Nope. You really gotta have your game on in Wild. Much harder as there are so many different decks and variants and also very skilled players. Not to mention a lot of broken cards.
i enjoy playing wild far more than standard. you run into the same crap over and over in standard where wild you actually need to be prepared for more and be a better player.
For me personally, wild is easier by a long shot. It might be due to the fact that I have almost all viable wild cards and can create any deck. In wild, I managed several times to get to rank 1, five stars (yet, I never made it legend). In standard, on the other hand, I normally finish around rank 8 or 9 without making any severe progress.
Taking aside difficulty, wild is more fun in general. The meta is more diverse, at least up to rank 3, when you start to see mostly the most oppressive decks. But this is most likely the same for standard.
Wild is far more diverse than Standard, but not necessarily easier. It depends on the size of the collection. If you have a large collection, climbing up to about rank 5 is easy. Around rank 5, it gets significantly harder, and without a collection large enough to build a strong deck, you're going to have a hard time, since the power level is a lot higher. I find Wild more fun, but also that's partially because I have a big collection.
Todays matchups in wild: big priest, jade druid, big druid, zoolock, dicsard lock, renolock, otk paladin, mech paladin, odd paladin, mill rogue, big/deathrattle rogue, mech hunter, dragon priest, even shaman, shuder shaman etc.... So yeah i think wild is a little bit harder cause of diversity IMO. But that is only my opinion. But im rank 25 player so dont listen to me xD
standard is easier in r5 to legend because of predictability, everyone is playing the same and you have a ton of statistic based sites constantly pouring info about standard making it a really effective tool to adapt your deck and playstyle to the meta, and then you have wild where there's not that much info and asides from veeeeeeeeeeeeery obvious decks like a Genn or Baku decks you literally can have no idea about what the oponent may be playing, facing a priest and mulliganing for a big priest? suddenly he turns out to be some velen OTK or some Renorazakus priest (yes this deck still exists, and yes you can reach legend in wild with it, the only tihng is that it's no longer broken) , or you are sure your warlock opponent is playing Renolock but then what version of renolock is it playing? is it the value gul'dan+N'zoth version? or will he burst you down with a Leeroy+PO combo??,
For me personally, wild is easier by a long shot. It might be due to the fact that I have almost all viable wild cards and can create any deck. In wild, I managed several times to get to rank 1, five stars (yet, I never made it legend). In standard, on the other hand, I normally finish around rank 8 or 9 without making any severe progress.
Taking aside difficulty, wild is more fun in general. The meta is more diverse, at least up to rank 3, when you start to see mostly the most oppressive decks. But this is most likely the same for standard.
That's the version i hear generally, not a difference that big between both format but people seem to say that wild is easier, due to the low number of players and to the fact that people are mostly here to have fun, more than to tryhard
Todays matchups in wild: big priest, jade druid, big druid, zoolock, dicsard lock, renolock, otk paladin, mech paladin, odd paladin, mill rogue, big/deathrattle rogue, mech hunter, dragon priest, even shaman, shuder shaman etc.... So yeah i think wild is a little bit harder cause of diversity IMO. But that is only my opinion. But im rank 25 player so dont listen to me xD
-The mode is less balanced, so the best decks are relatively stronger and easier to climb with.
-Less players take it seriously.
-There are much fewer games played, getting legend is much less competetive, and there are few good players to fill the ranks once the dedicated player reach legend.
-The standard meta is almost always "solved" so you can expect to be countered. In Wild, the movements are much slower, so it is easier to find a good deck for the metagame.
standard is easier in r5 to legend because of predictability, everyone is playing the same and you have a ton of statistic based sites constantly pouring info about standard making it a really effective tool to adapt your deck and playstyle to the meta, and then you have wild where there's not that much info and asides from veeeeeeeeeeeeery obvious decks like a Genn or Baku decks you literally can have no idea about what the oponent may be playing, facing a priest and mulliganing for a big priest? suddenly he turns out to be some velen OTK or some Renorazakus priest (yes this deck still exists, and yes you can reach legend in wild with it, the only tihng is that it's no longer broken) , or you are sure your warlock opponent is playing Renolock but then what version of renolock is it playing? is it the value gul'dan+N'zoth version? or will he burst you down with a Leeroy+PO combo??,
I guess predictability has an impact on the difficulty but if wild players are just less good than standard ones is it not easier to climb anyway ? And by "less good" i mean less competitive
It's easier because there are less people on Wild Ladder. And more fun because you can have success with homebrew decks, on top of which you will find a very more different meta with each Class with at last 2 or 3 different archetypes viable.
From Rank 5 to Legend it's another story anyway: fast aggro decks dominate that gap for optimizing the grind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
-The mode is less balanced, so the best decks are relatively stronger and easier to climb with.
-Less players take it seriously.
-There are much fewer games played, getting legend is much less competetive, and there are few good players to fill the ranks once the dedicated player reach legend.
-The standard meta is almost always "solved" so you can expect to be countered. In Wild, the movements are much slower, so it is easier to find a good deck for the metagame.
Thank you for this argued comment, i'm beginning to understand now
Playing Wild mode is like going Super Saiyan, but being up against Super Saiyan foes as well. Everyone's power level goes up, so there's pretty much the same contest.
True, if our top decks really demanded skill (like say, Patron Warrior in the days of old), then Wild would probably be harder than Standard, but given we have Big Priest, Odd Paladin, Odd Rogue and Jades all around, there really isn't much room for mistakes to create a rift between both modes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health. - Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
Wild is far more diverse than Standard, but not necessarily easier. It depends on the size of the collection. If you have a large collection, climbing up to about rank 5 is easy. Around rank 5, it gets significantly harder, and without a collection large enough to build a strong deck, you're going to have a hard time, since the power level is a lot higher. I find Wild more fun, but also that's partially because I have a big collection.
I have most of cards fortunately so that should be fine :)
I think everyone commenting here is on EU server. I have accounts in both EU and NA, and I played mostly Wild ranked in my NA account.
Wild in EU is easier than Wild in NA, in my opinion. Whenever I have played in EU Wild, I've seen fewer "try-hard" decks. On the other hand, hitting Rank 5 every month in NA Wild is no cakewalk.
I think Wild is less popular in EU, where the players are more interested in the "official" mode.
I mean, is there honestly a real difference on the road rank 5 to legend between both formats ?
If anyone who already reached legend in both formats can talk about their experience, i'm interested.
Thank you! :)
Not by a long shot. The only difference is that wild is far more diverse than standard.
Nope. You really gotta have your game on in Wild. Much harder as there are so many different decks and variants and also very skilled players. Not to mention a lot of broken cards.
i enjoy playing wild far more than standard. you run into the same crap over and over in standard where wild you actually need to be prepared for more and be a better player.
Okay that's what i wanted to hear :)
For me personally, wild is easier by a long shot. It might be due to the fact that I have almost all viable wild cards and can create any deck. In wild, I managed several times to get to rank 1, five stars (yet, I never made it legend). In standard, on the other hand, I normally finish around rank 8 or 9 without making any severe progress.
Taking aside difficulty, wild is more fun in general. The meta is more diverse, at least up to rank 3, when you start to see mostly the most oppressive decks. But this is most likely the same for standard.
Four time legend Standard, three times in Wild.
Wild is far more diverse than Standard, but not necessarily easier. It depends on the size of the collection. If you have a large collection, climbing up to about rank 5 is easy. Around rank 5, it gets significantly harder, and without a collection large enough to build a strong deck, you're going to have a hard time, since the power level is a lot higher. I find Wild more fun, but also that's partially because I have a big collection.
Todays matchups in wild: big priest, jade druid, big druid, zoolock, dicsard lock, renolock, otk paladin, mech paladin, odd paladin, mill rogue, big/deathrattle rogue, mech hunter, dragon priest, even shaman, shuder shaman etc.... So yeah i think wild is a little bit harder cause of diversity IMO. But that is only my opinion. But im rank 25 player so dont listen to me xD
standard is easier in r5 to legend because of predictability, everyone is playing the same and you have a ton of statistic based sites constantly pouring info about standard making it a really effective tool to adapt your deck and playstyle to the meta, and then you have wild where there's not that much info and asides from veeeeeeeeeeeeery obvious decks like a Genn or Baku decks you literally can have no idea about what the oponent may be playing, facing a priest and mulliganing for a big priest? suddenly he turns out to be some velen OTK or some Renorazakus priest (yes this deck still exists, and yes you can reach legend in wild with it, the only tihng is that it's no longer broken) , or you are sure your warlock opponent is playing Renolock but then what version of renolock is it playing? is it the value gul'dan+N'zoth version? or will he burst you down with a Leeroy+PO combo??,
That's the version i hear generally, not a difference that big between both format but people seem to say that wild is easier, due to the low number of players and to the fact that people are mostly here to have fun, more than to tryhard
haha
Wild is easier, 100%
-The mode is less balanced, so the best decks are relatively stronger and easier to climb with.
-Less players take it seriously.
-There are much fewer games played, getting legend is much less competetive, and there are few good players to fill the ranks once the dedicated player reach legend.
-The standard meta is almost always "solved" so you can expect to be countered. In Wild, the movements are much slower, so it is easier to find a good deck for the metagame.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I guess predictability has an impact on the difficulty but if wild players are just less good than standard ones is it not easier to climb anyway ? And by "less good" i mean less competitive
It's easier because there are less people on Wild Ladder. And more fun because you can have success with homebrew decks, on top of which you will find a very more different meta with each Class with at last 2 or 3 different archetypes viable.
From Rank 5 to Legend it's another story anyway: fast aggro decks dominate that gap for optimizing the grind.
For what profit is it to a man, if he gains the world and loses his own soul?
I got Legend many times on both formats and yes Wild is tooooo easy compared to standard ....
Thank you for this argued comment, i'm beginning to understand now
Playing Wild mode is like going Super Saiyan, but being up against Super Saiyan foes as well. Everyone's power level goes up, so there's pretty much the same contest.
True, if our top decks really demanded skill (like say, Patron Warrior in the days of old), then Wild would probably be harder than Standard, but given we have Big Priest, Odd Paladin, Odd Rogue and Jades all around, there really isn't much room for mistakes to create a rift between both modes.
Start of Year: Provoke the failure of 3 expansions, force nerfs on otherwise balanced cards, bring deckbuilding to an all-time low and get rotated one year earlier for being such a threat to the game's health.
- Genn and Baku's historical entry on the White Book of Shit Design, shortly before retiring unpunished
I have most of cards fortunately so that should be fine :)
I think everyone commenting here is on EU server. I have accounts in both EU and NA, and I played mostly Wild ranked in my NA account.
Wild in EU is easier than Wild in NA, in my opinion. Whenever I have played in EU Wild, I've seen fewer "try-hard" decks. On the other hand, hitting Rank 5 every month in NA Wild is no cakewalk.
I think Wild is less popular in EU, where the players are more interested in the "official" mode.
NEVER PLAY WILD, BIG PRIEST, KINGSBANE ROGUE, AGGRO EVEN SHAMAN, AND JADE DRUID. YOU'LL SAVE PEACE.