⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
Wild is just fun. Tons of dumbass decks possible that have actually a chance with.
Combo decks not dead.
Being able to play targeted hate decks.
Being able to actually play fully refined decks that are so good that have almost no flex spots instead of the lackluster std decks that are 1/3rd fillers and rng bullcrap.
The 1st step towards a better game is firing Mike Donais! We had enough of his "skillful" balances!
#FireMikeDonais
The correct question is: 'Which is worse' and the answer would be wild. It's ruined with aggro decks and quest mages
Wild is crap.
wild all the way it's soooo much more fun possibilities are endless
If that's the case - don't play the game IMO
That being said...
My view:
Standard -
More restrictions on gameplay due to the limited card pool.
Consistent shifting in meta with each expansion.
Copy/paste decks everywhere once the meta is set.
Creativity is stifled and not rewarding.
Blizzard has more focus on standard due to the financial gain.
Wild -
Massive card pool which can make catching up difficult.
Fluid meta ask expansions are added, exsiting meta is absorbed.
Copy/paste decks are not the go-to format but still an option.
Creativity is viable and often rewarded.
Blizzard sees some revenue so they keep an eye on it as needed.
Neither is better or worse, it's all dependant on what style of play you are interested in.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
You do realize that you quote something from over 2 years ago, right?
I mean, you can disagree with the posting itself. The whole "don't listen to anyone but me, they are part of the problem"-line of reasoning would bother me as well. But when that person speaks of the "next patch", over two years ago, you can assume a few things have changed in the meantime.
It's ok to quote a scientific article or thesis from 2 years ago, or more, depending on the subject and your field of reasearch, but that's not really comparable with a posting on an internet forum for way too many reason to even start listing them.
As for your views, I disagree with a few of them:
- It's speculation whether and how much financial interests dictate the developers engagement with the different modes. There are most certainly more reasons to this than MONEY.
- Catching up on the card pool in Wild is not necessarily harder. Any deck will only contain 30 cards and while there are less overlaps between different decks in Wild than in Standard and more meta decks in general, making it somewhat harder to play all of them, you are in no way required to get lots of cards from older expansions. Most sets are only represented in the meta with a small handful of cards. It's arguably easier than Standard, where fewer safe crafts exist and new expansions are more likely to change the viability of specific cards.
- Creativity vs. net-decking (or copy/paste, as you put it) concerns both modes equally past a certain level. Creativity isn't punished or stifled in Standard, it's just harder/less likely to come up with something decent that others haven't thought of yet, but in Wild, you also have to anticipate that a significant portion of your opponents will play some of the decks that are generally considered as the best.
Wild is waaaay better. It’s actually cheaper because wild meta is really stable and it doesn’t shift from expansion to expansion, also more cards = more decks you encounter and more decks you can play.
so much fun in wild
Last year I played mostly wild.
This year pretty much only wild, with the addition of finally getting to legend... and two times in a row.
Wild is stupid broken, but at less everybody has a chance to be stupid broken there... and well, my madman renoshudderzoth shaman I made by myself works great (currently also working on something involving reno with rogue, I just love reno).
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
Just watch Solem on twitch and YouTube and you’ll never play standard again
I do realize it was 2 years ago, but the mentality is still present in today's player base.
Point 1 - no it's not all about money, but as a business, it is a primary driving factor. New releases are meant to entice more money spending, esports revolve around current releases and promotions. It makes more sense as a business to focus resources on that front. As a business owner myself, this is how I thrived.
Point 2 - I said 'it can be' difficult not that 'it is' difficult to collect, that distinction is made by the player on how they want to approach it.
Point 3 - With a limited card pool creativity is stifled in standard. As you yourself pointed out " it's just harder/less likely to come up with something decent that others haven't thought of yet," - As for creativity not being rewarding, the first part of this comes from the community often demeaning a new deck idea. And the fact that the synergies, archetypes, and meta are limited upon release means that there are only a finite number of decks that will garner playability.
Whereas in wild - creativity is welcomed and each new release only increases the synergies, archetypes, and meta.
I appreciate that you will likely still disagree with me to some extent and I don't mind. It's good to have different views on these topics. I am not trying to change your mind. Just elaborating on my view.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
2 year post resurrected poggers lmao
I m the necromancer (:
And Im the greatest Dinomancer. :)
But seriously, wild > standard.
wild > arena > tavern brawls > battlegrounds > standard :P
Point 1: Allocating resources to improve revenue makes sense for any business. But if you were right and Wild simply generates less money, it would make more sense to not support Wild at all (and Battlegrounds probably as well). But since Hearthstone has to conivince as a product, it apparently needs the variety that is provided wth different modes to attract players, and the modes need to be properly managed to meet the players' quality expectations. My problem with the "business" argument on a general note is that people seem to underestimate the developers' ambitions as a factor in game design. You could also ask why Hearthstone isn't more like the financially much more successful Candy Crush, despite having the same publisher (Acitivision Blizzard).
Point 3: Stifling someone or something is an action, but we have no actor here. Nobody is actively suppressing creativity, or denies you proper reward (whatever that would be) for being creative. Gravity is also not stifling your ability to fly, unless you believe that laws of nature are divine laws, and thus humans are not supposed to fly (a somewhat outdated belief).
Not even the community is limiting you, starting with "the community" not being a homogenous entity with specific intentions or goals, not even rules really. Nobody acitively stops or discourages you from building a deck, whatever it's going to be.
You could arguably identify the meta with the community, but again, I find it concerning to say that the meta is suppressing you, suggesting some sort of hostility - it simply sets the requirements for a deck to be successful. And we could already take a step back here, discussing whether decks need to be successful, as in "win games" (as many like to post decks that are just "fun" or "different"). But even if we say that success is a necessary requirement for a new deck, it is a "natural" one, in that success is determined by you winning games, and the obvious obstacle being your opponent playing a deck of his own. The meta determines what your deck needs to be capable of, it's like a bar in high jump. You are always, invariantly, limited that way, in any competitive environment.
Similarly, the card pool is always limited. It can't be infinite, not even theoretical (which is what "design space" is actually about). But it's likely not the root of the problem. Would Standard be less limiting with more cards? How many is enough? Does it depend on the number of cards, or the quality? Would it help if we added 20 more variants of River Crocolisk?
You could, for example, say instead that the card quality is designed in a way so that only a small handful of decks can be successful. I'd agree that the design of a large number of cards is too simplistic to realistically be of use in deckbuilding, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that this is intentional to keep the meta relatively simple. Flexibility of a card usually comes with a high power level, and if a card is considered as very powerful, it frequently results in a balancing issue. Hearthstone's entire system has proven over the years to be somewhat vulnerable to these problems: The progressive mana generation and relatively low total health dictates the flow of a match and sets a high requirement for cards to be useful, resulting in a large number of cards being unremarkable and useful cards often bordering on being too strong. But again, it was probably not intentionally designed that way. I wonder if the original developers even expected the game to last as long as it has by now.
The synergy-level of the card pool matters as well, but not as much as it might seem. Dragon Paladin is a deck that received multiple synergy cards and still fails to be successful. The synergy of Guardian Augmerchant with Amani Berserker and Bonechewer Brawler has been there since day 1 of AoO, but only found its way into competitive decks in the last few weeks. As "solved" as the meta might seem at points, it depends on the players' input how the meta exactly looks. Synergies need to be discovered and tested, and the "limits" might only be perceptional ones.
You seem to think that the circumstances are not optimal, or not "good" perhaps, for new decks to be discovered in Standard, and maybe you are right. But I think that there's a little more to it than merely the scale of of the Standard format. To be more on point: I don't think that Standard is meant to have fewer decks, it's a byproduct. And not necessarily because of fewer cards either. It's also a temporal assessment, since we had metas with more and with fewer high tier decks than right now. Of course, Standard would always have fewer cards than Wild, and is in that way more limited, but that is different from saying that Standard by design limits deck building. Unless you say that Wild is the "true" Hearthstone, Standard doesn't impose any other limit on deckbuilding than Wild does for its own cardpool.
I don't argue and disagree with you just for the sake of it. I'm just a little sick of reading the same lines over and over again, as you probably were when you picked up a 2 year old quote. I'm not really trying to change your mind, but I hope I can encourage you to reflect on your opinions a little more.
@Dunscot
Not going to clog up space with a quote fest here.
I do not feel that standard or wild are being handled inappropriately.
This style is seen in every ccg out there from pokemon to MTG and more.
Your eloquent and loquacious response actually illustrates many of the reasons players feel stifled. And perhaps stifled is the wrong word, instead, restricted may be better. It's subjective to the player, however, as you also pointed out these same commentaries are made in a myriad of ways on multiple occasions.
You can make some of the people happy all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.