I haven’t really played Hearthstone since the beginning of the year, but back I am. First impression: Hunter is officially a little too much. I managed to climb from the bottom of bronze to Legend in a matter of a couple days. The Hunter deck is basically free outside of 1 legendary, has an enormous win rate, and continues to utilize too many classic cards that have made it into every deck since the beginning. The rank system seems to favor mindless aggro now, with more floors and heavier bonus stars to propel you up to Diamond. There are plenty of great interactions from every class that were added, and I didn’t feel like an absolute unstoppable force, but if a player is able to put the game down for half a year and return to immediate legend with a free deck....something might be wrong.
I fail to see a problem with a F2P deck making it to legendary. Aggro has always been the easiest path to legend, it's been true since the early deathrattle Hunter days. This is one of the most balanced metas I can ever think of.
Getting to legend is a bit softer nowadays with the bonus stars. Personally I've been a legend level player for years, but only made it a couple times a year simply because I don't have that much time to play. The new system makes it much easier for anyone halfway decent at the game to legend without a huge grind. That is all you are seeing.
Let's say for example that you pick a deck with a win ratio of 55%. In the old system, if you started from rank 5 zero stars you would need 47 games to hit legend give or take.
In the new system though, you need around 29 games to achieve the same result, we're talking about a difference of 18 games. Now this fact combined with the shifting of meta onto a more aggro orientation confirms your point.
I fail to see a problem with a F2P deck making it to legendary. Aggro has always been the easiest path to legend, it's been true since the early deathrattle Hunter days. This is one of the most balanced metas I can ever think of.
Why do people continue to propagate the FALSE narrative that near-equal CLASS distribution equals balance?? THAT IS NOT TRUE. A balanced meta not only has near equal class distribution, but ALSO near equal DECK TYPE distribution. How many good control decks are there right now? How many good aggro decks? The meta is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being balanced. In fact, I'd argue that it's more important that the meta have equal distribution of deck type than class distribution. In fact, until recently, when people spoke about "meta balance", deck type distribution is what they were talking about, and not class distribution.
I mean, how perfectly balanced can the meta game honestly get?
I think what we have now is acceptable. There are some super aggressive decks and some slower control-ish decks out there. They all seem pretty viable and none of them are so overwhelming that nothing can beat them.
A lot of the new cards this expansion do seem to push forward some aggressive archetypes, but as I said, how balanced can we possibly be? There are too many variables that we're never going to see a competitive deck from every class of every archetype so let's just enjoy it when it's not one class/deck being massively oppressive like last expansion.
I fail to see a problem with a F2P deck making it to legendary. Aggro has always been the easiest path to legend, it's been true since the early deathrattle Hunter days. This is one of the most balanced metas I can ever think of.
Why do people continue to propagate the FALSE narrative that near-equal CLASS distribution equals balance?? THAT IS NOT TRUE. A balanced meta not only has near equal class distribution, but ALSO near equal DECK TYPE distribution. How many good control decks are there right now? How many good aggro decks? The meta is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being balanced. In fact, I'd argue that it's more important that the meta have equal distribution of deck type than class distribution. In fact, until recently, when people spoke about "meta balance", deck type distribution is what they were talking about, and not class distribution.
The problem with balancing by deck type is how insanely expensive anything other than an agro deck is. If, for example, control was a hard counter for aggro like it used to be, then the obvious smart play in the current meta would be to run a control deck. But due to it's high cost, only whales and long term f2p players can afford to field these decks. So, basically the game then becomes a p2w game with newer players running aggro decks, because it's all they can afford, getting curb stomped by long term/richer players. Not exactly a healthy situation for attracting and maintaining new blood.
Even the pro players are saying the meta is pretty balanced. Everyone brings a variety of decks at tournaments, even at the top level. There's even variance within classes. Some pros play secret rogue, some play weapon rogue, some play stealth rogue. That's three different decks in one class. There's ramp decks, control decks, two different types of tempo decks, two different control Priests (one highlander, one not), combo decks, you name it.
Oddly enough, the two decks never represented at the highest level are the ones that get the most complaints: Libram Paladin and Face Hunter.
Personally, I consider that to be pretty balanced.
The meta feels pretty balanced and almost every class (sorry Shaman) has at least a high enough tier deck that can contest with the big boys. It's nice seeing a lot of class diversity.
That said it does feel a bit too "hit face" centric for me personally, with 3 classes having face weapon decks (inc. bomb warrior) and face hunter. More than I can remember in previous history. I'd like to see improved healing options or better weapon removal.
Feels like aggro a bit overtuned and control is the weak link in the rock paper scissors argument (standard)
Dunno what rank you're playing at but I see a lot more than this, let's be honest you're massively exaggerating. How can rogue not be up there? Priest?
Libram Paladin, Face/Secret Hunter, Stealth/Secret/Weapon Rogue, Tempo/Turtle Mage, Shard/Aggro DH, Guardian Druid (with different iterations), Bomb Warrior and Highlander Priest. All of those are high tier and it's definitely diverse.
Gala warlock is actually still pretty good but it's weak to face decks, if it calms down expect that to rise for sure. Shame pain warlock died.
I mean, how perfectly balanced can the meta game honestly get?
I think what we have now is acceptable. There are some super aggressive decks and some slower control-ish decks out there. They all seem pretty viable and none of them are so overwhelming that nothing can beat them.
A lot of the new cards this expansion do seem to push forward some aggressive archetypes, but as I said, how balanced can we possibly be? There are too many variables that we're never going to see a competitive deck from every class of every archetype so let's just enjoy it when it's not one class/deck being massively oppressive like last expansion.
If you played during the Ungoro or Old Gods expansions, you would know the answer to this question. Ungoro remains the best, most balanced meta HS has ever seen. And since it happened before, obviously it could happen again. So yeah...I remain FAR from convinced that this meta is "balanced".
I mean, how perfectly balanced can the meta game honestly get?
I think what we have now is acceptable. There are some super aggressive decks and some slower control-ish decks out there. They all seem pretty viable and none of them are so overwhelming that nothing can beat them.
A lot of the new cards this expansion do seem to push forward some aggressive archetypes, but as I said, how balanced can we possibly be? There are too many variables that we're never going to see a competitive deck from every class of every archetype so let's just enjoy it when it's not one class/deck being massively oppressive like last expansion.
If you played during the Ungoro or Old Gods expansions, you would know the answer to this question. Ungoro remains the best, most balanced meta HS has ever seen. And since it happened before, obviously it could happen again. So yeah...I remain FAR from convinced that this meta is "balanced".
Un'Goro was only a balanced meta if the only thing you like is aggro. The Old Gods era was dominated by Shaman, it was so oppressive and clearly the best class. Shaman was not only dominant on the ladder, but a tournament insta-ban at every level.
I much prefer this meta, where all play styles (if not all classes) are represented and there's no clear-cut dominant deck.
I mean, how perfectly balanced can the meta game honestly get?
I think what we have now is acceptable. There are some super aggressive decks and some slower control-ish decks out there. They all seem pretty viable and none of them are so overwhelming that nothing can beat them.
A lot of the new cards this expansion do seem to push forward some aggressive archetypes, but as I said, how balanced can we possibly be? There are too many variables that we're never going to see a competitive deck from every class of every archetype so let's just enjoy it when it's not one class/deck being massively oppressive like last expansion.
If you played during the Ungoro or Old Gods expansions, you would know the answer to this question. Ungoro remains the best, most balanced meta HS has ever seen. And since it happened before, obviously it could happen again. So yeah...I remain FAR from convinced that this meta is "balanced".
Un'Goro was only a balanced meta if the only thing you like is aggro. The Old Gods era was dominated by Shaman, it was so oppressive and clearly the best class. Shaman was not only dominant on the ladder, but a tournament insta-ban at every level.
I think you need to re-check your recall of Ungoro in particular. It is well known as the most balanced meta in HS history and, as a 100% control player, I STRONGLY disagree with your statement that that meta was only aggro. That's just Trump-level distortion of history.
Now I managed to go from bottom to about Diamond 5 in 3 days and very little effort. I’m thinking they made ranking somehow a little too easy. Is the consensus roughly everyone who tries gets to diamond now? You can have a pretty negative (even as low as 25%) win-rate and still climb with the ridiculous amount of bonus stars you get. I believe at the the Plat 5 floor is finally where the game only rewards you for being >=50%.
Now I managed to go from bottom to about Diamond 5 in 3 days and very little effort. I’m thinking they made ranking somehow a little too easy. Is the consensus roughly everyone who tries gets to diamond now? You can have a pretty negative (even as low as 25%) win-rate and still climb with the ridiculous amount of bonus stars you get. I believe at the the Plat 5 floor is finally where the game only rewards you for being >=50%.
This is dependent on how many bonus stars you have though. For example, with 11x star bonus I could hit legend with a tier 4 deck if I was willing to play it enough.
The point of bonus stars is to quickly accelerate you to what rank the game thinks you should be.
As to your belief that they made ladder too easy, I personally believe that ladder being "easy" and less of a grind is good for everyone. But it's certainly true that its much easier to hit legend under the new system than the old system. Again, imo that's a good thing, but you can have a different opinion
I haven’t really played Hearthstone since the beginning of the year, but back I am. First impression: Hunter is officially a little too much. I managed to climb from the bottom of bronze to Legend in a matter of a couple days. The Hunter deck is basically free outside of 1 legendary, has an enormous win rate, and continues to utilize too many classic cards that have made it into every deck since the beginning. The rank system seems to favor mindless aggro now, with more floors and heavier bonus stars to propel you up to Diamond. There are plenty of great interactions from every class that were added, and I didn’t feel like an absolute unstoppable force, but if a player is able to put the game down for half a year and return to immediate legend with a free deck....something might be wrong.
I fail to see a problem with a F2P deck making it to legendary. Aggro has always been the easiest path to legend, it's been true since the early deathrattle Hunter days. This is one of the most balanced metas I can ever think of.
Getting to legend is a bit softer nowadays with the bonus stars. Personally I've been a legend level player for years, but only made it a couple times a year simply because I don't have that much time to play. The new system makes it much easier for anyone halfway decent at the game to legend without a huge grind. That is all you are seeing.
Let's say for example that you pick a deck with a win ratio of 55%. In the old system, if you started from rank 5 zero stars you would need 47 games to hit legend give or take.
In the new system though, you need around 29 games to achieve the same result, we're talking about a difference of 18 games. Now this fact combined with the shifting of meta onto a more aggro orientation confirms your point.
Why do people continue to propagate the FALSE narrative that near-equal CLASS distribution equals balance?? THAT IS NOT TRUE. A balanced meta not only has near equal class distribution, but ALSO near equal DECK TYPE distribution. How many good control decks are there right now? How many good aggro decks? The meta is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being balanced. In fact, I'd argue that it's more important that the meta have equal distribution of deck type than class distribution. In fact, until recently, when people spoke about "meta balance", deck type distribution is what they were talking about, and not class distribution.
I mean, how perfectly balanced can the meta game honestly get?
I think what we have now is acceptable. There are some super aggressive decks and some slower control-ish decks out there. They all seem pretty viable and none of them are so overwhelming that nothing can beat them.
A lot of the new cards this expansion do seem to push forward some aggressive archetypes, but as I said, how balanced can we possibly be? There are too many variables that we're never going to see a competitive deck from every class of every archetype so let's just enjoy it when it's not one class/deck being massively oppressive like last expansion.
The problem with balancing by deck type is how insanely expensive anything other than an agro deck is. If, for example, control was a hard counter for aggro like it used to be, then the obvious smart play in the current meta would be to run a control deck. But due to it's high cost, only whales and long term f2p players can afford to field these decks. So, basically the game then becomes a p2w game with newer players running aggro decks, because it's all they can afford, getting curb stomped by long term/richer players. Not exactly a healthy situation for attracting and maintaining new blood.
Even the pro players are saying the meta is pretty balanced. Everyone brings a variety of decks at tournaments, even at the top level. There's even variance within classes. Some pros play secret rogue, some play weapon rogue, some play stealth rogue. That's three different decks in one class. There's ramp decks, control decks, two different types of tempo decks, two different control Priests (one highlander, one not), combo decks, you name it.
Oddly enough, the two decks never represented at the highest level are the ones that get the most complaints: Libram Paladin and Face Hunter.
Personally, I consider that to be pretty balanced.
The meta feels pretty balanced and almost every class (sorry Shaman) has at least a high enough tier deck that can contest with the big boys. It's nice seeing a lot of class diversity.
That said it does feel a bit too "hit face" centric for me personally, with 3 classes having face weapon decks (inc. bomb warrior) and face hunter. More than I can remember in previous history. I'd like to see improved healing options or better weapon removal.
Meta balanced? or diverse? rly?
Libram pally
Face hunter
shard DH
guardian druid
Feels like aggro a bit overtuned and control is the weak link in the rock paper scissors argument (standard)
Dunno what rank you're playing at but I see a lot more than this, let's be honest you're massively exaggerating. How can rogue not be up there? Priest?
Libram Paladin, Face/Secret Hunter, Stealth/Secret/Weapon Rogue, Tempo/Turtle Mage, Shard/Aggro DH, Guardian Druid (with different iterations), Bomb Warrior and Highlander Priest. All of those are high tier and it's definitely diverse.
Gala warlock is actually still pretty good but it's weak to face decks, if it calms down expect that to rise for sure. Shame pain warlock died.
If you played during the Ungoro or Old Gods expansions, you would know the answer to this question. Ungoro remains the best, most balanced meta HS has ever seen. And since it happened before, obviously it could happen again. So yeah...I remain FAR from convinced that this meta is "balanced".
have another hiatus until the next expansion, this one sucks
Un'Goro was only a balanced meta if the only thing you like is aggro. The Old Gods era was dominated by Shaman, it was so oppressive and clearly the best class. Shaman was not only dominant on the ladder, but a tournament insta-ban at every level.
I much prefer this meta, where all play styles (if not all classes) are represented and there's no clear-cut dominant deck.
I think you need to re-check your recall of Ungoro in particular. It is well known as the most balanced meta in HS history and, as a 100% control player, I STRONGLY disagree with your statement that that meta was only aggro. That's just Trump-level distortion of history.
Now I managed to go from bottom to about Diamond 5 in 3 days and very little effort. I’m thinking they made ranking somehow a little too easy. Is the consensus roughly everyone who tries gets to diamond now? You can have a pretty negative (even as low as 25%) win-rate and still climb with the ridiculous amount of bonus stars you get. I believe at the the Plat 5 floor is finally where the game only rewards you for being >=50%.
This is dependent on how many bonus stars you have though. For example, with 11x star bonus I could hit legend with a tier 4 deck if I was willing to play it enough.
The point of bonus stars is to quickly accelerate you to what rank the game thinks you should be.
As to your belief that they made ladder too easy, I personally believe that ladder being "easy" and less of a grind is good for everyone. But it's certainly true that its much easier to hit legend under the new system than the old system. Again, imo that's a good thing, but you can have a different opinion
Lol Decks being complained about are rarely even played now. People thinking they have the meta solved.