Almost to 200 matches against the Tick and am trying desperately to maintain the 60% win rate, though even if I fall short by a percent or two, I think the point is clear.
Aren't combo decks supposed to beat Control anyway? A combo deck having a good win rate against warlock isn't at all surprising.
Almost to 200 matches against the Tick and am trying desperately to maintain the 60% win rate, though even if I fall short by a percent or two, I think the point is clear.
Aren't combo decks supposed to beat Control anyway? A combo deck having a good win rate against warlock isn't at all surprising.
The argument is that Tickatus makes it impossible for Control decks to win because it burns a bunch of their cards, which makes it impossible to win because they just don't have enough cards and die to fatigue. A Combo deck typically depends on a 3 to 5 card combo, plays a bunch of draw, and runs no other win condition (other than running Aggro out of cards the same way Control would). Surely, Tickatus has a much bigger impact on a Combo deck, since it has a very significant chance of burning a combo piece and making the combo deck into a Control deck with no win condition where a significant portion of it is dedicated to drawing cards and bringing you closer to fatigue?
I'm not sure, maybe it's me, but I think the current meta is one of the worst. 8 out of 10 games are over in the first 4/5 rounds. I feel like I only play against aggro decks. They had a huge chance with the rotating cards and the new coreset.
Maybe it's just me... I just don't like stupid aggro decks where it doesn't matter what I play.
It used to have something to do with tactics...
If anyone has a good Hearthstone alternative for me, always welcome!
Greetings, a disappointed player
Since you seem not to be a man of the people, but rather for the people, it is a solace to know that Blizzard had the mob in mind when they devised Hearthstone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Aggro decks rock. They're face paced, fun, and accessible to basically everybody who plays the game. The relevant nuance that comes with playing an aggro deck well is something a lot of people either don't see or choose to ignore because they just want to believe that they're superior to people who play aggro. It really bums be out how common this mentality is.
Aggro decks rock. They're face paced, fun, and accessible to basically everybody who plays the game. The relevant nuance that comes with playing an aggro deck well is something a lot of people either don't see or choose to ignore because they just want to believe that they're superior to people who play aggro. It really bums be out how common this mentality is.
Several years ago I resembled Blizzard to the Romans. They organized games for the masses. To keep the occupied and satisfied. They gave them games. Aggro decks are like the gladiators. They rock.....I already see you scream..kil, kill, kill. But then Marcus Aurelius came around and stopped the mindlessness.
Waiting for a Marcus at Blizzard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Paladin sitting on 69% percent winrate - S I X T Y N I N E -
Nice.
That said, I do think there's a power-creep problem with Hearthstone. Everything is just so powerful that decks have to be razor honed to compete, which means less room for goofing around with oddball stuff. And when there's aggro, it'll often put itself into a winning position a turn or two faster than it used to take a few years ago. There used to be a bit more time to stabilize than there is. Old-timey Secret Paladin used to have a 6-drop as it's most powerful play, and then the game would still last another few turns.
Yeah, this is an Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud, but still...
Several years ago I resembled Blizzard to the Romans. They organized games for the masses. To keep the occupied and satisfied. They gave them games. Aggro decks are like the gladiators. They rock.....I already see you scream..kil, kill, kill. But then Marcus Aurelius came around and stopped the mindlessness.
Waiting for a Marcus at Blizzard.
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to compare a digital children's card game to Romans literally enslaving people and having them fight to the death for entertainment? The Colosseum is on the same level of morality as aggro decks? Or are you just saying that the aggressive mentality of aggro decks is similar to combatants in the Colosseum?
Almost to 200 matches against the Tick and am trying desperately to maintain the 60% win rate, though even if I fall short by a percent or two, I think the point is clear.
Aren't combo decks supposed to beat Control anyway? A combo deck having a good win rate against warlock isn't at all surprising.
The argument is that Tickatus makes it impossible for Control decks to win because it burns a bunch of their cards, which makes it impossible to win because they just don't have enough cards and die to fatigue. A Combo deck typically depends on a 3 to 5 card combo, plays a bunch of draw, and runs no other win condition (other than running Aggro out of cards the same way Control would). Surely, Tickatus has a much bigger impact on a Combo deck, since it has a very significant chance of burning a combo piece and making the combo deck into a Control deck with no win condition where a significant portion of it is dedicated to drawing cards and bringing you closer to fatigue?
That argument has not been made by anyone in this thread. The only post that evens mentions Tickatus, is saying they feel like they can’t experiment with control decks. Nothing has been said about combo decks being bad against warlock. Of course Tickatus COULD burn a combo piece, if it’s played at the right time, but most combo decks have enough cycle to draw most of their deck while the warlock is doing mostly nothing. It only has a bigger impact on combo if it burns a piece. For control decks, losing 5-10 cards, no matter what they are, usually ends the game if they’re playing for fatigue. Either way, I’m just not understanding what the two arguments have to do with one another.
Any control decks that want to experiment likely cant because of the presence of Jaraxxus and Tickatus.
Sure, and that's why Control Priest, which has terrible matchup against Warlock (almost unwinnable), is still considered viable meta deck and has much better overall win rates than Tick Lock?
Playing a fully optimized top legend control priest list, isn’t really “experimenting”. The win rate argument is also irrelevant because control warlock isn’t an anti aggro deck, it’s anti control. Priest is able to consistently beat aggro decks, which makes up the majority of the current meta, which would explain why the win rate is higher. It’s not complicated.
I’m not even saying I agree with what the other poster said, but your attempt to disprove his point was woefully off target.
Any control decks that want to experiment likely cant because of the presence of Jaraxxus and Tickatus.
Sure, and that's why Control Priest, which has terrible matchup against Warlock (almost unwinnable), is still considered viable meta deck and has much better overall win rates than Tick Lock?
Playing a fully optimized top legend control priest list, isn’t really “experimenting”. The win rate argument is also irrelevant because control warlock isn’t an anti aggro deck, it’s anti control. Priest is able to consistently beat aggro decks, which makes up the majority of the current meta, which would explain why the win rate is higher. It’s not complicated.
I’m not even saying I agree with what the other poster said, but your attempt to disprove his point was woefully off target.
Also the one deck that tick lock beats is control priest in a huge spread, like 85/15. It makes more sense to concede when you queue into a warlock as priest than it does to play it out. Control priest can wreck face hunter and paladin though, so that’s why it has a higher win rate than control lock... but that priest/warlock matchup is enough to keep warlock players playing a bad deck. Who doesn’t like free wins?
Where do you come up with an 85/15 spread in that matchup? I certainly don't see that reflected in HSReplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Game has taken a turn for the worse ever since Rush was introduced. Not because rush itself is a bad mechanic, but because it wasn't assigned the proper cost; its way too cheap for what it does, is on WAY too many cards and because its so undercosted gets so freely paired with other mechanics like deathrattle, reborn and the like.
The meta is fine. Nerfs are inbound. Sometimes it can be frustrating but they are proactively making changes when necessary.
Read the latest Vicious Syndicate report and you'll see how you can beat Paladin. Personally I like the more board centric games now posts and mage have been nerfed as it makes the first 5 turns far more interesting and interactive.
This isn't day one Demon Hunter, or Pirate Warrior, or Galakrond Shaman, or Odd Rogue etc etc.
Any control decks that want to experiment likely cant because of the presence of Jaraxxus and Tickatus.
Sure, and that's why Control Priest, which has terrible matchup against Warlock (almost unwinnable), is still considered viable meta deck and has much better overall win rates than Tick Lock?
Playing a fully optimized top legend control priest list, isn’t really “experimenting”. The win rate argument is also irrelevant because control warlock isn’t an anti aggro deck, it’s anti control. Priest is able to consistently beat aggro decks, which makes up the majority of the current meta, which would explain why the win rate is higher. It’s not complicated.
I’m not even saying I agree with what the other poster said, but your attempt to disprove his point was woefully off target.
But that's the whole point, people keep using this argument, even though it's completely untrue. If there's a deck that can beat aggro consistently, it will exist in the meta, regardless of its matchup against Warlock and Priest is the best proof of this. And how was Priest optimized? Simple, people just experimented with him, and Warlock couldn't stop them from doing so.
So when people say deck X doesn't exist because of Warlock, they're simply lying, in reality it doesn't exist because it's just too weak against current aggro-tempo meta. They are just looking for a scapegoat, trying to justify destroying a card they don't like. I can understand the hatred against Tickatus (because it's toxic and unfun to play against card), but lying is never the right way to prove your point.
As someone who left just as Knighs of the Frozen Throne launched and came back now here are my thoughts on the game:
Pros:
-Blizzard has become more generous, the new reward track seems weird and like a scam but it gives good rewards, considerably more than the old system. Likewise Duplicate Protection is awesome. There is still ways to go for this game to be more accessible to all but they are getting there.
-Sales, IIRC before there were very few sales which was strange. HS is ridiculously expensive to get anywhere near a complete collection so sales are very welcome. Allowing us to buy old Hero Portraits with gold is nice too.
-More modes of play. BGs are nice, Duels are meh but some like them, now we have Classic too. Mercenary mode is incoming which will hopefully be good too. More variety is generally good, though there is something to be said of splitting up the playerbase into too many small niches or overwhelming them.
-There are some very fun and innovative cards around now. When you compare it to Classic you can see the design, effort and polish went way up even if more complexity is not necessarily good (Discover and infinite value RNG can burn).
Cons:
-Power Creep, easily worst thing I saw. The cards are markedly more powerful than when I left and when you compare it to Classic now it really shows. Power Creep is always bad in a card game imo. For one it renders older cards increasingly pointless ofc. But also it shows that the Devs are stupid and uncreative when they can't make new cards that are interesting to players without being overpowered. This is part of the reason I disliked (and still do) the Standard/Wild split, it was pretty much an admission that they can't make balanced but fresh cards. The other reason I dislike Standard is that it was moneygrubbing, when you can only use new cards they are suddenly more valuable and so there is more incentive to buy new packs. Power Creep is another method to do the same, except it zings Wild too as older Wild cards are now increasingly outshined by newer ones, again incentivizing more pack purchases. Double big whammy of bad, hate it.
-Because of Power Creep the meta is faster. From what you guys said Blizz has said they want this. I know many hate a more aggressive meta and prefer control. I have over time come to dislike overly long matches where you grind out value and push towards fatigue (big part of me hating it is Discover and other infinite generation shenanigans however). So I am quite okay with the "game should end by turn 10" philosophy of theirs. Nonetheless with the loss of these slow archetypes I do think the game ecology lost something worthwhile.
-The higher power level of cards also makes games more tempo swingy I feel. You can go from a solid lead to being quite behind in one insane turn. Or they can just blow you out so much the game is hopeless from the beginning and very frustrating. This is not fun imo.
-Solo Content, I missed the heyday of solo though I did come back for a few days during Witchwood so I know a bit of how it was. The vibe I get is that it was so successful and enjoyed Blizz realized they were losing out on money so they first tried to paywall it in Rise of Shadows and Uldum. Which then lead to a collapse in the interest for solo content and so to the current lackluster situation. And so here we are in Ashes of Outland and Book of Heroes which are kind of meh. The fights themselves are decent but nothing to write home about. The rewards are shitty though, one pack, really? Should be three packs at least to make those games worth it. And the fights in Book of Heroes should use cooler and more thematic decks and in general be better designed. Plus either they should railroad you less (controlling your and AI mulligan/draw is meh) or railroad you MORE so that each fight becomes like a chess puzzle, finding that one way to victory. Ideally that fits the story they are telling. Perhaps with voice acted bits letting you know you are on the right track.
-I don't think there is anything else specifically that went wrong while I was away, though there are things that were bad then that were not fixed which I think bears mentioning. I think the dust economy is still pretty bad. Related to that the game is still way too expensive all things considered. And already I have said why I hate the Standard/Wild split and wish to see it reverted. I know tall order but HS has many issues and I am not happy with how the Devs handle them so I have stopped spending money on the game. I will remain F2P until they get better or until the game stops being enjoyable and then I will ofc quit for good.
the meta is not done guys, first it settles and then you counter that meta and then something else counters that meta.. and so on... this is the first wave guys
the meta is not done guys, first it settles and then you counter that meta and then something else counters that meta.. and so on... this is the first wave guys
Nah, without nerfs and buffs nothing will change. Some classes are just too strong (Paladin), some are too weak (Shaman, Warlock), and others are in between (good enough to be playable, not good enough to be truly relevant).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Aren't combo decks supposed to beat Control anyway? A combo deck having a good win rate against warlock isn't at all surprising.
The argument is that Tickatus makes it impossible for Control decks to win because it burns a bunch of their cards, which makes it impossible to win because they just don't have enough cards and die to fatigue. A Combo deck typically depends on a 3 to 5 card combo, plays a bunch of draw, and runs no other win condition (other than running Aggro out of cards the same way Control would). Surely, Tickatus has a much bigger impact on a Combo deck, since it has a very significant chance of burning a combo piece and making the combo deck into a Control deck with no win condition where a significant portion of it is dedicated to drawing cards and bringing you closer to fatigue?
Since you seem not to be a man of the people, but rather for the people, it is a solace to know that Blizzard had the mob in mind when they devised Hearthstone.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Aggro decks rock. They're face paced, fun, and accessible to basically everybody who plays the game.
The relevant nuance that comes with playing an aggro deck well is something a lot of people either don't see or choose to ignore because they just want to believe that they're superior to people who play aggro. It really bums be out how common this mentality is.
please don't bully my son
Several years ago I resembled Blizzard to the Romans. They organized games for the masses. To keep the occupied and satisfied. They gave them games. Aggro decks are like the gladiators. They rock.....I already see you scream..kil, kill, kill. But then Marcus Aurelius came around and stopped the mindlessness.
Waiting for a Marcus at Blizzard.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Nice.
That said, I do think there's a power-creep problem with Hearthstone. Everything is just so powerful that decks have to be razor honed to compete, which means less room for goofing around with oddball stuff. And when there's aggro, it'll often put itself into a winning position a turn or two faster than it used to take a few years ago. There used to be a bit more time to stabilize than there is. Old-timey Secret Paladin used to have a 6-drop as it's most powerful play, and then the game would still last another few turns.
Yeah, this is an Old-Man-Yells-At-Cloud, but still...
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to compare a digital children's card game to Romans literally enslaving people and having them fight to the death for entertainment? The Colosseum is on the same level of morality as aggro decks? Or are you just saying that the aggressive mentality of aggro decks is similar to combatants in the Colosseum?
I'm not sure what your point is here.
please don't bully my son
That argument has not been made by anyone in this thread. The only post that evens mentions Tickatus, is saying they feel like they can’t experiment with control decks. Nothing has been said about combo decks being bad against warlock. Of course Tickatus COULD burn a combo piece, if it’s played at the right time, but most combo decks have enough cycle to draw most of their deck while the warlock is doing mostly nothing. It only has a bigger impact on combo if it burns a piece. For control decks, losing 5-10 cards, no matter what they are, usually ends the game if they’re playing for fatigue. Either way, I’m just not understanding what the two arguments have to do with one another.
Playing a fully optimized top legend control priest list, isn’t really “experimenting”. The win rate argument is also irrelevant because control warlock isn’t an anti aggro deck, it’s anti control. Priest is able to consistently beat aggro decks, which makes up the majority of the current meta, which would explain why the win rate is higher. It’s not complicated.
I’m not even saying I agree with what the other poster said, but your attempt to disprove his point was woefully off target.
Also the one deck that tick lock beats is control priest in a huge spread, like 85/15. It makes more sense to concede when you queue into a warlock as priest than it does to play it out. Control priest can wreck face hunter and paladin though, so that’s why it has a higher win rate than control lock... but that priest/warlock matchup is enough to keep warlock players playing a bad deck. Who doesn’t like free wins?
Where do you come up with an 85/15 spread in that matchup? I certainly don't see that reflected in HSReplay.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Tikatus is everywhere, even in a thread about the sad direction of the game. It says more about the people playing this game than the card itself.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Tikatus is everywhere, even in a thread about the sad direction of the game. It says more about the people playing this game than the card itself.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Game has taken a turn for the worse ever since Rush was introduced. Not because rush itself is a bad mechanic, but because it wasn't assigned the proper cost; its way too cheap for what it does, is on WAY too many cards and because its so undercosted gets so freely paired with other mechanics like deathrattle, reborn and the like.
The meta is fine. Nerfs are inbound. Sometimes it can be frustrating but they are proactively making changes when necessary.
Read the latest Vicious Syndicate report and you'll see how you can beat Paladin. Personally I like the more board centric games now posts and mage have been nerfed as it makes the first 5 turns far more interesting and interactive.
This isn't day one Demon Hunter, or Pirate Warrior, or Galakrond Shaman, or Odd Rogue etc etc.
If you hate Paladin run control priest.
But that's the whole point, people keep using this argument, even though it's completely untrue. If there's a deck that can beat aggro consistently, it will exist in the meta, regardless of its matchup against Warlock and Priest is the best proof of this. And how was Priest optimized? Simple, people just experimented with him, and Warlock couldn't stop them from doing so.
So when people say deck X doesn't exist because of Warlock, they're simply lying, in reality it doesn't exist because it's just too weak against current aggro-tempo meta. They are just looking for a scapegoat, trying to justify destroying a card they don't like. I can understand the hatred against Tickatus (because it's toxic and unfun to play against card), but lying is never the right way to prove your point.
As someone who left just as Knighs of the Frozen Throne launched and came back now here are my thoughts on the game:
Pros:
-Blizzard has become more generous, the new reward track seems weird and like a scam but it gives good rewards, considerably more than the old system. Likewise Duplicate Protection is awesome. There is still ways to go for this game to be more accessible to all but they are getting there.
-Sales, IIRC before there were very few sales which was strange. HS is ridiculously expensive to get anywhere near a complete collection so sales are very welcome. Allowing us to buy old Hero Portraits with gold is nice too.
-More modes of play. BGs are nice, Duels are meh but some like them, now we have Classic too. Mercenary mode is incoming which will hopefully be good too. More variety is generally good, though there is something to be said of splitting up the playerbase into too many small niches or overwhelming them.
-There are some very fun and innovative cards around now. When you compare it to Classic you can see the design, effort and polish went way up even if more complexity is not necessarily good (Discover and infinite value RNG can burn).
Cons:
-Power Creep, easily worst thing I saw. The cards are markedly more powerful than when I left and when you compare it to Classic now it really shows. Power Creep is always bad in a card game imo. For one it renders older cards increasingly pointless ofc. But also it shows that the Devs are stupid and uncreative when they can't make new cards that are interesting to players without being overpowered. This is part of the reason I disliked (and still do) the Standard/Wild split, it was pretty much an admission that they can't make balanced but fresh cards. The other reason I dislike Standard is that it was moneygrubbing, when you can only use new cards they are suddenly more valuable and so there is more incentive to buy new packs. Power Creep is another method to do the same, except it zings Wild too as older Wild cards are now increasingly outshined by newer ones, again incentivizing more pack purchases. Double big whammy of bad, hate it.
-Because of Power Creep the meta is faster. From what you guys said Blizz has said they want this. I know many hate a more aggressive meta and prefer control. I have over time come to dislike overly long matches where you grind out value and push towards fatigue (big part of me hating it is Discover and other infinite generation shenanigans however). So I am quite okay with the "game should end by turn 10" philosophy of theirs. Nonetheless with the loss of these slow archetypes I do think the game ecology lost something worthwhile.
-The higher power level of cards also makes games more tempo swingy I feel. You can go from a solid lead to being quite behind in one insane turn. Or they can just blow you out so much the game is hopeless from the beginning and very frustrating. This is not fun imo.
-Solo Content, I missed the heyday of solo though I did come back for a few days during Witchwood so I know a bit of how it was. The vibe I get is that it was so successful and enjoyed Blizz realized they were losing out on money so they first tried to paywall it in Rise of Shadows and Uldum. Which then lead to a collapse in the interest for solo content and so to the current lackluster situation. And so here we are in Ashes of Outland and Book of Heroes which are kind of meh. The fights themselves are decent but nothing to write home about. The rewards are shitty though, one pack, really? Should be three packs at least to make those games worth it. And the fights in Book of Heroes should use cooler and more thematic decks and in general be better designed. Plus either they should railroad you less (controlling your and AI mulligan/draw is meh) or railroad you MORE so that each fight becomes like a chess puzzle, finding that one way to victory. Ideally that fits the story they are telling. Perhaps with voice acted bits letting you know you are on the right track.
-I don't think there is anything else specifically that went wrong while I was away, though there are things that were bad then that were not fixed which I think bears mentioning. I think the dust economy is still pretty bad. Related to that the game is still way too expensive all things considered. And already I have said why I hate the Standard/Wild split and wish to see it reverted. I know tall order but HS has many issues and I am not happy with how the Devs handle them so I have stopped spending money on the game. I will remain F2P until they get better or until the game stops being enjoyable and then I will ofc quit for good.
the meta is not done guys, first it settles and then you counter that meta and then something else counters that meta.. and so on... this is the first wave guys
Control priest no win condition deck is pretty good if u wanna beat aggro.
Nah, without nerfs and buffs nothing will change. Some classes are just too strong (Paladin), some are too weak (Shaman, Warlock), and others are in between (good enough to be playable, not good enough to be truly relevant).