As of about 3 minutes ago - Control Warrior games played vs Combo Priest games played and the maintained win %
270,000 games and 60%+ winrate overall, nope Boom is totally fine *cough*
Also, when the literal best card to mulligan for is a 7 drop, yea, you know its busted.
Pick any class and you will fine almost each of them has a deck that is at 60% or at least at 59.x%. I just went to hsreplay and went through each class and other than Rogue and Druid had comparable win rates. Zoo Warlock was at 58.x% for their only deck that is worth anything right now.
Nothing broken with CW.
HSReplay is not the only source of information about how strong a deck is.
GMs start this week. Ask yourself how many people are going to bring Warrior. Not necessarily Control Warrior. And then compare that number to your expected number of Warlocks, Druids, and Rogues.
As we saw in Seoul, Mage was the most popular and had the highest winrate. Really didn't see warrior all that much. I expect the same for the GM's. Hunter also was far more popular and all hunter decks are right up about 58 to 60%. There isn't a current hunter meta deck that is below 58%.
Really you also have to take the popularity of decks right now and Rogues/Shaman are the most popular out there if you look. It isn't even Murloc Shaman which has a 60+% win rate. Quest Rogue and Quest Shaman and both decks are easily beaten by CW and why their win rate is is as high as it is. People like to play easy decks and Rogue and Shaman are easy decks to play and for CW are easy decks to win against. I'm currently playing Quest Priest and also have no issue beating Quest rogue or shaman and they come up as my opponent most of the time.
Yes, Mage was brought by the most players in Seoul. No surprise. It's the best deck.
And Mage didn't have the highest win rate. That honor belongs to Priest, powered by the Combo archetype.
Hunter did fine. 52%. Your numbers of 58% - I suspect you are pulling them out of your backside.
Lots of people are playing Shaman, trying to make the Quest work. It's fun. It's different. It is a solid Tier 3 deck. That is all.
Rogue is being played less and less. It's Quest is probably the worst, existing builds didn't get significantly better, and the new Aggro/Tempo build gets destroyed by Warrior.
And please cut the chit about Murloc decks being the easiest to pilot. That honor belongs to Control Warrior. When your deck consists of Boom + Eleysiana + 28 removal cards, you don't really have to many hard decisions to make.
Control Warrior 2nd highest win rate in the game at 53.25%. Highlander Hunter right behind it at 53.24%.
Hunter is fine. Just not winning 58% of its games. Not even close. If you can't understand this, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation. There are NO decks winning 58% of the time.
As we saw in Seoul, Mage was the most popular and had the highest winrate. Really didn't see warrior all that much. I expect the same for the GM's.
No one brought Warrior for several reasons -- one being that it has no viable tech against Mage, and people expected to see a lot of Mages. Specialist is just not a great environment for CW. In Conquest with ban, I'm sure you'd have seen a lot more Warrior.
A Specialist-format tournament says exactly nothing about a deck's performance on ladder or in other tournament formats. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with why people hate Dr. Boom, Mad Genius.
A 7-drop that gives you unlimited removal for the rest of the game -- how could that ever be seen as toxic?
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
As we saw in Seoul, Mage was the most popular and had the highest winrate. Really didn't see warrior all that much. I expect the same for the GM's.
No one brought Warrior for several reasons -- one being that it has no viable tech against Mage, and people expected to see a lot of Mages. Specialist is just not a great environment for CW. In Conquest with ban, I'm sure you'd have seen a lot more Warrior.
A Specialist-format tournament says exactly nothing about a deck's performance on ladder or in other tournament formats. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with why people hate Dr. Boom, Mad Genius.
A 7-drop that gives you unlimited removal for the rest of the game -- how could that ever be seen as toxic?
The statement "Nobody brought Warrior" is patently false. Warrior was the second most brought class. Which stands to reason because Warrior is the second most busted class.
Hey, you see those "Aggro Warrior" decks in the top 5 in America's and Asia? They most likely run 'Boom' because he's so good it doesn't matter if he's 7 mana.
Make him 9 mana and he'll still see plenty of play, unlike Valeera, The Hallowed.
Control Warrior 2nd highest win rate in the game at 53.25%. Highlander Hunter right behind it at 53.24%.
Hunter is fine. Just not winning 58% of its games. Not even close. If you can't understand this, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation. There are NO decks winning 58% of the time.
Did you not read what I wrote a few posts above? I suggest you do so you don't get so upset.
Everyone ignore this troll. He runs a new post like this all the time and just waits for new posts about CW to post on. Clearly he has a hard on for the deck. Not even worth wasting air on.
Everyone ignore this troll. He runs a new post like this all the time and just waits for new posts about CW to post on. Clearly he has a hard on for the deck. Not even worth wasting air on.
Uh oh! Someone doesn't actually read my posts!
I frequently say that my favorite class is hunter, that I do think warrior deserves some light nerfs. I just don't get weepy over warrior and think there are far worse problems in Hearthstone. People just hate control.
when it's dead, people cry about how hyper aggro and combo push control out. Now control is good and it's broken. I think I have a solution: make warrior lose before turn 8, win as soon as turn 5. Just make control aggro!
Everyone ignore this troll. He runs a new post like this all the time and just waits for new posts about CW to post on. Clearly he has a hard on for the deck. Not even worth wasting air on.
Uh oh! Someone doesn't actually read my posts!
I frequently say that my favorite class is hunter, that I do think warrior deserves some light nerfs. I just don't get weepy over warrior and think there are far worse problems in Hearthstone. People just hate control.
when it's dead, people cry about how hyper aggro and combo push control out. Now control is good and it's broken. I think I have a solution: make warrior lose before turn 8, win as soon as turn 5. Just make control aggro!
Well.. you do write like a bit of an ass so he isn't entirely wrong about calling you a troll.
Then I'm wondering why you're so eager to defend Control in general. You're pretending to play Hunter which usually makes for quick games so why do you act like some sort of mastermind, trying to enlighten the sheep how they refuse to play grindy, tedious games vs. the evil incarnate?
If you're really unable to see why a 7-mana card which massively increases your win rate by showing up in your opening hand/after the mulligan is not healthy in regards to the overall cards balance then I'm sorry, but you have to be a troll. You said yourself that Lunas at 5 creates lopsided games due to mana cheating. These numbers are measurable, so why do you ignore that the same holds true for Mad Genius? It's not that we, the people who complain about Boom and the repetitive, long and boring games want to go back to the days of Pirate Warrior. Jesus Christ.
Then I'm wondering why you're so eager to defend Control in general. You're pretending to play Hunter which usually makes for quick games so why do you act like some sort of mastermind, trying to enlighten the sheep how they refuse to play grindy, tedious games vs. the evil incarnate?
If you're really unable to see why a 7-mana card which massively increases your win rate by showing up in your opening hand/after the mulligan is not healthy in regards to the overall cards balance then I'm sorry, but you have to be a troll. You said yourself that Lunas at 5 creates lopsided games due to mana cheating. These numbers are measurable, so why do you ignore that the same holds true for Mad Genius? It's not that we, the people who complain about Boom and the repetitive, long and boring games want to go back to the days of Pirate Warrior. Jesus Christ.
It's been shown that CW without Boom is just as effective. Still long games as goes with any control deck. Control will always have good removal as is the point of control.
Then I'm wondering why you're so eager to defend Control in general. You're pretending to play Hunter which usually makes for quick games so why do you act like some sort of mastermind, trying to enlighten the sheep how they refuse to play grindy, tedious games vs. the evil incarnate?
If you're really unable to see why a 7-mana card which massively increases your win rate by showing up in your opening hand/after the mulligan is not healthy in regards to the overall cards balance then I'm sorry, but you have to be a troll. You said yourself that Lunas at 5 creates lopsided games due to mana cheating. These numbers are measurable, so why do you ignore that the same holds true for Mad Genius? It's not that we, the people who complain about Boom and the repetitive, long and boring games want to go back to the days of Pirate Warrior. Jesus Christ.
Eager is an interesting choice, as is pretend. I'm assuming you're not omniscient so no need to address those comments at all. Conjecture with no evidence.
I don't think I'm acting like a mastermind, I just disagree with a common complaint. I can see very clearly Boom's high win rate, I'm just saying (again) that there are cards with higher winrates that do more toxic things in decks that have higher win records. Just because I'm not joining the chorus of "nerf Boom / Boom op" doesn't mean I think the card is perfect. I've already said multiple times that I'd love to see Blast Shield go. I think Omega Devastator is a much bigger problem as part of the mech tribe.
It's wild to me that so many people feel so bad about facing Boom that they'll argue meta data but only for the cards they don't like facing. When we bring up LPG or TtS it's "yeah those need nerds too, they're bad for the game" but how many people point to those cards before Boom? Not many from what I've seen.
mana cheating is far worse than a rotating hero power and creates far more toxic decks imo.
I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion, I just don't agree with a popular opinion. No need to call me a troll, it's not my intention to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
whether or not it's overpowered or not i don't really care all i know is i've kept all my dupes and i'm waiting for a nice nerf so i can cash in on some easy dust beats saving for it like some lowly peasant btw annouce the nerfs already i need to figure out what i'm crafting in golden
Then I'm wondering why you're so eager to defend Control in general. You're pretending to play Hunter which usually makes for quick games so why do you act like some sort of mastermind, trying to enlighten the sheep how they refuse to play grindy, tedious games vs. the evil incarnate?
If you're really unable to see why a 7-mana card which massively increases your win rate by showing up in your opening hand/after the mulligan is not healthy in regards to the overall cards balance then I'm sorry, but you have to be a troll. You said yourself that Lunas at 5 creates lopsided games due to mana cheating. These numbers are measurable, so why do you ignore that the same holds true for Mad Genius? It's not that we, the people who complain about Boom and the repetitive, long and boring games want to go back to the days of Pirate Warrior. Jesus Christ.
I can see very clearly Boom's high win rate, I'm just saying (again) that there are cards with higher winrates that do more toxic things in decks that have higher win records.
The existence of a greater problem doesn't make a lesser problem not a problem. While Galaxy is clearly the biggest issue in the game right now, it is so blatantly overpowered there's no real discussion to have (I have seen very few players even attempt to defend it). Boom offers a lot more to talk about because it affects the game on so many levels and is a lot more complicated than Pocket Galaxy.
How did nobody mention that these are tournament decks, most of which were specifically tech'd to deal with Warrior? It is in no way comparable to any experiences on ladder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dad, husband, gamer, fueled by coffee.
Currently playing Dragon Galakrond Priest, Dragon Galakrond Warrior and Highlander Dragon Hunter.
I hated boom before Uldum because it was beyond broken. With the power level of the new decks, I don't think it is that much of a problem anymore. I hardly encounter warriors at ranks 2-3.
You also should not rely on the statistics from several sites. I don`t think these reflect the power level correctly. Warrior requires two braincells to play and therefore probably has higher win percentages than more difficult to master decks.
It's wild to me that so many people feel so bad about facing Boom that they'll argue meta data but only for the cards they don't like facing.
Actually, it's your over-reliance on a meta snapshot that is problematic here. The meta is still in flux, and different archetypes continue to rise and fall. So congratulations on picking a moment when CW was at an ebb. That's not written in stone for all time. In a few days, the meta churn could easily push it closer to the top.
An important consideration you are ignoring is that a lot of people hate CW so much that they specifically choose decks to counter it. This will naturally drive the win rate down, making that an exceptionally unreliable indicator of the deck's power in a vacuum. This is known as "warping the meta."
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
It's wild to me that so many people feel so bad about facing Boom that they'll argue meta data but only for the cards they don't like facing.
Actually, it's your over-reliance on a meta snapshot that is problematic here. The meta is still in flux, and different archetypes continue to rise and fall. So congratulations on picking a moment when CW was at an ebb. That's not written in stone for all time. In a few days, the meta churn could easily push it closer to the top.
An important consideration you are ignoring is that a lot of people hate CW so much that they specifically choose decks to counter it. This will naturally drive the win rate down, making that an exceptionally unreliable indicator of the deck's power in a vacuum. This is known as "warping the meta."
Ok, so you're talking like I think this is how hearthstone will be until the heat death of the sun. "Over-reliance" is inaccurate. I'm quoting what everyone seems to love quoting to show how broken warrior supposedly is. I'm not so wise as to divine the precise moment warrior fails to maintain a global win rate over 55% without reports like this. And isn't it natural in hearthstone for this ebb and flow to follow through a healthy meta game? Warping the meta is usually follow by "and this deck needs a nerf because even the decks built to beat it don't have a high a win rate as the broken deck" which we see is not the case.
A deck's power never exists in a vacuum, and if it did then it would be a moot point: every match is a mirror match when you only look at one deck. Otherwise, this logic would apply to combo priest, murloc decks, anything with absurd standalone power, and no one seems to be concerned about aggro dominance as long as Dr. Boom exists above or in tier 2. It's a preference at that point, not balance. The game achieved balance by knocking warrior down with super aggressive decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes, Mage was brought by the most players in Seoul. No surprise. It's the best deck.
Warrior was #2. It helps to look at real data (https://battlefy.com/hsesports/master-tour-seoul/5d3117357045a2325e167ad6/stage/5d55fe2cf684f355006dfc9f/stats) instead of basing your statements on what you "saw".
And Mage didn't have the highest win rate. That honor belongs to Priest, powered by the Combo archetype.
Hunter did fine. 52%. Your numbers of 58% - I suspect you are pulling them out of your backside.
Lots of people are playing Shaman, trying to make the Quest work. It's fun. It's different. It is a solid Tier 3 deck. That is all.
Rogue is being played less and less. It's Quest is probably the worst, existing builds didn't get significantly better, and the new Aggro/Tempo build gets destroyed by Warrior.
And please cut the chit about Murloc decks being the easiest to pilot. That honor belongs to Control Warrior. When your deck consists of Boom + Eleysiana + 28 removal cards, you don't really have to many hard decisions to make.
https://hsreplay.net/decks/#playerClasses=HUNTER&gameType=RANKED_STANDARD
Newsflash - these numbers are both statistically biased because of the way they are calculated, and grossly inflated.
Here is a better picture:
https://hsreplay.net/meta/#rankRange=LEGEND_THROUGH_FIVE
Control Warrior 2nd highest win rate in the game at 53.25%. Highlander Hunter right behind it at 53.24%.
Hunter is fine. Just not winning 58% of its games. Not even close. If you can't understand this, it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation. There are NO decks winning 58% of the time.
No one brought Warrior for several reasons -- one being that it has no viable tech against Mage, and people expected to see a lot of Mages. Specialist is just not a great environment for CW. In Conquest with ban, I'm sure you'd have seen a lot more Warrior.
A Specialist-format tournament says exactly nothing about a deck's performance on ladder or in other tournament formats. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with why people hate Dr. Boom, Mad Genius.
A 7-drop that gives you unlimited removal for the rest of the game -- how could that ever be seen as toxic?
"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
Wut? Again, please look at the real data.
https://battlefy.com/hsesports/master-tour-seoul/5d3117357045a2325e167ad6/stage/5d55fe2cf684f355006dfc9f/stats
The statement "Nobody brought Warrior" is patently false. Warrior was the second most brought class. Which stands to reason because Warrior is the second most busted class.
it is a trap guys, don't fall for it
Hey, you see those "Aggro Warrior" decks in the top 5 in America's and Asia? They most likely run 'Boom' because he's so good it doesn't matter if he's 7 mana.
Make him 9 mana and he'll still see plenty of play, unlike Valeera, The Hallowed.
This space is intentionally blank.
Did you not read what I wrote a few posts above? I suggest you do so you don't get so upset.
Everyone ignore this troll. He runs a new post like this all the time and just waits for new posts about CW to post on. Clearly he has a hard on for the deck. Not even worth wasting air on.
Uh oh! Someone doesn't actually read my posts!
I frequently say that my favorite class is hunter, that I do think warrior deserves some light nerfs. I just don't get weepy over warrior and think there are far worse problems in Hearthstone. People just hate control.
when it's dead, people cry about how hyper aggro and combo push control out. Now control is good and it's broken. I think I have a solution: make warrior lose before turn 8, win as soon as turn 5. Just make control aggro!
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
Well.. you do write like a bit of an ass so he isn't entirely wrong about calling you a troll.
Then I'm wondering why you're so eager to defend Control in general. You're pretending to play Hunter which usually makes for quick games so why do you act like some sort of mastermind, trying to enlighten the sheep how they refuse to play grindy, tedious games vs. the evil incarnate?
If you're really unable to see why a 7-mana card which massively increases your win rate by showing up in your opening hand/after the mulligan is not healthy in regards to the overall cards balance then I'm sorry, but you have to be a troll. You said yourself that Lunas at 5 creates lopsided games due to mana cheating. These numbers are measurable, so why do you ignore that the same holds true for Mad Genius? It's not that we, the people who complain about Boom and the repetitive, long and boring games want to go back to the days of Pirate Warrior. Jesus Christ.
It's been shown that CW without Boom is just as effective. Still long games as goes with any control deck. Control will always have good removal as is the point of control.
Eager is an interesting choice, as is pretend. I'm assuming you're not omniscient so no need to address those comments at all. Conjecture with no evidence.
I don't think I'm acting like a mastermind, I just disagree with a common complaint. I can see very clearly Boom's high win rate, I'm just saying (again) that there are cards with higher winrates that do more toxic things in decks that have higher win records. Just because I'm not joining the chorus of "nerf Boom / Boom op" doesn't mean I think the card is perfect. I've already said multiple times that I'd love to see Blast Shield go. I think Omega Devastator is a much bigger problem as part of the mech tribe.
It's wild to me that so many people feel so bad about facing Boom that they'll argue meta data but only for the cards they don't like facing. When we bring up LPG or TtS it's "yeah those need nerds too, they're bad for the game" but how many people point to those cards before Boom? Not many from what I've seen.
mana cheating is far worse than a rotating hero power and creates far more toxic decks imo.
I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion, I just don't agree with a popular opinion. No need to call me a troll, it's not my intention to be.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.
whether or not it's overpowered or not i don't really care all i know is i've kept all my dupes and i'm waiting for a nice nerf so i can cash in on some easy dust beats saving for it like some lowly peasant btw annouce the nerfs already i need to figure out what i'm crafting in golden
The existence of a greater problem doesn't make a lesser problem not a problem. While Galaxy is clearly the biggest issue in the game right now, it is so blatantly overpowered there's no real discussion to have (I have seen very few players even attempt to defend it). Boom offers a lot more to talk about because it affects the game on so many levels and is a lot more complicated than Pocket Galaxy.
How did nobody mention that these are tournament decks, most of which were specifically tech'd to deal with Warrior? It is in no way comparable to any experiences on ladder.
Dad, husband, gamer, fueled by coffee.
Currently playing Dragon Galakrond Priest, Dragon Galakrond Warrior and Highlander Dragon Hunter.
I hated boom before Uldum because it was beyond broken. With the power level of the new decks, I don't think it is that much of a problem anymore. I hardly encounter warriors at ranks 2-3.
You also should not rely on the statistics from several sites. I don`t think these reflect the power level correctly. Warrior requires two braincells to play and therefore probably has higher win percentages than more difficult to master decks.
Actually, it's your over-reliance on a meta snapshot that is problematic here. The meta is still in flux, and different archetypes continue to rise and fall. So congratulations on picking a moment when CW was at an ebb. That's not written in stone for all time. In a few days, the meta churn could easily push it closer to the top.
An important consideration you are ignoring is that a lot of people hate CW so much that they specifically choose decks to counter it. This will naturally drive the win rate down, making that an exceptionally unreliable indicator of the deck's power in a vacuum. This is known as "warping the meta."
"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
Ok, so you're talking like I think this is how hearthstone will be until the heat death of the sun. "Over-reliance" is inaccurate. I'm quoting what everyone seems to love quoting to show how broken warrior supposedly is. I'm not so wise as to divine the precise moment warrior fails to maintain a global win rate over 55% without reports like this. And isn't it natural in hearthstone for this ebb and flow to follow through a healthy meta game? Warping the meta is usually follow by "and this deck needs a nerf because even the decks built to beat it don't have a high a win rate as the broken deck" which we see is not the case.
A deck's power never exists in a vacuum, and if it did then it would be a moot point: every match is a mirror match when you only look at one deck. Otherwise, this logic would apply to combo priest, murloc decks, anything with absurd standalone power, and no one seems to be concerned about aggro dominance as long as Dr. Boom exists above or in tier 2. It's a preference at that point, not balance. The game achieved balance by knocking warrior down with super aggressive decks.
Rage quitting: the best way to ensure your opponent knows they beat a giant baby.