No, I just play at legend. I play mainly Shaman. There are many other decks that are worth complaining much more than BSM, especially when nerfs already reduced them to bottom tier 2 deck.
Yes, BSM is still tier 1 deck at bronze and silver, sorry that I don't care about these ranks.
Of course - always the same reply from the actual bronze players that are milking BSM or whatever busted deck. Uh huh, they are all #1 legend and have been since Day 1 using their home brew decks. Its just a git gud thing.
What? Your wild assumptions are not a good substitute for a reasonable discussion, you know? But you are right about one thing - Hearthstone is a game of one busted deck against other busted deck. It's not a matter of nerfing busted decks to the ground, but to make them more or less equal. BSM after nerfs is no more busted than other meta decks.
I mean excuse me to enter in this but you are the one that asume that people calling the deck tier 1 is bronze or silver and you dont care about that. Now let me talk for real: BSM is right now just varely beaten in winrate by the aggro decks that we talk and know that were their "main counters" i will said that Pala, Warlock, Hunter and DH usually raise in aggro variants when heavy high roll decks are on top.
But again this is just varely. a week ago the diff between BSM and this deck was very large. And people still call it a "tier 2 deck" data on all the ranks is not enough to make a point valid? So the nerf technically did nothing people still was playing those decks to have a chance against Mage, the ladder is in fact the same. What change is that instead of being "worse than the target deck" now this aggro decks are "stricly better than the target deck" For any other deck this is not even a nerf.
If any the only valid reason to not call it a tier 1 deck anymore is because in HS standards there is place for only 2 or 3 spots in the "tier 1 list" and anything else is tier 2. So, yeah that is still one of the best decks in the format and is for sure still the best high roll deck in the format.
People that forget how different Legend rank (and less competitive) than rank ladder dont get this but: you cant just used the "Skill of the players" as a metric to evalue decks in any case. In legend rank high roll decks are never seem as a problem because people is not pushing for rank 1 Legend in the same way people is pushing to get Legend. In the end is not how fast you win but how many times in a row you win. High Roll decks temp to win a lot more than people belive but you can get unlucky 1 or 2 times in a row and that would ruin your legend rank, but it wont affect that much your ladder climb.
If you "dont care about bronze and silver players opinions" what a interesting way to said that you dont care neither about Daimond or nothing below legend, them you actually dont care about how strong is this deck in reality because every time you lose you will said "oh the mage was lucky they high roll too fast, next time i will beat them" 95% of the decks cant prevent that high roll not even solve the board when it happen.
You neither understood what I said, nor you know how tiers work. I said BSM is tier 1 in low ranks, I was not assuming these are ranks that people who argue it's very good play them. And decks are tier 1 not just because there is some mythical "2 or 3 spots" in the tier 1 list, it's because its winrate is just too low, more than 1 standard deviation, from the best deck. You cannot be 1 of the best if your results are so much worse than the best, even though you still can be quite good.
And also I'm really disappointed that you are so blinded in your anti-BSM crusade that it's enough to make any dumb point that is against BSM that you support it. As statistics show very clearly, BSM was hurt by the nerfs, it's significantly worse, although still tier 2 but some people for some reason refuse to acknowledge this. And if you want my wild assumption, if/when they play at high ranks they are for sure more often highrolled by Pirate DH, Painlock or even Odin Warrior than by Mage.
There are so many things that you are wrong about. What you are wrong from the beginning is your claim BSM warped meta so that aggro decks are so good just because they beat BSM. And surprise, even though BSM got weakened and is really a very rare sight at legend, aggro decks are still powerful. Because it doesn't matter they beat BSM, they are just good overall. Another thing you are wrong about is that BSM got weaker only against its counters, which is not true, for example after nerfs BSM match-up against Rainbow Shaman, Highlander Shaman and Highlander Druid got significantly worse and all these match-ups are now below 50% for BSM. It is funny you are not even right about it being the best highroll deck of the format, because, surprise, Ramp Druid is now better than BSM.
So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all.
I tried to play BSM and I gave it up even before nerfs - it was not good enough and it was quite boring. Have I been highrolled by BSM? Absolutely. And I understand that people can be frustrated by highrolls, but their highrolls are just one of many frustrating game states that can happen in Standard today and not the most frustrating ones.
Oh i gave up...in trying to get you into a interesting chat. Because for all you said to me the only think you repeat is "oh you dont know" when the only one that is talking nonsense is other person that only claims and claims that everyone else is on a mistake. But whatever makes you feel more "right" than the others. I have nothing to prove to you.
Kibler could probably outplay anyone in this thread and called BSM a quote « bullshit deck ». So, you know, something to keep in mind.
« So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all. »
I reached legend with highlander warlock before the miniset, I’m good enough of a player not to have to rely on BSM to climb. It looks like a boring deck (that’s one thing we agree on) and I’d feel silly playing it. Keep in mind some players manage to reach legend by playing off-meta because we’re just good at it frankly.
The argument of only bad players complain about BSM doesn’t land.
If I was as incompetent at my job as the people who balance this game I'd be fired. Blizzard is perfectly fine with mediocrity in its staff though. Can't blame them after the scandals, who wants to work for this company after that?
''Just imagine how everything could change and meta could be something new if the average level of skills of all hearthstone players would be higher than now''
Tell you what: go ahead and watch the grand tour finals (hint: they're good players). They're on Youtube. Watch them at 2x speed. Then come back and tell me how different the decks are from what we experienced at that time on ladder.
Hint: you're in for a major surprise.
As for Kibler, he plays meme decks and reaches legend 200. I assume you play netdecks.
Edit: Either way, let's leave it at that. You're convinced that nerfs shouldn't happen and players should just adapt to the meta and I think nerfs/buffs should happen. To say that the meta is always perfect implies every design decision by the team is flawless and their judgment absolute, which I find ludicrous. It's pretty obvious to me that if nerfs weren't needed the dev team wouldn't have been constantly pushing patches to fix whatever oversight they thought they had made. As I've said before, by that logic, Azurite snake stealing 10 health would still be a thing right now otherwise.
The truth is that you're probably on board with patches, you just don't think that BSM needed to be the target. That's fine. Let's just not pretend the divergence of opinions about this is skill-related.
Oh i gave up...in trying to get you into a interesting chat. Because for all you said to me the only think you repeat is "oh you dont know" when the only one that is talking nonsense is other person that only claims and claims that everyone else is on a mistake. But whatever makes you feel more "right" than the others. I have nothing to prove to you.
Well I just proved you're wrong, but it's probably not an interesting chat for you when someone does not just nod to any nonsense you spill.
People may be overstating the importance of skill in Hearthstone a bit.
It's a skill based game, players who consistently hit legend are better at the game than those who don't (like me), and I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid.
But it's not chess. HS is a game where a weaker player can beat a stronger player, especially with a high-roll deck, and winrate is an average over time thing. Unlike chess, give me and a pro player the same hand and board and we'll probably make the same plays most of the time.
There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't.
I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent.
Kibler could probably outplay anyone in this thread and called BSM a quote « bullshit deck ». So, you know, something to keep in mind.
« So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all. »
I reached legend with highlander warlock before the miniset, I’m good enough of a player not to have to rely on BSM to climb. It looks like a boring deck (that’s one thing we agree on) and I’d feel silly playing it. Keep in mind some players manage to reach legend by playing off-meta because we’re just good at it frankly.
The argument of only bad players complain about BSM doesn’t land.
Argument ad kiblerum doesn't land also as you can mention many decks he complains about, particularly aggro decks.
I wasn't urging anyone to play BSM to climb. I urged people to try climbing with it and see how difficult it is.
I also like to play off-meta decks, but I understand that if I play off-meta deck I still need it to be good. It needs to be tested against meta decks And if after nerfs my off-meta deck gets wrecked by BSM all the time, it means I have a shitty deck, shitty skill or both. Also I don't believe there is off-meta deck that is rolled over only by BSM - if it gets wrecked by BSM, it probably gets wrecked by many other ones.
« I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent. »
I haven’t played the game since the mini set. I’ve just been watching streamers as I work out. I think it’s cool that you’re playing wheel in the current meta, you’re certainly challenging yourself. I’d be interested to know how wheel lock works well against BSM considering, from what I’ve watched, that games never last enough for you to play wheel. I’d be surprised if you managed to win by actually playing wheel and making it your victory condition. Either you die by the onslaught of tsunami or they concede/get wrecked shortly afterwards no? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m wondering how it pans out. From what I’ve seen, by turn 8, the game outcome seems to be already decided. This is from memory so I might be wrong. I mean, by the time you play wheel, I imagine you could’ve won otherwise because they ran out steam no? What rank are you at?
« There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't. »
I agree that skill matters in HS (and a good knowledge of the meta). This situation you’ve described doesn’t rely on skill however, I agree with you.
« I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid. «
I’d say that’s the only thing I don’t 100% agree in your well-written post. Not liking a deck and it being brain dead isn’t mutually exclusive. HS is a pretty low ceiling game, it’s meant to be that way. It doesn’t come close to the complexity of chess, as you’ve said. Some decks, therefore, require less skill to pilot than others.
To me, skill comes into play when your decision making depends on the board, considering what your opponent could have in hand, the right time to play a card and when to make optimal risks. Some decks are played pretty much the same way almost regardless of what the opponent plays. It’d be interesting to compare gameplay videos of treant Druid when it was a thing. You’d find very little variety in gameplay pattern. The player consistently repeat the same strategy regardless of what the opponent does. They then proceed to win by turn fiveish or concede and move on to another game in order to repeat the same pattern. Beginners can do that. It doesn’t require much knowledge or planning ahead. That’s fine. It’s inclusive.
Playing a 40 cards control deck, to me anyway, if only due to card variety in the whole deck, will require by default to use various plays in order to win. I’d say so do highlander decks for the same reason.
Watch Kibler play Tesspionage Rogue. There’s tons of randomness in involved. You constantly need to adapt and change your game plan based on what espionnage provides. That’s not something a beginner could manage. I’m not saying it requires genius level of IQ, just that it’s harder to pilot.
Anyway that other dude deleted his reply but I wanted to reply to another one of his argument being: “Just play these 3 decks in order to adapt to the meta” implying it would be healthy if the current meta was the same three archetypes facing each other over and over again because of the need to “adapt”. If your game has reached the point where three archetypes are viable to deal with pre-patch BSM, the issue isn’t the skill of the players, the issue is that you’ve made designed the game in such a way where the meta has become stale and provides no diversity. If you design various classes, your design decisions shouldn’t lead you to a meta where very few of them are playable.
To conclude, the patch seems to have lessened the issue of BSM, they don’t seem to be as oppressive and rampant as they used to be. The dev did the right thing by acting on it as opposed to go “let the players adapt”.
As for the team being “bad at their job”. I don’t agree with it. The whole team isn’t unanimously calling the shots, a few people are. The buck stops them. Also, Hearthstone might be a zero sum game where you’ll never reach a meta which is favoured by all players. Hiring new staff would likely lead to different complaints. At the end of the day people like thingd about the game which are hard to reconcile (the fast crowd vs the slow control crowd). There’s probably incentives to make the game profitable and pressure for the game to be that way which will then seep into the game. We’ve had good ideas lately, excavate and titans were highlights to me. I mean, it’s not all bad.
My take is wheel warlock isn't very good. You're right that the wheel is very rarely a win condition against any deck, but burning your deck and playing a 15/15 taunt lifesteal and then copying it to make a 15/15 rush is often a very strong play with very little downside if you have Symphony and/or Marin in hand to refill your deck. I won doing that a lot more than I won with the wheel going off.
Against BSM specifically the strength of the deck is just handlock stuff. You can pretty consistently create a bunch of 7/7 - 9/9 minions on board at 5-6 mana, and then resummon and copy them. The the Tsunami elementals just attack into them and die, you take a little face damage but you have lifesteal that doesn't empty your hand, and you have a win condition that isn't board based so it's not a big deal if they manage to spend their 10 mana spell clearing your board.
Also domino effect/lifesteal drink/defile are all pretty good against the wide boards BSM creates.
I only got as far as platinum 2 from the starting rank. I didn't play the previous month so that was quite a few games.
I don't run a deck tracker so I say I feel like I had a positive win rate against that particular deck but I can't tell you exactly what it was. Death Knight felt like a bigger problem. Before I stopped playing I kept encountering Corpsicle DK / pain lock / Armor warrior and losing very decisively to those decks.
There''s probably a better control / handlock deck out there than Wheel Lock, I just saw someone mention it on Hearthpwn recently and thought I'd give it a try.
I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid.
I’d say that’s the only thing I don’t 100% agree
I'm not saying BSM isn't stupid or easy to play or that it shouldn't be nerfed. Maybe it should! It's certainly fairly straightforward in what it aims to do and has a highroll that's not that difficult to pull off and very hard for many decks to answer.
And there's nothing wrong with hating a particular deck. But it felt ok to me to play against and it didn't feel super strong when I played it a bit.
I just mean I'm not trying to justify my low rank (I could care less) by saying skill isn't a factor or claiming that the deck that beats my deck is a stupid deck for dumb people. When I see people saying that X deck is stupid it's usually an emotional rather than a rational argument and I'm not doing that.
Just a friendly reminder that BSM mage is still broken as #$&* and needs to be removed from the game. You’re welcome. 😉 . It’s fine, I just alt+F4 when they start their BS. On the VERY rare occasion they don’t nut roll I’ll take the win. But otherwise? Let them waste time as I’ve "unfortunately disconnected". So sorry.
It's strange that you're still arguing this point. The deck made you so angry you can't stop thinking about it?
Big Spell Mage is good in Bronze-Gold and not outside of that since nerfs.
There are stats you can look at, this isn't a matter of opinion.
If anything some buffs might be in order.
Stats? From a tiny sample off a garage operation website. Besides, the deck warps the meta so a ton of people are playing its counter. Thats a fact. Buffs? Like what? Tsunami reduced to 1 mana? Might as well.... why wait for turn 4? Some of you are hilarious, LOL. Learn how the game works then we can talk.
Well, your personal experience is much less than data even from garage operation website. And I see no BSM problem whatsoever climbing this season to legend. Stop living in past.
Maybe take a break until the next expansion? I haven't played once since the miniset because I'm tired of the current meta, I knew I wasn't going to have fun. If the game is making you angry, is it worth it? Play something else? I feel like the current meta might not be for everybody, I'm certainly not one of them. I share your dislike of non-games like '' it's the sort of swingy, high-roll, impossible-to-deal-with-board-on-turn-5 deck that it makes sense to hate.'' so I'll stay away from the game until the meta changes to something else.
To the contrary - if you are tired with high-roll decks that are most popular at lower ranks, play with their counters until you get to higher ranks were they are rare. If you stop playing, you will be in worse situation as getting to higher ranks will be harder without star bonus.
Also, remember Sinstone Graveyard? Mech-Mage that could not only make full board on turn 4 but also bring you to single digit life? Or maybe Nazmani Bloodweaver? Or Stealer of Souls? Hell, even Chenvaala let me make board of 3 5/5s, 3/2 and 2/5 on turn 2! What Mage can do with BSM is nothing new and there will be other decks in future that are just the same.
So don't wait. Either Hearthstone as it is is a game for you or it is not.
It's strange that you're still arguing this point. The deck made you so angry you can't stop thinking about it?
Big Spell Mage is good in Bronze-Gold and not outside of that since nerfs.
There are stats you can look at, this isn't a matter of opinion.
If anything some buffs might be in order.
Stats? From a tiny sample off a garage operation website. Besides, the deck warps the meta so a ton of people are playing its counter. Thats a fact. Buffs? Like what? Tsunami reduced to 1 mana? Might as well.... why wait for turn 4? Some of you are hilarious, LOL. Learn how the game works then we can talk.
What is funny about stats is how the change from website to website. Everything about the meta is just people trying to make sense about "if what i am looking in this page is truth or not" If you go to HSReplay you will notice that BSM still show as one of the most popular classes (people argue that not) and still retain positive winrate againts over 90% of the decks in standard format. The deck is doing worse againts the same decks that it was losing befor (Pirate DH, Ramp Druid but not the highlander version, "flood" paladin, Pain lock); And pretty much every Shaman deck because shamas has (for some reason) more healing than Priest and can make wider board with random stats more often.
How many decks are in what the call the ladder meta? Well lets make a "guess" if there are 11 classes in the game, Mage include and every class has atleast 3 decks. Those are 33 deck (some clases have six or more variations of their build an others have 2 at max). Of all those decks Mage is weak to 4 + 3 (all the shamans because "data saids" shaman has not weak deck against mage), so 7 decks of 33 means that is still decent or strong to 26 decks and is just really butcher by 1 class (shaman) and one particular deck (pain lock, the super aggro version).
Those are almost the same stats than Warlock and Paladin, classes that people said "by data" are superior than Mage like 3 tiers. You know what is the funny part? Pain warlock has below 45% winrate against atleast 1 deck on half the classes. Means that unless you are in legend you are probably still mor likely to match better with Mage than Warlock.
This is the problem with data, it proves nothing. The deck is still very strong thats the only thing people can conclude. Is bad against a class that people dont play that much anyways (in all ranks not just legend) which is Shaman. You only real doom match is Warlock. People will answer saying "will but in legend you will only find..." Yeah, what about the other ranks? And more important: If people is forcing themself to play Warlock and Shaman in high ranks to be "Mage proof" This still means that BSM warped the format. But people will said "the deck is not strong stop complaining" until eventually becomes truth (and will happen but just because decks rotate as in any card game).
Your 7/33 calculation is ridiculous, it's not even funny, it's just ridiculous. What are you even trying to count? Every possible deck in meta? Every popular deck in meta? You are wrong either way.
But let's take popular decks (after hsreplay).
Most popular deck in meta, Highlander Warrior, BSM - bad match-up
Second most popular, BSM - even, obv
3, Razzle DK - BSM - bad match-up
4, Pirate DH - BSM - good match-up
5, Painlock - BSM - good match-up
6, Insanity Warlock - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at legend
7, Dragon Druid - BSM - good/even match-up
8, Handbuff Paladin - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at legend
9, Tourist Paladin - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at D1-5 or legend
10, Dagger Rogue - BSM - bad match-up
11, Elemental Mage - BSM - good match-up
12, Highlander Druid - BSM - bad match-up at platinum and lower, good match-up at diamond and legend (although it seems worse at 1k legend, but the sample is low)
13, Odyn Warrior - BSM - bad match-up
14, Ramp Druid - BSM - bad match-up at platinum and lower, good match-up at diamond and legend (similarly to highlander druid worse at 1k legend)
15, Highlander DK - BSM - bad match-up
16, Dummy Warrior - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good/even match-up at legend
17, Heal Priest - BSM - bad match-up
18, Secret Hunter - BSM - good match-up
19 - Big Shaman - BSM - good match-up
20 - Plague DK - BSM - bad match-up
21 - Rainbow Shaman - BSM - good match-up
22 - Highlander Shaman - BSM - bad match-up
These are all decks that make more than 1% of meta (across all ranks). Now we have 8 decks that are universally bad against BSM, 6 that are bad if you are bad and good if you are good and 7 decks universally good against BSM. Doesn't look like a meta warper to me. Especially if you see that Shaman is good against BSM and still not too popular (yes, more popular at legend, 3 Shaman decks jump from 4% to 8%, big wow).
So why Big Shaman is not the popular deck and meta warper if it has better stats than Mage? Simple. It loses to most popular deck there is - Highlander Warrior. This is true abomination of meta. Most popular deck across all ranks, especially at lower ranks, that is one of the worst performing and it makes good decks less popular because they are bad against it (also it's bad against Druid). But ok, go on with your anti-BSM crusade.
I am going to ignore most of what you said because honestly the data itself was not my point.
My point is that i can take data from a web, look stats and make diff conclusions about what is happening. And if you look to the numbers to said page it will make sense. You can look to every deck data, you can look to classes data (which still saids that Mage is the second most succesful class) you can go to other page and see data that still suggest that mage is the best deck for X or Y sample size. As i said in the same post this Data proves nothing. And What i mean with that is that we dont have a clear picture that what is happening in the game right now outside that BSM is still being played a lot because their sample sizes are usually bigger than other classes.
We are not in a crusade to proof anything that is not already clear. The deck is not fun to play against and it still remains strong. For starters the problem never was "oh is the tier 0 deck of this meta" the problem was the play patterns of the deck, how it performs vs most decks that you find in ladder. Also there is this problem of this particular patter being a common dealth with mage this last year, whenever mage has a heavy focus spell deck on ladder is always a deck that has a very problematic play pattern for other players. If you belive we have not reason to complain well that is your opinion i respect it but i dont belive there is any reason to call people something just because they dont like a deck,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh i gave up...in trying to get you into a interesting chat. Because for all you said to me the only think you repeat is "oh you dont know" when the only one that is talking nonsense is other person that only claims and claims that everyone else is on a mistake. But whatever makes you feel more "right" than the others. I have nothing to prove to you.
Re: Skill:
Kibler could probably outplay anyone in this thread and called BSM a quote « bullshit deck ». So, you know, something to keep in mind.
« So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all. »
I reached legend with highlander warlock before the miniset, I’m good enough of a player not to have to rely on BSM to climb. It looks like a boring deck (that’s one thing we agree on) and I’d feel silly playing it. Keep in mind some players manage to reach legend by playing off-meta because we’re just good at it frankly.
The argument of only bad players complain about BSM doesn’t land.
If I was as incompetent at my job as the people who balance this game I'd be fired. Blizzard is perfectly fine with mediocrity in its staff though. Can't blame them after the scandals, who wants to work for this company after that?
''Just imagine how everything could change and meta could be something new if the average level of skills of all hearthstone players would be higher than now''
Tell you what: go ahead and watch the grand tour finals (hint: they're good players). They're on Youtube. Watch them at 2x speed. Then come back and tell me how different the decks are from what we experienced at that time on ladder.
Hint: you're in for a major surprise.
As for Kibler, he plays meme decks and reaches legend 200. I assume you play netdecks.
Edit: Either way, let's leave it at that. You're convinced that nerfs shouldn't happen and players should just adapt to the meta and I think nerfs/buffs should happen. To say that the meta is always perfect implies every design decision by the team is flawless and their judgment absolute, which I find ludicrous. It's pretty obvious to me that if nerfs weren't needed the dev team wouldn't have been constantly pushing patches to fix whatever oversight they thought they had made. As I've said before, by that logic, Azurite snake stealing 10 health would still be a thing right now otherwise.
The truth is that you're probably on board with patches, you just don't think that BSM needed to be the target. That's fine. Let's just not pretend the divergence of opinions about this is skill-related.
Well I just proved you're wrong, but it's probably not an interesting chat for you when someone does not just nod to any nonsense you spill.
People may be overstating the importance of skill in Hearthstone a bit.
It's a skill based game, players who consistently hit legend are better at the game than those who don't (like me), and I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid.
But it's not chess. HS is a game where a weaker player can beat a stronger player, especially with a high-roll deck, and winrate is an average over time thing. Unlike chess, give me and a pro player the same hand and board and we'll probably make the same plays most of the time.
There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't.
I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent.
Argument ad kiblerum doesn't land also as you can mention many decks he complains about, particularly aggro decks.
I wasn't urging anyone to play BSM to climb. I urged people to try climbing with it and see how difficult it is.
I also like to play off-meta decks, but I understand that if I play off-meta deck I still need it to be good. It needs to be tested against meta decks And if after nerfs my off-meta deck gets wrecked by BSM all the time, it means I have a shitty deck, shitty skill or both. Also I don't believe there is off-meta deck that is rolled over only by BSM - if it gets wrecked by BSM, it probably gets wrecked by many other ones.
« I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent. »
I haven’t played the game since the mini set. I’ve just been watching streamers as I work out. I think it’s cool that you’re playing wheel in the current meta, you’re certainly challenging yourself. I’d be interested to know how wheel lock works well against BSM considering, from what I’ve watched, that games never last enough for you to play wheel. I’d be surprised if you managed to win by actually playing wheel and making it your victory condition. Either you die by the onslaught of tsunami or they concede/get wrecked shortly afterwards no? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m wondering how it pans out. From what I’ve seen, by turn 8, the game outcome seems to be already decided. This is from memory so I might be wrong. I mean, by the time you play wheel, I imagine you could’ve won otherwise because they ran out steam no? What rank are you at?
« There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't. »
I agree that skill matters in HS (and a good knowledge of the meta). This situation you’ve described doesn’t rely on skill however, I agree with you.
« I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid. «
I’d say that’s the only thing I don’t 100% agree in your well-written post. Not liking a deck and it being brain dead isn’t mutually exclusive. HS is a pretty low ceiling game, it’s meant to be that way. It doesn’t come close to the complexity of chess, as you’ve said. Some decks, therefore, require less skill to pilot than others.
To me, skill comes into play when your decision making depends on the board, considering what your opponent could have in hand, the right time to play a card and when to make optimal risks. Some decks are played pretty much the same way almost regardless of what the opponent plays. It’d be interesting to compare gameplay videos of treant Druid when it was a thing. You’d find very little variety in gameplay pattern. The player consistently repeat the same strategy regardless of what the opponent does. They then proceed to win by turn fiveish or concede and move on to another game in order to repeat the same pattern. Beginners can do that. It doesn’t require much knowledge or planning ahead. That’s fine. It’s inclusive.
Playing a 40 cards control deck, to me anyway, if only due to card variety in the whole deck, will require by default to use various plays in order to win. I’d say so do highlander decks for the same reason.
Watch Kibler play Tesspionage Rogue. There’s tons of randomness in involved. You constantly need to adapt and change your game plan based on what espionnage provides. That’s not something a beginner could manage. I’m not saying it requires genius level of IQ, just that it’s harder to pilot.
Anyway that other dude deleted his reply but I wanted to reply to another one of his argument being: “Just play these 3 decks in order to adapt to the meta” implying it would be healthy if the current meta was the same three archetypes facing each other over and over again because of the need to “adapt”. If your game has reached the point where three archetypes are viable to deal with pre-patch BSM, the issue isn’t the skill of the players, the issue is that you’ve made designed the game in such a way where the meta has become stale and provides no diversity. If you design various classes, your design decisions shouldn’t lead you to a meta where very few of them are playable.
To conclude, the patch seems to have lessened the issue of BSM, they don’t seem to be as oppressive and rampant as they used to be. The dev did the right thing by acting on it as opposed to go “let the players adapt”.
As for the team being “bad at their job”. I don’t agree with it. The whole team isn’t unanimously calling the shots, a few people are. The buck stops them. Also, Hearthstone might be a zero sum game where you’ll never reach a meta which is favoured by all players. Hiring new staff would likely lead to different complaints. At the end of the day people like thingd about the game which are hard to reconcile (the fast crowd vs the slow control crowd). There’s probably incentives to make the game profitable and pressure for the game to be that way which will then seep into the game. We’ve had good ideas lately, excavate and titans were highlights to me. I mean, it’s not all bad.
My take is wheel warlock isn't very good. You're right that the wheel is very rarely a win condition against any deck, but burning your deck and playing a 15/15 taunt lifesteal and then copying it to make a 15/15 rush is often a very strong play with very little downside if you have Symphony and/or Marin in hand to refill your deck. I won doing that a lot more than I won with the wheel going off.
Against BSM specifically the strength of the deck is just handlock stuff. You can pretty consistently create a bunch of 7/7 - 9/9 minions on board at 5-6 mana, and then resummon and copy them. The the Tsunami elementals just attack into them and die, you take a little face damage but you have lifesteal that doesn't empty your hand, and you have a win condition that isn't board based so it's not a big deal if they manage to spend their 10 mana spell clearing your board.
Also domino effect/lifesteal drink/defile are all pretty good against the wide boards BSM creates.
I only got as far as platinum 2 from the starting rank. I didn't play the previous month so that was quite a few games.
I don't run a deck tracker so I say I feel like I had a positive win rate against that particular deck but I can't tell you exactly what it was. Death Knight felt like a bigger problem. Before I stopped playing I kept encountering Corpsicle DK / pain lock / Armor warrior and losing very decisively to those decks.
There''s probably a better control / handlock deck out there than Wheel Lock, I just saw someone mention it on Hearthpwn recently and thought I'd give it a try.
I'm not saying BSM isn't stupid or easy to play or that it shouldn't be nerfed. Maybe it should! It's certainly fairly straightforward in what it aims to do and has a highroll that's not that difficult to pull off and very hard for many decks to answer.
And there's nothing wrong with hating a particular deck. But it felt ok to me to play against and it didn't feel super strong when I played it a bit.
I just mean I'm not trying to justify my low rank (I could care less) by saying skill isn't a factor or claiming that the deck that beats my deck is a stupid deck for dumb people. When I see people saying that X deck is stupid it's usually an emotional rather than a rational argument and I'm not doing that.
Just a friendly reminder that BSM mage is still broken as #$&* and needs to be removed from the game. You’re welcome. 😉 . It’s fine, I just alt+F4 when they start their BS. On the VERY rare occasion they don’t nut roll I’ll take the win. But otherwise? Let them waste time as I’ve "unfortunately disconnected". So sorry.
It's strange that you're still arguing this point. The deck made you so angry you can't stop thinking about it?
Big Spell Mage is good in Bronze-Gold and not outside of that since nerfs.
There are stats you can look at, this isn't a matter of opinion.
If anything some buffs might be in order.
I wouldn't call it bad, it's still tier 2 deck even at legend and high legend. But it's just far from broken.
Stats? From a tiny sample off a garage operation website. Besides, the deck warps the meta so a ton of people are playing its counter. Thats a fact. Buffs? Like what? Tsunami reduced to 1 mana? Might as well.... why wait for turn 4? Some of you are hilarious, LOL. Learn how the game works then we can talk.
Well, your personal experience is much less than data even from garage operation website. And I see no BSM problem whatsoever climbing this season to legend. Stop living in past.
I wasn't serious about it needing to be buffed.
It's fine that you hate the deck, it's the sort of swingy, high-roll, impossible-to-deal-with-board-on-turn-5 deck that it makes sense to hate.
And by all means call for nerfs to decks that you hate. Even the Devs would agree, which is why they nerfed this one.
But the claim that it's, "broken" is just wrong.
And yeah obviously I'm referring to data aggregate sites when I talk about win rates.
@TheMage:
Maybe take a break until the next expansion? I haven't played once since the miniset because I'm tired of the current meta, I knew I wasn't going to have fun. If the game is making you angry, is it worth it? Play something else? I feel like the current meta might not be for everybody, I'm certainly not one of them. I share your dislike of non-games like '' it's the sort of swingy, high-roll, impossible-to-deal-with-board-on-turn-5 deck that it makes sense to hate.'' so I'll stay away from the game until the meta changes to something else.
To the contrary - if you are tired with high-roll decks that are most popular at lower ranks, play with their counters until you get to higher ranks were they are rare. If you stop playing, you will be in worse situation as getting to higher ranks will be harder without star bonus.
Also, remember Sinstone Graveyard? Mech-Mage that could not only make full board on turn 4 but also bring you to single digit life? Or maybe Nazmani Bloodweaver? Or Stealer of Souls? Hell, even Chenvaala let me make board of 3 5/5s, 3/2 and 2/5 on turn 2! What Mage can do with BSM is nothing new and there will be other decks in future that are just the same.
So don't wait. Either Hearthstone as it is is a game for you or it is not.
What is funny about stats is how the change from website to website. Everything about the meta is just people trying to make sense about "if what i am looking in this page is truth or not" If you go to HSReplay you will notice that BSM still show as one of the most popular classes (people argue that not) and still retain positive winrate againts over 90% of the decks in standard format. The deck is doing worse againts the same decks that it was losing befor (Pirate DH, Ramp Druid but not the highlander version, "flood" paladin, Pain lock); And pretty much every Shaman deck because shamas has (for some reason) more healing than Priest and can make wider board with random stats more often.
How many decks are in what the call the ladder meta? Well lets make a "guess" if there are 11 classes in the game, Mage include and every class has atleast 3 decks. Those are 33 deck (some clases have six or more variations of their build an others have 2 at max). Of all those decks Mage is weak to 4 + 3 (all the shamans because "data saids" shaman has not weak deck against mage), so 7 decks of 33 means that is still decent or strong to 26 decks and is just really butcher by 1 class (shaman) and one particular deck (pain lock, the super aggro version).
Those are almost the same stats than Warlock and Paladin, classes that people said "by data" are superior than Mage like 3 tiers. You know what is the funny part? Pain warlock has below 45% winrate against atleast 1 deck on half the classes. Means that unless you are in legend you are probably still mor likely to match better with Mage than Warlock.
This is the problem with data, it proves nothing. The deck is still very strong thats the only thing people can conclude. Is bad against a class that people dont play that much anyways (in all ranks not just legend) which is Shaman. You only real doom match is Warlock. People will answer saying "will but in legend you will only find..." Yeah, what about the other ranks? And more important: If people is forcing themself to play Warlock and Shaman in high ranks to be "Mage proof" This still means that BSM warped the format. But people will said "the deck is not strong stop complaining" until eventually becomes truth (and will happen but just because decks rotate as in any card game).
Your 7/33 calculation is ridiculous, it's not even funny, it's just ridiculous. What are you even trying to count? Every possible deck in meta? Every popular deck in meta? You are wrong either way.
But let's take popular decks (after hsreplay).
Most popular deck in meta, Highlander Warrior, BSM - bad match-up
Second most popular, BSM - even, obv
3, Razzle DK - BSM - bad match-up
4, Pirate DH - BSM - good match-up
5, Painlock - BSM - good match-up
6, Insanity Warlock - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at legend
7, Dragon Druid - BSM - good/even match-up
8, Handbuff Paladin - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at legend
9, Tourist Paladin - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good match-up at D1-5 or legend
10, Dagger Rogue - BSM - bad match-up
11, Elemental Mage - BSM - good match-up
12, Highlander Druid - BSM - bad match-up at platinum and lower, good match-up at diamond and legend (although it seems worse at 1k legend, but the sample is low)
13, Odyn Warrior - BSM - bad match-up
14, Ramp Druid - BSM - bad match-up at platinum and lower, good match-up at diamond and legend (similarly to highlander druid worse at 1k legend)
15, Highlander DK - BSM - bad match-up
16, Dummy Warrior - BSM - bad match-up at lower ranks, good/even match-up at legend
17, Heal Priest - BSM - bad match-up
18, Secret Hunter - BSM - good match-up
19 - Big Shaman - BSM - good match-up
20 - Plague DK - BSM - bad match-up
21 - Rainbow Shaman - BSM - good match-up
22 - Highlander Shaman - BSM - bad match-up
These are all decks that make more than 1% of meta (across all ranks). Now we have 8 decks that are universally bad against BSM, 6 that are bad if you are bad and good if you are good and 7 decks universally good against BSM. Doesn't look like a meta warper to me. Especially if you see that Shaman is good against BSM and still not too popular (yes, more popular at legend, 3 Shaman decks jump from 4% to 8%, big wow).
So why Big Shaman is not the popular deck and meta warper if it has better stats than Mage? Simple. It loses to most popular deck there is - Highlander Warrior. This is true abomination of meta. Most popular deck across all ranks, especially at lower ranks, that is one of the worst performing and it makes good decks less popular because they are bad against it (also it's bad against Druid). But ok, go on with your anti-BSM crusade.
I am going to ignore most of what you said because honestly the data itself was not my point.
My point is that i can take data from a web, look stats and make diff conclusions about what is happening. And if you look to the numbers to said page it will make sense. You can look to every deck data, you can look to classes data (which still saids that Mage is the second most succesful class) you can go to other page and see data that still suggest that mage is the best deck for X or Y sample size. As i said in the same post this Data proves nothing. And What i mean with that is that we dont have a clear picture that what is happening in the game right now outside that BSM is still being played a lot because their sample sizes are usually bigger than other classes.
We are not in a crusade to proof anything that is not already clear. The deck is not fun to play against and it still remains strong. For starters the problem never was "oh is the tier 0 deck of this meta" the problem was the play patterns of the deck, how it performs vs most decks that you find in ladder. Also there is this problem of this particular patter being a common dealth with mage this last year, whenever mage has a heavy focus spell deck on ladder is always a deck that has a very problematic play pattern for other players. If you belive we have not reason to complain well that is your opinion i respect it but i dont belive there is any reason to call people something just because they dont like a deck,