Someone bitches about the game he loves for x reason.
Someone bitches because some random people on the internet bitch about the game he loves and wants them to stop.
Who is more pathetic?Threads like these ten times more pathetic than whiny threads about the game even if they try to be shown as logical and analytical.No matter how stupid or childish the reason you whine about the game is,it is at least about the game.Getting butthurted about other random dudes' opinion about a game though....
Bleh. More "stats" pulled out of the proverbial ass to attempt to validate an opinion. Sample sizes dont mean anything to some one that just qued into 4-5 quest rogues in a row. Or quest warrior. The meta isnt that diverse - its OK but its quite obvious that the quest decks are used more than any others and they are getting pretty irritating and OLD now. Yawn. For every interesting game I play there seems to be 5x more quest decks that I just auto concede to. Actually, this meta has caused me more auto-concedes that ever in the history of this game. Its so rocks, paper, scissors that there is no reason to even bother with any matchup thats unfavorable. Just get the fuck out of there with your sanity and hope you que up against a normal deck next time. Thats all you can do.
Aggro is at an all time high too because of the quests so that further mucks up the meta.
So, as much as people are tired of threads about complaining, we are also equally tired of posts trying to "sell" everyone on how wonderful everything is. And stop posting meaningless stats that dont mean shit to a tree. Thanks.
People have a selfish view of the meta. Or the meta they experience. They don't care for facts and figures. This guy is evidence of that ^.
Not only is their view selfish, but their critical thinking is clouded by their frustrations. I mean really; "Aggro is at an all time high"? Is it though? Honestly? The answer btw is; no it fucking isn't.
He is so angry at the game that just over 1 month of playing against cards that were only released 1 month ago is getting OLD NOW. We should forget that they're new cards, just over 1 month old. And that people like using new things that are just slightly over 1 month old. Did I mention the expansion is just over 1 month old.
Also oblivious to the fact that he is trapping himself in his own little meta-bubble with some stupid auto-concede nonsense. It's like saying: I'm going to play fucking Beast Priest and ain't nobody gonna stop me. To hell with your thought about and synergistic decks! The obvious advice would be to tell you to stop auto-conceding and adapt your deck or change it to a completely different one based on the decks you face, but you've already shown you aren't interested in listening to facts, figures and logic.
Someone bitches about the game he loves for x reason.
Someone bitches because some random people on the internet bitch about the game he loves and wants them to stop.
Who is more pathetic?Threads like these ten times more pathetic than whiny threads about the game even if they try to be shown as logical and analytical.No matter how stupid or childish the reason you whine about the game is,it is at least about the game.Getting butthurted about other random dudes' opinion about a game though....
Is this about the OP? It surely can't be. I don't see any anger in their post. I think their intention is to incite debate about the meta. For those that think the meta is not diverse to give their opinion/statistics as he has to the contrary.
Someone bitches about the game he loves for x reason.
Someone bitches because some random people on the internet bitch about the game he loves and wants them to stop.
Who is more pathetic?Threads like these ten times more pathetic than whiny threads about the game even if they try to be shown as logical and analytical.No matter how stupid or childish the reason you whine about the game is,it is at least about the game.Getting butthurted about other random dudes' opinion about a game though....
Is the exact same thing that you're making, complaining about the post of a random dude. And btw, as someone who has posted 782 posts in a forum about a game, I think that you should care a little bit about the general state of the community here because you seem to expend a lot of time here and the game I guess :)
I think the problem is not the frequency of cancer decks, it is the fact they SUCK to play against more than ever. Quest rogue f.e. is waiting for 7 turns or so and then facing a massive wave of 5/5s until one of you dies. Taunt warrior is killing taunts until you go into the 50/50 roulette. Pirate warrior... well its pirate warrior. Exodia mage is having all your shit killed and then watching infinite fireballs being flung at your face.
The decks being so uninteractable makes the meta boring, even if it IS very diverse aggro will be aggro and freeze mages will be freeze mages.
Someone bitches about the game he loves for x reason.
Someone bitches because some random people on the internet bitch about the game he loves and wants them to stop.
Who is more pathetic?Threads like these ten times more pathetic than whiny threads about the game even if they try to be shown as logical and analytical.No matter how stupid or childish the reason you whine about the game is,it is at least about the game.Getting butthurted about other random dudes' opinion about a game though....
Is this about the OP? It surely can't be. I don't see any anger in their post. I think their intention is to incite debate about the meta. For those that think the meta is not diverse to give their opinion/statistics as he has to the contrary.
It's not on what op claims,is more on what the op tries to do(lessening the bitch about the meta).The original post is quite well written and i mostly i agree with him.To tell the truth my post was more a answer to the ''i want you to stop bitching''threads than this one in particular.
Is the exact same thing that you're making, complaining about the post of a random dude. And btw, as someone who has posted 782 posts in a forum about a game, I think that you should care a little bit about the general state of the community here because you seem to expend a lot of time here and the game I guess :)
I don't complain about the post man,if it seems this way then my wording and expressions were poorly made and i apologize to the op and the readers of the thread.The point i was trying to make is that you can't stop other people bitching and if you try it,it makes you more pathetic than them.As for the second part of your post you are mostly correct.I deeply love the game even with its flaws and i love this forum too.I don't really care about the community itself to be honest but i love spending time in this well built forum as much i love playing the game since you can have fun,make jokes and memes.If you see my post history, 3 out 4 of my posts are jokes and memes.
I think the problem is not the frequency of cancer decks, it is the fact they SUCK to play against more than ever. Quest rogue f.e. is waiting for 7 turns or so and then facing a massive wave of 5/5s until one of you dies. Taunt warrior is killing taunts until you go into the 50/50 roulette. Pirate warrior... well its pirate warrior. Exodia mage is having all your shit killed and then watching infinite fireballs being flung at your face.
The decks being so uninteractable makes the meta boring, even if it IS very diverse aggro will be aggro and freeze mages will be freeze mages.
Exactly this.
You can sum up all kinds of figures to explain how healthy the meta is (and thank god it is certainly better than post Karazhan for example), but there are certain decks out there that run counter to the mission statement of hearthstone which is: ''the game must be fun and interactive''. So every time you face them it's a buzz kill and people feel unhappy about it and rightfully so. It's not that you don't mind losing, but you'll preferably want to lose a game that was fun and interactive. I don't think anybody who faces four Quest Rogues in a row thinks: ''oh well, not to worry, it's only 12 % of the total games that I play that are against Quest Rogue, still having so much fun right now.''. No, those four games in a row sucked, not matter what statistic you come up with.
Saying that the meta sucks because you've faced four Rogues (or more) in a row is indeed an incomplete statement, but lets not pretend that you don't feel the same way if you're in that situation or haven't experienced that feeling as well, cos you started up a game to have fun and that wasn't fun. Like you play Mortal Kombat and there are 20 characters and you played against the same one. Feels lame right. Doesn' mean that the game sucks, but that wasn't fun.
Also, where does the 12% figure come from. Based on how many games? Because, if I play Hearthstone for say, an hour, and I face 6 Quest Rogues and 4 taunt warriors for example then I have an experience of 60 % Quest Rogues and not 12%. I know, I know, someone else only face 1 in an hour, so it's all relative that way, but apparently if I want to feel better about that game it seems I have to increase the amount of games that I play. Not everyone is an 8 hour streamer though, who has played so many games on a given day that the percentages shrink so that in hindsight you can relatively feel better about your game play. Others have, perhaps half an hour, and load the game to have a quick and fun experience and then are crushed by crap decks that ruin your expectations.
I think the main problem is actually the ladder system, which incentivizes you to play those certain decks. But how to deal with that is another matter.
Read the main post. Almost 400 games.
I'm not saying that Quest Rogue isn't a problem because it is. What I'm trying to say is that you don't face the deck so often, and even if it sucks to face it, it also sucks when you're playing, for example, Midrange Paladin, and you mulligan Tyrion, Ragnaros, and Lay on Hands; it's in the nature of card games. But the proportion of those encounters (the same as those occasions where you obtain a useless start) is much lower than people think and try to show in the forums.
Also, related to the people perception, it is much better to face a Quest Rogue than it used to be to face a Face Hunter or a Pirate Warrior, because of three things: The auto win start is much
1. The auto-win start is much harder to get than it used to be with Pirate Warrior or Face Hunter, allowing the player to draw answers against the deck instead of a coin flip in the mulligan.
2. The deck (even if it is uninteractive) is much better and healthier than those aggro decks that i mentioned, where your only chance to win was to heal yourself and have a perfect solution for every card that they played at the right time (Small Time Buccaneer, Frothing Berserker, Arcanite Reaper). Against Quest Rogue, you can try to outvalue them or acquire a more aggressive style o gameplay (and even if it's not a real reason, it's harder to play that a brainless aggro)
3. You can counterplay the deck teching yours. For example, you can play Crawler to eat Patches, Crab to eat the Murloc and Dirty Rat to slow down the quest. You also have decks that counter it, Warrior and Shaman didn't, you just pray and hope to draw Reno in turn 6.
Does this make Rogue less cancer? No. But is not nearly as popular/problematic/cancer as people is trying it to be. And the rest of the metagame is really healthy.
See, as much as this is accurate, using statistics to tell people to shut up and be happy because "the decks that aren't fun to play or play against are counterable" is not a logical argument.
All that does is get more people debating about a whole lot of nothing. Quest Rogue is so brainless at times it hurts and is the most unenjoyable experience i've had since last expansion.
It doesn't matter how healthy the meta is if you can constantly run into different decks that upset people as soon as they play against it. It doesn't feel like a challenge, it feels like you are being dominated/dominant.
There are 3 decks that can ruin your experience, the rest are in a really healthy spot. Those 3 are 2 warrior decks and 1 rogue deck. There are 10% of warriors and 12% rogue (and 5% of them are miracle rogue) which means youre going to run against 17% of cancer decks. Wow. Again, have you ever played Hearthstone? Where 40% of the match up where shaman and the other 40% warriors? The fuck are you complaining people?
Are you seriously gonna sit there and type "Do you even play Hearthstone" after throwing percentages at me? Because it looks like you are relying so hard on your numbers that you forgot what it means to actually enjoy the game...
See, as much as this is accurate, using statistics to tell people to shut up and be happy because "the decks that aren't fun to play or play against are counterable" is not a logical argument.
All that does is get more people debating about a whole lot of nothing. Quest Rogue is so brainless at times it hurts and is the most unenjoyable experience i've had since last expansion.
It doesn't matter how healthy the meta is if you can constantly run into different decks that upset people as soon as they play against it. It doesn't feel like a challenge, it feels like you are being dominated/dominant.
There are 3 decks that can ruin your experience, the rest are in a really healthy spot. Those 3 are 2 warrior decks and 1 rogue deck. There are 10% of warriors and 12% rogue (and 5% of them are miracle rogue) which means youre going to run against 17% of cancer decks. Wow. Again, have you ever played Hearthstone? Where 40% of the match up where shaman and the other 40% warriors? The fuck are you complaining people?
Are you seriously gonna sit there and type "Do you even play Hearthstone" after throwing percentages at me? Because it looks like you are relying so hard on your numbers that you forgot what it means to actually enjoy the game...
I relay in REAL numbers. What you're saying is not the truth. You may don't enjoy the metagame, but saying that is in a bad spot is simply false. Only because in you extremely limited experience you faced x does not make it bad, that is what numbers prove.
Dot you enjoy the meta? Okay, that's a particular opinion, but it doesn't make the meta bad. It is like saying that because you dont like spaghetti it is a bad food.
See, as much as this is accurate, using statistics to tell people to shut up and be happy because "the decks that aren't fun to play or play against are counterable" is not a logical argument.
All that does is get more people debating about a whole lot of nothing. Quest Rogue is so brainless at times it hurts and is the most unenjoyable experience i've had since last expansion.
It doesn't matter how healthy the meta is if you can constantly run into different decks that upset people as soon as they play against it. It doesn't feel like a challenge, it feels like you are being dominated/dominant.
There are 3 decks that can ruin your experience, the rest are in a really healthy spot. Those 3 are 2 warrior decks and 1 rogue deck. There are 10% of warriors and 12% rogue (and 5% of them are miracle rogue) which means youre going to run against 17% of cancer decks. Wow. Again, have you ever played Hearthstone? Where 40% of the match up where shaman and the other 40% warriors? The fuck are you complaining people?
Are you seriously gonna sit there and type "Do you even play Hearthstone" after throwing percentages at me? Because it looks like you are relying so hard on your numbers that you forgot what it means to actually enjoy the game...
I relay in REAL numbers. What you're saying is not the truth. You may don't enjoy the metagame, but saying that is in a bad spot is simply false. Only because in you extremely limited experience you faced x does not make it bad, that is what numbers prove.
Dot you enjoy the meta? Okay, that's a particular opinion, but it doesn't make the meta bad. It is like saying that because you dont like spaghetti it is a bad food.
You know I never said that the meta was bad. In fact if you read my original post I agreed with your numbers. What I told you was that you shouldn't try to tell people to enjoy something that they obviously don't. If they don't like the meta because a few decks are ruining the experience, then they are entitled to THEIR opinion. I for one hate playing against Rogue and Warrior. Does that mean i'm wrong? No.
I think the most common complaint, although many times misdirected or misunderstood, is the fact that the game has really kinda become curvestone, I think blizz just made small minions way too good and charge has been broken since beta
that than creates several problems, most decks play exactly the same ... on curve (as druid did, once regarded by many as the most boring mirror match in the game and now most games are like that curvestone) so a lot of hte decks feel the same to play against regardless of class
aggro has always been annoying because it's allowed to ignore too many of the games mechanics by just going so fast they don't matter
quest rogue, while not op, is extremely annoying because if it doesn't fail (and when it fails, it fails spectacularly which makes it not op) it's completel broken and it's never fun to play against spmething which completely curbstomps u
mage is honestly annoying because it has so much fkin burn and in cobination with alex and ice block it too is allowed to ignore so many of the games mechanics, it's nto fun at all playing all game in anticipation of enough burn to kill you two or three times over while you can't kill your opponent
paladin is a deck which can be etremely aggressive and win with board by turn 3 but even when you deal with teh early nonsense you still get to face 3 tirions
quest warrior is so boring it hurts watching it, curve taunt, curve taunt, curve taunt, than pure rng to finish the game
jade druid was always hated because it's so batsh?t broken against slower decks that it shouldn't exist at all even if it's not too op in the meta, it completely makes slow control irrelevant
...
so no, imo diversity does in no way guarantee a fun meta/game, pure statisctics show nothing, but pls keep in mind thatthis has nothing to do with how I feel with the current meta just generally telling u that its reasonable for ppl to be very frustrated atm and with good reason (imoit's not the worst, ofc not, ppl who say that never experienced the buzzard and undertaker terror, though even those weren't the worst, the worst were the shaman bots)
This meta has the lowest skillcap seen in any expansion since beta. I dont care about how many different decks are represented when 95% of them are autopilot, linear bullshit. Sad to see Heartrhstone turn into this mess.
This meta has the lowest skillcap seen in any expansion since beta. I dont care about how many different decks are represented when 95% of them are autopilot, linear bullshit. Sad to see Heartrhstone turn into this mess.
Can you tell me any of those low skill cap decks? Because i don't understand how can you say that when we had aggro shaman and aggro paladin obliterating the meta.
Thank you for posting this. Im also tired of the bitching every1 is doing about the meta atm. I only have to say u forgot about combo druid with FoN and roar.
Yeah, combo druid was either a tier 1 or 2 deck from vanilla until FoN and ancient of lore was nerfed. It was just a boring vanilla deck that lived on unchanged for that entire period.
I mean, loetheb got added to it when Naxx came out but that was it. You pretty much just got your opponent to 14 HP and then won the game from hand.
Thanks for sharing you game play statistics. According to your data, you've faced 14% Rogue and 10% Warriors in this meta which are considered to be cancer to many people and Druid clocking in at 22%. As you can see, many people are still trying to dismiss your claims that this is a balanced meta. They may say that they faced Quest Rogue 5 and PW 10 straight times while playing. I think these instances should be looked at what rank they are in. In my own opinion(this is from my experience and mine only), most of the aggro are around rank 20-15 and then they tend to thin out until until i reached ranks 11-10 where they are almost everywhere. after that its diverse meta again until reaching 6-5.
My point is, where are they ranked when facing these archetypes 30-40% at a time? Is it rank related? I'm not bothered if queued to Quest rogue or PW. I may win or lose some and i accept that because i know i have a fighting chance. Facing Priest is a different matter, I always take a bath after facing one:)
TL;DR Liking the meta and i agree there are more viable decks out there other that what is listed on the Tier 1
Folks moan when they aren't winning much. I think that is the real heart of it. The more they loose, the more they moan.
They won't stop, reason is not really enough. But I think threads like this are really just people wanting to argue about the meta or their opinion. I enjoy a good argument, so why not?
I think it's a great meta, and lord help me I like quest rogue, both to play and to play against. It is a deck unlike any other in the game and if you know its ins and outs, you can both play it better and play against it better. It also has many variations that change somewhat how you run it.
My only complaint in this meta is how bad Warrior is. It's got no deck that really works in the meta because it's class cards have so few stars and the ones it has don't synergize well. Discard zoo is OK, but it's been with us forever and is weak against the whole field. I can't even make any good meme / wacky decks with it right now. Sad days for Warlock.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games. Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
Someone bitches about the game he loves for x reason.
Someone bitches because some random people on the internet bitch about the game he loves and wants them to stop.
Who is more pathetic?Threads like these ten times more pathetic than whiny threads about the game even if they try to be shown as logical and analytical.No matter how stupid or childish the reason you whine about the game is,it is at least about the game.Getting butthurted about other random dudes' opinion about a game though....
I think the problem is not the frequency of cancer decks, it is the fact they SUCK to play against more than ever. Quest rogue f.e. is waiting for 7 turns or so and then facing a massive wave of 5/5s until one of you dies. Taunt warrior is killing taunts until you go into the 50/50 roulette. Pirate warrior... well its pirate warrior. Exodia mage is having all your shit killed and then watching infinite fireballs being flung at your face.
The decks being so uninteractable makes the meta boring, even if it IS very diverse aggro will be aggro and freeze mages will be freeze mages.
That's Incredible!
Meta is good and fun. So what is the problem is?
I can setup SSL Certificate in your website at $5. Check my all offers
Web Hosting only at $0.91
I think the most common complaint, although many times misdirected or misunderstood, is the fact that the game has really kinda become curvestone, I think blizz just made small minions way too good and charge has been broken since beta
that than creates several problems, most decks play exactly the same ... on curve (as druid did, once regarded by many as the most boring mirror match in the game and now most games are like that curvestone) so a lot of hte decks feel the same to play against regardless of class
aggro has always been annoying because it's allowed to ignore too many of the games mechanics by just going so fast they don't matter
quest rogue, while not op, is extremely annoying because if it doesn't fail (and when it fails, it fails spectacularly which makes it not op) it's completel broken and it's never fun to play against spmething which completely curbstomps u
mage is honestly annoying because it has so much fkin burn and in cobination with alex and ice block it too is allowed to ignore so many of the games mechanics, it's nto fun at all playing all game in anticipation of enough burn to kill you two or three times over while you can't kill your opponent
paladin is a deck which can be etremely aggressive and win with board by turn 3 but even when you deal with teh early nonsense you still get to face 3 tirions
quest warrior is so boring it hurts watching it, curve taunt, curve taunt, curve taunt, than pure rng to finish the game
jade druid was always hated because it's so batsh?t broken against slower decks that it shouldn't exist at all even if it's not too op in the meta, it completely makes slow control irrelevant
...
so no, imo diversity does in no way guarantee a fun meta/game, pure statisctics show nothing, but pls keep in mind thatthis has nothing to do with how I feel with the current meta just generally telling u that its reasonable for ppl to be very frustrated atm and with good reason (imoit's not the worst, ofc not, ppl who say that never experienced the buzzard and undertaker terror, though even those weren't the worst, the worst were the shaman bots)
This meta has the lowest skillcap seen in any expansion since beta. I dont care about how many different decks are represented when 95% of them are autopilot, linear bullshit. Sad to see Heartrhstone turn into this mess.
Good work for posting some solid analysis on the meta OP.
Thanks for sharing you game play statistics. According to your data, you've faced 14% Rogue and 10% Warriors in this meta which are considered to be cancer to many people and Druid clocking in at 22%. As you can see, many people are still trying to dismiss your claims that this is a balanced meta. They may say that they faced Quest Rogue 5 and PW 10 straight times while playing. I think these instances should be looked at what rank they are in. In my own opinion(this is from my experience and mine only), most of the aggro are around rank 20-15 and then they tend to thin out until until i reached ranks 11-10 where they are almost everywhere. after that its diverse meta again until reaching 6-5.
My point is, where are they ranked when facing these archetypes 30-40% at a time? Is it rank related? I'm not bothered if queued to Quest rogue or PW. I may win or lose some and i accept that because i know i have a fighting chance. Facing Priest is a different matter, I always take a bath after facing one:)
TL;DR Liking the meta and i agree there are more viable decks out there other that what is listed on the Tier 1
Your analyzing is really good (at least for disscusion) but i dont think it will change anything here
People always complain because they want a perfect meta (which will never happen) :
- more class diversity
-more archetype diversity (10 games face 10 diffenrent deck)
-control/slow deck rule all
-more interactive deck
-....
Folks moan when they aren't winning much. I think that is the real heart of it. The more they loose, the more they moan.
They won't stop, reason is not really enough. But I think threads like this are really just people wanting to argue about the meta or their opinion. I enjoy a good argument, so why not?
I think it's a great meta, and lord help me I like quest rogue, both to play and to play against. It is a deck unlike any other in the game and if you know its ins and outs, you can both play it better and play against it better. It also has many variations that change somewhat how you run it.
My only complaint in this meta is how bad Warrior is. It's got no deck that really works in the meta because it's class cards have so few stars and the ones it has don't synergize well. Discard zoo is OK, but it's been with us forever and is weak against the whole field. I can't even make any good meme / wacky decks with it right now. Sad days for Warlock.
Check out my gaming blog: Downy Owlbear Designs and download free P&P games.
Or argue with me about games on Qallout, the video debate site.
yes, few mistakes but overall argument just yes. I would like to point out patron lost to handlock, basically every time, but both were hard decks.
Just fill your deck with one drops, that is creative deck design, right?