It's probably the simplest deck the meta has right now in terms of raw power. Everyone can see how it works, so playing it to an acceptable standard isn't too hard.
I'll be honest though, I've seen some people claim non-quest is better, and I have to wonder if they are ok. I play the quest variant, and every single time I have beaten the non-quest versions. They don't go so hard on the lacky support, so I think they're meant to have a heavier end game, but just a bit of careful use of saving lackies for after the quest pops, and you can outvalue them by a huge margin with card generation, as well as have a much heavier finisher with 4 8/8s. And arguably an easier time finishing galakrond (having the quest pop by turn 7 isn't hard, and playing one elementalist to finish galakrond solo, while still not losing anything in tempo due to summoning 4 1/2s is pretty great).
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
Honestly I think the deck is no where close to overpowered.
And what are you, in the .1% of people who feel this way, playing to beat it consistently while also not losing to everything else? 50% playrate and 64% winrate aren't just bogus stats, it's actually what's happening.
Except they are bogus stats. The winrate of the deck was 69% on D1, so it's already gone down by 5% in 2 days, and we don't have today's stats yet.
And HSreplay has it at about 27% playrate, so you're wrong on both counts.
Source it for me because I have different numbers. And I know damn well even without stats you're playing against it as much as everyone else.
Me and two friends played a great deal yesterday, around at least 40-50 games each and it was 65-70% shaman for each of us at the end. You literally don't even need to find statistics, just go que ladder 10 times.
The popularity rankings here show how many people are playing it.
And no, you cannot "go play ten games" and see how many people are playing it because statistics don't work that way. I could play ten games and get all shamans, and assume that 100% of the ladder is shamans. That doesn't make it accurate. You'd need to play around 250-300 games to get an accurate picture, and even then you'd only have the playrates around your current level, which I assume is around rank 15 or so?
It's probably the simplest deck the meta has right now in terms of raw power. Everyone can see how it works, so playing it to an acceptable standard isn't too hard.
I'll be honest though, I've seen some people claim non-quest is better, and I have to wonder if they are ok. I play the quest variant, and every single time I have beaten the non-quest versions. They don't go so hard on the lacky support, so I think they're meant to have a heavier end game, but just a bit of careful use of saving lackies for after the quest pops, and you can outvalue them by a huge margin with card generation, as well as have a much heavier finisher with 4 8/8s. And arguably an easier time finishing galakrond (having the quest pop by turn 7 isn't hard, and playing one elementalist to finish galakrond solo, while still not losing anything in tempo due to summoning 4 1/2s is pretty great).
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
I don't personally think it is, but I think what he's referring to is this variant which has about 2% higher winrate than top Quest Shaman.
Honestly I think the deck is no where close to overpowered.
And what are you, in the .1% of people who feel this way, playing to beat it consistently while also not losing to everything else? 50% playrate and 64% winrate aren't just bogus stats, it's actually what's happening.
Except they are bogus stats. The winrate of the deck was 69% on D1, so it's already gone down by 5% in 2 days, and we don't have today's stats yet.
And HSreplay has it at about 27% playrate, so you're wrong on both counts.
Source it for me because I have different numbers. And I know damn well even without stats you're playing against it as much as everyone else.
Me and two friends played a great deal yesterday, around at least 40-50 games each and it was 65-70% shaman for each of us at the end. You literally don't even need to find statistics, just go que ladder 10 times.
The popularity rankings here show how many people are playing it.
And no, you cannot "go play ten games" and see how many people are playing it because statistics don't work that way. I could play ten games and get all shamans, and assume that 100% of the ladder is shamans. That doesn't make it accurate. You'd need to play around 250-300 games to get an accurate picture, and even then you'd only have the playrates around your current level, which I assume is around rank 15 or so?
Currently rank 4 with a complete avoidance of playing shaman. But if you want to deep dive on the personal attacks, I would be happy to compare our histories of rank placements each month. Have never failed to hit legend in a month where effort was put in. And it's obviously (I thought) an expression with the 10 games. Just saying it's at least every other game. And even if it were 1 in every three games, is that still okay? That much frequency for one class? And then if you wanted to go even further with it and think that I'm some scrub whos just complaining about shaman, why is it near consentual amongst even the top players? But I'm sure your're one of them right? Or as good? I mean you must be top 10 legend with your home brew metabreaker right?
It's a braindead, overpowered deck for a class that had already killed the meta by being the sole Tier 1 class for months. Frankly I can't believe the team let the expansion launch in this state. It's got close to a 70% winrate. After playing for an afternoon on Wednesday I faced shaman in about 80% of my games, with all but a few of those being quest shaman. I'm going back to MTGA until they address this, because it's no fun playing against the same deck over and over and over again, piloted by people who netdeck it and manage to reach high ranks with it despite having to stop and read every card before they play it and missing lethal but still eking out wins.
It's probably the simplest deck the meta has right now in terms of raw power. Everyone can see how it works, so playing it to an acceptable standard isn't too hard.
I'll be honest though, I've seen some people claim non-quest is better, and I have to wonder if they are ok. I play the quest variant, and every single time I have beaten the non-quest versions. They don't go so hard on the lacky support, so I think they're meant to have a heavier end game, but just a bit of careful use of saving lackies for after the quest pops, and you can outvalue them by a huge margin with card generation, as well as have a much heavier finisher with 4 8/8s. And arguably an easier time finishing galakrond (having the quest pop by turn 7 isn't hard, and playing one elementalist to finish galakrond solo, while still not losing anything in tempo due to summoning 4 1/2s is pretty great).
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
I don't personally think it is, but I think what he's referring to is this variant which has about 2% higher winrate than top Quest Shaman.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Short of some electra shenanigans with cards like far sight, or dragons pack, there's nothing really there that would be tempting me. I know morgu with mutate is a good combo, but I have yet to see it make any real impact at the cost of 2 cards, and can really backfire. Plus having to run invocation of frost...it just does so little for a deck that wants to go into the late game. I guess it can also use dragons pack far more consistantly at 5 or 6 than the battlecry version can, but it can't fight for the board as well, so is that improvement in a midgame turn worth the loss of early tempo? As I say, I've never seen it work out in the matchup.
Hey but it's like the guy I've been debating with. "It's going down." People instantly assume this is because people are figuring out how to beat it. There's of course no chance that people are just getting bored with it and are trying other things.
I haven't played it for myself yet, but I've played against it more times than I'd like. I don't think it's as overpowered as other people do, but it does feel like the strongest deck in the game at the moment. It doesn't touch Raza Priest or Jade Shaman imo. I think the biggest problem with the deck at the moment is the 2/1s with rush. It seems a little unfair that they get 2/1 elementals with rush and Warlock get dumb little 1/1 imps that don't do shit. Make them 1/1 with rush or 2/1 without rush. That seems like a really easy and obvious fix.
They should definitely change Faceless Corruptor. It's in waaaay too many decks at the moment. They need to give that card the Corridor Creeper treatment. Take it out back and decapitate it.
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
well the non quest version runs more card draw which is really important on the other hand, quest version runs out of cards really fast. other than that they run that 3/3 legendary that trigger next spell twice which can lead to 4 5/6 minions with taunt at turn 8 or 2 cards drawn with far sight and non quest is simply faster than quest version and that's a big deal since tempo is super important and most games gets decieded by who is the first that plays galk/ shudderwok. and every turn you have 2 extra mana.
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
well the non quest version runs more card draw which is really important on the other hand, quest version runs out of cards really fast. other than that they run that 3/3 legendary that trigger next spell twice which can lead to 4 5/6 minions with taunt at turn 8 or 2 cards drawn with far sight and non quest is simply faster than quest version and that's a big deal since tempo is super important and most games gets decieded by who is the first that plays galk/ shudderwok. and every turn you have 2 extra mana.
"Quest version runs out of cards really really fast."
I tried the deck and deck sucks... In 1/5 time you get a good tempo with cards to draw... so playing it is most annoying as you don't get cards at the right time ...
I went and made crap mage deck other day for "play 20 spells" quest. I used the old one spells deck with flamewalker in it and put 2x vex crow and 2x exotic mountseller with a bunch of small spells... deck has no legendaries in it... and it kick-ass of all the new dragon decks lol
hers your overpowering shaman deck lol
Instead to cry about decks learn to make your own decks to beat the opponents
I can understand why ppl think this deck is broken becuase they are rank +10 low skilled players who play shit/non competitve decks and gets destroyed and think shaman needs nerf while at rank 5 up to legend where 99% of ppl are playing meta decks such as reno mage, reno hunter, quest hunter and pirate warrior, shaman is just as powerful as the other meta decks out there and you can't win every single game becuase "it's op, pls nerf".
I can understand why ppl think this deck is broken becuase they are rank +10 low skilled players who play shit/non competitve decks and gets destroyed and think shaman needs nerf while at rank 5 up to legend where 99% of ppl are playing meta decks such as reno mage, reno hunter, quest hunter and pirate warrior, shaman is just as powerful as the other meta decks out there and you can't win every single game becuase "it's op, pls nerf".
Truly an idiotic take. Really? The "git gud" response? Are you 12?
I play rank 5 and below consistently and when I can afford the time I make legend. We get it. You are playing Shaman and you like that it's powerful and you can beat people and it makes you feel like you're the shit.
But if your theory was correct then why, pray tell, are Blizzard responding with their quickest nerfs in the history of the game aimed at Shaman? Hmm?
It's not as overpowered as I thought. Dont get me wrong, it's still the best deck in the game by a good margin, but it seemed stronger at first because because it's just so easy to build. I'm starting to see decks that can handle it a lot better. Those took time to get refined, while the best version of "broken card tribal" was found on day one.
Isn't it funny how they ran out of broken cards, so they just put far sight and novice in their tempo deck so they can draw the broken cards more?
I play the quest variant, Highlander. And omg holy shit I’m abusing this so hard lol got from rank 10-5 in a day. And I don’t play that much hahahahaha. This needs to be nerfed, I’m steam rolling every one. Only class I lose to sometimes is aggro shaman.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's probably the simplest deck the meta has right now in terms of raw power. Everyone can see how it works, so playing it to an acceptable standard isn't too hard.
I'll be honest though, I've seen some people claim non-quest is better, and I have to wonder if they are ok. I play the quest variant, and every single time I have beaten the non-quest versions. They don't go so hard on the lacky support, so I think they're meant to have a heavier end game, but just a bit of careful use of saving lackies for after the quest pops, and you can outvalue them by a huge margin with card generation, as well as have a much heavier finisher with 4 8/8s. And arguably an easier time finishing galakrond (having the quest pop by turn 7 isn't hard, and playing one elementalist to finish galakrond solo, while still not losing anything in tempo due to summoning 4 1/2s is pretty great).
Will need someone to explain to me how non quest is better.
i havent seen any of them that dont run the quest.
maybe at higher tier play ? im only at 14 atm
https://hsreplay.net/decks/oVHkEorMH6qMT3I5wlWYyf/#gameType=RANKED_STANDARD
The most popular version is actually down to 62.6% winrate.
https://hsreplay.net/meta/#tab=archetypes
The popularity rankings here show how many people are playing it.
And no, you cannot "go play ten games" and see how many people are playing it because statistics don't work that way. I could play ten games and get all shamans, and assume that 100% of the ladder is shamans. That doesn't make it accurate. You'd need to play around 250-300 games to get an accurate picture, and even then you'd only have the playrates around your current level, which I assume is around rank 15 or so?
I don't personally think it is, but I think what he's referring to is this variant which has about 2% higher winrate than top Quest Shaman.
https://hsreplay.net/decks/56GntMFerGAQWlPzp0iZY/#gameType=RANKED_STANDARD
Currently rank 4 with a complete avoidance of playing shaman. But if you want to deep dive on the personal attacks, I would be happy to compare our histories of rank placements each month. Have never failed to hit legend in a month where effort was put in. And it's obviously (I thought) an expression with the 10 games. Just saying it's at least every other game. And even if it were 1 in every three games, is that still okay? That much frequency for one class? And then if you wanted to go even further with it and think that I'm some scrub whos just complaining about shaman, why is it near consentual amongst even the top players? But I'm sure your're one of them right? Or as good? I mean you must be top 10 legend with your home brew metabreaker right?
It's a braindead, overpowered deck for a class that had already killed the meta by being the sole Tier 1 class for months. Frankly I can't believe the team let the expansion launch in this state. It's got close to a 70% winrate. After playing for an afternoon on Wednesday I faced shaman in about 80% of my games, with all but a few of those being quest shaman. I'm going back to MTGA until they address this, because it's no fun playing against the same deck over and over and over again, piloted by people who netdeck it and manage to reach high ranks with it despite having to stop and read every card before they play it and missing lethal but still eking out wins.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. Short of some electra shenanigans with cards like far sight, or dragons pack, there's nothing really there that would be tempting me. I know morgu with mutate is a good combo, but I have yet to see it make any real impact at the cost of 2 cards, and can really backfire. Plus having to run invocation of frost...it just does so little for a deck that wants to go into the late game. I guess it can also use dragons pack far more consistantly at 5 or 6 than the battlecry version can, but it can't fight for the board as well, so is that improvement in a midgame turn worth the loss of early tempo? As I say, I've never seen it work out in the matchup.
So, when you go to HSReplay, and see that Galakrond Shaman has a 61% winrate, you think the deck is "no where close to overpowered"? Okay...
https://hsreplay.net/meta/
Hey but it's like the guy I've been debating with. "It's going down." People instantly assume this is because people are figuring out how to beat it. There's of course no chance that people are just getting bored with it and are trying other things.
I haven't played it for myself yet, but I've played against it more times than I'd like.
I don't think it's as overpowered as other people do, but it does feel like the strongest deck in the game at the moment. It doesn't touch Raza Priest or Jade Shaman imo. I think the biggest problem with the deck at the moment is the 2/1s with rush. It seems a little unfair that they get 2/1 elementals with rush and Warlock get dumb little 1/1 imps that don't do shit. Make them 1/1 with rush or 2/1 without rush. That seems like a really easy and obvious fix.
They should definitely change Faceless Corruptor. It's in waaaay too many decks at the moment. They need to give that card the Corridor Creeper treatment. Take it out back and decapitate it.
definitely needs a small nerf imo
Best deck in the meta. Run it until the nerf on Tuesday. Abuse the shit out of it
well the non quest version runs more card draw which is really important on the other hand, quest version runs out of cards really fast. other than that they run that 3/3 legendary that trigger next spell twice which can lead to 4 5/6 minions with taunt at turn 8 or 2 cards drawn with far sight and non quest is simply faster than quest version and that's a big deal since tempo is super important and most games gets decieded by who is the first that plays galk/ shudderwok. and every turn you have 2 extra mana.
"Quest version runs out of cards really really fast."
Ummmmm.....what!?
Why so many of you cry about shaman overpowered?
I tried the deck and deck sucks... In 1/5 time you get a good tempo with cards to draw... so playing it is most annoying as you don't get cards at the right time ...
I went and made crap mage deck other day for "play 20 spells" quest. I used the old one spells deck with flamewalker in it and put 2x vex crow and 2x exotic mountseller with a bunch of small spells... deck has no legendaries in it... and it kick-ass of all the new dragon decks lol
hers your overpowering shaman deck lol
Instead to cry about decks learn to make your own decks to beat the opponents
I can understand why ppl think this deck is broken becuase they are rank +10 low skilled players who play shit/non competitve decks and gets destroyed and think shaman needs nerf while at rank 5 up to legend where 99% of ppl are playing meta decks such as reno mage, reno hunter, quest hunter and pirate warrior, shaman is just as powerful as the other meta decks out there and you can't win every single game becuase "it's op, pls nerf".
I don't have Kronx Dragonhoof, but that's the only card i'm missing and it's still really good.
Truly an idiotic take. Really? The "git gud" response? Are you 12?
I play rank 5 and below consistently and when I can afford the time I make legend. We get it. You are playing Shaman and you like that it's powerful and you can beat people and it makes you feel like you're the shit.
But if your theory was correct then why, pray tell, are Blizzard responding with their quickest nerfs in the history of the game aimed at Shaman? Hmm?
It's not as overpowered as I thought. Dont get me wrong, it's still the best deck in the game by a good margin, but it seemed stronger at first because because it's just so easy to build. I'm starting to see decks that can handle it a lot better. Those took time to get refined, while the best version of "broken card tribal" was found on day one.
Isn't it funny how they ran out of broken cards, so they just put far sight and novice in their tempo deck so they can draw the broken cards more?
I play the quest variant, Highlander. And omg holy shit I’m abusing this so hard lol got from rank 10-5 in a day. And I don’t play that much hahahahaha. This needs to be nerfed, I’m steam rolling every one. Only class I lose to sometimes is aggro shaman.