How would you determine which deck consistently hit legend and how varied they are on HS Replay? Back when Brann was still around, how often were you matched up which wasn’t Astalor OTK Druid combo? 10% of the time when you’d get the occasional aggro druid? How often were you matched with Warlock which wasn’t imp/curse warlock? 5% of the time?
Again, I might be wrong, maybe there really is ‘plenty’ of deck variety but I just happen to be matched with the same decks over and over and over and over again. I mean that’s fine for those who enjoy it, I’m just eagerly waiting for a competitor to HS which will manage not to end up with a stale meta within 24 hours. The player base majorly stick to deck recipes so that’s all there is to it really.
I wouldn’t craft any of them though. Hitting legend in the second half of a month is possible with a lot of crap. Not this month tough, no Chance against twig druid. Got to rank one with menagerie warlock though:
### Menagerie # Class: Warlock # Format: Wild # # 2x (1) Felosophy # 2x (1) Frequency Oscillator # 2x (1) Grave Defiler # 2x (1) Mistake # 1x (1) Patches the Pirate # 2x (2) Amalgam of the Deep # 2x (2) Chum Bucket # 2x (2) Mechwarper # 2x (2) Nether Breath # 2x (2) Party Animal # 2x (3) Amber Whelp # 2x (3) Bloodscent Vilefin # 2x (3) Nightmare Amalgam # 2x (4) Seadevil Stinger # 1x (5) Gorloc Ravager # 1x (7) The One-Amalgam Band # 1x (8) Gigafin # AAEBAaPDAwSRvALVsgT1xwSvwwUNlA/zvQLeggPsrAPO0gPykQTjvQSywQT+2ASjkwWVqgXizQXZ0AUAAA== # # To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
How would you determine which deck consistently hit legend and how varied they are on HS Replay? Back when Brann was still around, how often were you matched up which wasn’t Astalor OTK Druid combo? 10% of the time when you’d get the occasional aggro druid? How often were you matched with Warlock which wasn’t imp/curse warlock? 5% of the time?
Again, I might be wrong, maybe there really is ‘plenty’ of deck variety but I just happen to be matched with the same decks over and over and over and over again. I mean that’s fine for those who enjoy it, I’m just eagerly waiting for a competitor to HS which will manage not to end up with a stale meta within 24 hours. The player base majorly stick to deck recipes so that’s all there is to it really.
And? Not trying to be snarky here, but what is it you actually expect? I raised this question in a discussion thread I started several months ago, but I think people have an odd definition of a balanced meta. If you expect every single class to have at least two viable deck archtypes, I'm sorry but you're smoking something. That has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case.
Second, focusing on deck viability at the Legend level is a mistake. The vast, vast majority of HS players cannot reach (or do not wish to reach) legend. The legend meta is different from that at lower levels. It would, quite frankly, be a huge mistake for Blizzard to target its balance efforts on the highest level.
Third, I do not get this whining about "netdecks." What you call netdecking is really nothing more than the process of refining a given deck archetype to maximize its winrate. Believe it or not, most people would rather WIN a game than play some wacky deck that goes off once in a while but has a 40% winrate. Especially when you're trying to ladder.
I actually really hate the game now and my excitment at the death of Brann and Guff has faded....
The classes doing well are either the same, slightly tweaked, versions of decks which were tier 1 at the end of the last expac (DK and Paladin), or are aggro/face - dead by turn 5 - decks. I know aggro always shines at the start of a new rotation due to unrefined lists but it feels particularly oppresive this time round.
DK's are obviously just as good as before due to the overpowered nature of their cards which are supposed to be limited by the rune system (and yet are easily, and it seems consitently, discovered). They dominate on a per-card value/strength basis and a superb synergy between cards with a whole expansion set designed with their cards in mind.
Paladins can basically design a deck with a hard aggro start curving predictably into whatever they want due to order in the court. Stick down some free legendaries, some free 5/5 taunts and some massive draw (all within the Paladin-only gameplan) and you need multiple board clears to stand a chance as a non aggro deck. I have a real issue with this deck, because it removes one of the key facets of a card game - the variability of the draw. It should always be the case that a high consistency deck sacrafices something else to tutor cards (or draw lots of cards to get the right one). But all the paladin needs to do is play 1 card (that they can have 2 of in the deck AND it draws a card).
Just for once I wish Blizz would realise the game needs: 1) cards to cost mana & 2) Cards as resources to matter. Sadly they don't seem to agree...
@Tallstranger: if you don’t intend to be snarky, avoid using words like ‘whine’ when people criticises something you disagree with, it comes across as being snarky and condescending (might also do without ‘smoking something’). It’s always puzzling to me when someone starts a message with: « I don’t mean to be x… » and the proceed to do exactly what they mention they don’t intend to do. I don’t normally reply to obnoxious replies but I find the topic interesting so I will. You’ve been warned.
Now that’s out of way: from what I understand from Scorpion’s reply, there are quote ‘plenty’ of viable decks. Whether or not they’re all slight variations of the same unique archetype I don’t know. From what I can tell on HS Replay, there are currently five different top paladin decks.
Why has it never been the case and will ever be the case? You need to develop your arguments if you want to convey some sort of idea, otherwise it’s futile.
You’ve aso misread: we’re not talking about decks *at* the legend level but rather decks being used to *reach* legend level. I think most people can likely reach legend if they stick to the top decks going around. This is speculation however.
Regarding your last point, it’s up to the developer to find a way to encourage deck variety, otherwise everyone would just play pure paladin (or whatever 5 decks are the top right now) and the game would die off. That’s not an opinion, people don’t enjoy facing the same deck multiple times, fatigue steps in. It’s also probably why they decided to include mini sets to shake up the meta as 4 months facing the same decks gets gruelling and HS has been eroding over the years.
@Tallstranger: if you don’t intend to be snarky, avoid using words like ‘whine’ when people criticises something you disagree with, it comes across as being snarky and condescending (might also do without ‘smoking something’). It’s always puzzling to me when someone starts a message with: « I don’t mean to be x… » and the proceed to do exactly what they mention they don’t intend to do. I don’t normally reply to obnoxious replies but I find the topic interesting so I will. You’ve been warned.
Now that’s out of way: from what I understand from Scorpion’s reply, there are quote ‘plenty’ of viable decks. Whether or not they’re all slight variations of the same unique archetype I don’t know. From what I can tell on HS Replay, there are currently five different top paladin decks.
Why has it never been the case and will ever be the case? You need to develop your arguments if you want to convey some sort of idea, otherwise it’s futile.
You’ve aso misread: we’re not talking about decks *at* the legend level but rather decks being used to *reach* legend level. I think most people can likely reach legend if they stick to the top decks going around. This is speculation however.
Regarding your last point, it’s up to the developer to find a way to encourage deck variety, otherwise everyone would just play pure paladin (or whatever 5 decks are the top right now) and the game would die off. That’s not an opinion, people don’t enjoy facing the same deck multiple times, fatigue steps in. It’s also probably why they decided to include mini sets to shake up the meta as 4 months facing the same decks gets gruelling and HS has been eroding over the years.
I'm going to full-on ignore your first para, including your "warning." You can either have a conversation about this or you can walk away. But don't make the mistake of thinking you're doing me a favor by responding.
I go back to the question I asked in my first post that you failed to answer: what do you expect/ want? Put another way, what are you complaining about? Is it that (as seems most likely) you are facing the same archetypes over and over (Blood DK, Non-Neutral Pally, etc.) OR is it that you're seeing the exact same DECKS over and over? (The latter is very unlikely, given that you are unlikely to see every card in your opponent's deck and thus have no way of knowing that every card is the same as the one from the previous game.) Based on this analysis, I'm assuming your complaint is the lack of each class having at least 2 deck archetypes capable of reaching legend. NB: by math, that means we need AT LEAST 20 viable archetypes.
I've been playing HS for 8 years or so: NOT ONCE during that time did every class have a good archetype (much less multiple good ones) for laddering/ reaching legend. Typically, a new expansion will favor a couple of classes, leave most mediocre, and cripple a couple others. That's why it "has never been the case." As for why it will never BE the case, it's a reasonable assumption based on the past. But there's also at least a partial answer is: there simply aren't enough cards released in a given expansion to support 20 or more different deck archetypes. The most recent expansion was 145 cards. When you factor in the usual filler card garbage AND the need to provide some support to previous archetypes AND introduce new archetypes AND lay the groundwork for future archetypes, you start running out of cards real fast. Remember: each class only gets 10 class cards. That's likely the biggest reason that it "never will be the case."
I did, indeed, misread your discussion of getting to legend vice playing at legend. Thank you for correcting me. That said, I don't think Blizzard should be seeking to balance these decks even at the D5-1 level. I don't know what level the game designers focus on when looking at balance changes (to my knowledge, they've never stated this explicitly), but I doubt it's that high.
As for my last point, I was merely stating the obvious: people are going to gravitate towards archetypes that are optimized and have high winrates. Complaining about people using "netdecks" is silly and pointless. Most people don't WANT to build their own decks: they want to take advantage of the play experience of thousands of other players who are using the same archetype. The meta will, as it always does, settle down into a number of high-performing decks, each with a viable counter. Go back and read vicious syndicate's meta reports. They go into detail about counter decks, nerf impacts, etc. Every meta deck from the previous expansion had a solid counter. So will this one, even if it hasn't emerged yet.
You didn’t ignore it since you referenced it. It seems like you’re having trouble not doing what you don’t want to do and doing what you want to do! Also, your tone has shifted from being presumptuous and unpleasant to cordial and informative (which, I appreciate).
Regarding your question: what do I want? We can start with the axiom that variety is desirable and repetitiveness is undesirable. Provided that I don’t see every card in my opponent’s deck, my complaint is the examples I’ve given: Curselock and Implock before the current expansion for Warlock. Sure, you might say I’m missing part of the data but those Implock decks were identical, give or a take one or two cards. I’d say that’s an educated guess. Your opponent is Warlock? Then it’ll be one of the two. Same thing with all the other classes which is disheartening. Whenever I’d meet that 5% Warlock who’d be something else, I’d be surprised and found it fun and refreshing.
Having exactly ‘two’ archetypes for each class is beside the point. I meant more variety in general. Being surprised by an opponent’s deck 24 hours after release of a new expansion. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
Regarding the past and the future of the game: Before Renathal, would you have guessed that 40 hp/ 40 cards deck would ever be a thing? No? Then the past doesn’t determine what the future could be. There could/should be more daring decisions made to increase variety. If the current structure isn’t working, then logically repeating the same pattern will likely lead to the same results. The player base is eroding, I would think that’s reason enough to start questioning the old design.
Regarding your last point, that’s your opinion. I think having a system in place which incentivises playing the same top deck recipes leads to staleness and boredom. You clearly don’t. Good for you, you’ll keep playing and have fun. This being said, you don’t know what people enjoy. You can say *you* don’t enjoy crafting decks but some people certainly do.
At the end of the day, your approach is essentially conservative (it’s the way things are and the way they always will be) while mine isn’t (the way things are is lacklustre and there could probably a better way). Your content with the current game and I’m not. Judging from the shrinking player base, I’m not the only one.
Wow, you totally burned me there. I must still be reeling from that terrifying warning you gave me. Based on the tone of your recent posts, I guess you've decided to be presumptuous and unpleasant now.
Fine, let's use your whining about Warlock. You object to Curselock and Implock being the only two common warlock archetypes. What you still aren't getting is that: a) there are not enough class cards in standard to support any additional archetypes (another point you chose to ignore); and b) MORE IMPORTANTLY, there isn't any meaningful demand for additional ones. Here's why:
The bulk of serious, laddering HS players are either "class mains" ("I'm a warlock main" or "I'm a mage main") or a "deck type main" (I'm an aggro main" or "I'm a control main.") If you're a class main, you're going to play that class, pretty much regardless of whether it's aggro, midrange, or control. (This obviously won't capture everyone, but is true at the macro level.) Since people want to, you know, win games, warlock mains looked at the available archetypes and saw these two as best warlock decks and chose to play them. (In actuality, Curselock fell off very quickly, as it's actually a really crappy deck.) If you're an aggro deck main, you've gotten exactly what you want, a viable aggro deck. You don't care about another because one of them will be inferior. Do you want to play the aggro deck with the 54% winrate or the 58%? Not even a question at the macro level. Again, read vicious syndicate's meta analyses. They do a very good job at explaining how good decks squeeze out competing class or deck type competitors and how the meta adjusts to compensate for a deck becoming "too good."
If all you want are "fun and refreshing" decks to play against, go to Casual. (Still lots of meta decks there, but not as many.) But expecting people on ladder (where winning and losing count) to choose these decks over decks with good winrates is asinine. The other player doesn't exist to give you a fun time.
"There could/should be more daring decisions made to increase variety." Do tell. You've obviously given this so much thought, please enlighten us. And, BTW, Renathal doesn't qualify. First off, it became very common, removing most 30 card decks from the meta, thus doing nothing to create variety. Second, Renathal did not create new deck types so much as it swung the aggro-midrange-control balance in control's favor. Also, your solution can't be "Blizzard needs to print more cards in each expansion" unless you're also willing to a) pay more for the pre-release bundles; and b) tell FTP players "sucks to be you." Blizzard ain't a charity: you want more from it, you gotta pay for it.
As for netdecking, it's obviously NOT just my opinion, but the opinion of most players. The fact that "netdecks" are so common is proof that most people DON'T want to build their own decks. So those who imagine that they're master deck builders (when most just tweak an existing archetype and then pat themselves on the back) are very much in the minority. But hey, if you're good at deckbuilding AND good at the game itself, you'll have no problem hitting legend.
At the end of the day, your approach is rainbows and unicorns, while mine is rooted in actually understanding how the meta works and how most players actually think.
It's like they threw all of the other classes into their magical cauldron of IDGAF and out popped this nonsense as a result. Create a class workshop makes this Frankenstein of horriffic imbalance.
Not good enough. Ladder climbing should be fun and refreshing. Most players will always object to "fun or rewards" when yeah, the "rainbows and unicorns" mean that competitive formats with rewards systems should also be fun and diverse? Why is there always a forced choice between winning no rewards in casual or turning your brain off and joining the mindless hordes of netdeckers in Ladder? The idea of "fun competitivity" is ALWAYS what people should strive towards...Homebrew Legend is the goal.
Kindly provide the last 3 home brew decks you’ve reached legend with.
How would you determine which deck consistently hit legend and how varied they are on HS Replay?
Back when Brann was still around, how often were you matched up which wasn’t Astalor OTK Druid combo? 10% of the time when you’d get the occasional aggro druid? How often were you matched with Warlock which wasn’t imp/curse warlock? 5% of the time?
Again, I might be wrong, maybe there really is ‘plenty’ of deck variety but I just happen to be matched with the same decks over and over and over and over again. I mean that’s fine for those who enjoy it, I’m just eagerly waiting for a competitor to HS which will manage not to end up with a stale meta within 24 hours. The player base majorly stick to deck recipes so that’s all there is to it really.
### dorian
# Class: Warlock
# Format: Wild
#
# 1x (1) Devourer of Souls
# 1x (1) Sir Finley, Sea Guide
# 2x (1) Touch of the Nathrezim
# 2x (2) Defile
# 2x (2) Drain Soul
# 2x (2) Plot Twist
# 2x (3) Augmented Elekk
# 2x (3) Habeas Corpses
# 1x (3) Prince Renathal
# 2x (3) Sacrificial Summoner
# 2x (3) Sense Demons
# 2x (4) Plaguespreader
# 2x (4) Soul Rend
# 1x (4) Tamsin's Phylactery
# 2x (4) Voidcaller
# 1x (5) Dollmaster Dorian
# 1x (6) Dr. Morrigan
# 1x (6) Dreadlich Tamsin
# 2x (6) Masked Reveler
# 2x (7) Corridor Creeper
# 2x (8) Enhanced Dreadlord
# 1x (8) Zzeraku the Warped
# 1x (9) Mal'Ganis
# 1x (10) Bloodreaver Gul'dan
# 2x (10) Stoneborn General
#
AAEBAaPDAwrCD5fTAsLxAs38AvGsA7CRBPGRBOWwBJfvBMKSBQ/cBo4O58sC+9MC9YAD2psDxLkD2O0Dg/sDrJEE56AErO0EtO0Ey+0E+JYFAAA=
#
# To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
1.
### lifesteal
# Class: Demon Hunter
# Format: Wild
#
# 2x (1) Felosophy
# 2x (1) Felscream Blast
# 2x (1) Relic of Extinction
# 1x (1) Sir Finley, Sea Guide
# 2x (1) Unleash Fel
# 2x (2) Chaos Strike
# 2x (2) Fossil Fanatic
# 2x (2) Immolation Aura
# 2x (2) Mo'arg Artificer
# 2x (2) Multi-Strike
# 2x (2) Relic Vault
# 2x (2) Talented Arcanist
# 2x (3) Aldrachi Warblades
# 2x (3) Eye Beam
# 1x (3) Lady S'theno
# 1x (3) Prince Renathal
# 2x (3) Relic of Phantasms
# 1x (4) Guild Trader
# 1x (4) Il'gynoth
# 1x (4) Lorekeeper Polkelt
# 1x (6) Kurtrus, Demon-Render
# 2x (6) Relic of Dimensions
# 2x (6) Skull of Gul'dan
# 1x (8) Artificer Xy'mox
#
AAEBAc7WAwj21gPQ3QPF+QOHiwTlsAT7vwSq3QSX7wQQ6b4D2cYDztID3dMDx90DlegDg58Etp8E7KAEjrAEwMoEr94EsN4EquIEheUEi5IFAAA=
#
# To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
2.
### Seed good version
# Class: Warlock
# Format: Wild
#
# 2x (0) Raise Dead
# 2x (1) Animated Broomstick
# 2x (1) Crystallizer
# 2x (1) Dark Pact
# 2x (1) Kobold Librarian
# 2x (1) Mistress of Mixtures
# 2x (1) Spirit Bomb
# 1x (1) The Demon Seed
# 2x (1) Touch of the Nathrezim
# 2x (1) Wicked Shipment
# 2x (2) Drain Soul
# 2x (3) Backfire
# 2x (3) Hellfire
# 2x (3) Man'ari Mosher
# 1x (3) Prince Renathal
# 1x (3) Tamsin Roame
# 2x (3) Unlicensed Apothecary
# 2x (4) Soul Rend
# 1x (5) Loatheb
# 2x (5) Runed Mithril Rod
# 2x (10) Flesh Giant
# 2x (20) Molten Giant
#
AAEBAaPDAwT6DvLtA4T7A5fvBBLcCpa9At7EAvLQAvjQAvH3Avr+ApXNA9fOA8HRA5PeA5PkA9jtA73xA4P7A8WABI+fBOegBAAA
#
# To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
3.
Although the last one isn’t that creative, just wanted to play seeds
Death Knight is a major problem you have no chance there life gain and removal is endless sometimes you get lucky but my god
I wouldn’t craft any of them though. Hitting legend in the second half of a month is possible with a lot of crap. Not this month tough, no Chance against twig druid.
Got to rank one with menagerie warlock though:
### Menagerie
# Class: Warlock
# Format: Wild
#
# 2x (1) Felosophy
# 2x (1) Frequency Oscillator
# 2x (1) Grave Defiler
# 2x (1) Mistake
# 1x (1) Patches the Pirate
# 2x (2) Amalgam of the Deep
# 2x (2) Chum Bucket
# 2x (2) Mechwarper
# 2x (2) Nether Breath
# 2x (2) Party Animal
# 2x (3) Amber Whelp
# 2x (3) Bloodscent Vilefin
# 2x (3) Nightmare Amalgam
# 2x (4) Seadevil Stinger
# 1x (5) Gorloc Ravager
# 1x (7) The One-Amalgam Band
# 1x (8) Gigafin
#
AAEBAaPDAwSRvALVsgT1xwSvwwUNlA/zvQLeggPsrAPO0gPykQTjvQSywQT+2ASjkwWVqgXizQXZ0AUAAA==
#
# To use this deck, copy it to your clipboard and create a new deck in Hearthstone
Lol wild mode for casuals
It’s wild ranked
And? Not trying to be snarky here, but what is it you actually expect? I raised this question in a discussion thread I started several months ago, but I think people have an odd definition of a balanced meta. If you expect every single class to have at least two viable deck archtypes, I'm sorry but you're smoking something. That has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case.
Second, focusing on deck viability at the Legend level is a mistake. The vast, vast majority of HS players cannot reach (or do not wish to reach) legend. The legend meta is different from that at lower levels. It would, quite frankly, be a huge mistake for Blizzard to target its balance efforts on the highest level.
Third, I do not get this whining about "netdecks." What you call netdecking is really nothing more than the process of refining a given deck archetype to maximize its winrate. Believe it or not, most people would rather WIN a game than play some wacky deck that goes off once in a while but has a 40% winrate. Especially when you're trying to ladder.
I actually really hate the game now and my excitment at the death of Brann and Guff has faded....
The classes doing well are either the same, slightly tweaked, versions of decks which were tier 1 at the end of the last expac (DK and Paladin), or are aggro/face - dead by turn 5 - decks. I know aggro always shines at the start of a new rotation due to unrefined lists but it feels particularly oppresive this time round.
DK's are obviously just as good as before due to the overpowered nature of their cards which are supposed to be limited by the rune system (and yet are easily, and it seems consitently, discovered). They dominate on a per-card value/strength basis and a superb synergy between cards with a whole expansion set designed with their cards in mind.
Paladins can basically design a deck with a hard aggro start curving predictably into whatever they want due to order in the court. Stick down some free legendaries, some free 5/5 taunts and some massive draw (all within the Paladin-only gameplan) and you need multiple board clears to stand a chance as a non aggro deck. I have a real issue with this deck, because it removes one of the key facets of a card game - the variability of the draw. It should always be the case that a high consistency deck sacrafices something else to tutor cards (or draw lots of cards to get the right one). But all the paladin needs to do is play 1 card (that they can have 2 of in the deck AND it draws a card).
Just for once I wish Blizz would realise the game needs: 1) cards to cost mana & 2) Cards as resources to matter. Sadly they don't seem to agree...
@Tallstranger: if you don’t intend to be snarky, avoid using words like ‘whine’ when people criticises something you disagree with, it comes across as being snarky and condescending (might also do without ‘smoking something’). It’s always puzzling to me when someone starts a message with: « I don’t mean to be x… » and the proceed to do exactly what they mention they don’t intend to do. I don’t normally reply to obnoxious replies but I find the topic interesting so I will. You’ve been warned.
Now that’s out of way: from what I understand from Scorpion’s reply, there are quote ‘plenty’ of viable decks. Whether or not they’re all slight variations of the same unique archetype I don’t know. From what I can tell on HS Replay, there are currently five different top paladin decks.
Why has it never been the case and will ever be the case? You need to develop your arguments if you want to convey some sort of idea, otherwise it’s futile.
You’ve aso misread: we’re not talking about decks *at* the legend level but rather decks being used to *reach* legend level. I think most people can likely reach legend if they stick to the top decks going around. This is speculation however.
Regarding your last point, it’s up to the developer to find a way to encourage deck variety, otherwise everyone would just play pure paladin (or whatever 5 decks are the top right now) and the game would die off. That’s not an opinion, people don’t enjoy facing the same deck multiple times, fatigue steps in. It’s also probably why they decided to include mini sets to shake up the meta as 4 months facing the same decks gets gruelling and HS has been eroding over the years.
I'm going to full-on ignore your first para, including your "warning." You can either have a conversation about this or you can walk away. But don't make the mistake of thinking you're doing me a favor by responding.
I go back to the question I asked in my first post that you failed to answer: what do you expect/ want? Put another way, what are you complaining about? Is it that (as seems most likely) you are facing the same archetypes over and over (Blood DK, Non-Neutral Pally, etc.) OR is it that you're seeing the exact same DECKS over and over? (The latter is very unlikely, given that you are unlikely to see every card in your opponent's deck and thus have no way of knowing that every card is the same as the one from the previous game.) Based on this analysis, I'm assuming your complaint is the lack of each class having at least 2 deck archetypes capable of reaching legend. NB: by math, that means we need AT LEAST 20 viable archetypes.
I've been playing HS for 8 years or so: NOT ONCE during that time did every class have a good archetype (much less multiple good ones) for laddering/ reaching legend. Typically, a new expansion will favor a couple of classes, leave most mediocre, and cripple a couple others. That's why it "has never been the case." As for why it will never BE the case, it's a reasonable assumption based on the past. But there's also at least a partial answer is: there simply aren't enough cards released in a given expansion to support 20 or more different deck archetypes. The most recent expansion was 145 cards. When you factor in the usual filler card garbage AND the need to provide some support to previous archetypes AND introduce new archetypes AND lay the groundwork for future archetypes, you start running out of cards real fast. Remember: each class only gets 10 class cards. That's likely the biggest reason that it "never will be the case."
I did, indeed, misread your discussion of getting to legend vice playing at legend. Thank you for correcting me. That said, I don't think Blizzard should be seeking to balance these decks even at the D5-1 level. I don't know what level the game designers focus on when looking at balance changes (to my knowledge, they've never stated this explicitly), but I doubt it's that high.
As for my last point, I was merely stating the obvious: people are going to gravitate towards archetypes that are optimized and have high winrates. Complaining about people using "netdecks" is silly and pointless. Most people don't WANT to build their own decks: they want to take advantage of the play experience of thousands of other players who are using the same archetype. The meta will, as it always does, settle down into a number of high-performing decks, each with a viable counter. Go back and read vicious syndicate's meta reports. They go into detail about counter decks, nerf impacts, etc. Every meta deck from the previous expansion had a solid counter. So will this one, even if it hasn't emerged yet.
You didn’t ignore it since you referenced it. It seems like you’re having trouble not doing what you don’t want to do and doing what you want to do! Also, your tone has shifted from being presumptuous and unpleasant to cordial and informative (which, I appreciate).
Regarding your question: what do I want? We can start with the axiom that variety is desirable and repetitiveness is undesirable. Provided that I don’t see every card in my opponent’s deck, my complaint is the examples I’ve given: Curselock and Implock before the current expansion for Warlock. Sure, you might say I’m missing part of the data but those Implock decks were identical, give or a take one or two cards. I’d say that’s an educated guess. Your opponent is Warlock? Then it’ll be one of the two. Same thing with all the other classes which is disheartening. Whenever I’d meet that 5% Warlock who’d be something else, I’d be surprised and found it fun and refreshing.
Having exactly ‘two’ archetypes for each class is beside the point. I meant more variety in general. Being surprised by an opponent’s deck 24 hours after release of a new expansion. I don’t think it’s too much to ask.
Regarding the past and the future of the game: Before Renathal, would you have guessed that 40 hp/ 40 cards deck would ever be a thing? No? Then the past doesn’t determine what the future could be. There could/should be more daring decisions made to increase variety. If the current structure isn’t working, then logically repeating the same pattern will likely lead to the same results. The player base is eroding, I would think that’s reason enough to start questioning the old design.
Regarding your last point, that’s your opinion. I think having a system in place which incentivises playing the same top deck recipes leads to staleness and boredom. You clearly don’t. Good for you, you’ll keep playing and have fun. This being said, you don’t know what people enjoy. You can say *you* don’t enjoy crafting decks but some people certainly do.
At the end of the day, your approach is essentially conservative (it’s the way things are and the way they always will be) while mine isn’t (the way things are is lacklustre and there could probably a better way). Your content with the current game and I’m not. Judging from the shrinking player base, I’m not the only one.
Wow, you totally burned me there. I must still be reeling from that terrifying warning you gave me. Based on the tone of your recent posts, I guess you've decided to be presumptuous and unpleasant now.
Fine, let's use your whining about Warlock. You object to Curselock and Implock being the only two common warlock archetypes. What you still aren't getting is that: a) there are not enough class cards in standard to support any additional archetypes (another point you chose to ignore); and b) MORE IMPORTANTLY, there isn't any meaningful demand for additional ones. Here's why:
The bulk of serious, laddering HS players are either "class mains" ("I'm a warlock main" or "I'm a mage main") or a "deck type main" (I'm an aggro main" or "I'm a control main.") If you're a class main, you're going to play that class, pretty much regardless of whether it's aggro, midrange, or control. (This obviously won't capture everyone, but is true at the macro level.) Since people want to, you know, win games, warlock mains looked at the available archetypes and saw these two as best warlock decks and chose to play them. (In actuality, Curselock fell off very quickly, as it's actually a really crappy deck.) If you're an aggro deck main, you've gotten exactly what you want, a viable aggro deck. You don't care about another because one of them will be inferior. Do you want to play the aggro deck with the 54% winrate or the 58%? Not even a question at the macro level. Again, read vicious syndicate's meta analyses. They do a very good job at explaining how good decks squeeze out competing class or deck type competitors and how the meta adjusts to compensate for a deck becoming "too good."
If all you want are "fun and refreshing" decks to play against, go to Casual. (Still lots of meta decks there, but not as many.) But expecting people on ladder (where winning and losing count) to choose these decks over decks with good winrates is asinine. The other player doesn't exist to give you a fun time.
"There could/should be more daring decisions made to increase variety." Do tell. You've obviously given this so much thought, please enlighten us. And, BTW, Renathal doesn't qualify. First off, it became very common, removing most 30 card decks from the meta, thus doing nothing to create variety. Second, Renathal did not create new deck types so much as it swung the aggro-midrange-control balance in control's favor. Also, your solution can't be "Blizzard needs to print more cards in each expansion" unless you're also willing to a) pay more for the pre-release bundles; and b) tell FTP players "sucks to be you." Blizzard ain't a charity: you want more from it, you gotta pay for it.
As for netdecking, it's obviously NOT just my opinion, but the opinion of most players. The fact that "netdecks" are so common is proof that most people DON'T want to build their own decks. So those who imagine that they're master deck builders (when most just tweak an existing archetype and then pat themselves on the back) are very much in the minority. But hey, if you're good at deckbuilding AND good at the game itself, you'll have no problem hitting legend.
At the end of the day, your approach is rainbows and unicorns, while mine is rooted in actually understanding how the meta works and how most players actually think.
It's like they threw all of the other classes into their magical cauldron of IDGAF and out popped this nonsense as a result. Create a class workshop makes this Frankenstein of horriffic imbalance.
I mean, whoever heard of 3+ options per class? or the ability to create new decks regularly? Would be too much fun would it not?
Not good enough. Ladder climbing should be fun and refreshing. Most players will always object to "fun or rewards" when yeah, the "rainbows and unicorns" mean that competitive formats with rewards systems should also be fun and diverse? Why is there always a forced choice between winning no rewards in casual or turning your brain off and joining the mindless hordes of netdeckers in Ladder? The idea of "fun competitivity" is ALWAYS what people should strive towards...Homebrew Legend is the goal.
Imho the balancing team is far to conservative.
They should go away from long time analyising and then hefty nerfs. Instead they should start to buff weak stuff frequently.
Plenty of nerfs came way to late and in the end killed whole cards, sometimes a whole archtype.
If you buff stuff that isnt played, you wont rly hurt anything that works but you could create new stuff.
This way you get a Chance to tackle strong things without touching them. Should it not work you can still go ahead with (less brutal) nerfs.