No. Wild is for Whales and No-Life Collectors, spending countless of money (and hours) on a game that is pseudo-competitive and isn't rewarding. Yet only like 2 Decks are dominating the Meta, in what is now becoming almost for a year. No I actually feel Joy and Delight. Really, get priorities right in your Life. I'am spending literally like 5 hours each month on Ladder, just to get D5 (Legend rank only gives +1 pack and is never worth it) ...then I turn into "Questing Adventurer" Mode. I've dusted all the rotated Cards so I can always keep up with Standart and get the latest cards without spending more than 20 $ each Expansion (only buying Tavern Pass) Looks healthy that way. Anything more can and SHOULD be considered unhealthy. You are welcome.
I understand before everyone starts screaming "Wild is mean't to be wild" at me, but I feel like the gamemode has really become worse and worse over the years.
I really enjoyed wild as it allowed me to play with most of the cards and decks I used to, but in the last year Wild has taken a deep into a pit and seems to only be getting worse and worse.
Wild has been ignored almost with no balance patches, cards breaking the format every other expansion and the same decks just taking over the format for years.
Anyone else feels like having more attention bought to wild with problematic cards and future cards would be a good idea?
Just as alot of players are frustrated that the gamemode keeps breaking every time new cards are added!
EDIT: Not calling wild bad, broken or unbalance. More highlighting how so many new cards seem to make game breaking and ASAP Nerfs to the game mode which seems like it is ignored compared to the other gamemodes.
Wild is fun if you play meta decks on tier list, all the other decks get wrecked by these. Tried doing casual/fun play but doesn't work since everyone wants to do a meta deck
That is not true.
Due to the naturally high power level of wild decks (if you know how to build a deck), you can totally play non meta decks and climb with them. Of course your non-meta deck needs a way to destroy at least some of the meta decks, and you will get destroyed by some other meta decks, but that is true even for the tier 1 decks.
If your definition of "casual/fun" is literally unplayable meme decks with no win condition and very low power curve plays, then it won't work in Wild... But it won't work in Standard either.
Playing fun decks in Hearthstone means playable viable strategies with a couple fun/unexpected cards in the deck, not taking 30 weird cards totally at random and expect it to be competitive against high level optimized decks.
The only difference is meta decks will have 55-60% win rate and your non-meta deck will have 50-51% win rate if built properly. Now as I said, if you build a 15% win rate deck, expect a 15% win rate.
I've just recently started playing wild, probably with around 2 weeks left of last month, maybe a few days less. I'm not experienced with it at all but in my experience the OP is pretty hyperbolic. I have found that you typically play a decent variety of decks, I made a quest mage with as many discover cards and raid the sky temple and it did alright. Not sure on the win rate but I was climbing, also tried a Tess rogue which is clearly not competitive but if my goal is to have fun, I can personally still do that without winning the game.
I only had time to get to diamond 2 but if you believe the doomsayers on here, you expect it to be a complete shit fest and it really isn't. I don't know a majority of the decks and although I did use highlander mage for some, I wasn't playing a tier 1 deck, I got on just fine.
Idiots on here honestly talk so much shit. I didn't really bother with wild because of all the crap that gets said but I had a blast, I've continued playing it and continue to not see what people are bitching about. Some games have some crazy stuff go on but that's the whole damn point, isn't it? The clue is in the name.
Also, despite not being a wild player I've been aware of multiple balance changes they've made that impact the mode. People exaggerate and lie to try and make their point, this place is absolutely full of it, so this really shouldn't surprise me.
No. Wild is for Whales and No-Life Collectors, spending countless of money (and hours) on a game that is pseudo-competitive and isn't rewarding. Yet only like 2 Decks are dominating the Meta, in what is now becoming almost for a year. No I actually feel Joy and Delight. Really, get priorities right in your Life. I'am spending literally like 5 hours each month on Ladder, just to get D5 (Legend rank only gives +1 pack and is never worth it) ...then I turn into "Questing Adventurer" Mode. I've dusted all the rotated Cards so I can always keep up with Standart and get the latest cards without spending more than 20 $ each Expansion (only buying Tavern Pass) Looks healthy that way. Anything more can and SHOULD be considered unhealthy. You are welcome.
You have no clue about Wild. Wild is more F2P friendly than Standard, because in Wild a lot of viable decks stay viable over years (like Secret Mage or Odd Pala) so you just have to invest e few times in some decks and can ladder with them for a long time. In Standard instead after a year most decks become unplayable because of rotation. When a new expansion comes out I mostly puy packs for Standard - for Wild most of the cards are nowhere viable. If I would only play Wild, it would be enough to invest about 3000 dust every expansion to keep playing all decks in Wild I want. For Standard I need a looot more cards to play all the decks every expansion.
But don`t mind keep going to live in your fantasy world where Standard is more F2P friendly...
The fun thing on wild is you have so many different cards you can pretty much do whatever as long as you keep working on your deck, improving and insisting.
I made a Reno shaman with Shudderwock and Nzoth quite some months ago (pre-barrens) and could always trust it to reach diamond (or platinum, can't remember now which one had the League of Evil and League of Explorers portraits) as long as I gave it the time and work to get there. I was literally the only one playing it and I even managed to reach legend one month. Of course, netdecking is always easier, but wild can get through a lot of shit (that said, new warlock demon still should be worked upon, no fun in eating a Mecha'thun lethal on turn 6.
But wild is a lot healthier than assumed, in fact my only reason to leave it for standard was me wanting to try and change... and also the fact I average 50% standard matches in wild anyways.... and now I am playing classic.
If you play wild, accept that decks have hyper fast win condition, whether it is combo or otk. The game should be only balanced around standard, because hearthstone doesn't really work when thousands of cards coexist. Not in a balanced state. Also, why is this thread not in wild discussion?
No. Wild is for Whales and No-Life Collectors, spending countless of money (and hours) on a game that is pseudo-competitive and isn't rewarding. Yet only like 2 Decks are dominating the Meta, in what is now becoming almost for a year. No I actually feel Joy and Delight. Really, get priorities right in your Life. I'am spending literally like 5 hours each month on Ladder, just to get D5 (Legend rank only gives +1 pack and is never worth it) ...then I turn into "Questing Adventurer" Mode. I've dusted all the rotated Cards so I can always keep up with Standart and get the latest cards without spending more than 20 $ each Expansion (only buying Tavern Pass) Looks healthy that way. Anything more can and SHOULD be considered unhealthy. You are welcome.
You have no clue about Wild. Wild is more F2P friendly than Standard, because in Wild a lot of viable decks stay viable over years (like Secret Mage or Odd Pala) so you just have to invest e few times in some decks and can ladder with them for a long time. In Standard instead after a year most decks become unplayable because of rotation. When a new expansion comes out I mostly puy packs for Standard - for Wild most of the cards are nowhere viable. If I would only play Wild, it would be enough to invest about 3000 dust every expansion to keep playing all decks in Wild I want. For Standard I need a looot more cards to play all the decks every expansion.
But don`t mind keep going to live in your fantasy world where Standard is more F2P friendly...
He's a 15 year old who relies on his allowance to get him through life. Don't mind him.
Seriously though, jobs and budgets ARE a thing. Only immature children call spending money on something they love "bad". Learning how life really works will be a wake up call for him, but it will happen. He'll learn that not everything is handed to you on a silver plate sooner or later. Sometimes the satisfaction of earning something financially is even bigger and better than having things given to you for free.
I have the entirety of the Hearthstone card set, and proud. I play wild mainly but do dabble in standard from time to time.
I just wish Blizz did give a damn about wild as much as they do standard, you'd be talking a completely different animal of a format at that point. It doesn't take much when the effort is actually put in.
With wild though some cards ARE universally problematic between both game modes. In mage for instance, look at Incanter's Flow. How in hell are Blizzard supposed to create any kind of decently valued spells for mage at anything below 5 mana costing now? It's a joke when you can cast 2 or 3 mana spells for 0 mana after double incancter's flow. That kind of mana cheating is absurd and shouldn't be that extreme. If that's how bad it is in standard imagine the insanity of wild. Fixing IF for standard fixes the card for wild too.
if you try to play literally any old deck (which was their stated goal for wild and reason for being hesitant to nerf) you will have a winrate indistinguishable from 0% against the insane wild combo decks.
Old decks evolve with new cards, that's just the natural flow of card games, if you bought that crap that you could still compete with a Naxx/GvG deck 5 years later it's on you, sorry. It just doesn't make any sense, new cards create new opportunities. Your interpretation of what an "old deck" is is clearly flawed in my opinion.
You can still play old decks and strategies like Freeze mage or Miracle rogue or Control warrior, you just have to accept that you need some of the new cards in there and can't simply rely on old sets.
The only way to keep playing old decks with 30 old cards is if they don't ever print new cards. You can play classic mode for that.
I think you misunderstand me, when i say old deck, i mean old deck archetype, but i would love for control warrior or the other old decks you mentioned to be even close to viable. Unfortunantly since Blizz seems to not give a shit about having a healthy metagame in wild, those decks are not.
I just wish wild was supported so that all old archetypes were at least tier 3 simultaneously. I'm perfectly fine with combo decks, especially Flamewaker apm mage being viable, but right now, they have extremely high winrates despite the meta being warped to counter them. The format is literally called wild, yet there are so few viable classes, let alone decks. The meta of wild for like the past year has been OP deck and decks specifically designed to counter OP deck. I wish the meta was about persuing a specific strategy and seeing if your strategy is better than your opponent, rather than hoping your Dirty Rat pulls the right card, or killing your opponent before they instantly win from a combo.
I want wild to be a place where you come from standard because your favorite archetype (say zoo) isn't viable in standard right now. I think the devs should try to ensure that some evergreen archetypes always are viable in wild, like:
Of course having more viable archetypes would be awesome, but i think this would be the goal, and having monthly balance patches in wild to try to keep all those archetypes viable would make wild as popular, if not more than standard.
No. Wild is for Whales and No-Life Collectors, spending countless of money (and hours) on a game that is pseudo-competitive and isn't rewarding. Yet only like 2 Decks are dominating the Meta, in what is now becoming almost for a year. No I actually feel Joy and Delight. Really, get priorities right in your Life. I'am spending literally like 5 hours each month on Ladder, just to get D5 (Legend rank only gives +1 pack and is never worth it) ...then I turn into "Questing Adventurer" Mode. I've dusted all the rotated Cards so I can always keep up with Standart and get the latest cards without spending more than 20 $ each Expansion (only buying Tavern Pass) Looks healthy that way. Anything more can and SHOULD be considered unhealthy. You are welcome.
You have no clue about Wild. Wild is more F2P friendly than Standard, because in Wild a lot of viable decks stay viable over years (like Secret Mage or Odd Pala) so you just have to invest e few times in some decks and can ladder with them for a long time. In Standard instead after a year most decks become unplayable because of rotation. When a new expansion comes out I mostly puy packs for Standard - for Wild most of the cards are nowhere viable. If I would only play Wild, it would be enough to invest about 3000 dust every expansion to keep playing all decks in Wild I want. For Standard I need a looot more cards to play all the decks every expansion.
But don`t mind keep going to live in your fantasy world where Standard is more F2P friendly...
This is correct. Most top decks only have 1 or 2 legendaries. Secret mage, odd pally, Mozaki, Raza, Kingsbane, pirate warriors, murloc sham, dark glare, etc. Also like the guy said, the cards stay pretty consistent so it's not hard to use same deck for many seasons. Maybe one or two changes w new sets but minor stuff
Lastly highlander package works for all classes (zephyr, Reno, etc.), So crafting those would make for a lot of cool decks
Care to elaborate what you actually want to complain about? I'm not even sure if you want to say that the format changes too much with new cards or too little with existing decks staying on top.
And as it was pointed out already, Wild does get balance patches, but only when it's actually necessary, and not for the sake of it like in Standard. Developers even explained before, that a lot of designs are scrapped during development because they would cause trouble in Wild. If they really didn't care, I'm sure we'd see even crazier things than Naga Giants or infinite 0 mana Snip-Snaps (which were both nerfed).
Either way, I don't really see a need to "fix" Wild right now either, since it is mostly fine. Maybe Paladin gets nerfed further, but it will probably be because of Standard, if Conviction and/or Samuro are deemed too strong. Few things in Wild are really "broken", and those oftentimes require some spectacular highrolling. The top tier decks are, just like in Standard, simply harder to beat.
My only real issue with Wild is that I've grown sick of Reno decks, particularly Priest. But I have to accept that some people will, for all eternity, force Reno and Zephrys in every conceivable combination of 30 cards in any of the 10 classes. And I will always hate Priest until the day comes when Priests finally plays a deck that aren't 75% (discovered) removal, so probably forever. But it's not like Priest is unbeatable, either.
At this point, I wouldn't even ask for a nerf if I could, only less support for archetypes that are over 3 years old.
First of all not complaining. Don't know why if anyone has a point about anything in this forum they are almost always labeled as a salty complainer.
I am making the point that wild is ignored with new cards coming in and leads to shorts metas where the game mode is warped into one or two crazy hyper broken decks which leads to emergency nerfs which does not feel healthy.
Never once in my posts did I complain about old cards needing nerfs right now.
Ok, let's go through this:
You speak of Wild "only getting worse and worse" and getting "broken" by "problematic cards". Wild getting "worse and worse" and "problematic cards" are not facts, those are claims or opinions. When there is a meta change, it needs to be assessed whether there actually is a "crazy hyper broken deck", one that is actually suppressive in power and popularity. Also, calling a card "problematic" heavily implies that you personally think it is a problem that needs to get addressed (i.e. nerfed). Even saying that Wild is "ignored" is your own impression, and factually not true.
You say that "alot of players are frustrated". Again, you present this to us as a fact, not as an impression you have gained, not something you'd distance yourself from. For example, you could have said "I don't think that Wild is unbalanced, but I get the impression that a lot of people are frustrated with it".
See, when I see someone open a topic like this, I will ask myself what's behind it. And going by your language, I'd have to assume that you are one of those frustrated players you speak of, and that you actually think that everything is getting worse and worse and that there are problematic cards. Those seem to be your opinions, not opinions you just want to present as part of the debate.
Whether or not you actually think that Wild is unbalanced or certain cards need to be nerfed, you suggest as much with your language. If you don't want to be seen as a "complainer", then don't talk like one. That's as simple as I can put it.
If you merely want to ask whether Wild should see more frequent changes or not, or if you want to hear opinions on card design or balance approaches, or whatever, without being suggestive, then don't be suggestive. SImple as that. But when you are speaking of "broken decks", "problematic cards", "frustrated players" and an "Ignored" format getting "worse and worse", you are suggestive. If you just want to bring in sentiments that are not your own, you'd have to distance yourself from them. Otherwise, they are (predictably) interpreted as your own opinions. Heck, your very title is "anyone else feels sad", as in "anyone besides me". How else am I supposed to interpret that?
And when someone asks something in a suggestive manner by stressing their own opinion, I have to assume, based on my experiences online, that it's less about the question itself and more about the opinion; in this case your dissatisfaction, thus complaining.
If I was asking "Is Hearthstone the worst game of all time?", it would be the same thing. People would interpret it as me just calling Hearthstone the worst game of all time, because that's what I would effectively do in that case, even if I actually just wanted to know whether they know any worse games. There are many ways to ask whether Hearthstone is a good or a bad game, or whether other games are better or worse, but when I ask it like this, I turned my question into a statement.
People who want to "merely ask" or "just say" something controversial either need to consider how they aks or say something, what motive they reveal (or choose to keep ambiguous), or deal with being labeled unfavorably.
TL;DR: You are using the language of someone who just wants to complain, and thus invite people to assume that you just want to complain. That's how language works.
I have NEVER played wild. Just decided I’d try to get to legend in wild this month just for the climbing achievements. I know the combos in wild get worse as the days go on but the mecha cthun, immune, cards cost life instead of mana combo is way more busted than the combo that people used in standard back in its day. I’m not messing with it enough to switch decks but it’s beat me using darkglare every time on turn 5 or 6.
Many have already harped on it already, but it's just too many synergies and combos for Blizz to care about wild. Wild is just supposed to be a "fun" mode for people that want to experiment with crazy combos and synergies. It's supposed to be a deck builders paradise to experiment and play mad scientist in HS ala MarkMcKz on YouTube.
That guy is constantly finding odd stuff that works in Wild. Because of that, they have zero interest in completely balancing the format. They leave that up to us to find "balance" in the format. Right now there's probably some wacky combo/synergy out there that no one or very few have considered, and could possibly break the format if you looked for it.
I mean they already have a hard time addressing cards in standard. Imagine what it would take to keep wild in check the same way they try to do in standard. Wild is truly a byproduct of standard, so outside of something being completely broken to the extent that nothing can stop it, they're going to focus mostly on standard.
Many have already harped on it already, but it's just too many synergies and combos for Blizz to care about wild. Wild is just supposed to be a "fun" mode for people that want to experiment with crazy combos and synergies. It's supposed to be a deck builders paradise to experiment and play mad scientist in HS ala MarkMcKz on YouTube.
That guy is constantly finding odd stuff that works in Wild. Because of that, they have zero interest in completely balancing the format. They leave that up to us to find "balance" in the format. Right now there's probably some wacky combo/synergy out there that no one or very few have considered, and could possibly break the format if you looked for it.
I mean they already have a hard time addressing cards in standard. Imagine what it would take to keep wild in check the same way they try to do in standard. Wild is truly a byproduct of standard, so outside of something being completely broken to the extent that nothing can stop it, they're going to focus mostly on standard.
No, I don't think there is a combo deck breaking the format currently. The reason is the gatekeeper decks:
Secret mage-the hyper synergetic tempo deck with a good chance vs everything. This matchup is the first reality check for any wild deck.
Fast boardflood aggro-Have the tools to stop them in time, or you are run over, quickly!
Big priest. This goes off fast as well, but the maximum value is insane, along with good control tools. Any control or midrange deck needs a way to deal with this.
Not an easy place to be a combo deck, but they are also fast enough to have a fighting chance.
The new Warlock combo deck is NOT game breaking. The fast decks seem to keep it in check, and it has to sacrifice control tools for draw.
I'm not saying an actual combo deck. I'm speaking about mostly synergy or combination of cards that could work well with each other to establish itself as a decent deck. Will it ever reach Tier 1 status? Well that's up to the deck itself and whoever is piloting it.
The mentioned decks will certainly be a shit test for the builder to consider, but there are decks out there if you really want to find them, create them, and learn how to play them. I played wild when it first came out, but got an idea of where it was headed to in it's current iteration. since then, I started dusting my wild cards to focus mainly on standard.
With that said, I play/build off-meta decks, and find ways to reach D5 at least. Mind you I avoid anything that's meta. I'm sure I could something in wild that can do the same.
I'm not saying an actual combo deck. I'm speaking about mostly synergy or combination of cards that could work well with each other to establish itself as a decent deck. Will it ever reach Tier 1 status? Well that's up to the deck itself and whoever is piloting it.
The mentioned decks will certainly be a shit test for the builder to consider, but there are decks out there if you really want to find them, create them, and learn how to play them. I played wild when it first came out, but got an idea of where it was headed to in it's current iteration. since then, I started dusting my wild cards to focus mainly on standard.
With that said, I play/build off-meta decks, and find ways to reach D5 at least. Mind you I avoid anything that's meta. I'm sure I could something in wild that can do the same.
Many of those decks are actually being played, but they rely on:
-Having a decent matchup against at least some common metadecks
-The opponent being confused about what to expect.
No. Wild is for Whales and No-Life Collectors, spending countless of money (and hours) on a game that is pseudo-competitive and isn't rewarding. Yet only like 2 Decks are dominating the Meta, in what is now becoming almost for a year. No I actually feel Joy and Delight. Really, get priorities right in your Life. I'am spending literally like 5 hours each month on Ladder, just to get D5 (Legend rank only gives +1 pack and is never worth it) ...then I turn into "Questing Adventurer" Mode. I've dusted all the rotated Cards so I can always keep up with Standart and get the latest cards without spending more than 20 $ each Expansion (only buying Tavern Pass) Looks healthy that way. Anything more can and SHOULD be considered unhealthy. You are welcome.
That is not true.
Due to the naturally high power level of wild decks (if you know how to build a deck), you can totally play non meta decks and climb with them. Of course your non-meta deck needs a way to destroy at least some of the meta decks, and you will get destroyed by some other meta decks, but that is true even for the tier 1 decks.
If your definition of "casual/fun" is literally unplayable meme decks with no win condition and very low power curve plays, then it won't work in Wild... But it won't work in Standard either.
Playing fun decks in Hearthstone means playable viable strategies with a couple fun/unexpected cards in the deck, not taking 30 weird cards totally at random and expect it to be competitive against high level optimized decks.
The only difference is meta decks will have 55-60% win rate and your non-meta deck will have 50-51% win rate if built properly. Now as I said, if you build a 15% win rate deck, expect a 15% win rate.
No fucking shit? You mean to tell me that an eternal format gets more insane as the card pool consistently expands ?
It's not a curated format. It was never meant to be. Stop pretending like it is supposed to be one.
I've just recently started playing wild, probably with around 2 weeks left of last month, maybe a few days less. I'm not experienced with it at all but in my experience the OP is pretty hyperbolic. I have found that you typically play a decent variety of decks, I made a quest mage with as many discover cards and raid the sky temple and it did alright. Not sure on the win rate but I was climbing, also tried a Tess rogue which is clearly not competitive but if my goal is to have fun, I can personally still do that without winning the game.
I only had time to get to diamond 2 but if you believe the doomsayers on here, you expect it to be a complete shit fest and it really isn't. I don't know a majority of the decks and although I did use highlander mage for some, I wasn't playing a tier 1 deck, I got on just fine.
Idiots on here honestly talk so much shit. I didn't really bother with wild because of all the crap that gets said but I had a blast, I've continued playing it and continue to not see what people are bitching about. Some games have some crazy stuff go on but that's the whole damn point, isn't it? The clue is in the name.
Also, despite not being a wild player I've been aware of multiple balance changes they've made that impact the mode. People exaggerate and lie to try and make their point, this place is absolutely full of it, so this really shouldn't surprise me.
You have no clue about Wild. Wild is more F2P friendly than Standard, because in Wild a lot of viable decks stay viable over years (like Secret Mage or Odd Pala) so you just have to invest e few times in some decks and can ladder with them for a long time. In Standard instead after a year most decks become unplayable because of rotation. When a new expansion comes out I mostly puy packs for Standard - for Wild most of the cards are nowhere viable. If I would only play Wild, it would be enough to invest about 3000 dust every expansion to keep playing all decks in Wild I want. For Standard I need a looot more cards to play all the decks every expansion.
But don`t mind keep going to live in your fantasy world where Standard is more F2P friendly...
The fun thing on wild is you have so many different cards you can pretty much do whatever as long as you keep working on your deck, improving and insisting.
I made a Reno shaman with Shudderwock and Nzoth quite some months ago (pre-barrens) and could always trust it to reach diamond (or platinum, can't remember now which one had the League of Evil and League of Explorers portraits) as long as I gave it the time and work to get there. I was literally the only one playing it and I even managed to reach legend one month. Of course, netdecking is always easier, but wild can get through a lot of shit (that said, new warlock demon still should be worked upon, no fun in eating a Mecha'thun lethal on turn 6.
But wild is a lot healthier than assumed, in fact my only reason to leave it for standard was me wanting to try and change... and also the fact I average 50% standard matches in wild anyways.... and now I am playing classic.
Click to see my Hearthstone projects:
If you play wild, accept that decks have hyper fast win condition, whether it is combo or otk. The game should be only balanced around standard, because hearthstone doesn't really work when thousands of cards coexist. Not in a balanced state. Also, why is this thread not in wild discussion?
He's a 15 year old who relies on his allowance to get him through life. Don't mind him.
Seriously though, jobs and budgets ARE a thing. Only immature children call spending money on something they love "bad". Learning how life really works will be a wake up call for him, but it will happen. He'll learn that not everything is handed to you on a silver plate sooner or later. Sometimes the satisfaction of earning something financially is even bigger and better than having things given to you for free.
I have the entirety of the Hearthstone card set, and proud. I play wild mainly but do dabble in standard from time to time.
I just wish Blizz did give a damn about wild as much as they do standard, you'd be talking a completely different animal of a format at that point. It doesn't take much when the effort is actually put in.
With wild though some cards ARE universally problematic between both game modes. In mage for instance, look at Incanter's Flow. How in hell are Blizzard supposed to create any kind of decently valued spells for mage at anything below 5 mana costing now? It's a joke when you can cast 2 or 3 mana spells for 0 mana after double incancter's flow. That kind of mana cheating is absurd and shouldn't be that extreme. If that's how bad it is in standard imagine the insanity of wild. Fixing IF for standard fixes the card for wild too.
I think you misunderstand me, when i say old deck, i mean old deck archetype, but i would love for control warrior or the other old decks you mentioned to be even close to viable. Unfortunantly since Blizz seems to not give a shit about having a healthy metagame in wild, those decks are not.
I just wish wild was supported so that all old archetypes were at least tier 3 simultaneously. I'm perfectly fine with combo decks, especially Flamewaker apm mage being viable, but right now, they have extremely high winrates despite the meta being warped to counter them. The format is literally called wild, yet there are so few viable classes, let alone decks. The meta of wild for like the past year has been OP deck and decks specifically designed to counter OP deck. I wish the meta was about persuing a specific strategy and seeing if your strategy is better than your opponent, rather than hoping your Dirty Rat pulls the right card, or killing your opponent before they instantly win from a combo.
I want wild to be a place where you come from standard because your favorite archetype (say zoo) isn't viable in standard right now. I think the devs should try to ensure that some evergreen archetypes always are viable in wild, like:
DH; midrange DH, demon DH
Druid: Ramp Druid, token Druid
Hunter: face hunter, midrange beast hunter
Mage: secret/tempo mage, combo mage
Paladin: Midrange paladin, Healadin
Priest: control priest, Ressurect priest
Rogue: tempo rogue, combo rogue
Shaman: Midrange totem shaman, murloc aggro shaman
Warlock: Handlock, Zoo warlock
Warrior: Pirate warrior, control warrior
Of course having more viable archetypes would be awesome, but i think this would be the goal, and having monthly balance patches in wild to try to keep all those archetypes viable would make wild as popular, if not more than standard.
I always anticipated that wild would get progressively worse as time went on. This is not a surprise to me.
In fact, it might be a feature for folks that enjoy 5 turn game with zero interaction.
But I knew from the beginning that wasnt the kind of game I enjoy, so never invested into wild.
Galavant Animation
F*ck wild and the horse it rode on
This is correct. Most top decks only have 1 or 2 legendaries. Secret mage, odd pally, Mozaki, Raza, Kingsbane, pirate warriors, murloc sham, dark glare, etc. Also like the guy said, the cards stay pretty consistent so it's not hard to use same deck for many seasons. Maybe one or two changes w new sets but minor stuff
Lastly highlander package works for all classes (zephyr, Reno, etc.), So crafting those would make for a lot of cool decks
Ok, let's go through this:
You speak of Wild "only getting worse and worse" and getting "broken" by "problematic cards". Wild getting "worse and worse" and "problematic cards" are not facts, those are claims or opinions. When there is a meta change, it needs to be assessed whether there actually is a "crazy hyper broken deck", one that is actually suppressive in power and popularity. Also, calling a card "problematic" heavily implies that you personally think it is a problem that needs to get addressed (i.e. nerfed). Even saying that Wild is "ignored" is your own impression, and factually not true.
You say that "alot of players are frustrated". Again, you present this to us as a fact, not as an impression you have gained, not something you'd distance yourself from. For example, you could have said "I don't think that Wild is unbalanced, but I get the impression that a lot of people are frustrated with it".
See, when I see someone open a topic like this, I will ask myself what's behind it. And going by your language, I'd have to assume that you are one of those frustrated players you speak of, and that you actually think that everything is getting worse and worse and that there are problematic cards. Those seem to be your opinions, not opinions you just want to present as part of the debate.
Whether or not you actually think that Wild is unbalanced or certain cards need to be nerfed, you suggest as much with your language. If you don't want to be seen as a "complainer", then don't talk like one. That's as simple as I can put it.
If you merely want to ask whether Wild should see more frequent changes or not, or if you want to hear opinions on card design or balance approaches, or whatever, without being suggestive, then don't be suggestive. SImple as that. But when you are speaking of "broken decks", "problematic cards", "frustrated players" and an "Ignored" format getting "worse and worse", you are suggestive. If you just want to bring in sentiments that are not your own, you'd have to distance yourself from them. Otherwise, they are (predictably) interpreted as your own opinions. Heck, your very title is "anyone else feels sad", as in "anyone besides me". How else am I supposed to interpret that?
And when someone asks something in a suggestive manner by stressing their own opinion, I have to assume, based on my experiences online, that it's less about the question itself and more about the opinion; in this case your dissatisfaction, thus complaining.
If I was asking "Is Hearthstone the worst game of all time?", it would be the same thing. People would interpret it as me just calling Hearthstone the worst game of all time, because that's what I would effectively do in that case, even if I actually just wanted to know whether they know any worse games. There are many ways to ask whether Hearthstone is a good or a bad game, or whether other games are better or worse, but when I ask it like this, I turned my question into a statement.
People who want to "merely ask" or "just say" something controversial either need to consider how they aks or say something, what motive they reveal (or choose to keep ambiguous), or deal with being labeled unfavorably.
TL;DR: You are using the language of someone who just wants to complain, and thus invite people to assume that you just want to complain. That's how language works.
I have NEVER played wild. Just decided I’d try to get to legend in wild this month just for the climbing achievements. I know the combos in wild get worse as the days go on but the mecha cthun, immune, cards cost life instead of mana combo is way more busted than the combo that people used in standard back in its day. I’m not messing with it enough to switch decks but it’s beat me using darkglare every time on turn 5 or 6.
Many have already harped on it already, but it's just too many synergies and combos for Blizz to care about wild. Wild is just supposed to be a "fun" mode for people that want to experiment with crazy combos and synergies. It's supposed to be a deck builders paradise to experiment and play mad scientist in HS ala MarkMcKz on YouTube.
That guy is constantly finding odd stuff that works in Wild. Because of that, they have zero interest in completely balancing the format. They leave that up to us to find "balance" in the format. Right now there's probably some wacky combo/synergy out there that no one or very few have considered, and could possibly break the format if you looked for it.
I mean they already have a hard time addressing cards in standard. Imagine what it would take to keep wild in check the same way they try to do in standard. Wild is truly a byproduct of standard, so outside of something being completely broken to the extent that nothing can stop it, they're going to focus mostly on standard.
Yes
And also, direct your hate towards the obnoxious malignant twits that were on APM mage last week now on the new OP warlock.
No, I don't think there is a combo deck breaking the format currently. The reason is the gatekeeper decks:
Secret mage-the hyper synergetic tempo deck with a good chance vs everything. This matchup is the first reality check for any wild deck.
Fast boardflood aggro-Have the tools to stop them in time, or you are run over, quickly!
Big priest. This goes off fast as well, but the maximum value is insane, along with good control tools. Any control or midrange deck needs a way to deal with this.
Not an easy place to be a combo deck, but they are also fast enough to have a fighting chance.
The new Warlock combo deck is NOT game breaking. The fast decks seem to keep it in check, and it has to sacrifice control tools for draw.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I'm not saying an actual combo deck. I'm speaking about mostly synergy or combination of cards that could work well with each other to establish itself as a decent deck. Will it ever reach Tier 1 status? Well that's up to the deck itself and whoever is piloting it.
The mentioned decks will certainly be a shit test for the builder to consider, but there are decks out there if you really want to find them, create them, and learn how to play them. I played wild when it first came out, but got an idea of where it was headed to in it's current iteration. since then, I started dusting my wild cards to focus mainly on standard.
With that said, I play/build off-meta decks, and find ways to reach D5 at least. Mind you I avoid anything that's meta. I'm sure I could something in wild that can do the same.
double post
Many of those decks are actually being played, but they rely on:
-Having a decent matchup against at least some common metadecks
-The opponent being confused about what to expect.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide