I feel like the meta is terrific. I see a huge variety of opponents. Quite enjoying it. I'm playing Galakrond Highlander Priest and I never feel like a game is decided before it starts. Feels like I have a chance every match.
It's a thing of beauty, I don't know who is complaining but, stop already.
The meta is as diverse as a rotating format ever will be, but that dosen't mean that Demon Hunter is balanced. For me, the problem is only the sick swing turns Altruis can get, though. Demon Hunter Should be good at card draw so Skull is fine in it's current state and I guess The class are supposed to have a lot of damage even IF you koll every single ninion the turn they play them. But Altruis going face is just to much. He can turn around a match faar to easy. He should only be a removal tool.
Wait! Are you suggestion that DH is not the only playable class? But... they do face damage all the time, and the nerfs aren't effective, and I don't like DH, and I just lost a game to them and created my 12th new nerf suggestion thread. So how can other classes beat that?
Nice troll thread. I hope Blizzard nerf DH again soon.
I do not want to play any tier deck and I do not want to play against res priest, Galakrond rogue, face hunt/DH in casual. It is casual, why freaks play these decks there?
I have to disagree with some parts of this primary with the use of hsreplay as a primary point of statistical analysis.
Of course HSreplay is a large source of hearthstone information however it uses an aggregate system based on user input and usage of apps that help with deck building and tracking (mainly tracking apps). Overall statistics can be divided among ranked/casual/all. The top decks in any meta (for the most part) are heavy dust based decks (or in the past adventure based (irl money based ftmp)) these decks usually see a higher % of winrate overall because they are not used by the majority of the playerbase. These decks are used by players from (before rank 20ish) now around bronze to silver for quick ranked gain. The usage of these decks in the lower ranks wherein the majority of the community is present in sees a all around higher winnrate. The higher rank you get the more diverse the decks get (which is then not tracked by hsreplay or other sites because technically its a different deck). Even a single card change registers that decks as a different deck. In the higher ranks (me being around diamond 5-legend) most seasons i can definitely say that the diversity of decks decreases when going up BUT the uniqueness of said decks rapidly increases. This is because most "meta" decks are built for mass usage while the 'skill' aspect of the game is how you can manipulate the deck to your advantage. Lets be real here, most players who have a 45% or less win rate doesn't necessarily have a bad deck.
Budget decks/FTP decks in higher ranks are very rare (unless its cheap but has a VERy high skill gap (of which there have been very very few in the history of hearthstone). Most players to hearthstone don't/can't/won't spend money on the game, not because they don't support it but because of their own financial reasons. Budget/FTP decks can certainly get you out of bronze, probably silver, unlikely gold (but good luck), and then it gets considerably worse.
Forgot to say this before but remember that the majority of hearthstone players don't use deck trackers or a service that adds to HSreplay. Look at statistics of mobile players for example.
Also remember this entire post forgets hearthstone rng system. You could have the best deck in the world, but even that loses to a basic deck if u get a horrific draw. What people don't like is that unlike back in the day the meta feels more and more like you are either being forced into playing extremely high cost ptw decks or into simply 40-55% win rate cheap decks. Despite how OP the cards from naxx were seen i can clearly remember that there were so many extremely cheap versions of decks making high ranks that didn't need these op adventure cards. The amount of smorc hunters between rank 20-10 that were 80% common cards, the basic card tempo rogue, meme priest and so so so much more. What im seeing in a lot of these discussions is the dislike of being forced into a certain meta. A meta that is dominated by epics and legendaries; keep in mind if hearthstone's dust system were a little better designed then you would see a greater variance in ranked. Now all you have is people trying to get to legend and majoritvely a 16-23k+ dust decks will help you get there over a cheap deck. Hearthstone has been notorious for poor balancing judgement. Why is demon hunter seen as so op? because the value that they have in their BASIC CARDS is insane vs other classes.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are wrong on most of your arguments.
To be fair, using HSreplay for statistical analysis is nowhere accurate enough for the playerbase.
But... there is no evidence that high cost decks win more. It's often times that cheaper decks win more (Face Hunter(Starting with Undertaker until today)/Mech Mage/Midrange Shaman/Pirate Warrior/Token Druid (nowaday it's the Spell Druid) and many more. The only time where a greater collection mattered was the time Raza wasn't nerfed.
And even with budget decks you can get legend today. Why should they stop at silver or gold? With cards like Galakrond given out to anyone you can easily build a strong deck with no investment after a couple of days. That isn't the case in Magic for example.
This post was to change the pace... And look, several people happy with the state of Heathstone... Obviouly bitter people will post bitter comments, to be bitter... The stats were shown as a representation of what I see. I'm only at D3 right now, but I really only play around 6-8 hours per week in 30 min intervals. I don't force myself to play 40 hours of a game I apparently hate, like some people seem to. How's that for an unhealthy addiction? My advice? Play Gwent! Straight up, back and forth card play. Extremely strategic.
The other point I was trying to relay is that this is the direction of Hearthstone. It's pretty clear. It's not going to suddenly turn into whatever you want it to be. If you don't like the direction, that's fine. Freedoms and all that. Move on.
If a game makes you this miserable, then what is wrong with you? Stop playing it.
This post is what I've wanted to see for the last two weeks. It's so annoying that people don't understand, that Hearthstone, as a competetive game, requires some skill. It's not different than Fifa, LoL, DoTa or any other online game. The only difference is that instead of refelxes you have to train your brain and logical thinking.
Hearthstone is nothing like actual competitive games, good grief. Tell me which part of your brain and logical thinking you need in order to have a babbling book giving you a polymorph, I'll be waiting for a while here. Hearthstone is a card game and as such, luck is already one of the most important things and with hearthstone itself, it's even more fundamental than other online ccgs because of the way it works.
Hearthstone is a children's card game, and I find it just fine for what it is. Let's not try to throw "train your brain and logical thinking" in the mix please, it really sounds absurd, to put it mildly.
Hearthstone is actually a game that requires some skill if you're playing at the higher ranks. You will have a 50%+ winrate if you play better than your opponents.
Yes, you can queue into your bad matchups a couple of times. And yes, you can win or lose games because of stupid RNG. But this counts for every single player in the game. So why do some people have 60%+ winrate with a deck, while other people barely manage a 40% with exactly the same deck? Pure luck? I don't think so. Winstreaks and losing streaks because if RNG exist for sure. And maybe the RNG in hearthstone determines more wins or losses than actual skill does. But in the end, the better player will always be the better player.
To react to OP: Just because a deck has 60% winrate in 200 games at bronze rank doesn't make it a good deck. The data you're looking at is very flawed. HSreplay is a fun place to look at certain decks and their winrates, but you can't just go and look for the highest winrate decks and expect them to be viable.
because they mostly faced good matchups, having good winrate doesn't necessarily mean you are super skilled or so smart
ofc hearthstone requires skill and there are better players out there but skill doesn't play main role, since it's a card game and there are ton of rng cards on top of that
calculating if you have lethal, trading and playing around opponent's cards ain't that complicated as people paint here, sure it might be complicated if you have 80 IQ or smth
there are ton of meta decks which require very little thinking, like face hunter, which is almost same as playing a chess...
This post is what I've wanted to see for the last two weeks. It's so annoying that people don't understand, that Hearthstone, as a competetive game, requires some skill. It's not different than Fifa, LoL, DoTa or any other online game. The only difference is that instead of refelxes you have to train your brain and logical thinking.
Hearthstone is nothing like actual competitive games, good grief. Tell me which part of your brain and logical thinking you need in order to have a babbling book giving you a polymorph, I'll be waiting for a while here. Hearthstone is a card game and as such, luck is already one of the most important things and with hearthstone itself, it's even more fundamental than other online ccgs because of the way it works.
Hearthstone is a children's card game, and I find it just fine for what it is. Let's not try to throw "train your brain and logical thinking" in the mix please, it really sounds absurd, to put it mildly.
Hearthstone is actually a game that requires some skill if you're playing at the higher ranks. You will have a 50%+ winrate if you play better than your opponents.
Yes, you can queue into your bad matchups a couple of times. And yes, you can win or lose games because of stupid RNG. But this counts for every single player in the game. So why do some people have 60%+ winrate with a deck, while other people barely manage a 40% with exactly the same deck? Pure luck? I don't think so. Winstreaks and losing streaks because if RNG exist for sure. And maybe the RNG in hearthstone determines more wins or losses than actual skill does. But in the end, the better player will always be the better player.
To react to OP: Just because a deck has 60% winrate in 200 games at bronze rank doesn't make it a good deck. The data you're looking at is very flawed. HSreplay is a fun place to look at certain decks and their winrates, but you can't just go and look for the highest winrate decks and expect them to be viable.
because they mostly faced good matchups, having good winrate doesn't necessarily mean you are super skilled or so smart
ofc hearthstone requires skill and there are better players out there but skill doesn't play main role, since it's a card game and there are ton of rng cards on top of that
calculating if you have lethal, trading and playing around opponent's cards ain't that complicated as people paint here, sure it might be complicated if you have 80 IQ or smth
there are ton of meta decks which require very little thinking, like face hunter, which is almost same as playing a chess...
Then why aren't you a top player, earning money while playing?
You know that there are OFTEN the exact same players in every tornament? Are these just the luckiest? I doubt it...
This post is what I've wanted to see for the last two weeks. It's so annoying that people don't understand, that Hearthstone, as a competetive game, requires some skill. It's not different than Fifa, LoL, DoTa or any other online game. The only difference is that instead of refelxes you have to train your brain and logical thinking.
Hearthstone is nothing like actual competitive games, good grief. Tell me which part of your brain and logical thinking you need in order to have a babbling book giving you a polymorph, I'll be waiting for a while here. Hearthstone is a card game and as such, luck is already one of the most important things and with hearthstone itself, it's even more fundamental than other online ccgs because of the way it works.
Hearthstone is a children's card game, and I find it just fine for what it is. Let's not try to throw "train your brain and logical thinking" in the mix please, it really sounds absurd, to put it mildly.
Hearthstone is actually a game that requires some skill if you're playing at the higher ranks. You will have a 50%+ winrate if you play better than your opponents.
Yes, you can queue into your bad matchups a couple of times. And yes, you can win or lose games because of stupid RNG. But this counts for every single player in the game. So why do some people have 60%+ winrate with a deck, while other people barely manage a 40% with exactly the same deck? Pure luck? I don't think so. Winstreaks and losing streaks because if RNG exist for sure. And maybe the RNG in hearthstone determines more wins or losses than actual skill does. But in the end, the better player will always be the better player.
To react to OP: Just because a deck has 60% winrate in 200 games at bronze rank doesn't make it a good deck. The data you're looking at is very flawed. HSreplay is a fun place to look at certain decks and their winrates, but you can't just go and look for the highest winrate decks and expect them to be viable.
because they mostly faced good matchups, having good winrate doesn't necessarily mean you are super skilled or so smart
ofc hearthstone requires skill and there are better players out there but skill doesn't play main role, since it's a card game and there are ton of rng cards on top of that
calculating if you have lethal, trading and playing around opponent's cards ain't that complicated as people paint here, sure it might be complicated if you have 80 IQ or smth
there are ton of meta decks which require very little thinking, like face hunter, which is almost same as playing a chess...
Then why aren't you a top player, earning money while playing?
You know that there are OFTEN the exact same players in every tornament? Are these just the luckiest? I doubt it...
I am usually playing couple hours in each weak
I made it to rank 50 legend from deamond 3 with a meta deck in just one day this season(I played ton of hours in that day, since the quarantine), but does that mean I am smart, nope, I just faced favorable matchups and I had mostly decent draw
why would I wanna play fulltime hearthstone, it's just so dumb, I wouldn't do it for amount of money they make
they are not luckiest, they are the players who play hearthstone all the time so they have better idea which decks/cards work in current meta and which not, on top of that most of them has big audience on twitch
I have to disagree with some parts of this primary with the use of hsreplay as a primary point of statistical analysis.
Of course HSreplay is a large source of hearthstone information however it uses an aggregate system based on user input and usage of apps that help with deck building and tracking (mainly tracking apps). Overall statistics can be divided among ranked/casual/all. The top decks in any meta (for the most part) are heavy dust based decks (or in the past adventure based (irl money based ftmp)) these decks usually see a higher % of winrate overall because they are not used by the majority of the playerbase. These decks are used by players from (before rank 20ish) now around bronze to silver for quick ranked gain. The usage of these decks in the lower ranks wherein the majority of the community is present in sees a all around higher winnrate. The higher rank you get the more diverse the decks get (which is then not tracked by hsreplay or other sites because technically its a different deck). Even a single card change registers that decks as a different deck. In the higher ranks (me being around diamond 5-legend) most seasons i can definitely say that the diversity of decks decreases when going up BUT the uniqueness of said decks rapidly increases. This is because most "meta" decks are built for mass usage while the 'skill' aspect of the game is how you can manipulate the deck to your advantage. Lets be real here, most players who have a 45% or less win rate doesn't necessarily have a bad deck.
Budget decks/FTP decks in higher ranks are very rare (unless its cheap but has a VERy high skill gap (of which there have been very very few in the history of hearthstone). Most players to hearthstone don't/can't/won't spend money on the game, not because they don't support it but because of their own financial reasons. Budget/FTP decks can certainly get you out of bronze, probably silver, unlikely gold (but good luck), and then it gets considerably worse.
Forgot to say this before but remember that the majority of hearthstone players don't use deck trackers or a service that adds to HSreplay. Look at statistics of mobile players for example.
Also remember this entire post forgets hearthstone rng system. You could have the best deck in the world, but even that loses to a basic deck if u get a horrific draw. What people don't like is that unlike back in the day the meta feels more and more like you are either being forced into playing extremely high cost ptw decks or into simply 40-55% win rate cheap decks. Despite how OP the cards from naxx were seen i can clearly remember that there were so many extremely cheap versions of decks making high ranks that didn't need these op adventure cards. The amount of smorc hunters between rank 20-10 that were 80% common cards, the basic card tempo rogue, meme priest and so so so much more. What im seeing in a lot of these discussions is the dislike of being forced into a certain meta. A meta that is dominated by epics and legendaries; keep in mind if hearthstone's dust system were a little better designed then you would see a greater variance in ranked. Now all you have is people trying to get to legend and majoritvely a 16-23k+ dust decks will help you get there over a cheap deck. Hearthstone has been notorious for poor balancing judgement. Why is demon hunter seen as so op? because the value that they have in their BASIC CARDS is insane vs other classes.
Face Hunter is 4300 dust.
Egg Warrior is 6600.
No pally deck is over 6k.
No Druid deck is over 6k.
Top rez priest is 8500.
Totem Shaman is budget af with the higher winrate version being 3500.
The only expensive decks this format are Gala lock at around 11k, and Highlander Mage at 15k.
For comparison, Tempo DH is 4500.
Cost has literally nothing to do with it rn. And where have you ever seen a 23k dust deck? That would be a 9 legendary 21 Epic deck. That does not exist in any timeline.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel like the meta is terrific. I see a huge variety of opponents. Quite enjoying it. I'm playing Galakrond Highlander Priest and I never feel like a game is decided before it starts. Feels like I have a chance every match.
It's a thing of beauty, I don't know who is complaining but, stop already.
Galavant Animation
Best post I've seen in years. I can't remember the last time I lol'ed so hard at a forum post. Thank you so much for this.
The meta is as diverse as a rotating format ever will be, but that dosen't mean that Demon Hunter is balanced. For me, the problem is only the sick swing turns Altruis can get, though. Demon Hunter Should be good at card draw so Skull is fine in it's current state and I guess The class are supposed to have a lot of damage even IF you koll every single ninion the turn they play them. But Altruis going face is just to much. He can turn around a match faar to easy. He should only be a removal tool.
That is the only card I would nerf though.
You do know the stats on the front page of HSReplay, unless you're Premium, only show stats up to Gold rank, right?
Anything can have a 60% winrate at Bronze, Silver and Gold.
Wait! Are you suggestion that DH is not the only playable class? But... they do face damage all the time, and the nerfs aren't effective, and I don't like DH, and I just lost a game to them and created my 12th new nerf suggestion thread. So how can other classes beat that?
Nice troll thread. I hope Blizzard nerf DH again soon.
I do not want to play any tier deck and I do not want to play against res priest, Galakrond rogue, face hunt/DH in casual. It is casual, why freaks play these decks there?
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are wrong on most of your arguments.
To be fair, using HSreplay for statistical analysis is nowhere accurate enough for the playerbase.
But... there is no evidence that high cost decks win more. It's often times that cheaper decks win more (Face Hunter(Starting with Undertaker until today)/Mech Mage/Midrange Shaman/Pirate Warrior/Token Druid (nowaday it's the Spell Druid) and many more. The only time where a greater collection mattered was the time Raza wasn't nerfed.
And even with budget decks you can get legend today. Why should they stop at silver or gold? With cards like Galakrond given out to anyone you can easily build a strong deck with no investment after a couple of days. That isn't the case in Magic for example.
This post was to change the pace... And look, several people happy with the state of Heathstone... Obviouly bitter people will post bitter comments, to be bitter... The stats were shown as a representation of what I see. I'm only at D3 right now, but I really only play around 6-8 hours per week in 30 min intervals. I don't force myself to play 40 hours of a game I apparently hate, like some people seem to. How's that for an unhealthy addiction? My advice? Play Gwent! Straight up, back and forth card play. Extremely strategic.
The other point I was trying to relay is that this is the direction of Hearthstone. It's pretty clear. It's not going to suddenly turn into whatever you want it to be. If you don't like the direction, that's fine. Freedoms and all that. Move on.
If a game makes you this miserable, then what is wrong with you? Stop playing it.
because they mostly faced good matchups, having good winrate doesn't necessarily mean you are super skilled or so smart
ofc hearthstone requires skill and there are better players out there but skill doesn't play main role, since it's a card game and there are ton of rng cards on top of that
calculating if you have lethal, trading and playing around opponent's cards ain't that complicated as people paint here, sure it might be complicated if you have 80 IQ or smth
there are ton of meta decks which require very little thinking, like face hunter, which is almost same as playing a chess...
Then why aren't you a top player, earning money while playing?
You know that there are OFTEN the exact same players in every tornament? Are these just the luckiest? I doubt it...
I am usually playing couple hours in each weak
I made it to rank 50 legend from deamond 3 with a meta deck in just one day this season(I played ton of hours in that day, since the quarantine), but does that mean I am smart, nope, I just faced favorable matchups and I had mostly decent draw
why would I wanna play fulltime hearthstone, it's just so dumb, I wouldn't do it for amount of money they make
they are not luckiest, they are the players who play hearthstone all the time so they have better idea which decks/cards work in current meta and which not, on top of that most of them has big audience on twitch
Face Hunter is 4300 dust.
Egg Warrior is 6600.
No pally deck is over 6k.
No Druid deck is over 6k.
Top rez priest is 8500.
Totem Shaman is budget af with the higher winrate version being 3500.
The only expensive decks this format are Gala lock at around 11k, and Highlander Mage at 15k.
For comparison, Tempo DH is 4500.
Cost has literally nothing to do with it rn. And where have you ever seen a 23k dust deck? That would be a 9 legendary 21 Epic deck. That does not exist in any timeline.