I've made this point in another thread, but it bears repeating - the expansion increased the size of the card pool by less than 15%. All things considered, it's reasonable to expect the fifth and sixth expansions of every Standard cycle to have very little impact on the meta-game. If you look at the HSReplays data, 13 of the 100 most-played cards are from Boomsday - more-or-less what you should expect. Twenty-eight decks are currently viable, and four of them didn't exist prior to Boomsday - again, what you would expect. However, none of the new decks are top-tier, and they have a combined play-rate of about 9%, so the ladder doesn't really feel much different. Folks can decide for themselves how "riot-worthy" any of these numbers are . . .
HS is always hampered by the size of its expansions - it's a F2P game, and if the economic model doesn't change, it can't really release many more cards than it already does without shitting all over F2P players. MtG releases more than twice as many cards every year as HS - and HS has to split its limited card pool twice as many different ways among nine classes and the neutrals. And it also retains the evergreen set as a further concession to the F2P playerbase - of the 100 most-played cards in Standard, 39 are evergreen. All of this has pretty obvious consequences for diversity - new sets can't have nearly as much of an impact as they do in IRL games.
One way that HS might mitigate these problems, without changing the economic model, or greatly increasing the number of cards we need to collect, is to adopt a "block" design philosophy. Currently, all HS sets are stand-alone. Major mechanics developed in one set are abandoned by the next - sometimes, a theme might recur, like "Discard Warlock," but for the most part, new sets primarily explore the new themes they introduce. If HS more actively supported themes across expansions, they could better push already competitive decks in different directions, while pushing less-competitive decks into first and second tier. As it stands, a deck like "Mech Hunter," currently sporting a 45% win-rate, can likely look forward to (maybe) another class Mech-synergy card in the winter expansion, and (maybe) another playable neutral Mech - but its prospects seem dim. And the same can be said for a dozen or more other deck archetypes which didn't quite catch on with the first two sets of the year - most of them don't stand a chance under the current, "every set explores completely new themes, but we randomly throw bones to old decks which don't yet quite work" philosophy.
Not for standard, but definitely the worst expansion ever for wild. I play a lot of wild and seeing a deck running any boomsday card at all is starting to get really, really rare.
I don’t complain about the game hence I still play it. Pointing out that Blizzard can’t blalance the classes in any expansion is a good indicator that they have no idea whatsoever to avoid throwing certain classes into the gutter each expansion. It’s an observation, far from crying... the expansion is what I expected it to be some classes overpowering others in a perpetual rotation. No outrage here, just observations of the status quo that is Hearthstone.
Just fyi no class is in the gutter except priest. So your observations are wrong.
The fact that you said "except Priest" helps prove my point, there's always one class that just that gets the shit end of the stick guaranteed. Blizzard can't create an expansion where all classes are balanced enough to compete with each other. Vicious Syndicate also suggests Paladin is only doing marginally better than Priest across all Rank Distributions (with the exception of R14-10). And just because Boomsday isn't one of the worse expansions there has been that doesn't totally negate the fact Blizzard can't create a truly balanced meta, if they knew how to... they would be doing it.
So your 2 cents is wrong.
It's perfectly fine that one class gets the shit. Having one bad class is better than having one playable class as was the case in past.
BTW Can you mention a game where every class/hero/faction is perfectly balanced ? Even in chess winning with white is considered easier than black.
I don’t complain about the game hence I still play it. Pointing out that Blizzard can’t blalance the classes in any expansion is a good indicator that they have no idea whatsoever to avoid throwing certain classes into the gutter each expansion. It’s an observation, far from crying... the expansion is what I expected it to be some classes overpowering others in a perpetual rotation. No outrage here, just observations of the status quo that is Hearthstone.
Just fyi no class is in the gutter except priest. So your observations are wrong.
The fact that you said "except Priest" helps prove my point, there's always one class that just that gets the shit end of the stick guaranteed. Blizzard can't create an expansion where all classes are balanced enough to compete with each other. Vicious Syndicate also suggests Paladin is only doing marginally better than Priest across all Rank Distributions (with the exception of R14-10). And just because Boomsday isn't one of the worse expansions there has been that doesn't totally negate the fact Blizzard can't create a truly balanced meta, if they knew how to... they would be doing it.
So your 2 cents is wrong.
Priest actually SHOULDN'T be doing that bad. Control priest and Inner Fire priest are actually good decks that can be brought into Tournaments. The problems with them in Vicious' listing are:
1. They don't have a viable fast aggro or combo style. That kills a class in ladder, no matter how good it is since it's fast aggro or combo that makes them good to rank up with. 3 fast games, even with losses quickly outdoes 1 win with a slow deck.
2. Most priest players want to play Combo or Mecha'Thun priest. They are the flashiest and most talked about either making such a monstrosity of a card in Mecha'Thun usable or creating the ULTIMATE MEME in somehow making APM a viable statistic. Thus a lot of folks want to play that if they think of priest.
Both decks suck, even when played well. It's similar to how everyone keeps wanting to go on fad diets that don't work rather than exercise which does.
Does that mean Priest should be Tier 1 or the like? No. But Control and Inner Fire, once you figure them out, ARE good decks to ladder and go to tournaments with. There's a difference between "I'd rather play Druid than Priest" and "I can't play Priest."
Paladin is in a similar boat, though it's more "everyone just forgot about this deck" than "everyone keeps wanting to meme with this deck." Odd Paladin still works and Even Paladin might actually have legs.
Lastly remember the original argument: Is boomsday one of the worst. We aren't arguing that the meta needs (A lot) of adjusting or that the classes are anywhere near balanced (hi Druid and Rogue). But you're going to have to put up a lot of evidence to convince anyone who's lived through Hearthstone's history that we're in one of the lower points of the game. Fact is, there has never been this many viable decks or different archetypes in the game. In Opinion (my own) the only meta that comes close to being this healthy is Old Gods and I doubt that would've stayed that way if we had more time to perfect Tempo Shaman and Yogg Druid.
If you want to have a discussion over whether things are as they should be or if things are properly balanced, best to bring it to a new thread as that's a very different (and far less optimistic) topic. Also I don't mention Wild as:
1. I haven't touched it yet and
2. I heard it's turned into a dumpster fire in Hell.
Yes, and I watch tournament decks every time and there were never every class included.
Just the final match of HCT summer had 6 classes, If I remember properly. The tournament itself had all the classes. Recently both HCT tournaments after Boomsday and Global Games featured all the classes. If you don't believe look it up.
As I said you are not playing the same game. Check if it's some china rip off of Hearthstone.
If you can't hold off people's opinions then go to psychologist.
"Yes, and I watch tournament decks every time and there were never every class included" is not an opinion. It's an attempt at stating something as a fact: "I watched the tournaments and not all of the classes are seen."
C_A_W replied to say that whatever you have seen, the actual tournament scene IS seeing all of the classes represented and have been since the Witchwood nerf patch. Jeesh, I'm watching the global games right now: Chile vs Norway 8/22/2018. Paladin and Priest are the first two choices of classes. The first match is a shaman mirror match. Those are the weakest classes. ALL of the classes are being represented.
And it's the first time it's been the case. Priest (excluding Amaz's antics), shaman, and mage were dead when the game first released. Paladin died around GvG until TGT gave it the Secret deck and really it wasn't really THAT strong in tournaments as everyone, EVERYONE was either playing Patron Warrior, Handlock, and Combo Druid or losing with anything else. Shaman only started to be a deck during LoE, but by then Hunter died off. WOG had the "Hearthstone is so balanced now. All 8 classes are represented." since Priest was so dead, which resulted in Blizzard flat out having to publicly apologize for their treatment of the class during One Night. The class woke up thanks to Mean Streets only for Hunter to fall off a cliff. Shaman fell apart again with the rotation and Warlock and Paladin joined it during Un'goro. Rogue fell apart (about as far as Rogue falls apart. The class is good for being declared 'dead' while winning tournaments) and Hunter stayed in meme status in Knights.
Witchwood, pre-nerf was almost there, though it was hard to see with Even Paladin and Cubelock gumming up the meta, but if someone wants to argue that all of the classes were viable at this point I could see it. But the final nerf was really the first time EVERYONE was viable.
(note that 'viable' refers to Tournament competitive. Being Legend Viable or doing well in the ladder is a pretty low bar. Shaman was crap before Naxx and people were still hitting the top of legend with it. Besides, the conversation is about tournaments so.. there you go.)
Your statement that you thought that the last few expansions were the worst are opinion and you are ok for having it. However, your reason is based on something that's not true. If you base expansion quality on how all of the classes fare competitively, this should be your favorite time. If it's not, perhaps it's something other than 'all classes are in tournaments' as your reason.
Flood response to make me change mind. Didn't bother read, ty.
Yea, you totally missed the point. I wasn't chiming in to say Boomsday is a terrible expansion. I enjoy playing it and I don't think it's bad.
Some people were talking about the "direction Blizzard wants to go in" and I was being sarcastic saying I don't think Blizzard is 100% in control of their game design based on previous expansions, nerfs (I mean can this small indie company really afford to do thorough play testing?) etc..
Leading to the point if they could appease EVERYONE and create a truly balanced meta they probably would have done that already. Of course that is idealism, and I'm a pessimist so I don't expect that to ever happen but what I do expect is topics like these every expansion.
I can only see that you can't interpret a pie chart. Can't you see all the classes are represented ? even if you ignore Mage and Priest, the numbers are pretty healthy.
Also there are ~28 different decks represented and you complain about not enough diversity.
I can only see that you can't interpret a pie chart. Can't you see all the classes are represented ? even if you ignore Mage and Priest, the numbers are pretty healthy.
Also there are ~28 different decks represented and you complain about not enough diversity.
5 classes are the 1/5 overall used. If you find that ok, you have problems.
I can only see that you can't interpret a pie chart. Can't you see all the classes are represented ? even if you ignore Mage and Priest, the numbers are pretty healthy.
Also there are ~28 different decks represented and you complain about not enough diversity.
5 classes are the 1/5 overall used. If you find that ok, you have problems.
The question is, can you find a better meta in Hearthstone?
Or are we moving from "Boomsday sucks compared to other sets" to "I hate Hearthstone"?
I can only see that you can't interpret a pie chart. Can't you see all the classes are represented ? even if you ignore Mage and Priest, the numbers are pretty healthy.
Also there are ~28 different decks represented and you complain about not enough diversity.
5 classes are the 1/5 overall used. If you find that ok, you have problems.
Yes that's as close to perfect as we have ever been.
I don’t complain about the game hence I still play it. Pointing out that Blizzard can’t blalance the classes in any expansion is a good indicator that they have no idea whatsoever to avoid throwing certain classes into the gutter each expansion. It’s an observation, far from crying... the expansion is what I expected it to be some classes overpowering others in a perpetual rotation. No outrage here, just observations of the status quo that is Hearthstone.
Just fyi no class is in the gutter except priest. So your observations are wrong.
The fact that you said "except Priest" helps prove my point, there's always one class that just that gets the shit end of the stick guaranteed. Blizzard can't create an expansion where all classes are balanced enough to compete with each other. Vicious Syndicate also suggests Paladin is only doing marginally better than Priest across all Rank Distributions (with the exception of R14-10). And just because Boomsday isn't one of the worse expansions there has been that doesn't totally negate the fact Blizzard can't create a truly balanced meta, if they knew how to... they would be doing it.
So your 2 cents is wrong.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
None of them are though. Priest actually HAS a viable deck. Two of them actually. It's not popular. Too many are focusing on the decks that AREN'T good (Combo, Mecha). But they HAVE decks this time for anyone who actually care to look. They are Tier 2. Near the bottom but definite Tier 2, which means Tournament/high legend viable and competitive. And they are the worst. The rest are solid accepted as Tier 2 or better.
We are NOT in the "8 classes in Hearthstone" mode like we were from Warlock of Un'Goro or Pirest after Old Gods.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
I can't remember a single meta in the last couple years where one class didn't have at least one playable deck. Even Warlock during UnGoro had zoo. Zoo wasn't tier 1 of course, but like you said, you don't expect to have every class in tier 1.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
I can't remember a single meta in the last couple years where one class didn't have at least one playable deck. Even Warlock during UnGoro had zoo. Zoo wasn't tier 1 of course, but like you said, you don't expect to have every class in tier 1.
zoo wasn't tier 1, or 2, or even 3 during Un'Goro. Yes you can play it in the lower ranks, but you can take ANY deck outside of hitting the random button and do ok in below rank 5 ladder. From a competitive standpoint though, Zoo was a dead deck as was Warlock. During Old Gods, Priest was dead.
So we've had DEAD classes. Never lasted more than 1 expansion now most cases. Hunter failed during LoE but came back...somewhat for Old Gods. Warlock fell in Un'Goro but came back in Knights. Priest is the exception, being dead in Old Gods and One Night (thus the Blizzard Apology) then coming back for Mean Streets.
I don't remember Mage doing well in both Release and Naxx, but I think that was more due to us being bad at the game since the mechanics needed for Freeze Mage existed then and too many people being stubborn in playing midrange when Miracle Rogue and hyper aggro were dominant.
Have to admit, this one has definitely been the worst one for me, very boring, the magnetic mechanic is boring and it hasn't changed a great deal to stop most decks just vomiting their hand with literally zero thought process.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
I can't remember a single meta in the last couple years where one class didn't have at least one playable deck. Even Warlock during UnGoro had zoo. Zoo wasn't tier 1 of course, but like you said, you don't expect to have every class in tier 1.
zoo wasn't tier 1, or 2, or even 3 during Un'Goro.
In any case, I've taken rush warrior to legend 3 times, and I dont remember it ever showing up at tier 3 or better. The difference in winrate between tier 4 and tier 1 is a lot smaller than people think, decks down there aren't even what I would consider unplayable.
In any case, I've taken rush warrior to legend 3 times, and I dont remember it ever showing up at tier 3 or better. The difference in winrate between tier 4 and tier 1 is a lot smaller than people think, decks down there aren't even what I would consider unplayable.
Making it to legend doesn't qualify a deck as good. Almost all half decent decks can reach legend and Rush warrior is a not a bad deck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've made this point in another thread, but it bears repeating - the expansion increased the size of the card pool by less than 15%. All things considered, it's reasonable to expect the fifth and sixth expansions of every Standard cycle to have very little impact on the meta-game. If you look at the HSReplays data, 13 of the 100 most-played cards are from Boomsday - more-or-less what you should expect. Twenty-eight decks are currently viable, and four of them didn't exist prior to Boomsday - again, what you would expect. However, none of the new decks are top-tier, and they have a combined play-rate of about 9%, so the ladder doesn't really feel much different. Folks can decide for themselves how "riot-worthy" any of these numbers are . . .
HS is always hampered by the size of its expansions - it's a F2P game, and if the economic model doesn't change, it can't really release many more cards than it already does without shitting all over F2P players. MtG releases more than twice as many cards every year as HS - and HS has to split its limited card pool twice as many different ways among nine classes and the neutrals. And it also retains the evergreen set as a further concession to the F2P playerbase - of the 100 most-played cards in Standard, 39 are evergreen. All of this has pretty obvious consequences for diversity - new sets can't have nearly as much of an impact as they do in IRL games.
One way that HS might mitigate these problems, without changing the economic model, or greatly increasing the number of cards we need to collect, is to adopt a "block" design philosophy. Currently, all HS sets are stand-alone. Major mechanics developed in one set are abandoned by the next - sometimes, a theme might recur, like "Discard Warlock," but for the most part, new sets primarily explore the new themes they introduce. If HS more actively supported themes across expansions, they could better push already competitive decks in different directions, while pushing less-competitive decks into first and second tier. As it stands, a deck like "Mech Hunter," currently sporting a 45% win-rate, can likely look forward to (maybe) another class Mech-synergy card in the winter expansion, and (maybe) another playable neutral Mech - but its prospects seem dim. And the same can be said for a dozen or more other deck archetypes which didn't quite catch on with the first two sets of the year - most of them don't stand a chance under the current, "every set explores completely new themes, but we randomly throw bones to old decks which don't yet quite work" philosophy.
Just my two cents . . .
Not for standard, but definitely the worst expansion ever for wild. I play a lot of wild and seeing a deck running any boomsday card at all is starting to get really, really rare.
It's perfectly fine that one class gets the shit. Having one bad class is better than having one playable class as was the case in past.
BTW Can you mention a game where every class/hero/faction is perfectly balanced ? Even in chess winning with white is considered easier than black.
Priest actually SHOULDN'T be doing that bad. Control priest and Inner Fire priest are actually good decks that can be brought into Tournaments. The problems with them in Vicious' listing are:
1. They don't have a viable fast aggro or combo style. That kills a class in ladder, no matter how good it is since it's fast aggro or combo that makes them good to rank up with. 3 fast games, even with losses quickly outdoes 1 win with a slow deck.
2. Most priest players want to play Combo or Mecha'Thun priest. They are the flashiest and most talked about either making such a monstrosity of a card in Mecha'Thun usable or creating the ULTIMATE MEME in somehow making APM a viable statistic. Thus a lot of folks want to play that if they think of priest.
Both decks suck, even when played well. It's similar to how everyone keeps wanting to go on fad diets that don't work rather than exercise which does.
Does that mean Priest should be Tier 1 or the like? No. But Control and Inner Fire, once you figure them out, ARE good decks to ladder and go to tournaments with. There's a difference between "I'd rather play Druid than Priest" and "I can't play Priest."
Paladin is in a similar boat, though it's more "everyone just forgot about this deck" than "everyone keeps wanting to meme with this deck." Odd Paladin still works and Even Paladin might actually have legs.
Lastly remember the original argument: Is boomsday one of the worst. We aren't arguing that the meta needs (A lot) of adjusting or that the classes are anywhere near balanced (hi Druid and Rogue). But you're going to have to put up a lot of evidence to convince anyone who's lived through Hearthstone's history that we're in one of the lower points of the game. Fact is, there has never been this many viable decks or different archetypes in the game. In Opinion (my own) the only meta that comes close to being this healthy is Old Gods and I doubt that would've stayed that way if we had more time to perfect Tempo Shaman and Yogg Druid.
If you want to have a discussion over whether things are as they should be or if things are properly balanced, best to bring it to a new thread as that's a very different (and far less optimistic) topic. Also I don't mention Wild as:
1. I haven't touched it yet and
2. I heard it's turned into a dumpster fire in Hell.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Flood response to make me change mind. Didn't bother read, ty.
Yea, you totally missed the point. I wasn't chiming in to say Boomsday is a terrible expansion. I enjoy playing it and I don't think it's bad.
Some people were talking about the "direction Blizzard wants to go in" and I was being sarcastic saying I don't think Blizzard is 100% in control of their game design based on previous expansions, nerfs (I mean can this small indie company really afford to do thorough play testing?) etc..
Leading to the point if they could appease EVERYONE and create a truly balanced meta they probably would have done that already. Of course that is idealism, and I'm a pessimist so I don't expect that to ever happen but what I do expect is topics like these every expansion.
If you can't hold off facts then go to psychologist.
https://www.hearthpwn.com/news/5944-all-player-decks-for-the-2018-hct-european-fall
See how fucking right I am.
I can only see that you can't interpret a pie chart. Can't you see all the classes are represented ? even if you ignore Mage and Priest, the numbers are pretty healthy.
Also there are ~28 different decks represented and you complain about not enough diversity.
5 classes are the 1/5 overall used. If you find that ok, you have problems.
The question is, can you find a better meta in Hearthstone?
Or are we moving from "Boomsday sucks compared to other sets" to "I hate Hearthstone"?
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Yes that's as close to perfect as we have ever been.
You're right, if Blizzard knew how to balance all 9 classes they would. The problem is you assume they should be able to balance all 9 classes when that's just not the case. I can't remember a single long running similar card game that could keep anywhere close to 9 classes balanced. It's not that they don't know what they're doing, it's that your expectations are unrealistic.
When I mean balance that doesn't mean every class needs to have a tier 1 class deck. It does mean not leaving a single class behind to be complete garbage. Why can't it be mediocre instead of absolutely terrible? I.e. Warlock during Un'Goro. No, I don't expect equilibrium among the classes but why does 1 class always get the shit end of the stick?
None of them are though. Priest actually HAS a viable deck. Two of them actually. It's not popular. Too many are focusing on the decks that AREN'T good (Combo, Mecha). But they HAVE decks this time for anyone who actually care to look. They are Tier 2. Near the bottom but definite Tier 2, which means Tournament/high legend viable and competitive. And they are the worst. The rest are solid accepted as Tier 2 or better.
We are NOT in the "8 classes in Hearthstone" mode like we were from Warlock of Un'Goro or Pirest after Old Gods.
That's WHY everyone is praising this era.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I can't remember a single meta in the last couple years where one class didn't have at least one playable deck. Even Warlock during UnGoro had zoo. Zoo wasn't tier 1 of course, but like you said, you don't expect to have every class in tier 1.
zoo wasn't tier 1, or 2, or even 3 during Un'Goro. Yes you can play it in the lower ranks, but you can take ANY deck outside of hitting the random button and do ok in below rank 5 ladder. From a competitive standpoint though, Zoo was a dead deck as was Warlock. During Old Gods, Priest was dead.
So we've had DEAD classes. Never lasted more than 1 expansion now most cases. Hunter failed during LoE but came back...somewhat for Old Gods. Warlock fell in Un'Goro but came back in Knights. Priest is the exception, being dead in Old Gods and One Night (thus the Blizzard Apology) then coming back for Mean Streets.
I don't remember Mage doing well in both Release and Naxx, but I think that was more due to us being bad at the game since the mechanics needed for Freeze Mage existed then and too many people being stubborn in playing midrange when Miracle Rogue and hyper aggro were dominant.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Have to admit, this one has definitely been the worst one for me, very boring, the magnetic mechanic is boring and it hasn't changed a great deal to stop most decks just vomiting their hand with literally zero thought process.
Stolen Steel
https://tempostorm.com/hearthstone/meta-snapshot/standard/2017-04-23
Zoo is under tier 3 on that list.
In any case, I've taken rush warrior to legend 3 times, and I dont remember it ever showing up at tier 3 or better. The difference in winrate between tier 4 and tier 1 is a lot smaller than people think, decks down there aren't even what I would consider unplayable.
Making it to legend doesn't qualify a deck as good. Almost all half decent decks can reach legend and Rush warrior is a not a bad deck.