If OP could stop using his alt accounts to praise himself and call his detractors clowns that'd be great
I won't call you a clown, but I still think OP isn't entirely wrong. The degree to which RNG can impact the game at this stage is unprecedented. I don't think anyone is saying that HS just became a game where luck is a significant factor, nor do I see anyone suggesting that there is a "collective conspiracy" like Tyrantum said. It's fascinating to me how violently opposed some people are to OP's particular line of reasoning, but I suppose he did go a little far when he said that HS is now a "100% randomized casino".
With that said, Lanko was the only person that provided a rational counterargument to the original post; everyone else that doesn't like it is either misrepresenting those who agree with it or making ad hominem attacks. To Lanko, I appreciate the effort you went to to demonstrate that random effects and RNG do not dominate the meta, but you failed to take into account the rate at which decks are played as opposed to how many decks make little use of discover effects. I'm not sure what rank you're playing at, and I can't speak to lower ranks, but in my experience from rank 5 to legend practically half of my opponents are gala rogue for the last several months. A disproportionate portion of the meta is represented by hunter variants and rogue, which makes extremely heavy use of discover effects. It's also worth stating that every highlander deck that exists utilizes extremely powerful discover effects (read: zephyrus and alex), so while the cards in question that provide these effects may make up a relatively small part of said highlander decks, they have the capability to single handedly swing a game in one's favor. So making a purely quantitative argument on the basis of how many decks do not use or make little use of discover effects is a bit narrow-minded: there are other factors that need to be considered (i.e. which decks are being played the most, what is the power level of the discover cards that these decks employ).
I'll disagree again with the "unprecedent level of RNG meta".
We had metas where Ragnaros and Sylvanas were in almost all decks, so much that they had to be Hall of Famed.
We had a meta where the best win condition in the game was nothing less than Yogg-Saron, Hope's End, even in tournaments.
Mana cheating? Dragonqueen pales in comparison to what decks could do with N'zoth.
We had Cube Warlock with Skull, Possessed Lackeys, Cubes, Gul'dan and N'zoth. We had a period of a meta that was full Control, with tournament lineups being N'zoth Mage, N'zoth Paladin, Cube/Control Warlock and one more.
We had a meta with Cube/Control Lock at the same time with Spiteful Summoner Priest/Druid summoning Deathwing on turns 5/6 and 4 mana Call to Arms Paladin. And even around/later a meta with Spell Hunter that was pretty much Barnes Hunter, with the known interaction with Y'sharrj (however is spelled). Now THAT was a RNG and mana cheating meta. All those ended up nerfed.
We had a meta with Shudderwock Shaman where the Shaman winning depended purely on the order which battlecries happened first, Odd Taunt Warrior having Ragnaros hero power as a win condition and Deathrattle Hunter abusing Cubes with extremely cheap activators to cheat stuff, Kathrena Winterwisp and infinite with the ultimate RNG/Discover card in Deathstalker Rexxar.
Then we had a meta tyrannized by the near infinite RNG/Discover of 7 mana Dr.Boom, Mad Genius for months to the point in non-official tournaments Elysiana was banned and every tournament Specialist format was 95% mirror matches.
Then we had the extreme clown fiesta meta with 3 mana Conjurer's Calling and 5 manaLuna's Pocket Galaxy, a true meta and matches/mirrors where people were rolling dices to win.
And how can we forget the latest event, with Hare Evolve Shaman? Paired with Quest and Lackey generators, it was the ultimate RNG/Discover fiesta.
So no, the current meta is nowhere near those levels.
As for Zephrys and Dragonqueen, you pointed the frequency. By "every highlander deck out there" you mean Highlander Hunter and Mage, with a very small splash of Warrior. Lock uses it in Galakrond Control, but they are the clunkiest cards in the deck, by far, sometimes costing matches, but recently they are less than 2%. HL Hunter and Mage and Warrior combined barely make 12% of the meta, according to stats. Highlander Rogue is almost non-existant and inferior to Galakrond Rogue. So in other ~88% of matches, you are not seeing Zeph or Dragonqueen at all.
Dragon and Face Hunter together account for 20%, Galakrond Rogue for another ~12%, Ress Priest for 7%, Embiggen for 8%, Gala Warrior for ~8%, etc.
Except for Rogue, the RNG, Discover and cheating in the other matchups is very low.
You also pointed out which decks are being played the most and the amount of Discover. Again, the most popular decks (from 5-1) are Dragon Hunter (by far, with almost 16%), Galakrond Rogue (11%) , Embiggen Druid (8%), Mech Paladin (7%), Ress Priest (7%), Highlander Hunter (6%), Highlander Mage (6%), Galakrond Warrior (6%). Gala Rogue gets 11%, HL Mage barely makes 6%, as HL Hunter. The others combined have nowhere the amount of RNG and neither Zeph/Dragonqueen and make almost 50%.
As for my rank, I'm a multiple time Legend. This month I finished Rank 2 as I only played ladder for ~4 days. Sure, Galakrond Rogue frequency is ridiculous, specially at Legend, where it's almost mirrors all day, and while I can see that having one, two decks more reliant on random value generation might be a necessity for the meta or for certain groups of players, I can relate that perhaps it should have a lower power level.
Then again, you have Hunter and Druid doing very well against it, and Paladin and Warrior aren't bad either. Mage is a race for who cheats mana and swings first. Control Warlock is favoured. It's not a polarizing deck, as it isn't heavily favoured or heavily unfavoured, and the amount of Discover allows it the chance to find outs for every match up, which is a good attractive quality for many players.
Calling quest druid Mana cheating 'tame'. Hilarious, every 'choose one' card played after quest IS Mana cheating, sir.
Well, that's true, but there are also 2 other things to consider:
First is that you play the first 4 turns extremely sub-optimally, which is near suicidal against a lot of decks. There is a reason Quest Druid bounces between near Tier 1 in one meta and in another meta is near Tier 4.
The second is the extreme build around of the deck, far more heavy than Highlander. You have to put lots of Choose One cards to make it worth, and like I said, the variance from being near T1 in some metas and near T4 in others shows it isn't consistent, so when it is, it should feel very powerful, for all the restrictions of the deck building.
This guy knows what he's talking about, we are not at unprecedented levels of rng and Mana cheating.
Yeah we are. You cant be playing the same game. It is almost silly at this stage when you factor in that you have NO idea whats in your opponents hand at any given time and this applies to almost every class too. Cards like Zephyrs are just terrible. A Tirion Fordring for Mage? A Flamestrike for Hunter? A Mass Dispel for Druid? No effing way thats right. The whole idea behind strategy and planning out things is that you know against certain classes or decks that you arent going to have to deal with xxxxxxx card or spell. It snt even just Zephyrs - thats the tip of the iceberg. Its the endless discovery, the numerous copies of busted cards like 4-5 Shadowsteps or 4-5 legendaries from whatever class. Its getting stupid now guys. C'mon. How the !@#$ do you even play this game and actually feel as if you have any control over the outcome? Its quite simple that you dont. None. Zero.
Hey, if this is what the majorty wants then so be it. But realize that when you win its nothing you did at all. Just like losses are 99.99999995% not your fault either. Guess Im right, Its a casino. Too bad we cant bet on the decks or hands? That'd be fun at least. ;)
You can often make an educated guess about what zeph is going to offer the player and what he's gonna pick. You have no idea what a mage has if he plays a bunch of spells then generates a ton more from an elemental.
competitive mode and mood in this game is just a delusion sometimes illusion other hallucination,it depends on the hours you spend clicking to prove your self that its not a delusion.
Try chess.
Ps. I like the game as it is, its a random fiesta, always been, and a nice way to relax but you just need to not buy the crap about skills and deep thinking about playing around......playing around what exaclty? play some chess or Go and then reconsider the '''play around'' meaning
Pretty much this. Also OP, ask yourself, why do you care so much about skill? What do you gain if you reach Legend? A cardback? Some random cards and dust which you can also get by spending money? Seriously, do you plan to participate in tournaments? No? Then honestly, I don't see why you should be upset that HS is what it is.
So, as of now the two tier 1 decks out there are dragon hunter and mech paladin. I wouldn't call those decks to be rng reliant to the very least. Other strong decks are embiggen druid, treant druid, face hunter, quest hunter, galakrond warrior, resurrect priest, zoo warlock. Again, all non-rng reliant archetypes.
So, what are we talking about exactly?
Galakrond rogue and a couple of highlander builds??? Really??? THEY are the problem???
Yeah, right let's get back to pirate warrior and shamanstone. That felt so fair and skill-dependant...
So, as of now the two tier 1 decks out there are dragon hunter and mech paladin. I wouldn't call those decks to be rng reliant to the very least. Other strong decks are embiggen druid, treant druid, face hunter, quest hunter, galakrond warrior, resurrect priest, zoo warlock. Again, all non-rng reliant archetypes.
So, what are we talking about exactly?
Galakrond rogue and a couple of highlander builds??? Really??? THEY are the problem???
Yeah, right let's get back to pirate warrior and shamanstone. That felt so fair and skill-dependant...
My point exactly. Nothing right now is massively overpowered, so people have to dream up things to be upset about.
Some good points being made in this thread. Couple of points to make:
- Alex is not Discover, and she can "go wrong" (in the sense of not providing much value) - like if she gave you a couple of Fairie Dragons, yeah that's still a 2 mana discount on each but not really worth putting in a deck then. I would argue Alex is mana cheating, not Discover, and if you wanted to criticize the card I guess you could say that the value generation is too strong (pulling from a strong tribe) and the mana cheating potential (of potentially playing 27~30 mana's worth of stuff for 9 mana) is overbearing. (You could make an argument about N'Zoth here, but I think N'Zoth and Alex are very different because in N'Zoth you know exactly what's going to be summoned whereas in the case of Alex you don't. And sometimes the cards that Alex summons can literally flip games, like getting a 0 cost Nozari when you are low, etc.)
- I'm drawing from VS stats here but afaik Galakrond Rogue and Hunter archetypes are still among the most popular, which rely on mana cheating and Discover a lot. Judging by Vicious' stats, add Dragon/Highlander Hunter and Galakrond/Highlander Rogue, plus Highlander Mage, and you get about 40% of the playerbase.
-You can't call Resurrect Priest non-RNG based, early pulls from Res effects have a huge impact on what gets drawn. If you pull something shitty in the early pulls (like Psychopomp) you have an increased chance to pull shitty pulls in your Mass Res pulls. Or a couple of Albatross token pulls in your Mass Res pulls can really swing the game. Or maybe you ended up pulling Vargoth in your Res pull in the late game, and you manage to double dip on the Res value.
We should have a Normal Hearthstone mode, like this. And a Classic Hearthstone mod, where all the discover type cards, put card in your deck type card, ... are ban. That is basically what Hearthstone like before LOE expansion. At that time, tempo, value, card advantage, removals and threat actually matter
Not really, but if thats how you see it. Legend is a function of the deck you play and the time you grind. Nothing else. If it was skill then the alleged best players could get there with just about any deck but they dont.
I've seen them do it with low tier decks plenty of times. I've even gotten legend with a tier 4 deck before, and I am far from the best player in the game.
You make some good points, so I'm going to more clearly qualify my argument (which I admittedly should've done in the first place). The state in which the game has been since the introduction of lackeys and even more so with zephyrus, and I believe I did say this in my first post on this thread, has generally been an rng clown fiesta. That is not to say that lackeys and zephyrus are primarily responsible for aforementioned state (although they are certainly contributors), but rather that they denote the beginning of a period of particularly rng oriented metas/gameplay. I'm going to sequentially address your argument as it addresses RNG oriented metas in prior expansions as well.
First, Nzoth. Nzoth is not particularly representative of RNG in that you know exactly what he's going to summon, so not a great example to compare with Alex. He might be more powerful, but he's certainly not more random.
Rag and Sylvanas. Again, you know exactly what they're going to do, even if you don't know what they're going to target. Plus they can be dealt with far more easily than lackeys or highlander cards bc they have to be played and you typically have to wait at least a turn in order to realize their effects. Rag can be destroyed, sylvanas can be silenced: you can't silence zephyrus, and you can't prevent lackeys from using their battlecries.
Yog. This is one card. Admittedly its a card that does a lot, but we have the exact same thing now with puzzle box, and you can have more than one in the deck. Yog is nothing compared to the current meta.
Cube/Guldan meta. This is not representative of RNG, lol. You know what cube does, you know what Guldan can summon. These things can be played around. You can't play around zephyrus every turn and you can't play around random lackey effects.
Spiteful summoner priest/druid. This is quality over quantity. Sure, spiteful summoner can summon ONE crazy card. We have random effects from infinite 1 drops now. We have a card that can provide the perfect out for any situation at any time. Spiteful summoner is nothing compared to what we have now.
4 mana call to arms paladin. I'm going to repeat myself again: this is not RNG. This is a card that summons creatures from your deck that you know are there, that you deliberately chose to be summoned by call to arms.
Shudderwock shaman. Another poor example of non-rng. All shudderwock does is replicate battlecries of minions that you already played. Nothing about it is random, not even the order of the battlecries. Not to mention that its still played today and has been made even more potent with shaman quest.
Dr. Boom/Elysiana control warrior. The issue with this deck is that it ideally needs to survive for 30 cards in order to make optmal use of Elysiana, or 7 turns (at the time) to activate Dr. Boom. Obviously that's what the deck is made for, but still. Gala rogue and highlander decks don't need to wait 7 turns or an entire game to make use of their randomly generated effects. Even so, this archetype came to exist after rise of shadows, so it doesn't contradict my argument that the game has been a clown fiesta beginning with the intro of lackeys (in rise of shadows).
Conj mage. Here you might have an argument for an RNG oriented deck that would be potentially higher in power level than current top tier decks. With that said, the RNG aspect of this deck essentially revolves around a single card, and that is conj. Even highlander decks have more potentiality with regard to randomness, and forget about decks that generate lackeys. This is another archetype that was introduced in rise of shadows, so still in keeping with my argument.
Hare evolve shaman. This is a deck that is admittedly entirely focused on maximizing RNG. I'm still not sure if it makes use of as much RNG as decks like gala rogue, but since so many played it it may have been representative of a more RNG focused meta than the current meta. I'll give this one to you. Still a very recent development, so doesn't contradict my argument.
To conclude, I'd like to note that while not every deck in the current meta is predicated on making use of RNG, the statistics you quoted show that 3 of the 6 most popular decks are either highlander or gala rogue, and make up 23 percent of all decks played. Needless to say, that is a pretty significant portion.
Looking forward to reading your response.
First, some clarification. While I quoted you, I was also addressing other people talking about mana cheating meta. So when I mentioned Call to Arms, Spiteful Summoner, Cubelock, I was addressing mana cheating (I even specified saying "Now THAT was mana cheating"), though it looked a like quoted responde only to you. I know they aren't RNG, and that was mostly to Rag/Sylv effects, Yogg meta, but I mistakenly put RNG near other descriptions, so my bad.
Though I would like to address some points:
- Rag and Sylvanas were used in almost all decks. Except for Rogue, no one else is using Lackeys. Highlander Control Warrior, if we want to be really pedantic about it, and very tamely. You can play Boompistol to really slow them down, but most importantly, sure you can't prevent the lackey, but just like Rag and Sylv, you can destroy and silence whatever non-spell they generate.
- "Yog is nothing in the current meta". First, tournaments were played relying purely on Yog to bring opponents from 30 to 0 by casting random spells. They had to fundamentally nerf the card to stop casting when dead to put a stop to this and put the game back on track. You can't get more reliance on RNG to win than this.
- Spiteful decks did have RNG involved as well, and wasn't low impact, though I was mainly addressing the mana cheating of it. Highrolling Deathwing or lowrolling 5/5 C'thun on turns 5/6 decided games. And it wasn't the only element of RNG involved in those decks. A great part of it was also RNG'ing with Grand Archivist and what it hit from Free From Amber, Mind Control and Ultimate Infestation.
- You're mistaken with Shudderwock Shaman when you said "the order of the battlecries wasn't random". The order is totally random, and you could lose if Grumble procced before Saronite, and people lost even in tournaments with a bazillion battlecries played because of it. Wins/losses were basically decided on "I played a lot of battlecries, but let's pray Grumble doesn't proc before Saronite". A rare ocurrence? Perhaps, but you could never play it without this risk.
- About Dr.Boom and Elysiana. Dr.Boom pushed every other Control deck out simply because of it's near infinite Discover RNG generation. Plus Omega Assembly. Can't get more RNG when even what hero power you get is random! Some tournaments were 100% mirror matches, and of course, what decided them? Who Discovered better, and who got a better Elysiana card generation.
- About Conj.Mage: No, it wasn't just Conjurer's, and calling it a single card is... stretching it, since it was a Twinspell and at the apex of its power it also ran Magic Trick and Mana Cyclone to regularly get more and of course, for even more RNG. So they could conjure it 4 times, or maybe a dozen. And you could get full hands with random spells by Cyclone (including spells that discovered more spells). You were complaining about Lackeys, and this deck used none and it probably had more RNG involved.
- Hare Evolve Shaman didn't use as much RNG as Rogue? Rogue regularly kills you from the 0 cost cards bursting you more often than Lackey RNG. It was not only Hare Evolve, but Mogu + Mutate, and if all the evolve plays somehow failed, you still had the Quest for double lackey creation and double discoveries, then Shudderwock for another random board and random full hand refill. Rogue is no way comparable to this fiesta.
- Last point: I don't think you can put HL Hunter in the same spot as RNG fiesta as Gala Rogue and HL Mage just because of Zephrys and Dragonqueen (and the 3 mana discover a dragon). It's 3 out of 30 when these other two are pretty much half their decks. And HL mage far less popular than Rogue and with a far inferior winrate. So it's far less than 23%, and even if it was 23%, you can also make a case for not seeing them for the other 77% of your matches.
Besides, they both suffer with Hunter, Rogue also with Druid. Both Paladin and Warrior can blow them both out of air as well.
Also, important to notice, is that Galakrond Rogue and Highlander Mage are actually the only ones keeping Ressurrection Priest in check. Ress Priest can feast on Hunters, Warriors, Mech Paladins and even Druids, as their generation is way too low, or in the case of current Gala Warrior, Mech Paladin, Quest Hunter, non-existant.
But they can't cope with both the mana-cheating and the near infinite generation (or high value generation in case of Mage, plus Reno and Poly for their Ress Pool), even when they just replaced Quest with their own Galakrond.
The purpose of high extra value/resource generation strategies is there to exactly keep Control in check. Gut Rogue/Mage and Priest has its two worse matchups off the map while being favoured against the rest of the field, leading to an unbalanced meta.
Except for Shaman, every class is playable and has a decent deck. Rogue overall is barely keeping a 50% winrate despite all the RNG, and Mage is even below it, with an overall Tier 3 winrate.
That said, I don't disagree that they have a bit too much randomness in them, but I also recognize their purpose and that we had much worse than this.
Apologies in advance for the long quote, I just wanted to make sure what I said and your counterargument were both in there.
Now, I'm going to respond point by point again to your point by point response to my point by point response, lol.
It doesn't matter if Rag and Sylvanas were used in almost every deck if you're trying to prove that they were indicative of a more RNG infested meta since, as you just admitted, they are not representative of RNG.
I don't see how you're addressing my argument here with yog. Like I said, we now have puzzle box which is literally the exact same thing as yogg, and you can have 2 in the deck. You can argue that puzzle box is more tame since it only casts 10 spells, but I think you're going pretty far into diminishing returns at that point. 10 spells is more than sufficient to swing a game, and you can have 2 puzzle boxes in the deck. And you'll not that it's not even played that much. So yeah, Yogg is nothing in this meta.
Again with the spiteful shaman, even with grand archivist the only RNG aspect of that is what spell it hits. Otherwise it's basically mana cheating cards out of your deck that you know are there and that you know have a chance to be pulled. Not exactly high on RNG compared to the decks we talked about in the current meta.
With shudderwock, you literally said that the order of battlecries wasn't random and was based on the order in which battlecries were played. I was unsure so I just went with what you said. If the order in which the battlecries proc is random that would indeed qualify as RNG, but it's still not random on the level of lackeys and alex. You know what battlecries youre going to get: you have no idea what lackeys are going to be generated or what spell or draco lackey will generate for you. Not to mention that shudderwock shaman still exists. You're talking like it's ancient history, but battlecry quest shaman was at the top of the meta as recently as 2 months ago. In fact, I was talking to my friend at rank 4 the other day and he was telling me that he was repeatedly running into highlander quest shaman. So yeah, shudderwock is still a thing.
Doctor Boom and Elysiana. You didn't address/counter my argument about this whatsoever. Doctor Boom costed 7 mana, Elysiana costed 9 mana and you wanted to play it when you completely ran out of cards. This is hardly instantaneous RNG generation; lackeys cost 1 mana, zephyrus costs 3 mana, even with alex you don't have to wait the entire game to use it. Plus you can only use a HP once a turn, whereas you can play up to 10 lackeys per turn, shadowstep zeph and use it again, etc. Your argument for this archetype being more RNG heavy than gala rogue is weak. But again, even if the period during which this and conj mage existed was more RNG oriented than the current meta, this does not contradict my argument. I'm saying that since rise of shadows, this game has been more of an RNG clown fiesta than it has been at any point in the past. Guess what archetypes were introduced with rise of shadows? Conj mage and Boom/Elysiana warrior. The same thing applies for hare evolve shaman, which is very recent.
I would agree that HL hunter may not be in the same league from a randomness standpoint as gala rogue and HL mage, but it is still part of the problem nonetheless. And the 23 percent is the combined play rate of gala rogue, HL mage, and HL hunter literally according to you, so you can't really say it's far less than 23 percent now without damaging your own credibility.
To conclude, I don't disagree that a variety of decks are at least somewhat viable, but what you're saying about winrates and your justifications for why RNG heavy decks exist don't really have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm not saying gala rogue and HL decks are the strongest on the ladder, or that they don't have any reason to exist. I'm saying that they are decks that either quantitatively employ many RNG effects, or qualitatively employ powerful RNG effects, and they make up a significant portion of the meta (23 percent according to the figures you quoted). And I want to clarify again: I am saying that since Rise of Shadows, this game has been more RNG heavy than any period prior.
Now, I'm going to respond point by point again to your point by point response to my point by point response, lol.
OK then, but this is my last post on the subject, you can then counter-argument again, and that will be it whatever the answer. I'm not gonna be discussing this ad-infinitum.
It doesn't matter if Rag and Sylvanas were used in almost every deck if you're trying to prove that they were indicative of a more RNG infested meta since, as you just admitted, they are not representative of RNG.
I don't see how you're addressing my argument here with yog. Like I said, we now have puzzle box which is literally the exact same thing as yogg, and you can have 2 in the deck. You can argue that puzzle box is more tame since it only casts 10 spells, but I think you're going pretty far into diminishing returns at that point. 10 spells is more than sufficient to swing a game, and you can have 2 puzzle boxes in the deck. And you'll not that it's not even played that much. So yeah, Yogg is nothing in this meta.
Again with the spiteful shaman, even with grand archivist the only RNG aspect of that is what spell it hits. Otherwise it's basically mana cheating cards out of your deck that you know are there and that you know have a chance to be pulled. Not exactly high on RNG compared to the decks we talked about in the current meta.
With shudderwock, you literally said that the order of battlecries wasn't random and was based on the order in which battlecries were played. I was unsure so I just went with what you said. If the order in which the battlecries proc is random that would indeed qualify as RNG, but it's still not random on the level of lackeys and alex. You know what battlecries youre going to get: you have no idea what lackeys are going to be generated or what spell or draco lackey will generate for you. Not to mention that shudderwock shaman still exists. You're talking like it's ancient history, but battlecry quest shaman was at the top of the meta as recently as 2 months ago. In fact, I was talking to my friend at rank 4 the other day and he was telling me that he was repeatedly running into highlander quest shaman. So yeah, shudderwock is still a thing.
Doctor Boom and Elysiana. You didn't address/counter my argument about this whatsoever. Doctor Boom costed 7 mana, Elysiana costed 9 mana and you wanted to play it when you completely ran out of cards. This is hardly instantaneous RNG generation; lackeys cost 1 mana, zephyrus costs 3 mana, even with alex you don't have to wait the entire game to use it. Plus you can only use a HP once a turn, whereas you can play up to 10 lackeys per turn, shadowstep zeph and use it again, etc. Your argument for this archetype being more RNG heavy than gala rogue is weak. But again, even if the period during which this and conj mage existed was more RNG oriented than the current meta, this does not contradict my argument. I'm saying that since rise of shadows, this game has been more of an RNG clown fiesta than it has been at any point in the past. Guess what archetypes were introduced with rise of shadows? Conj mage and Boom/Elysiana warrior. The same thing applies for hare evolve shaman, which is very recent.
I would agree that HL hunter may not be in the same league from a randomness standpoint as gala rogue and HL mage, but it is still part of the problem nonetheless. And the 23 percent is the combined play rate of gala rogue, HL mage, and HL hunter literally according to you, so you can't really say it's far less than 23 percent now without damaging your own credibility.
To conclude, I don't disagree that a variety of decks are at least somewhat viable, but what you're saying about winrates and your justifications for why RNG heavy decks exist don't really have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm not saying gala rogue and HL decks are the strongest on the ladder, or that they don't have any reason to exist. I'm saying that they are decks that either quantitatively employ many RNG effects, or qualitatively employ powerful RNG effects, and they make up a significant portion of the meta (23 percent according to the figures you quoted). And I want to clarify again: I am saying that since Rise of Shadows, this game has been more RNG heavy than any period prior.
Ok, so you complain that the RNG heavy decks make 23% of the meta (they don't), but gives a handwave to metas where much more than 23% of this was going on. Where decks were almost always running Rag/Sylv for random 8 damage and random minion stealing or a meta that wins, and another when even in professional tournaments wins were decided by literal dice rolls with Yogg-Saron, or that infinite RNG made mirrors go to turn limit constantly. Or Deathstalker Discover singlehandedly defeating entire decks by itself?
It's completely pointless to imagine Yogg today's meta. Different spells in the pool, power level of other cards and classes vastly different... What matters is that his RNG was meta warping in his own time, and today the RNG heavy decks aren't. HL Mage has the winrate of a T3 deck. Gala Rogue is barely over 50% win, despite being popular. There are multiple other decks with a greater power level. Completely different from Yogg meta.
You'll lose far more games from 30+mana swing turns or 20+ damage from hand with cards from the deck than Lackey Discovers or Amazing Reno's RNG. Losing from discovered Dragonqueens or random Pyroblast to face happens once in a full moon, contrary to Yogg.
Can't understand your point about old Shudderwock Shaman. It doesn't matter if I know what battlecries I'll get when the dice roll decides that Grumble procs before Saronites, I don't get it back, and lose the game. And yeah... it's still played today...so what?
And hold on a minute, you're saying that I said the order of the battlecries wasn't random? No, sir, that was you. I'm gonna even quote you again:
Shudderwock shaman. Another poor example of non-rng. All shudderwock does is replicate battlecries of minions that you already played. Nothing about it is random, not even the order of the battlecries. Not to mention that its still played today and has been made even more potent with shaman quest.
It's irrelevant that Boom costs 7 mana. So does Galakrond. Or that Elysiana was only used on fatigue. As if Warrior had trouble reaching turn 7 or fatigue... Lackeys cost 1 mana, but you don't always generate the lackey you might need, where you would always discover a mech and play it with Rush.
Boom was infinite RNG generation, with even a random order of hero powers. What matters is that the near infinite RNG generation tremendously helped by itself to carry the deck to be the meta tyrant of the time. You complain today about Gala Rogue frequency and mirrors, where were you during Control Warrior turn timer limit fiesta, or wins purely decided by better Discoveries and Elysianas, and near 100% mirrors of 1h+ in tournaments? If you think Gala Rogue meta is worse than Dr.Boom Control Warrior's I don't know what to say.
Also, Boom was played before Rise, just without Elysiana. It's just that it took much longer to go off, specially since we had a far worse RNG in Deathstalker Rexxar being available. One card that defeated whole decks by itself because of its RNG. But Lackeys are much worse than him as well, I guess.
If you put HL Hunter as part of the RNG problem as the same level as Gala Rogue and HL Mage, I'm sorry, but it's you who's damaging you credibility. You can't really be seriously comparing their 2 discover generators and Dragonqueen to be on the same level as Rogue's lackeys and Mage's fiesta.
We can agree that RoS increased the RNG in the game a lot with Lackeys, Conjurer's, even cards like Rafaam... but we're not in RoS anymore. If you say RoS is worse, than you just agreed that we are not at "unprecedent levels of RNG".
Specially since Gala Rogue and HL Mage, by far, do not have the same oppressiveness, popularity, winrate and meta-warpness power that Hare Evolve Shaman, Pre-nerf Conjurer's Mage, Dr.Boom Control Warrior and even DK Rexxar and pre-nerf Yogg had.
Now, I'm going to respond point by point again to your point by point response to my point by point response, lol.
OK then, but this is my last post on the subject, you can then counter-argument again, and that will be it whatever the answer. I'm not gonna be discussing this ad-infinitum.
It doesn't matter if Rag and Sylvanas were used in almost every deck if you're trying to prove that they were indicative of a more RNG infested meta since, as you just admitted, they are not representative of RNG.
I don't see how you're addressing my argument here with yog. Like I said, we now have puzzle box which is literally the exact same thing as yogg, and you can have 2 in the deck. You can argue that puzzle box is more tame since it only casts 10 spells, but I think you're going pretty far into diminishing returns at that point. 10 spells is more than sufficient to swing a game, and you can have 2 puzzle boxes in the deck. And you'll not that it's not even played that much. So yeah, Yogg is nothing in this meta.
Again with the spiteful shaman, even with grand archivist the only RNG aspect of that is what spell it hits. Otherwise it's basically mana cheating cards out of your deck that you know are there and that you know have a chance to be pulled. Not exactly high on RNG compared to the decks we talked about in the current meta.
With shudderwock, you literally said that the order of battlecries wasn't random and was based on the order in which battlecries were played. I was unsure so I just went with what you said. If the order in which the battlecries proc is random that would indeed qualify as RNG, but it's still not random on the level of lackeys and alex. You know what battlecries youre going to get: you have no idea what lackeys are going to be generated or what spell or draco lackey will generate for you. Not to mention that shudderwock shaman still exists. You're talking like it's ancient history, but battlecry quest shaman was at the top of the meta as recently as 2 months ago. In fact, I was talking to my friend at rank 4 the other day and he was telling me that he was repeatedly running into highlander quest shaman. So yeah, shudderwock is still a thing.
Doctor Boom and Elysiana. You didn't address/counter my argument about this whatsoever. Doctor Boom costed 7 mana, Elysiana costed 9 mana and you wanted to play it when you completely ran out of cards. This is hardly instantaneous RNG generation; lackeys cost 1 mana, zephyrus costs 3 mana, even with alex you don't have to wait the entire game to use it. Plus you can only use a HP once a turn, whereas you can play up to 10 lackeys per turn, shadowstep zeph and use it again, etc. Your argument for this archetype being more RNG heavy than gala rogue is weak. But again, even if the period during which this and conj mage existed was more RNG oriented than the current meta, this does not contradict my argument. I'm saying that since rise of shadows, this game has been more of an RNG clown fiesta than it has been at any point in the past. Guess what archetypes were introduced with rise of shadows? Conj mage and Boom/Elysiana warrior. The same thing applies for hare evolve shaman, which is very recent.
I would agree that HL hunter may not be in the same league from a randomness standpoint as gala rogue and HL mage, but it is still part of the problem nonetheless. And the 23 percent is the combined play rate of gala rogue, HL mage, and HL hunter literally according to you, so you can't really say it's far less than 23 percent now without damaging your own credibility.
To conclude, I don't disagree that a variety of decks are at least somewhat viable, but what you're saying about winrates and your justifications for why RNG heavy decks exist don't really have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm not saying gala rogue and HL decks are the strongest on the ladder, or that they don't have any reason to exist. I'm saying that they are decks that either quantitatively employ many RNG effects, or qualitatively employ powerful RNG effects, and they make up a significant portion of the meta (23 percent according to the figures you quoted). And I want to clarify again: I am saying that since Rise of Shadows, this game has been more RNG heavy than any period prior.
Ok, so you complain that the RNG heavy decks make 23% of the meta (they don't), but gives a handwave to metas where much more than 23% of this was going on. Where decks were almost always running Rag/Sylv for random 8 damage and random minion stealing or a meta that wins, and another when even in professional tournaments wins were decided by literal dice rolls with Yogg-Saron, or that infinite RNG made mirrors go to turn limit constantly. Or Deathstalker Discover singlehandedly defeating entire decks by itself?
It's completely pointless to imagine Yogg today's meta. Different spells in the pool, power level of other cards and classes vastly different... What matters is that his RNG was meta warping in his own time, and today the RNG heavy decks aren't. HL Mage has the winrate of a T3 deck. Gala Rogue is barely over 50% win, despite being popular. There are multiple other decks with a greater power level. Completely different from Yogg meta.
You'll lose far more games from 30+mana swing turns or 20+ damage from hand with cards from the deck than Lackey Discovers or Amazing Reno's RNG. Losing from discovered Dragonqueens or random Pyroblast to face happens once in a full moon, contrary to Yogg.
Can't understand your point about old Shudderwock Shaman. It doesn't matter if I know what battlecries I'll get when the dice roll decides that Grumble procs before Saronites, I don't get it back, and lose the game. And yeah... it's still played today...so what?
And hold on a minute, you're saying that I said the order of the battlecries wasn't random? No, sir, that was you. I'm gonna even quote you again:
Shudderwock shaman. Another poor example of non-rng. All shudderwock does is replicate battlecries of minions that you already played. Nothing about it is random, not even the order of the battlecries. Not to mention that its still played today and has been made even more potent with shaman quest.
It's irrelevant that Boom costs 7 mana. So does Galakrond. Or that Elysiana was only used on fatigue. As if Warrior had trouble reaching turn 7 or fatigue... Lackeys cost 1 mana, but you don't always generate the lackey you might need, where you would always discover a mech and play it with Rush.
Boom was infinite RNG generation, with even a random order of hero powers. What matters is that the near infinite RNG generation tremendously helped by itself to carry the deck to be the meta tyrant of the time. You complain today about Gala Rogue frequency and mirrors, where were you during Control Warrior turn timer limit fiesta, or wins purely decided by better Discoveries and Elysianas, and near 100% mirrors of 1h+ in tournaments? If you think Gala Rogue meta is worse than Dr.Boom Control Warrior's I don't know what to say.
Also, Boom was played before Rise, just without Elysiana. It's just that it took much longer to go off, specially since we had a far worse RNG in Deathstalker Rexxar being available. One card that defeated whole decks by itself because of its RNG. But Lackeys are much worse than him as well, I guess.
If you put HL Hunter as part of the RNG problem as the same level as Gala Rogue and HL Mage, I'm sorry, but it's you who's damaging you credibility. You can't really be seriously comparing their 2 discover generators and Dragonqueen to be on the same level as Rogue's lackeys and Mage's fiesta.
We can agree that RoS increased the RNG in the game a lot with Lackeys, Conjurer's, even cards like Rafaam... but we're not in RoS anymore. If you say RoS is worse, than you just agreed that we are not at "unprecedent levels of RNG".
Specially since Gala Rogue and HL Mage, by far, do not have the same oppressiveness, popularity, winrate and meta-warpness power that Hare Evolve Shaman, Pre-nerf Conjurer's Mage, Dr.Boom Control Warrior and even DK Rexxar and pre-nerf Yogg had.
Ok, I don't want to discuss this ad infinitum either, but I will reply as long as I feel that you're saying blatantly incorrect things. So here we go again.
You say that there's no way 23 percent of the meta is RNG oriented decks despite you being the person who said that in the first place. Here's a direct quote for you: "Again, the most popular decks (from 5-1) are Dragon Hunter (by far, with almost 16%), Galakrond Rogue (11%) , Embiggen Druid (8%), Mech Paladin (7%), Ress Priest (7%), Highlander Hunter (6%), Highlander Mage (6%)". Feel free to do the math on what 11 + 6 + 6 is, lol. You're incorrect btw, Gala rogue is 15.5 percent, HL Hunter is 3 percent, and HL mage is 8.66 percent, which adds up to about 27 percent. These are all RNG oriented decks. This is according to HSreplay. We can go in circles about Rag/Sylv all day, but I'm still going to tell you that 8 damage directed at a random minion and stealing a random minion that's already on the board are not on the same level of RNG as generating completely random spells/minions or the perfect out for any situation.
You keep going on and on about how powerful Yogg was, but you just keep ignoring how puzzle box is yogg and exists in HL mage, which as you pointed out is not a tier 1 deck. That doesn't take away from the fact that RNG exists in the current meta, it just means that it's not as powerful. Two pretty different things there.
With shudderwock shaman, it does matter if you know what battlecries its going to generate, because we are talking about RNG. If you know what battlecries are coming, it's not as random. I'm not sure how you don't understand what I'm saying with that. And so what that it's still played today? You were using it as an example of how much more dominant RNG oriented decks were in the past. The fact that it's still played today completely invalidates your argument. I will admit that I may have misread your initial post and thought that you said shudderwock isn't random, so my bad on that.
It's not irrelevant at all that Dr. Boom costs 7 mana or that Elysiana was only used upon fatigue; to the contrary, it is extremely relevant. If we're talking about frequency and quantity of randomly generated effects, which is higher, gala rogue playing 3 lackeys every turn, or Boom warrior playing Boom on turn 7 (presuming they even have it at that point) and then elysiana at the literal end of the game? And please, give me a break with "infinite RNG generation". The only discovery Boom granted was the 1 in 4 chance for discover a mech, otherwise the effects were extremely predictable, I mean you could see what the HP for next turn would be at the end of each turn for crying out loud. You can't hover over what lackeys your opponent has in their hand to see what they're going to do, LOL. I think from an RNG perspective gala rogue is far and away way more unpredictable than boom warrior, and that seems pretty obvious as well.
You bring up DS rexxar, which is a fair example of RNG. But you could only generate 1 minion a turn, and you had to wait 6 turns to play it presuming you even drew it in your first 6 turns. No such restriction with Gala rogue or any highlander decks.
With HL hunter, did you even read my response? I flat out agreed with you that it isn't on the same level as HL mage or gala rogue. I just said that it is "part of the problem". Feel free to read back.
Also, and I've said this several times, I'm not saying RoS was worse: I'm saying that since RoS, we've been at an unprecedented level of RNG. I've said this verbatim multiple times, I'm really not sure how you're not understanding me.
I'm not arguing that current RNG oriented decks are the most powerful that have ever existed. I'm arguing that RNG since RoS is more present in the game than it ever has been before. Not that it's more powerful, that there's more of it. You're just supporting what I'm saying by citing hare evolve shaman, conj mage, and boom/elysiana warrior as examples of crazy RNG decks: all of those archetypes came into existence after RoS. And we may not be in RoS anymore, but the cards that were introduced in that expansion are still very present in the current meta. I rest my case.
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
Or have we forgotten the days of dragon control priest, my smoothest ride to legend ever with a 65% winrate making multiple copies of mindblast and maybe even dropping in Lyra for more ridiculous shenanigans. We are not at unprecedented levels of rng or discover. The only class that is making hay from this is rogue, which always has some busted game breaker mechanic. The only reason anyone notices is because in the past, burgle rogue sucked and never won anything, and now gala is somewhat viable, and oh my gosh, Zeph exists, a card which gets under so many people's skin. Like people weren't playing brann and kazakus back in the day to generate multiple custom rng based spells. Or relying on a ridiculous Mana cheat rng based battlecry ala Dk guldan.
I do enjoy the game - I just dont care for what its become. Its crazy. I feel like my wins arent earned and and my losses arent my fault. Like everytime. Thats not how it should be. We've gone WAY too far into the random system. Theres no class identities hardly anymore. I only do dailies now and havent spent any money on the game either where before I didnt mind contributing to it. Its just not good. IMO.
I empathize and agree with this, and it's actually something I've talked about with several of my friends that consistently get legend. Skill still exists, but it's so much harder to make use of nowadays. I feel for the last year or so, ever since the introduction of lackeys and zephyrus, this game has gone in the direction of being an RNG clown fiesta where it's virtually impossible to play around your opponent's hand bc you can't possibly know what they might have. Zephyrus is hands down the dumbest card ever printed in the history of HS imo and it's absolutely ludicrous that it exists in standard, let alone the game as a whole. Lackeys are admittedly less broken but for me have no place whatsoever in standard: they are the epitome of what wild is as a format, not standard. With all of that said, you should know that you're not alone with regard to your frustration with the decidedly ridiculous direction this game has headed as of late. I know of several consistently high ranked players, myself included, that feel exactly the same way
I second this post, exactly my feeling.. I get Legend, scamazing and getting scamazed along the way more than ever...
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
Trouble with operative was it could easily discover itself - an easy fix is possible, like with dragonqueen, cards shouldn't be able to generate copies of themselves imo (through discover, battlecry, deathrattle or whatever)
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
Trouble with operative was it could easily discover itself - an easy fix is possible, like with dragonqueen, cards shouldn't be able to generate copies of themselves imo (through discover, battlecry, deathrattle or whatever)
It discovered a copy of a card in your opponent's deck, which is not the same, you can't fix that. Besides, most times they got more from netherspite historian. That deck sucked to play against.
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
Trouble with operative was it could easily discover itself - an easy fix is possible, like with dragonqueen, cards shouldn't be able to generate copies of themselves imo (through discover, battlecry, deathrattle or whatever)
It discovered a copy of a card in your opponent's deck, which is not the same, you can't fix that. Besides, most times they got more from netherspite historian. That deck sucked to play against.
Oh shit, I completely remembered that wrongly lmao, must be the infinite dragonqueen ptsp xD
Although, I do think it stands that cards shouldn't be able to give you themselves as options, solves a lot of potential problems before they manifest
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
Trouble with operative was it could easily discover itself - an easy fix is possible, like with dragonqueen, cards shouldn't be able to generate copies of themselves imo (through discover, battlecry, deathrattle or whatever)
It discovered a copy of a card in your opponent's deck, which is not the same, you can't fix that. Besides, most times they got more from netherspite historian. That deck sucked to play against.
Oh shit, I completely remembered that wrongly lmao, must be the infinite dragonqueen ptsp xD
Although, I do think it stands that cards shouldn't be able to give you themselves as options, solves a lot of potential problems before they manifest
Point is, it did what it did and no-one fixed it then. There were like 3 decks that ran that shell so you could never tell what you were playing against. That was an awful meta. At least they fixed alex
Does anyone also remember when the lich King was in every deck, and you could rng a victory against a combo deck, or out of nowhere drop anti magic shell and it was game over?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can often make an educated guess about what zeph is going to offer the player and what he's gonna pick. You have no idea what a mage has if he plays a bunch of spells then generates a ton more from an elemental.
Pretty much this. Also OP, ask yourself, why do you care so much about skill? What do you gain if you reach Legend? A cardback? Some random cards and dust which you can also get by spending money? Seriously, do you plan to participate in tournaments? No? Then honestly, I don't see why you should be upset that HS is what it is.
So, as of now the two tier 1 decks out there are dragon hunter and mech paladin. I wouldn't call those decks to be rng reliant to the very least. Other strong decks are embiggen druid, treant druid, face hunter, quest hunter, galakrond warrior, resurrect priest, zoo warlock. Again, all non-rng reliant archetypes.
So, what are we talking about exactly?
Galakrond rogue and a couple of highlander builds??? Really??? THEY are the problem???
Yeah, right let's get back to pirate warrior and shamanstone. That felt so fair and skill-dependant...
My point exactly. Nothing right now is massively overpowered, so people have to dream up things to be upset about.
Some good points being made in this thread. Couple of points to make:
- Alex is not Discover, and she can "go wrong" (in the sense of not providing much value) - like if she gave you a couple of Fairie Dragons, yeah that's still a 2 mana discount on each but not really worth putting in a deck then. I would argue Alex is mana cheating, not Discover, and if you wanted to criticize the card I guess you could say that the value generation is too strong (pulling from a strong tribe) and the mana cheating potential (of potentially playing 27~30 mana's worth of stuff for 9 mana) is overbearing. (You could make an argument about N'Zoth here, but I think N'Zoth and Alex are very different because in N'Zoth you know exactly what's going to be summoned whereas in the case of Alex you don't. And sometimes the cards that Alex summons can literally flip games, like getting a 0 cost Nozari when you are low, etc.)
- I'm drawing from VS stats here but afaik Galakrond Rogue and Hunter archetypes are still among the most popular, which rely on mana cheating and Discover a lot. Judging by Vicious' stats, add Dragon/Highlander Hunter and Galakrond/Highlander Rogue, plus Highlander Mage, and you get about 40% of the playerbase.
-You can't call Resurrect Priest non-RNG based, early pulls from Res effects have a huge impact on what gets drawn. If you pull something shitty in the early pulls (like Psychopomp) you have an increased chance to pull shitty pulls in your Mass Res pulls. Or a couple of Albatross token pulls in your Mass Res pulls can really swing the game. Or maybe you ended up pulling Vargoth in your Res pull in the late game, and you manage to double dip on the Res value.
We should have a Normal Hearthstone mode, like this. And a Classic Hearthstone mod, where all the discover type cards, put card in your deck type card, ... are ban. That is basically what Hearthstone like before LOE expansion. At that time, tempo, value, card advantage, removals and threat actually matter
I've seen them do it with low tier decks plenty of times. I've even gotten legend with a tier 4 deck before, and I am far from the best player in the game.
Apologies in advance for the long quote, I just wanted to make sure what I said and your counterargument were both in there.
Now, I'm going to respond point by point again to your point by point response to my point by point response, lol.
It doesn't matter if Rag and Sylvanas were used in almost every deck if you're trying to prove that they were indicative of a more RNG infested meta since, as you just admitted, they are not representative of RNG.
I don't see how you're addressing my argument here with yog. Like I said, we now have puzzle box which is literally the exact same thing as yogg, and you can have 2 in the deck. You can argue that puzzle box is more tame since it only casts 10 spells, but I think you're going pretty far into diminishing returns at that point. 10 spells is more than sufficient to swing a game, and you can have 2 puzzle boxes in the deck. And you'll not that it's not even played that much. So yeah, Yogg is nothing in this meta.
Again with the spiteful shaman, even with grand archivist the only RNG aspect of that is what spell it hits. Otherwise it's basically mana cheating cards out of your deck that you know are there and that you know have a chance to be pulled. Not exactly high on RNG compared to the decks we talked about in the current meta.
With shudderwock, you literally said that the order of battlecries wasn't random and was based on the order in which battlecries were played. I was unsure so I just went with what you said. If the order in which the battlecries proc is random that would indeed qualify as RNG, but it's still not random on the level of lackeys and alex. You know what battlecries youre going to get: you have no idea what lackeys are going to be generated or what spell or draco lackey will generate for you. Not to mention that shudderwock shaman still exists. You're talking like it's ancient history, but battlecry quest shaman was at the top of the meta as recently as 2 months ago. In fact, I was talking to my friend at rank 4 the other day and he was telling me that he was repeatedly running into highlander quest shaman. So yeah, shudderwock is still a thing.
Doctor Boom and Elysiana. You didn't address/counter my argument about this whatsoever. Doctor Boom costed 7 mana, Elysiana costed 9 mana and you wanted to play it when you completely ran out of cards. This is hardly instantaneous RNG generation; lackeys cost 1 mana, zephyrus costs 3 mana, even with alex you don't have to wait the entire game to use it. Plus you can only use a HP once a turn, whereas you can play up to 10 lackeys per turn, shadowstep zeph and use it again, etc. Your argument for this archetype being more RNG heavy than gala rogue is weak. But again, even if the period during which this and conj mage existed was more RNG oriented than the current meta, this does not contradict my argument. I'm saying that since rise of shadows, this game has been more of an RNG clown fiesta than it has been at any point in the past. Guess what archetypes were introduced with rise of shadows? Conj mage and Boom/Elysiana warrior. The same thing applies for hare evolve shaman, which is very recent.
I would agree that HL hunter may not be in the same league from a randomness standpoint as gala rogue and HL mage, but it is still part of the problem nonetheless. And the 23 percent is the combined play rate of gala rogue, HL mage, and HL hunter literally according to you, so you can't really say it's far less than 23 percent now without damaging your own credibility.
To conclude, I don't disagree that a variety of decks are at least somewhat viable, but what you're saying about winrates and your justifications for why RNG heavy decks exist don't really have anything to do with what we're talking about. I'm not saying gala rogue and HL decks are the strongest on the ladder, or that they don't have any reason to exist. I'm saying that they are decks that either quantitatively employ many RNG effects, or qualitatively employ powerful RNG effects, and they make up a significant portion of the meta (23 percent according to the figures you quoted). And I want to clarify again: I am saying that since Rise of Shadows, this game has been more RNG heavy than any period prior.
you guys...are just talking in circles. Doesn't it get tiring?
OK then, but this is my last post on the subject, you can then counter-argument again, and that will be it whatever the answer. I'm not gonna be discussing this ad-infinitum.
Ok, so you complain that the RNG heavy decks make 23% of the meta (they don't), but gives a handwave to metas where much more than 23% of this was going on. Where decks were almost always running Rag/Sylv for random 8 damage and random minion stealing or a meta that wins, and another when even in professional tournaments wins were decided by literal dice rolls with Yogg-Saron, or that infinite RNG made mirrors go to turn limit constantly. Or Deathstalker Discover singlehandedly defeating entire decks by itself?
It's completely pointless to imagine Yogg today's meta. Different spells in the pool, power level of other cards and classes vastly different... What matters is that his RNG was meta warping in his own time, and today the RNG heavy decks aren't. HL Mage has the winrate of a T3 deck. Gala Rogue is barely over 50% win, despite being popular. There are multiple other decks with a greater power level. Completely different from Yogg meta.
You'll lose far more games from 30+mana swing turns or 20+ damage from hand with cards from the deck than Lackey Discovers or Amazing Reno's RNG. Losing from discovered Dragonqueens or random Pyroblast to face happens once in a full moon, contrary to Yogg.
Can't understand your point about old Shudderwock Shaman. It doesn't matter if I know what battlecries I'll get when the dice roll decides that Grumble procs before Saronites, I don't get it back, and lose the game. And yeah... it's still played today...so what?
And hold on a minute, you're saying that I said the order of the battlecries wasn't random? No, sir, that was you. I'm gonna even quote you again:
It's irrelevant that Boom costs 7 mana. So does Galakrond. Or that Elysiana was only used on fatigue. As if Warrior had trouble reaching turn 7 or fatigue... Lackeys cost 1 mana, but you don't always generate the lackey you might need, where you would always discover a mech and play it with Rush.
Boom was infinite RNG generation, with even a random order of hero powers. What matters is that the near infinite RNG generation tremendously helped by itself to carry the deck to be the meta tyrant of the time. You complain today about Gala Rogue frequency and mirrors, where were you during Control Warrior turn timer limit fiesta, or wins purely decided by better Discoveries and Elysianas, and near 100% mirrors of 1h+ in tournaments? If you think Gala Rogue meta is worse than Dr.Boom Control Warrior's I don't know what to say.
Also, Boom was played before Rise, just without Elysiana. It's just that it took much longer to go off, specially since we had a far worse RNG in Deathstalker Rexxar being available. One card that defeated whole decks by itself because of its RNG. But Lackeys are much worse than him as well, I guess.
If you put HL Hunter as part of the RNG problem as the same level as Gala Rogue and HL Mage, I'm sorry, but it's you who's damaging you credibility. You can't really be seriously comparing their 2 discover generators and Dragonqueen to be on the same level as Rogue's lackeys and Mage's fiesta.
We can agree that RoS increased the RNG in the game a lot with Lackeys, Conjurer's, even cards like Rafaam... but we're not in RoS anymore. If you say RoS is worse, than you just agreed that we are not at "unprecedent levels of RNG".
Specially since Gala Rogue and HL Mage, by far, do not have the same oppressiveness, popularity, winrate and meta-warpness power that Hare Evolve Shaman, Pre-nerf Conjurer's Mage, Dr.Boom Control Warrior and even DK Rexxar and pre-nerf Yogg had.
Ok, I don't want to discuss this ad infinitum either, but I will reply as long as I feel that you're saying blatantly incorrect things. So here we go again.
You say that there's no way 23 percent of the meta is RNG oriented decks despite you being the person who said that in the first place. Here's a direct quote for you: "Again, the most popular decks (from 5-1) are Dragon Hunter (by far, with almost 16%), Galakrond Rogue (11%) , Embiggen Druid (8%), Mech Paladin (7%), Ress Priest (7%), Highlander Hunter (6%), Highlander Mage (6%)". Feel free to do the math on what 11 + 6 + 6 is, lol. You're incorrect btw, Gala rogue is 15.5 percent, HL Hunter is 3 percent, and HL mage is 8.66 percent, which adds up to about 27 percent. These are all RNG oriented decks. This is according to HSreplay. We can go in circles about Rag/Sylv all day, but I'm still going to tell you that 8 damage directed at a random minion and stealing a random minion that's already on the board are not on the same level of RNG as generating completely random spells/minions or the perfect out for any situation.
You keep going on and on about how powerful Yogg was, but you just keep ignoring how puzzle box is yogg and exists in HL mage, which as you pointed out is not a tier 1 deck. That doesn't take away from the fact that RNG exists in the current meta, it just means that it's not as powerful. Two pretty different things there.
With shudderwock shaman, it does matter if you know what battlecries its going to generate, because we are talking about RNG. If you know what battlecries are coming, it's not as random. I'm not sure how you don't understand what I'm saying with that. And so what that it's still played today? You were using it as an example of how much more dominant RNG oriented decks were in the past. The fact that it's still played today completely invalidates your argument. I will admit that I may have misread your initial post and thought that you said shudderwock isn't random, so my bad on that.
It's not irrelevant at all that Dr. Boom costs 7 mana or that Elysiana was only used upon fatigue; to the contrary, it is extremely relevant. If we're talking about frequency and quantity of randomly generated effects, which is higher, gala rogue playing 3 lackeys every turn, or Boom warrior playing Boom on turn 7 (presuming they even have it at that point) and then elysiana at the literal end of the game? And please, give me a break with "infinite RNG generation". The only discovery Boom granted was the 1 in 4 chance for discover a mech, otherwise the effects were extremely predictable, I mean you could see what the HP for next turn would be at the end of each turn for crying out loud. You can't hover over what lackeys your opponent has in their hand to see what they're going to do, LOL. I think from an RNG perspective gala rogue is far and away way more unpredictable than boom warrior, and that seems pretty obvious as well.
You bring up DS rexxar, which is a fair example of RNG. But you could only generate 1 minion a turn, and you had to wait 6 turns to play it presuming you even drew it in your first 6 turns. No such restriction with Gala rogue or any highlander decks.
With HL hunter, did you even read my response? I flat out agreed with you that it isn't on the same level as HL mage or gala rogue. I just said that it is "part of the problem". Feel free to read back.
Also, and I've said this several times, I'm not saying RoS was worse: I'm saying that since RoS, we've been at an unprecedented level of RNG. I've said this verbatim multiple times, I'm really not sure how you're not understanding me.
I'm not arguing that current RNG oriented decks are the most powerful that have ever existed. I'm arguing that RNG since RoS is more present in the game than it ever has been before. Not that it's more powerful, that there's more of it. You're just supporting what I'm saying by citing hare evolve shaman, conj mage, and boom/elysiana warrior as examples of crazy RNG decks: all of those archetypes came into existence after RoS. And we may not be in RoS anymore, but the cards that were introduced in that expansion are still very present in the current meta. I rest my case.
Anyone who feels discover is out of control (aside from maybe rogue) has obviously blocked out the days of drakonid operative, which enabled a deck that allowed you to play like 4 spells at most so you could power ridiculous swing turns and still clear boards with your opponent's cards. That was perfectly comparable bs.
You need to play the albatrosses tokens in order for them to enter your resurrect pool. Why would anyone playing resurrect priest ever do that?!?
Or have we forgotten the days of dragon control priest, my smoothest ride to legend ever with a 65% winrate making multiple copies of mindblast and maybe even dropping in Lyra for more ridiculous shenanigans. We are not at unprecedented levels of rng or discover. The only class that is making hay from this is rogue, which always has some busted game breaker mechanic. The only reason anyone notices is because in the past, burgle rogue sucked and never won anything, and now gala is somewhat viable, and oh my gosh, Zeph exists, a card which gets under so many people's skin. Like people weren't playing brann and kazakus back in the day to generate multiple custom rng based spells. Or relying on a ridiculous Mana cheat rng based battlecry ala Dk guldan.
I second this post, exactly my feeling.. I get Legend, scamazing and getting scamazed along the way more than ever...
You can't stop the signal.
Trouble with operative was it could easily discover itself - an easy fix is possible, like with dragonqueen, cards shouldn't be able to generate copies of themselves imo (through discover, battlecry, deathrattle or whatever)
You can't stop the signal.
It discovered a copy of a card in your opponent's deck, which is not the same, you can't fix that. Besides, most times they got more from netherspite historian. That deck sucked to play against.
Oh shit, I completely remembered that wrongly lmao, must be the infinite dragonqueen ptsp xD
Although, I do think it stands that cards shouldn't be able to give you themselves as options, solves a lot of potential problems before they manifest
You can't stop the signal.
Point is, it did what it did and no-one fixed it then. There were like 3 decks that ran that shell so you could never tell what you were playing against. That was an awful meta. At least they fixed alex
Does anyone also remember when the lich King was in every deck, and you could rng a victory against a combo deck, or out of nowhere drop anti magic shell and it was game over?