You sure? They're showing it as the #2 deck, right behind Libram Paladin.
Did you pay for the "premium" version, or are you looking at the unfiltered rankings that include bronze and silver winrates?
If it's the latter, then stop using HSreplay.
Ah yes. Because "grinding from bronze up to legend" isn't a thing that happens, which matters for determining how good a deck is or isn't for climbing.
Also, if you want to only use top level as a metric? Worlds is going on right now, and Nalguidan is one of the players who brought Quest Warrior, and has yet to lose with said deck.
The other player to bring the deck, Frenetic, only sported one win one loss with the deck, before he was elimimated (and most of his losses were with alignment druid). Meaning at 2021 worlds, Quest Warrior has a 4 win, 1 loss record to date, which seems to be a pretty flipping good ratio for the top players to sport.
Ah yes. Because "grinding from bronze up to legend" isn't a thing that happens, which matters for determining how good a deck is or isn't for climbing.
Also, if you want to only use top level as a metric? Worlds is going on right now, and Nalguidan is one of the players who brought Quest Warrior, and has yet to lose with said deck.
The other player to bring the deck, Frenetic, only sported one win one loss with the deck, before he was elimimated (and most of his losses were with alignment druid). Meaning at 2021 worlds, Quest Warrior has a 4 win, 1 loss record to date, which seems to be a pretty flipping good ratio for the top players to sport.
No, it's not only the top that matters, but people stuck at bronze are probably not the kind of players balance changes need to be done for. According to VS stats the deck is just 'ok' on plat and higher despite half the other decks being unrefined.
Also, if you think a 5 game sample is enough to draw any conclusion, then i don't know how to continue this conversation.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm not certain if this is true, but it does make sense. I think the reason people keep bringing up legend, if I had to speculate, is that people may think that how a deck plays in legend is a better representation of its actual power level relative to how well it does at lower ranks, and thus that play in legend is a more reliable instrument for the purpose of determining whether nerfs are needed.
Wild is just a casual mode. Its wacky and wild like its ment to be. The ladder is there for just cosmetic feature,u dont get anything if u hit legend top 50,unlike standard. Wild is just for fun and laughs. They wont nerf it, sorry
They should nerf some of the actual pirates, and then cap the Juggernaut at weapons and pirates that cost (4) or less. It just generates too much overall value and the fact that it rolls *every turn* means you eventually will get something stupid like Mr. Smite and/or Gorehowl.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
omg we can't nerf something because most of people are casuals that are bad at the game and like to play the easiest and cheapest deck around
but anyway nerf it ......i don't care anymore i don't think the pirate warrior is op but honestly im tired of them just like you do .
at this point should be to right nerf quest hunter too because is possibly even more played then p w and im tired of them too
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded." - Osho Rajneesh
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm not certain if this is true, but it does make sense. I think the reason people keep bringing up legend, if I had to speculate, is that people may think that how a deck plays in legend is a better representation of its actual power level relative to how well it does at lower ranks, and thus that play in legend is a more reliable instrument for the purpose of determining whether nerfs are needed.
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
You seem to have a particularly high degree of insight into Blizz's decision making process with regard to balancing, did you read about all of this somewhere or do you have experience in this area? Jc
I voted for reducing Juggernaut's damage solely because of my lack of confidence in the current dev team. Option 2 is a less bad solution, narrowing the mana range of pirates/weapons generated to 3 or less would be the better solution. No 12 free mana turns would take a few %s off without fundamentally undermining the questline's design. Although the best solution would be to delete the last 2 years worth of cards from the game, swap the card design and custodial teams, fire Ayala, and start with a clean slate.
Quest Warrior is ok, they just need to nerf Mister 6.
Mr 6 doesn’t matter 90% of the time your ded by turn 4 and even earlier in wild.
In Wild yes, maybe. But in Standard it's 90% of losses when Juggernaut casually summons Mister 6 for your opponnent and you get rekt in a match which you have won already.
Quest: Every second card played needs to be a pirate. Progress Quest after you played two pirates.
Right now its: play a card: win.
If it was a priest quest like: "play 2 priest cards to advance", everyone would be crying salty tears. but if druid, warlock, rogue, shaman, demonhunter, mage or warrior is overpowered, everything seems to be ok.
I voted for reducing Juggernaut's damage solely because of my lack of confidence in the current dev team. Option 2 is a less bad solution, narrowing the mana range of pirates/weapons generated to 3 or less would be the better solution. No 12 free mana turns would take a few %s off without fundamentally undermining the questline's design. Although the best solution would be to delete the last 2 years worth of cards from the game, swap the card design and custodial teams, fire Ayala, and start with a clean slate.
The quest was okay until they did unnecessary buffs just before the release of busted new pirates.
I'm sick of Team 5's philosophy of forcing archetypes with overpowered tribes at any costs. And, honestly, are we that dumb to not handle the possibility that not all quest rewards grants a 5 mana 7/7 ?
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
You seem to have a particularly high degree of insight into Blizz's decision making process with regard to balancing, did you read about all of this somewhere or do you have experience in this area? Jc
I'm going off mostly what they've said all the other times we've had a situation like this before. Its pretty common for a slightly above average card (that is numerically balanced, but not fun) to get slapped down. Honestly, what people need to remember for all of this to make sense is the Baku/Genn situation. Baku/Genn created problems of both types, but in reality most of the decks using them were fine in terms of numerical balance. But instead of doing touch-ups to the worst offenders, they just rotated early entirely. The reason for this comes down to the "fun"-factor I was talking about. Baku/Genn led to matches against very consistent and very same-y but above average decks. Most of them weren't straight up busted, but every game played out the same.
That's ultimately why I don't really think no changes are an option when it comes to Warrior Quest. They kind of have to fix it, or rotate the quests early, because the problem inherent in the quest designs are also very much the same problems we ran into with Genn/Baku.
I don't know about Wild, haven't tried Libram Paladin there but in Standard, Quest warrior is just about the easiest match up. Once you get Cariel out, it's game over, they just don't do enough damage to your face anymore, and you can contest (and win) the board easily with giant taunts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because when slogging through 1,000 Pirate Quest Warriors in a month up the ladder, it's obviously the Legend rank win-rate that I care about. /S
Ah yes. Because "grinding from bronze up to legend" isn't a thing that happens, which matters for determining how good a deck is or isn't for climbing.
Also, if you want to only use top level as a metric? Worlds is going on right now, and Nalguidan is one of the players who brought Quest Warrior, and has yet to lose with said deck.
The other player to bring the deck, Frenetic, only sported one win one loss with the deck, before he was elimimated (and most of his losses were with alignment druid). Meaning at 2021 worlds, Quest Warrior has a 4 win, 1 loss record to date, which seems to be a pretty flipping good ratio for the top players to sport.
No, it's not only the top that matters, but people stuck at bronze are probably not the kind of players balance changes need to be done for. According to VS stats the deck is just 'ok' on plat and higher despite half the other decks being unrefined.
Also, if you think a 5 game sample is enough to draw any conclusion, then i don't know how to continue this conversation.
I'm not sure why you guys are bringing up legend so much. Most people aren't legend, and HS as a game has never been balanced around legend either, not primarily. If something is fine in Legend but feels miserable for everyone else, it gets hit. It really is that simple. The goal of nerfs is not game balance per se, but fun for the core playerbase. Sometimes, they're the same thing. Sometimes, they're not.
I'm not certain if this is true, but it does make sense. I think the reason people keep bringing up legend, if I had to speculate, is that people may think that how a deck plays in legend is a better representation of its actual power level relative to how well it does at lower ranks, and thus that play in legend is a more reliable instrument for the purpose of determining whether nerfs are needed.
Mr 6 doesn’t matter 90% of the time your ded by turn 4 and even earlier in wild.
Wild is just a casual mode. Its wacky and wild like its ment to be. The ladder is there for just cosmetic feature,u dont get anything if u hit legend top 50,unlike standard. Wild is just for fun and laughs. They wont nerf it, sorry
They should nerf some of the actual pirates, and then cap the Juggernaut at weapons and pirates that cost (4) or less. It just generates too much overall value and the fact that it rolls *every turn* means you eventually will get something stupid like Mr. Smite and/or Gorehowl.
I think that'd be enough.
omg we can't nerf something because most of people are casuals that are bad at the game and like to play the easiest and cheapest deck around
but anyway nerf it ......i don't care anymore i don't think the pirate warrior is op but honestly im tired of them just like you do .
at this point should be to right nerf quest hunter too because is possibly even more played then p w and im tired of them too
"because democracy basically means government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded. So let us say: government by the retarded, for the retarded, of the retarded." - Osho Rajneesh
Yeah, but there are two factors to determining when to nerf something. The first, and primary metric, is simply perception. Decks that are perceived as being unfun to play against (usually because they're strong in a particularly domineering way) will get the boot even if they're fine in actual power level. The second metric is indeed the power level. It has happened before that a deck was particularly impressive in performance, but didn't really get perceived by the general playerbase as such, but got nerfed because of that.
Basically what I'm saying is just that the game is balanced around both of those factors, and as long as *any* of the two are a problem, it's a target for nerfs. It's not a guaranteed one, of course, but it becomes very likely. In reality, both factors are crucial to the health of a meta-game.
You seem to have a particularly high degree of insight into Blizz's decision making process with regard to balancing, did you read about all of this somewhere or do you have experience in this area? Jc
I voted for reducing Juggernaut's damage solely because of my lack of confidence in the current dev team. Option 2 is a less bad solution, narrowing the mana range of pirates/weapons generated to 3 or less would be the better solution. No 12 free mana turns would take a few %s off without fundamentally undermining the questline's design. Although the best solution would be to delete the last 2 years worth of cards from the game, swap the card design and custodial teams, fire Ayala, and start with a clean slate.
I'd be fine e with juggernaut cannot summon smite.
In Wild yes, maybe. But in Standard it's 90% of losses when Juggernaut casually summons Mister 6 for your opponnent and you get rekt in a match which you have won already.
Quest: Every second card played needs to be a pirate. Progress Quest after you played two pirates.
Right now its: play a card: win.
If it was a priest quest like: "play 2 priest cards to advance", everyone would be crying salty tears. but if druid, warlock, rogue, shaman, demonhunter, mage or warrior is overpowered, everything seems to be ok.
you should start playing this game if you want to comment on this game, since your comment is so out of reality.
This!!
The quest was okay until they did unnecessary buffs just before the release of busted new pirates.
I'm sick of Team 5's philosophy of forcing archetypes with overpowered tribes at any costs. And, honestly, are we that dumb to not handle the possibility that not all quest rewards grants a 5 mana 7/7 ?
It bothers me so much.
I'm going off mostly what they've said all the other times we've had a situation like this before. Its pretty common for a slightly above average card (that is numerically balanced, but not fun) to get slapped down. Honestly, what people need to remember for all of this to make sense is the Baku/Genn situation. Baku/Genn created problems of both types, but in reality most of the decks using them were fine in terms of numerical balance. But instead of doing touch-ups to the worst offenders, they just rotated early entirely. The reason for this comes down to the "fun"-factor I was talking about. Baku/Genn led to matches against very consistent and very same-y but above average decks. Most of them weren't straight up busted, but every game played out the same.
That's ultimately why I don't really think no changes are an option when it comes to Warrior Quest. They kind of have to fix it, or rotate the quests early, because the problem inherent in the quest designs are also very much the same problems we ran into with Genn/Baku.
I don't know about Wild, haven't tried Libram Paladin there but in Standard, Quest warrior is just about the easiest match up. Once you get Cariel out, it's game over, they just don't do enough damage to your face anymore, and you can contest (and win) the board easily with giant taunts.