I wanted to start by saying I have definitely complained about cards this expansion. I too, like many have voiced, think that Luna's Pocket Galaxy is a bit strong for what it gives. I have been right there saying Dr. Boom, Mad Genius is still a bit too strong, and tried to find a way to at least bring the power down slightly without changing the flavor. Dinotamer Brann coined out on 6 is busted. Running Leeroy Jenkins into face right after? Heavy Tempo Aggro. Paladin can put a 3/3 and 1/2 on the board turn 1 with the coin. This is amongst the highest stats we have seen in a long time flooded onto the board that early; on top of being a continuously growing buff. On top of it all, most classes have a level of card generation/discovery that hasn't been seen nearly ever (unless Karazhan was this heavy).
However, no matter what crazy, "broken", things get thrown our way here is something I've come to understand while playing a lot more this rotation: EVERY CLASS IS GETTING REPRESENTED IN MULTIPLE WAYS. I have 3 decks I currently climb with and am at Rank 4: Highlander Hunter (different version), Quest Rogue (Edited Kibler's deck slightly), and Quest Shaman (virtually net-decked). HH has 60 games, Quest Rouge has 20 games, and Quest Shaman has around 30 games. on each of their graphs I'm seeing roughly the same thing:
Mage: 20% Shaman: 15% Paladin: 15%
Warrior: 10-15% Hunter: 10-15% Rogue: 5-10%
Warlock: 5-10% Priest: 5-10% Druid: 5-10%
^You know what these numbers tell me? THAT THE GAME IS BALANCED. At over 100 games these numbers above are the rough averages of percents I have encountered. The only landslide is Mage. Everything else is different depending on what rank you are at. EVERY. SINGLE. CLASS. IS. GETTING. PLAYED. When is the last time 14 days went by in a new expansion and you actually had games against every class more than once or twice? Tell me how you feel all you want on this thread, but the numbers tell the truth.
There has never been a meta where every class wasn’t played.
There have been metas that didn’t suck. Your numbers don’t prove this meta does not suck.
Show me numbers or it's just hot air you're throwing. There HAVE been metas where classes had less than a 3% showing. That is virtually nonexistent to a casual player and extremely rare to a consistent player. Please tell me a meta outside the early days that didn't get solved and steamrolled in a matter of weeks. The internet and Hearthstone are paired now. Day 1 deck frequency is higher than it should be. When did I say this meta did or didn't suck? I said it's well-represented. You're mad. Take a break.
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
What these numbers say to me is not that the game is balanced, but that are enough reasonable decks throughout the 9 classes that are interesting enough to see play to create a somewhat healthy diversity in the meta. That said, class representation doesn't mean balance, it just means people are interested to play a wide range of classes (which is no great surprise a week and a half into a new expansion). This doesn't change that fact that there are some glaringly obvious problems with the game right now, however with the upcoming balance patch, hopefully these will be addressed without the game suffering too heavy repercussions.
There has never been a meta where every class wasn’t played.
There have been metas that didn’t suck. Your numbers don’t prove this meta does not suck.
Show me numbers or it's just hot air you're throwing. There HAVE been metas where classes had less than a 3% showing. That is virtually nonexistent to a casual player and extremely rare to a consistent player. Please tell me a meta outside the early days that didn't get solved and steamrolled in a matter of weeks. The internet and Hearthstone are paired now. Day 1 deck frequency is higher than it should be. When did I say this meta did or didn't suck? I said it's well-represented. You're mad. Take a break.
Attaching emotional attributes to my post is kind of moronic.
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
If you are feeling salty, open a Box or two. The first time you Box lethal your opponent, you will feel much better.
The most important fact in my eyes is that the vast majority of hated cards are from previous sets. That tells me they did a pretty great job with SoU.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
If you are feeling salty, open a Box or two. The first time you Box lethal your opponent, you will feel much better.
In the moment it feels good, but if you actually want to learn more and get good at the game it does nothing. My notes for that match would be: lost to early aggression, froze in the mid game, puzzle boxes and won before opponent’s lethal turn. It doesn’t show any skill. It just means that I rolled the dice and won. There is no learning in rolling the dice and winning.
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
If you are feeling salty, open a Box or two. The first time you Box lethal your opponent, you will feel much better.
In the moment it feels good, but if you actually want to learn more and get good at the game it does nothing. My notes for that match would be: lost to early aggression, froze in the mid game, puzzle boxes and won before opponent’s lethal turn. It doesn’t show any skill. It just means that I rolled the dice and won. There is no learning in rolling the dice and winning.
You take notes for this stuff? Maybe you should take a break instead.
In the moment it feels good, but if you actually want to learn more and get good at the game it does nothing. My notes for that match would be: lost to early aggression, froze in the mid game, puzzle boxes and won before opponent’s lethal turn. It doesn’t show any skill. It just means that I rolled the dice and won. There is no learning in rolling the dice and winning.
False.
Knowing when to roll the dice is actually a very important skill. Being able to set up the board so that a dice roll is more likely to favor you is another important skill.
Cards like this are a part of the game, like it or not. Your choice to downplay the skill involved in using them is not Blizzard's fault or Blizzard's problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro. About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
If you are feeling salty, open a Box or two. The first time you Box lethal your opponent, you will feel much better.
In the moment it feels good, but if you actually want to learn more and get good at the game it does nothing. My notes for that match would be: lost to early aggression, froze in the mid game, puzzle boxes and won before opponent’s lethal turn. It doesn’t show any skill. It just means that I rolled the dice and won. There is no learning in rolling the dice and winning.
You take notes for this stuff? Maybe you should take a break instead.
Please stay on topic. You literally had the last word on our discussion and now you’re intentionally bullying. This is reportable.
Your numbers are not representative. Some numbers summed up from HSReplay that have more than a million games played since expansion launch.
This is for rank 1-5:
Mage: 19.6% (highest for highlander mage - 8.3%)
Warrior: 14.4% (highest for control - 9.9%)
Hunter: 13.6% (highest for highlander/secret hunter - 7.9%)
Paladin: 12.7% (highest for murloc pally - 5.4%)
Shaman: 10.5% (highest for quest shaman - 7.6%)
Rogue: 9.4% (highest for Tempo Rogue - 4.4%)
Priest: 8.3% (highest for Combo Priest - 5.4%)
Druid: 6,18% (highest for quest druid - 3.6%)
Warlock: 5.3% (highest for zoo - 3.8%)
Now I'm not saying that is THE WORST meta but currently... Well.. You have mage that beats mostly everything and is beated only by lucky hyper aggro or midrange that goes hyper aggro i.e. murloc pally, secret hunter and the rare aggro warrior, control warrior that beats all aggro, combo priest and quest pally that beats control warrior, quest shaman that does some crazy stuff and wins.
Druids? Well not on the menu, can be beaten by all the decks above. Warlock i.e. Zoolock (there's even a HIGHLANDER zoo deck, lol)? Not enough aggro to beat those midrange decks and sucks huge when he faces control warrior. Rogue is kinda not in the spot since tempo rogue is an aggro-midrange deck that gets outclassed both by other aggro decks and control decks and is draw and matchup dependant.
It's better than the meta we had in RoS but it's shit compared to what we had prior to the Baku nerf. Than we had like 20 playable decks.
Remember the Druids of Druidstone. When you could literally play 10 straight games of Druid. I think Warrior is pretty broken, but I don't think it is anywhere near as broken as Jade Druid at it's peak, Pirate Warrior, Aggro Shaman, Secret Paladin in it's day, they are def. getting better at balance.
As an advocate of unbiased algorithmic bias, I find a few things wrong with your argument. I will speak as a member of the Hearthstone community and a mathematician, not a site moderator.
You are certainly correct that numbers, generally, do not lie. But I disagree with the analysis you claim to have come across.
People have a tendency to naturally see patterns in the pattern-less, and choose to only use numbers that benefit their argument. Assuming your numbers about 5-15% for most classes are correct, I don't believe you have a large enough data pool to sufficiently describe the "meta". Decks drastically shift between rank 5 and 50, given dust-cost limitations. You claim to have seen over a hundred games, yet there are systems, such as HSReplay, that have seen millions since the new expansion's launch. Your numbers are not representative of all Hearthstone games. I believe that their data is more likely to show an accurate representation of what decks are being played.
According to HSReplay, all decks are between 5 and 20%. Well, of course every single class would be "played in multiple ways". That is just how Hearthstone - or any game - is. There will always be people who are willing to take risks and play a "weaker" style. Fight me and my Dragon Shaman. (Shaman has no class dragon cards in any set)
You misinterpret the massive difference between ~20% and 5% play. Sure, they all seem like small numbers in the face of 100. But, you should compare one class against another, not one to the entire whole. If there was a hypothetical Hearthstone with 1000 classes, it wouldn't help to say: "All classes have a 0-2% chance of being played, it's fair". This means that for every game you play against one class, you will play another three or four times. That is certainly not balance. This just means that Warlock is significantly less appealing than Mage.
I'm looking at the Seoul Master's Tour statistics. Of the top 8... 3/8 were Mage. 2/8 were Warrior.
This may be just by mass personal preference, or because they were knocked out early, but Warlocks were played significantly less than other classes. Of the ~2300 matches played, roughly 1-2% featured Warlocks. What does this number suggest?
I took this from a previous post
Mage: 19.6% (highest for highlander mage - 8.3%)
Warrior: 14.4% (highest for control - 9.9%)
Hunter: 13.6% (highest for highlander/secret hunter - 7.9%)
Blizzard does not only nerf unfair or overpowered cards, they also nerf cards that are just not fun to play against and uninteractive cards. And no doubt that DR.Boom and Lunas are both of those two options.
As an advocate of unbiased algorithmic bias, I find a few things wrong with your argument. I will speak as a member of the Hearthstone community and a mathematician, not a site moderator.
You are certainly correct that numbers, generally, do not lie. But I disagree with the analysis you claim to have come across.
People have a tendency to naturally see patterns in the pattern-less, and choose to only use numbers that benefit their argument. Assuming your numbers about 5-15% for most classes are correct, I don't believe you have a large enough data pool to sufficiently describe the "meta". Decks drastically shift between rank 5 and 50, given dust-cost limitations. You claim to have seen over a hundred games, yet there are systems, such as HSReplay, that have seen millions since the new expansion's launch. Your numbers are not representative of all Hearthstone games. I believe that their data is more likely to show an accurate representation of what decks are being played.
According to HSReplay, all decks are between 5 and 20%. Well, of course every single class would be "played in multiple ways". That is just how Hearthstone - or any game - is. There will always be people who are willing to take risks and play a "weaker" style. Fight me and my Dragon Shaman. (Shaman has no class dragon cards in any set)
You misinterpret the massive difference between ~20% and 5% play. Sure, they all seem like small numbers in the face of 100. But, you should compare one class against another, not one to the entire whole. If there was a hypothetical Hearthstone with 1000 classes, it wouldn't help to say: "All classes have a 0-2% chance of being played, it's fair". This means that for every game you play against one class, you will play another three or four times. That is certainly not balance. This just means that Warlock is significantly less appealing than Mage.
I'm looking at the Seoul Master's Tour statistics. Of the top 8... 3/8 were Mage. 2/8 were Warrior.
This may be just by mass personal preference, or because they were knocked out early, but Warlocks were played significantly less than other classes. Of the ~2300 matches played, roughly 1-2% featured Warlocks. What does this number suggest?
I took this from a previous post
Mage: 19.6% (highest for highlander mage - 8.3%)
Warrior: 14.4% (highest for control - 9.9%)
Hunter: 13.6% (highest for highlander/secret hunter - 7.9%)
Paladin: 12.7% (highest for murloc pally - 5.4%)
Shaman: 10.5% (highest for quest shaman - 7.6%)
Rogue: 9.4% (highest for Tempo Rogue - 4.4%)
Priest: 8.3% (highest for Combo Priest - 5.4%)
Druid: 6,18% (highest for quest druid - 3.6%)
Warlock: 5.3% (highest for zoo - 3.8%)
Numbers do not lie. But they do mislead.
Firstly thank you for being analytical and actually backing a post with more than words. I like to try to be effortful in my debates and you have been in yours. My rebuttal for the experience:
You are right. I should have been specific with my rank and where I came across those numbers. Posting pictures and graphs of my experience is something I should do, but I had no idea this post would gain any traction (yay me lol). I was lucky to get a pretty close percentage that represents the mass data (like that of HS Replay as you showed and another user), so there the meaning/intention was wrong but the percentages themselves were close.
When I say "played in multiple ways" I do mean that specifically in 100 games I saw 3 different kinds of Warlock or 2 Shamans, or 3 Mages...etc. I don't normally see that in other metas. If it was Warlock, for instance a few months ago, I'd say "ah zoo, let's erase all the boards!". However, I got hit with Murloc Warlock just the other day and did NOT see that coming. Then queued back in and fought Plot Twist. What I meant in that short phrase is even with a small sample size, at being between ranks 8-4, I saw differentiation in the classes like I personally had not seen before. Once more this is a personal experience and I understand that is not everyone's case.
This calls back to my first point about being wrong with meaning and intention, but matching percentages. Yes there is a HUGE significance when I run into say 20 Mages yet only 5 Warlocks, but my argument is that this is a better place than other metas have been. I had times in the past year even where I saw 1 priest in 50+ matches. Likely by luck, but still a huge deviation of personal significance. Now I've seen at least 8 priests out of over 100 games in the past few days. I went into this post thinking: "if these are my numbers at about 120 games, maybe others are experiencing something similar or have different numbers to share." To the fortune of the site, some members did share their numbers and I appreciate that because raw data from a player is a valuable learning tool. I do understand that it can be thought as though I'm trying to make a meta snapshot. Moreso, I wanted to share my fortune and goodwill with the community and show that in a 'week' worth of games I got some pretty realistic spreads of classes. If someone made a "where is aggro post" maybe they'd see this and feel a bit better that some players are running into it still and it in fact ISN'T dead.
Your Masters' Tour info is the only place that I will call shame on you. Although the numbers are correct I think this falls victim to the same phenomenon that you explained at the front of your post. These are competitive settings with detail-oriented, practiced, and targeted lists to accomplish specific feats in certain match-ups. The average player is not thinking on this level and thus we always think of the competitive scene and the ladder scene on two different levels entirely. Although usually a top meta deck is a strong competitor in Tour stops, that doesn't mean that it works the other way around. A different format means tech considerations, side-boarding, and other variables that push certain classes in and certain classes out depending on the overall card pool. We cannot look at competitive HS too closely to explain the ladder, but we can certainly take a few notes- for instance your example of the absence of Warlock and that being relatively consistent according to all other data available.
Overall, I hope I expressed my intention. I should have been clear to point out the direction of the post was to show Naysayers that this meta, is in fact, decently represented. That you CAN play any class, and the meta isn't stuck on just 2-4 decks. Yes a 10-15% difference in play volume of one class versus another says something about the dominating class, but at least we can say that the weak class still gets more attention than the weak class of other sets.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wanted to start by saying I have definitely complained about cards this expansion. I too, like many have voiced, think that Luna's Pocket Galaxy is a bit strong for what it gives. I have been right there saying Dr. Boom, Mad Genius is still a bit too strong, and tried to find a way to at least bring the power down slightly without changing the flavor. Dinotamer Brann coined out on 6 is busted. Running Leeroy Jenkins into face right after? Heavy Tempo Aggro. Paladin can put a 3/3 and 1/2 on the board turn 1 with the coin. This is amongst the highest stats we have seen in a long time flooded onto the board that early; on top of being a continuously growing buff. On top of it all, most classes have a level of card generation/discovery that hasn't been seen nearly ever (unless Karazhan was this heavy).
However, no matter what crazy, "broken", things get thrown our way here is something I've come to understand while playing a lot more this rotation: EVERY CLASS IS GETTING REPRESENTED IN MULTIPLE WAYS. I have 3 decks I currently climb with and am at Rank 4: Highlander Hunter (different version), Quest Rogue (Edited Kibler's deck slightly), and Quest Shaman (virtually net-decked). HH has 60 games, Quest Rouge has 20 games, and Quest Shaman has around 30 games. on each of their graphs I'm seeing roughly the same thing:
Mage: 20% Shaman: 15% Paladin: 15%
Warrior: 10-15% Hunter: 10-15% Rogue: 5-10%
Warlock: 5-10% Priest: 5-10% Druid: 5-10%
^You know what these numbers tell me? THAT THE GAME IS BALANCED. At over 100 games these numbers above are the rough averages of percents I have encountered. The only landslide is Mage. Everything else is different depending on what rank you are at. EVERY. SINGLE. CLASS. IS. GETTING. PLAYED. When is the last time 14 days went by in a new expansion and you actually had games against every class more than once or twice? Tell me how you feel all you want on this thread, but the numbers tell the truth.
There has never been a meta where every class wasn’t played.
There have been metas that didn’t suck. Your numbers don’t prove this meta does not suck.
Show me numbers or it's just hot air you're throwing. There HAVE been metas where classes had less than a 3% showing. That is virtually nonexistent to a casual player and extremely rare to a consistent player. Please tell me a meta outside the early days that didn't get solved and steamrolled in a matter of weeks. The internet and Hearthstone are paired now. Day 1 deck frequency is higher than it should be. When did I say this meta did or didn't suck? I said it's well-represented. You're mad. Take a break.
Remember Pirate Warrior meta? That's when Warrior is the true terror when it comes to hyper-aggro.
About this meta, what I hate is the presence of Mage. I personally hate freezing mechanic and specifically, I hate Luna Pocket Galaxy. BS highroll which destroys the tournament in Seoul.
I agree completely, freeze has always been annoying. I made a thread about "Hail Mary" cards and mentioned Puzzle Box specifically. This is one of the reasons mage is played so often: anyone, skilled or not, can cheat out or play a Puzzle Box and potentially win a game undeservedly. Chances are in 10 spells you get at least 1 that benefits you greatly, and any more likely swing the game in the opposite direction no matter the state of the game before the cast. It is akin to the lottery: if you already have nothing it doesn't hurt to spend a turn to try. I hate mechanics like that in this game.
What these numbers say to me is not that the game is balanced, but that are enough reasonable decks throughout the 9 classes that are interesting enough to see play to create a somewhat healthy diversity in the meta. That said, class representation doesn't mean balance, it just means people are interested to play a wide range of classes (which is no great surprise a week and a half into a new expansion). This doesn't change that fact that there are some glaringly obvious problems with the game right now, however with the upcoming balance patch, hopefully these will be addressed without the game suffering too heavy repercussions.
Attaching emotional attributes to my post is kind of moronic.
If you are feeling salty, open a Box or two. The first time you Box lethal your opponent, you will feel much better.
The most important fact in my eyes is that the vast majority of hated cards are from previous sets. That tells me they did a pretty great job with SoU.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
In the moment it feels good, but if you actually want to learn more and get good at the game it does nothing. My notes for that match would be: lost to early aggression, froze in the mid game, puzzle boxes and won before opponent’s lethal turn. It doesn’t show any skill. It just means that I rolled the dice and won. There is no learning in rolling the dice and winning.
You take notes for this stuff? Maybe you should take a break instead.
False.
Knowing when to roll the dice is actually a very important skill. Being able to set up the board so that a dice roll is more likely to favor you is another important skill.
Cards like this are a part of the game, like it or not. Your choice to downplay the skill involved in using them is not Blizzard's fault or Blizzard's problem.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Please stay on topic. You literally had the last word on our discussion and now you’re intentionally bullying. This is reportable.
Your numbers are not representative. Some numbers summed up from HSReplay that have more than a million games played since expansion launch.
This is for rank 1-5:
Mage: 19.6% (highest for highlander mage - 8.3%)
Warrior: 14.4% (highest for control - 9.9%)
Hunter: 13.6% (highest for highlander/secret hunter - 7.9%)
Paladin: 12.7% (highest for murloc pally - 5.4%)
Shaman: 10.5% (highest for quest shaman - 7.6%)
Rogue: 9.4% (highest for Tempo Rogue - 4.4%)
Priest: 8.3% (highest for Combo Priest - 5.4%)
Druid: 6,18% (highest for quest druid - 3.6%)
Warlock: 5.3% (highest for zoo - 3.8%)
Now I'm not saying that is THE WORST meta but currently... Well.. You have mage that beats mostly everything and is beated only by lucky hyper aggro or midrange that goes hyper aggro i.e. murloc pally, secret hunter and the rare aggro warrior, control warrior that beats all aggro, combo priest and quest pally that beats control warrior, quest shaman that does some crazy stuff and wins.
Druids? Well not on the menu, can be beaten by all the decks above. Warlock i.e. Zoolock (there's even a HIGHLANDER zoo deck, lol)? Not enough aggro to beat those midrange decks and sucks huge when he faces control warrior. Rogue is kinda not in the spot since tempo rogue is an aggro-midrange deck that gets outclassed both by other aggro decks and control decks and is draw and matchup dependant.
It's better than the meta we had in RoS but it's shit compared to what we had prior to the Baku nerf. Than we had like 20 playable decks.
I agree with you in spirit, but really you should just ignore the troll like most of the rest of us have.
He has never contributed anything meaningful to any discussion.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
This is what I experienced from rank 5 to rank 1.
Remember the Druids of Druidstone. When you could literally play 10 straight games of Druid. I think Warrior is pretty broken, but I don't think it is anywhere near as broken as Jade Druid at it's peak, Pirate Warrior, Aggro Shaman, Secret Paladin in it's day, they are def. getting better at balance.
As an advocate of unbiased algorithmic bias, I find a few things wrong with your argument. I will speak as a member of the Hearthstone community and a mathematician, not a site moderator.
You are certainly correct that numbers, generally, do not lie. But I disagree with the analysis you claim to have come across.
This may be just by mass personal preference, or because they were knocked out early, but Warlocks were played significantly less than other classes. Of the ~2300 matches played, roughly 1-2% featured Warlocks. What does this number suggest?
I took this from a previous post
Mage: 19.6% (highest for highlander mage - 8.3%)
Warrior: 14.4% (highest for control - 9.9%)
Hunter: 13.6% (highest for highlander/secret hunter - 7.9%)
Paladin: 12.7% (highest for murloc pally - 5.4%)
Shaman: 10.5% (highest for quest shaman - 7.6%)
Rogue: 9.4% (highest for Tempo Rogue - 4.4%)
Priest: 8.3% (highest for Combo Priest - 5.4%)
Druid: 6,18% (highest for quest druid - 3.6%)
Warlock: 5.3% (highest for zoo - 3.8%)
Numbers do not lie. But they do mislead.
Wished to be pink.
Then did.
Then fired myself.
Then did again.
Blizzard does not only nerf unfair or overpowered cards, they also nerf cards that are just not fun to play against and uninteractive cards. And no doubt that DR.Boom and Lunas are both of those two options.
Firstly thank you for being analytical and actually backing a post with more than words. I like to try to be effortful in my debates and you have been in yours. My rebuttal for the experience:
Overall, I hope I expressed my intention. I should have been clear to point out the direction of the post was to show Naysayers that this meta, is in fact, decently represented. That you CAN play any class, and the meta isn't stuck on just 2-4 decks. Yes a 10-15% difference in play volume of one class versus another says something about the dominating class, but at least we can say that the weak class still gets more attention than the weak class of other sets.