No it's the fact that huntard face is well.. pretty much just that.. you play things and go for the face.. not much thought.. maybe some occasional thinking but not much. easy legend, easy skill command.
No, the main issue is that it is the "simplest" deck. It takes no skill to play and if you have no healing than it will crush you. The most annoying thing, I think, is the hero ability. Unlike zoo or other aggro, if you stabilize the board but have less than 10 health, you will still lose.
Maybe but it would still be a quite cheap deck, obviously not as cheap tho, and sure it might get hated a bit less but i think it is also about the fact that EVERYONE plays it (or played) and it wrecks on ladder. Hunter has been a thing for a long time and people are getting sick of the fact that it is strong.
It's not necessarily about cheap decks vs. aggro decks, it's just that decks like Hunter and aggro are often in the 'driving seat' and many games are predicated on whether they get a decent start that snowballs. As for the control decks, they have to depend on mulliganing into and drawing into answers in time. The whole 'no skill' argument is slightly overblown, although decks like Hunter are rather easy to plan out turn sequences, but nevertheless that argument is prevalent because you see lots of aggro(Hunter) players misplay and still gets rewarded with a perfect mana curve.
No, the main issue is that it is the "simplest" deck. It takes no skill to play and if you have no healing than it will crush you. The most annoying thing, I think, is the hero ability. Unlike zoo or other aggro, if you stabilize the board but have less than 10 health, you will still lose.
As a handlock player this is infuriating because I'll have 3 giants with taunt up and I still die. Although I replaced my Earthen Ring Farseers with Healbots and I am doing a lot better against them so if you are coming up against a lot of hunters then I couldn't recommend it enough.
Ok I'll try one out for my main deck, not sure if vitality totem is better, but I'd probably get only one heal.
People like to be mad at stuff, and people don't like to lose. Whenever there is a deck that is played by a large percentage of people, and it is good, people will hate the deck because they will lose to it a lot. They will win against it a lot, too, but that doesn't matter. The high volume of people playing the deck results in you playing against it a high number of times which results in you winning a lot and, more importantly, losing a lot. And like I said, people don't like to lose, and they like to be mad at stuff. This is the internet, after all.
Like it take any more skill to play Paladin. Wild Pyromancer then Equality, talk about clever. It won't be long before Mage is the new cancer. Unstable Portal is a great card and Flamecannon as well. Then just freeze, freeze and freeze and TBK and Tirion can watch as the Pyroblast flies over their head and roasts the enemy hero.
People like to be mad at stuff, and people don't like to lose. Whenever there is a deck that is played by a large percentage of people, and it is good, people will hate the deck because they will lose to it a lot. They will win against it a lot, too, but that doesn't matter. The high volume of people playing the deck results in you playing against it a high number of times which results in you winning a lot and, more importantly, losing a lot. And like I said, people don't like to lose, and they like to be mad at stuff. This is the internet, after all.
It's not just to do with losing, I don't mind losing at all, but if I didn't get to play many cards from my deck before I do, then it feels like I have barely been playing a game at all. I like games where they are back and forth and not decided in the first 6-7 turns.
It's got nothing to do with deck price nor does it have anything to do with skill. People get frustrated when they run into a deck that beats everything they try against it, especially if that deck is so commonly played. For me hunter was the most frustrating class to run into because most of my decks had a low chance of stopping their early game so I would always die to inevitable damage later on.
In my world I don't care what quality a card is unless it's legendary because that means you can only run one. I play and build my decks as if I own every card and as if my opponents do as well. Obviously I run into issues where I can't always build the decks I want but I just build something else interesting then.
Also everyone saying that hunter lacks skill is being irrational and just using it as an easy excuse. Decks that attack the face can require the most calculation to play, as missing one or two damage can cost you the game. Control decks are usually straitforward because you're locked into your plays, but long games end up giving you decisions later on. Skill plays a role in every deck. If you've ever watched Raynad play zoo he talks about the decisions he makes because there are decision to be made, it's not 100% straitforward.
Simple: Hunters mostly use the same 15 cards (two of each). There's no major variation, there's no twist (at least Warlock came up with Handlock). So no matter what, you get bored to death seeing the same cards over, and over, and over. If there's one mana, you expect card X and Y, if there's two mana, you expect card A or B, etc, etc At 6 you know what's coming. The other classes use more cards in their decks (many one of) and have more deck variation, etc. Sure, if you play against a Mage with 3 mana, you can expect a Frostbolt, but you can also get something else... So overall, playing against a Hunter is boring. Because they are popular/cheap, playing against 3 of them in a row, is so boring that it's usually enough to close Hearthstone, and go do something else.
The cost for most hunter decks are usually 800-1600 on average for the ones that attack face only, mid range hunter decks that still go face but have a good mid game range from 1800-3k. I main hunter only because I started out playing in october right about the time buzzard got nerfed, and most classes in ranked are pretty hefty to play with the cost to them. Hunter and Zoo provide a good steady foundation to new players for learning such as trading and when to go face, then once they get better and start obtaining better cards, they'll lean less aggro. That's what I'm trying to do as a hunter. I hate the scumbag hunter title but it was the first class I picked up, and trying to improve on and get out of that niche of hate ;3 I hope to become a control hunter by the end of December; only 2 more legendaries to craft and I'll be on my way.
everyone hate hunter because it require a lot of skills to play and when you face one you like OMFG pro player how can i beat this mastermind strategist
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that if undertaker was a epic that you needed to craft, or get in a pack you would see it hated much less.
No it's the fact that huntard face is well.. pretty much just that.. you play things and go for the face.. not much thought.. maybe some occasional thinking but not much. easy legend, easy skill command.
No, the main issue is that it is the "simplest" deck. It takes no skill to play and if you have no healing than it will crush you. The most annoying thing, I think, is the hero ability. Unlike zoo or other aggro, if you stabilize the board but have less than 10 health, you will still lose.
This is statement is false.
Maybe but it would still be a quite cheap deck, obviously not as cheap tho, and sure it might get hated a bit less but i think it is also about the fact that EVERYONE plays it (or played) and it wrecks on ladder. Hunter has been a thing for a long time and people are getting sick of the fact that it is strong.
uM0p3p!sddn
Also check out my new inspire majordomo mage! http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/114619-mystery-mage-inspire-rangnaros-freeze
It's not necessarily about cheap decks vs. aggro decks, it's just that decks like Hunter and aggro are often in the 'driving seat' and many games are predicated on whether they get a decent start that snowballs. As for the control decks, they have to depend on mulliganing into and drawing into answers in time. The whole 'no skill' argument is slightly overblown, although decks like Hunter are rather easy to plan out turn sequences, but nevertheless that argument is prevalent because you see lots of aggro(Hunter) players misplay and still gets rewarded with a perfect mana curve.
Ok I'll try one out for my main deck, not sure if vitality totem is better, but I'd probably get only one heal.
This is statement is false.
People like to be mad at stuff, and people don't like to lose. Whenever there is a deck that is played by a large percentage of people, and it is good, people will hate the deck because they will lose to it a lot. They will win against it a lot, too, but that doesn't matter. The high volume of people playing the deck results in you playing against it a high number of times which results in you winning a lot and, more importantly, losing a lot. And like I said, people don't like to lose, and they like to be mad at stuff. This is the internet, after all.
Like it take any more skill to play Paladin. Wild Pyromancer then Equality, talk about clever. It won't be long before Mage is the new cancer. Unstable Portal is a great card and Flamecannon as well. Then just freeze, freeze and freeze and TBK and Tirion can watch as the Pyroblast flies over their head and roasts the enemy hero.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
It's not just to do with losing, I don't mind losing at all, but if I didn't get to play many cards from my deck before I do, then it feels like I have barely been playing a game at all. I like games where they are back and forth and not decided in the first 6-7 turns.
It's got nothing to do with deck price nor does it have anything to do with skill. People get frustrated when they run into a deck that beats everything they try against it, especially if that deck is so commonly played. For me hunter was the most frustrating class to run into because most of my decks had a low chance of stopping their early game so I would always die to inevitable damage later on.
In my world I don't care what quality a card is unless it's legendary because that means you can only run one. I play and build my decks as if I own every card and as if my opponents do as well. Obviously I run into issues where I can't always build the decks I want but I just build something else interesting then.
Also everyone saying that hunter lacks skill is being irrational and just using it as an easy excuse. Decks that attack the face can require the most calculation to play, as missing one or two damage can cost you the game. Control decks are usually straitforward because you're locked into your plays, but long games end up giving you decisions later on. Skill plays a role in every deck. If you've ever watched Raynad play zoo he talks about the decisions he makes because there are decision to be made, it's not 100% straitforward.
Im curious, what is the dust cost of these decks people want to play?
NO! You fool, what have you done?
(insert moving monolog about upcoming meta games and life here)
In all honesty, it looks like a good deck, well played.
This is statement is false.
Simple: Hunters mostly use the same 15 cards (two of each). There's no major variation, there's no twist (at least Warlock came up with Handlock). So no matter what, you get bored to death seeing the same cards over, and over, and over. If there's one mana, you expect card X and Y, if there's two mana, you expect card A or B, etc, etc At 6 you know what's coming. The other classes use more cards in their decks (many one of) and have more deck variation, etc. Sure, if you play against a Mage with 3 mana, you can expect a Frostbolt, but you can also get something else... So overall, playing against a Hunter is boring. Because they are popular/cheap, playing against 3 of them in a row, is so boring that it's usually enough to close Hearthstone, and go do something else.
The cost for most hunter decks are usually 800-1600 on average for the ones that attack face only, mid range hunter decks that still go face but have a good mid game range from 1800-3k.
I main hunter only because I started out playing in october right about the time buzzard got nerfed, and most classes in ranked are pretty hefty to play with the cost to them.
Hunter and Zoo provide a good steady foundation to new players for learning such as trading and when to go face, then once they get better and start obtaining better cards, they'll lean less aggro. That's what I'm trying to do as a hunter.
I hate the scumbag hunter title but it was the first class I picked up, and trying to improve on and get out of that niche of hate ;3
I hope to become a control hunter by the end of December; only 2 more legendaries to craft and I'll be on my way.
everyone hate hunter because it require a lot of skills to play and when you face one you like OMFG pro player how can i beat this mastermind strategist