unplayable.
Edit: Okay, so I just saw that the meta deck listed on this site runs her, but the HSReplay top performing one certainly doesn't... I keep waiting to see her drop, and she doesn't.
Ummm yes it does. The top tempo DH on HS replay 28k games. 65 % winrate runs her.
I’m not saying Aggro is bad exactly, and I recognize it holds a place in balancing the greater meta. My point in discussing netdecks, auto-complete, and aggros prevalence, as it relates to this specific meta, is that the lists that are being suggested and presented (even autonomously) to players move through the game at a pace that limits the use of a number of cards across the entire catalog. There are cards that cannot and will not see any reliable play because a new player can elect to run ANY DH deck on a budget and beat out cards with more subtle strategies. OP wants to gate keep this silly thread and say this isn’t relevant—but prior to this meta there was a more robust casual space in this game in terms of varieties of play. And prior to auto-complete it was even more robust. It’s like you asked people for their personal complaints just to say they don’t even apply.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
im referring you to the post below, you are mixing two concepts "bad meta" and "black spots in the meta", when that black spot is too big it ruins the entire meta or you can call it "bad meta".
you dont have to menttion everything man! as you haven't mentioned you are human or machine.
the motivation for this question is "you guys complaining rn, have you ever been satisfied with the meta, and reducing them to a whinning kids,
this is called shutting up
we know what is "CONTEXT" and what is "MENTION"
Asking a question is "reducing to whining kids."
You should take a trip out to the corn fields, you would love all the strawmen they have set up there.
Come back any time you're ready to stop putting words in my mouth and have an actual discussion.
Or, you know, actually answer the question I actually asked, instead of what you insist I have asked.
Last I checked, asking a question was the exact OPPOSITE of trying to shut people up, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some guy who actually reads what you say as it is without putting my own little spin on it.
if you dont know the context of your question im sry, but id suggest a simple googling about the context your question is asked.
so im sry, thank you for good intentions
There is no context to the question apart from what you've artificially inserted to promote this ridiculous persecution complex you're preaching.
I can do it too, put words in your mouth, invent context that isn't there, and argue with that narrative instead of the question actually being asked. That's easy to do! Anybody can do it! I can do it too!
So please, for the love of god, stop advocating for Paladin nerfs. If you're going to just keep putting words in my mouth and arguing with that, I don't see any reason why two can't play at this game.
Just release new nerfs every week to refresh meta. I will be satisfied. xD
Who knows... Maybe there will be balance in a couple months.
Altruis and Skull are totally ok right now mate. And I agree DH is really good now (its better this way then if it would be unplayable) but it kinda must be that way for now since it have just not enough cards. But if we wanna really do something about the meta its not just nerfing DH but nerfing swinging cards (like you said) That mean lots of Galakrond package and Highlander package. So its not only DH that is opressive... there is just not real ballance and whining about one class will do nothing good (especially when people cry to nerft completly ok cards like Altruis and Skull).
Are YOU serious? Do you think 20% of players started using the deck, and then it became the highest winrate deck? Have you not played in any other expansions? It doesn't matter what deck it is, 20%+ of the hearthstone population will play whatever deck has the highest winrate... DoD release, it felt like 75% of decks on ladder were Galakrond Shaman. They nerfed it into oblivion, and a week later if felt like 75% of decks were Face Hunters.
If they nerf DH into the ground, most of the meta will be Galakrond Secret Rogue.
Please correct me if I'm missing something, but if I paraphrase your entire argument, it is that the problem with hearthstone is that lots of players play the best deck....
When exactly has that ever not been the case?
I suppose the solution is to have all Vanilla cards where their cost equals their attack and health. All spells either heal or deal damage equal to their mana cost... Sounds fun.
Admittedly, I was going to post something along these lines, but I was a little too distracted with the freakshow Mr "DONT SHUT US UP BY ASKING A QUESTION" and his nonexistant context about asking a question being the same thing as reducing others to children... I admit it, I can't help myself sometimes, sometimes the low hanging fruit is just too tempting. But now that we're getting back on subject here...
That really is the problem with Hanyaa's post that was actually on topic- what exactly is the difference between "the best deck available in the meta" and "a black spot on an otherwise great expansion"? Where exactly is the line drawn here? At the end of the day, every single archetype mentioned can be boiled down to, well, that was simply the best deck available at the time. If nerfs were made quicker, then does something else get targeted?
In retrospect, perhaps a more accurate way to phrase the question could have been "Has there ever been a 'best deck' in the meta that was not deemed overpowered and needed nerfing?" Because that's essentially the conundrum I'm seeing, just phrased a lot more accurately. I've seen this narrative pushed throughout my entire time playing Hearthstone (since before GvG!) and it's just a little difficult to believe that -every single time- it's that something is actually overpowered, rather than being the best deck available. Am I saying there's never been OP cards printed ever? Of course not. There absolutely have. But no matter how well Blizzard balances the game, there's always going to be a best option. Pure 50/50 balance isn't possible to achieve. And that's certainly no reason not to try, but again- is everything ALWAYS OP? Or is it just the option that happens to be the most powerful as a result of the fact that perfect symmetry simply isn't possible to achieve?
And I'm not saying that there aren't things frustrating about this meta. Far from it! I think it's ridiculous when you see Felscreamer on 4, Priestess on 5. I think it's ridiculous that insanely high value cards can just be pulled out of nowhere, don't even need to be in your deck. I think it's ridiculous when an explorer that Dragonqueen Alexstraza discovers can discover ANOTHER DRAGONQUEEN ALEXSTRAZA.
What I -AM- saying is... where's the line? When does the quote unqoute best deck become too powerful? Has this honestly never been achieved at -all- in Hearthstone history? Isn't that a bit of a ridiculous proposition?
I wouldn’t say I’m going around making threads about how upsetting I think the meta is...
However, my chief complaint with this game is aggro’s prevalence and the ease for netdecking and the auto-complete function. I do not believe I should be able make meme decks and totally shut out all other players, but this game has thousands of cards and the fact that you cannot use a majority of those in standard because a handful of aggressive archetypes lock out games after 6/7 turns robs me of a lot of the creativity I used to find playing this game.
I’m not sure what it would take at this point to ‘fix’ this, it’s likely that the developers see this as the way it’s supposed to be? They released DH after all
I lay a lot of the blame at the auto-complete feature. I suspect that a lot of players feeling like they want to make a new deck slot a few cards they like in and press complete deck, and end up with what is essentially a netdeck.
"I wouldn’t say I’m going around making threads about how upsetting I think the meta is..."
Then I clearly wasn't talking about you.
You're just... entirely off base here, though. Netdecking is a thing everywhere now. Pros make decks, people look up what decks the pros are using. It's a thing with every game. Not even just card games. It's part of the culture we live in now, and it isn't going to change, like it or not. Not to mention the entire thing is very off topic to the actual discussion.
Exactly. The whining is inevitable. There will always be 10-20% that are upset about the top deck, regardless of what it is, and those people will always be loud about it. They'll will find a forum to cry about it, and in attempt to find the rest of that 10-20% of people who agree with them, so they can reassure eachother that the problem is with the game, and not their playing. The second someone suggests otherwise, they lose their composure. Somehow people take a suggestion that they are incapable of adapting to the meta as a slight on their intelligence. As if the better you are at Hearthstone, the higher your IQ.
That's also why when you suggest the game requires any degree of skill, they go ballistic. They read it as, if the game requires skill, and they can't do well, then they aren't as smart as they think they are, therefore the game must me all luck based and unfair.
Obviously the game has little to so with intelligence. Some geniuses are bad at math, that obviously doesn't automatically make them stupid. The skill in this game is learned, and while someone who isn't very smart might not be able to adapt winning strategy to this game, I'm certain not all top players are of some sort of supreme intellect.
In response to the rest of your comment, there is no line. The entire idea of Hearthstone is to be an exciting game. In each expansion, they need to power creep to make it "more exciting" than the last. It's the only way they'll hold attention. If every expansion was just more of the same, the rate of new players would disappear, the existing playerbase would dwindle, and there would be a steady incline of people losing interest.
Regardless of the inevitable "THIS EXPANSION IS THE END OF HEARTHSTONE" posts we see every single expansion, Blizzard seems to be doing a very good job of increasing their playerbase consistently. They don't do this by putting out a game that's all the same, they do it by constantly trying to attract more people with flashy things.
The fact is there's quite a few different TCG games out there, and if people don't like the direction of Hearthstone, there's nothing preventing them from switching to a game more of their liking. Hearthstone is going to keep evolving, regardless of the 0.5 percent of players who are constantly threatening to quit. They have a business model that seems to be working amazingly for them, and changing it anytime soon would be ludicrous.
They are first and foremost a money making business. The last thing they care about is keeping the game the same so that FTP players who can't adapt will be happy. The bigger the swings in the game, the more people will spend.
IMHO we should leave wild out of this discussion. We all know HS has been following a tendency to attract casual players, and they've completely forgotten about wild.
Having said that, I think that there have been certain times where the meta was a bit boring, playing against the sames classes over and over (Shamanstone, Grim patron warr, Raza priest...). However, as someone above said, you almost always had a chance of winning against them.
But the powerlevel of the last expansions just makes the game nastier. There are cards that completely turn the tides in 1 turn, and I think that is not healthy for the game. I am not talking about combo decks, those were fun and not as easy to pull of as right now. I'm talking about having a complete control over a match and then BAM!, you lost all your advantage.
There will always be an OP deck, thats OK and you can counter it (most of the time). What you CANNOT counter, is the amount of OP cards that a deck can include right now, and that is what is making hearthstone more tiresome now.
This expansion was centered around DH, they had to give it new cards and they seem to have forgotten about the rest of classes. Let's hope next expansion the even that a little.
Aggro is part of the game if you like it or not. I could easily say its not fair to have heal or good removals cuz that could shut down all good aggro/token decks so control decks in that case lock down all good aggro decks. XD
And net decking is nothing bad... how anyone could think it is...
I guess they dont forget but do this op purpose. Think what would happen if all classes get cards as good as DH. Noone would play that new class... and people would complain, again. XD
If you're reading it that way, it's your own insecurity... They have simply asked people with a problem with the current meta if and when they were happy with a current meta. It gives a more clear example of what they are trying to compare this meta to, and clarifies the discussion... for example:
"I hate this meta!!" On it's own means nothing at all... Did they hate the last meta? Did they hate the last 3 metas? Maybe they just hate this game, but can't stop playing for some reason.
If they've hated the game since UnGoro, then they probably will never like Hearthstone again. The game us unlikely to get less flashy.
If they loved the last meta, then it's probably just DH giving them problems...
See... The OP's question turns "I hate this meta" which is complete nonsense on it's own, into 3 potential discussions.
No one is "silencing" anyone. They're asking for clarity, and giving people a chance to elaborate on their view.. I'd say that's the opposite of silencing someone... If you can't answer the question, then there's bigger issues.
I have played since the open beta. I have rarely complained about the meta and in those first several years, was usually disappointed when nerfs came out. I often thought the meta could handle the issues without them. I do not object to aggro, control or combo and have happily played all three.
One of the things that have frustrated me most are cards that when drawn, have the ability to effectively undo the rest of the game. The prime offender to that was Reno--I hated that card, but thought it good for the game because it made control viable at the time. When they made another push for highlander, they made Kazakus--this is where I really thought they got it right. The card was very strong (worth playing highlander for it), but did not win the game outright. Despite it's rng element in the choices it offered, it allowed a more skilled player to profit. (Side note--this is why I never objected to Grim Patron. It was only giving high winrates from the best of players--most people were terrible with it.) Now we have Zephyrs. I have despised that card more than just about any other. I can no longer play around a class's strengths and weaknesses as I am vulnerable to any card from the entire classic set if you happen to draw Zephyrs. You can navigate the game to a point in which the opponent's class cannot come back, but they drew Zephyrs and the game is over....
I have also been deeply disappointed in the balance of the game. An earlier poster cited The Caverns Below. That card was derided by nearly everyone at release as a piece of garbage. It was quite a long time before people figured out how strong it was. I cannot blame Blizzard for missing that in testing. What I do find ridiculous are the metas in which on day one, a single ridiculously overpowered deck rises to the top. How could they not see Tempo Demon Hunter (at release) in testing? How did they not realize Galakrond Shaman was ridiculous? It feels like I am playing in a beta version when a new set is released and I did not have that experience in the earlier years of the game.
Less of a problem with the current meta, but the last major complaint I would have would be rng cards. I know it was always cited by the developers as part of the charm. For the most part, heavy rng cards were relegated to the fringes. There were some that would rise to competitive decks (Sylvanas, Ragnaros, Brawl), but those were strong cards even when they missed. While it feels bad to have Rag miss the needed target over multiple turns or have Brawl leave the only relevant minion up, I accepted that level of rng. Where I get irate though are cards like Yogg Saron or his Puzzle Box. I am completely losing the game, but let's see if the rng will shine my way and hand me a win.
I enjoy the game and grateful that Blizzard made it. But this past year, I have played a lot less than I once did.
Ummm yes it does. The top tempo DH on HS replay 28k games. 65 % winrate runs her.
Hi my dood.
I’m not saying Aggro is bad exactly, and I recognize it holds a place in balancing the greater meta. My point in discussing netdecks, auto-complete, and aggros prevalence, as it relates to this specific meta, is that the lists that are being suggested and presented (even autonomously) to players move through the game at a pace that limits the use of a number of cards across the entire catalog. There are cards that cannot and will not see any reliable play because a new player can elect to run ANY DH deck on a budget and beat out cards with more subtle strategies.
OP wants to gate keep this silly thread and say this isn’t relevant—but prior to this meta there was a more robust casual space in this game in terms of varieties of play. And prior to auto-complete it was even more robust. It’s like you asked people for their personal complaints just to say they don’t even apply.