Hearthpwn

@CO1933 Wrong. Pirate Warrior isn't a fix to anything, it's breaking what was bad, but not that bad.

Even pre-MSG mid range shaman wasn't as punishing to play against as this pirate blitzkrieg warrior. It was hard to play against, yes, but at least we could give it a fight and try. Now we hope for perfect draw and hope opponent runs out of steam.

Pirate warrior deck is a "scripted play" deck. This game shouldn't be about brainless play like this. This game should be about gaining edge on making good decisions, that's the fun of it. When a deck removes the trading, the need to decide what play or not, and with an extraordinary winrate potential is a must remove ASAP, it's unhealthy, it's not even OP nor broken, it's over broken.

And that thing of a deck archetype hardly beating other is crap too. Archetypes being strong versus other and weak versus another will always be part of the game, and that's not bad. Awful is having decks playing a longer version of rock-scissor-paper, that's bad design.

I'm not even against aggro decks, as long as they're more complex than a brainless SMOrc blitzkrieg.

Quote from ruipxPT >>

@CO1933 Wrong. Pirate Warrior isn't a fix to anything, it's breaking what was bad, but not that bad.

Even pre-MSG mid range shaman wasn't as punishing to play against as this pirate blitzkrieg warrior. It was hard to play against, yes, but at least we could give it a fight and try. Now we hope for perfect draw and hope opponent runs out of steam.

Pirate warrior deck is a "scripted play" deck. This game shouldn't be about brainless play like this. This game should be about gaining edge on making good decisions, that's the fun of it. When a deck removes the trading, the need to decide what play or not, and with an extraordinary winrate potential is a must remove ASAP, it's unhealthy, it's not even OP nor broken, it's over broken.

And that thing of a deck archetype hardly beating other is crap too. Archetypes being strong versus other and weak versus another will always be part of the game, and that's not bad. Awful is having decks playing a longer version of rock-scissor-paper, that's bad design.

I'm not even against aggro decks, as long as they're more complex than a brainless SMOrc blitzkrieg.

See the reason I was fine calling shaman cancer is because there were basically 0 decks that could reliably handle it. Pirates, on the other hand, you can handle reliably and easily. 

http://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/decks/kripps-nzoth-jade-shaman-december-2016-season-33/

This is my favorite counter deck.

Quote from SavageSoul1 >>

your "cure" requires you to adapt your deck so far that you can't play the game you want to play anymore.

Quote from aaronsan >>

Quote from Poodris >>

Quote from SavageSoul1 >>

Quote from Ogobum >>

Quote from SavageSoul1 >>

Quote from nevr3000 >>

Quote from SavageSoul1 >>

..

...

Is it too much to ask that you put reasonable defense in your deck so you don't get blown to the moon by turn 5?  The decks I want to play win or lose by then.

 The whole point is that the meta has gone too far.
We already had to put a "reasonable defense" (another extremely subjectable term, what is reasonable?) in in the past.
But now we have to go even further and turn even more of our deck into defense.. So our decks lose more of their identity and playstyle. 
Being able to win by turn 5-6 should only be occasionaly possible when you have a perfect start and your opponant draws his worst answers.

 the simple answer for scrubs like you is to either start playing the damn game,  or quit.  Your whining gets you nowhere. Adapt or die. 

 Another pirate warrior speaks out boldly.  Your genius deck that anyone can make really impresses us, we promise.  There IS no counter that can win against any other deck.  That's the problem.  You know it, we all know it.  You love it because you don't care if you play a boring face deck as long as you can win with it. 

The rest of us like an interactive game where we're not just rushing to heal our face or rushing to crush the opponent's face.  We want to enjoy more than 5 cards in the collection.  What are there, 300 cards in standard?  Explore something else, we're sick of you.  You ARE ruining the game and yeah, people WILL quit.  So congratulations.  I guess that's what you wanted?

Remember when Pirates were considered to be a joke? Remember when pirates were considered to be weaker than the already extremely weak Murlocs? I do

Quote from Djjest3r >>

Remember when Pirates were considered to be a joke? Remember when pirates were considered to be weaker than the already extremely weak Murlocs? I do

How can anyone prefer playing against Midrange Shaman to Pirate Warrior? Dealing with Midrange Shaman is fucking much harder. But bitching about everything must some people's habit.

Quote from Xigent >>

I think the best way to deal with Aggro Pirates is Rope Burn every round so that they aren't getting their quick wins

Ugh.

Let them call Pirates (aggro) what they like.

We still SMORC and WIN.

/sarcasmOFF

Quote from nevr3000 >>

 I don't think the motion is arguing the possible definitions of the word cancer, but more the overuse of the term. Around here, everything is cancer.

 

And call it scurvy instead?   

Besides, it has a known cure: a healthy dose of weapon removal and taunts.

We wanted control cards not aggro  they are real cancer every deck runs them now. 

Quote from nevr3000 >>

I'm getting tired of it though, it's thrown around just for the shock value of the word.

Quote from TheSithCode >>

Quote from nevr3000 >>

I'm getting tired of it though, it's thrown around just for the shock value of the word.

That's where I disagree. They are not pulling up some fringe definition of the word. They are using one of its intended definitions correctly. There is no "shock" value, as they are not associating their usage of the word with the disease. That's on you.

Here is a question, can we stop with the false advertising? Every expansion Blizzard shows off mechanics and decks that are never viable and they sell us products that doesn't work as intended. What is more important, having the idiots who like playing the same aggro deck as all the other idiots continue to play your game because of lack of thinking involved. Or delivering on the product as advertised, where everyone can make unique decks and have fun without being crushed in 2 minute games by the same deck repeatedly? Where in blizzards ads for MSOG were there 2 minute games that ended on turn 4? Where are the viable Jade Golem, vs Kabal, vs Grimey Goons decks that everyone is supposed to be playing right now? Why are some pirate cards that arent even the theme of the expansion, the most dominat cards and decks in the game? It is bullshit if you ask me. Blizzard should be stepping in and stomping on aggro once and for all. No more kid gloves. Deal with them directly. Kill every auto include aggro card, and make it so the only viable aggressive decks are decks that punish you if you have no cards by turn 3. Decks that actually punish you if you overload. Decks that punish you if you are only playing small minions. They need to step in, because as I see it. The product that I am playing is not the product they have EVER advertised. It would be like if Overwatch was only a 2d fighting game because the most dominant character in the game was a 2d fighter. Sorry Tracer fans. You aren't viable and oh lol at you guys who want strategy. Everyone has to play 2d fighter now or his counter which still only beats him 40-50% of the time.

Aggro is necessary for a healthy meta game, however. Too much aggro is still very unhealthy. Aggro that is too effiecient is still unhealthy. That is where we are now.

Blizzard sits on their hands in cowardice and the community plays the decks they complain about. If anything, we should stop calling them pirates and start calling them what they really are. Hypocrites.

Quote from nevr3000 >>

That's a bit of a low blow. The definition you point to only exists as an analogy for the disease. This response is about as legitimate as saying, just because I said "shit" doesn't mean I was talking about faeces. We know, but that's not the point. There are a myriad of things you could call something you dislike without referencing a deadly disease. Saying it's just my interpretation is dishonest.

Quote from LegacymtgsalvationUser71018 >>

How can anything in a card game be evil or destructive? I feel it's a stretch to call it destructive to the meta being able to put it in the same bounds as a disease that can literally kill people. It's like gamer culture has done in the past in roping in words like "rape" and "gay". They are trying to use shock value. 

Whenever I see anyone using hyperbolic words like "cancer" in an argument I know that I can ignore whatever they had to say. If they had a real argument, they wouldn't have to resort to that language. The'd be able to express their argument sensibly, otherwise. 

Quote from TheSithCode >>

Quote from nevr3000 >>

That's a bit of a low blow. The definition you point to only exists as an analogy for the disease. This response is about as legitimate as saying, just because I said "shit" doesn't mean I was talking about faeces. We know, but that's not the point. There are a myriad of things you could call something you dislike without referencing a deadly disease. Saying it's just my interpretation is dishonest.

 

Quote from LegacymtgsalvationUser71018 >>

How can anything in a card game be evil or destructive? I feel it's a stretch to call it destructive to the meta being able to put it in the same bounds as a disease that can literally kill people. It's like gamer culture has done in the past in roping in words like "rape" and "gay". They are trying to use shock value. 

Whenever I see anyone using hyperbolic words like "cancer" in an argument I know that I can ignore whatever they had to say. If they had a real argument, they wouldn't have to resort to that language. The'd be able to express their argument sensibly, otherwise. 

Once again, they are not referencing a deadly disease, they are using the word as it was intended to be used. The word has multiple definitions. When someone speaking English says that they "took someone out on a date", they are not referencing a time of year, or a dried out fruit, they are talking about a romantic engagement. If you interpret it any other way, that's on you.

People believe that the meta should be balanced. If an aggro deck is dominant (or any class of deck for that matter), it is considered destructive to the current meta. Also, dismissing an argument because it contains "words" you disagree with is childish. See above.