Wow OP...what have you been smoking? So far there isn't much buff to aggro...if any at all. In this set so far they're giving a lot of options for heavy control decks ...I still don't see too tools to slow down the meta though(u're right at that)...we have Gadgetzan Jouster(50/50 Zombie Chow) and Tuskarr Jouster...Bash for warrior....that's about it.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
people judging joust and inspire as "too slow" and ineffective before ever playing are jumping the gun at the very least. Blizzard play tested this and their staff loves their job and wants to create a fun game, so Im sure these mechanics offer more interesting gameplay than the pessimistic complainers assume.
I have no doubt they loved their job but the testing part is probably where Blizz failed. In BRM, did they test out any of the dragon decks?...Are any of them in the meta(Except Malygos lock, which is probably unintentional)? Especially for Priest and Paladin whom have their own class specific dragon cards....why aren't they viable AT ALL?
I remembered in one of the Blizz interviews from way before. They said they have a way of creating cards that allow players to come up with their own decks...in a way you can say they just randomly create cards to see what people can do with them. So really there is no guarantee that any of the cards in the expansion will work as intended...as good as bad as intended etc.
people judging joust and inspire as "too slow" and ineffective before ever playing are jumping the gun at the very least. Blizzard play tested this and their staff loves their job and wants to create a fun game, so Im sure these mechanics offer more interesting gameplay than the pessimistic complainers assume.
I have no doubt they loved their job but the testing part is probably where Blizz failed. In BRM, did they test out any of the dragon decks?...Are any of them in the meta(Except Malygos lock, which is probably unintentional)? Especially for Priest and Paladin whom have their own class specific dragon cards....why aren't they viable AT ALL?
I remembered in one of the Blizz interviews from way before. They said they have a way of creating cards that allow players to come up with their own decks...in a way you can say they just randomly create cards to see what people can do with them. So really there is no guarantee that any of the cards in the expansion will work as intended...as good as bad as intended etc.
Because Dragons are too costy and way to slow to hope make a deck revolving around dropping inefficient late game minions. Control decks out there were already using late Dragons card such as Alexstrasza and Ysera as finisher. The Dragon-theme was simply the theme of the adventure, nothing more. The adventure was not warrant of bringing any competitive deck to the table... but succeeded at providing cards that are competitive. Stop looking for what BRM was not, a Dragon-themed expansion. Yes some cards combined themselves with Dragons, we obviously saw this. What about Grim Patron, Tempo Mage and the infamous Thaurissan that were all new decks/card implementing itself (Grim Patron, Flamewaker and Thaurissan) into completely viable new decks.
Now say thanks and be grateful that you're not on Blizzad development/design team.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Handlock doesn't struggle much against aggro once you've teched it with Demons. People will need to start to realize that Handlock is no longer what it used to be... the slow and grindy control deck with the infamous turn 4. It's becoming faster then people expect it to be !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Handlock doesn't struggle much against aggro once you've teched it with Demons. People will need to start to realize that Handlock is no longer what it used to be... the slow and grindy control deck with the infamous turn 4. It's becoming faster then people expect it to be !
And this is a perfect example of how a meta continuously evolves. People tinker with existing decklists to find ways to adapt to the meta, and all of a sudden it's not so great to see Handlock when you're a Hunter. Some people jump ship to another deck that does well against the newer version of Handlock (let's use Mech Shaman as an example), meaning that people will jump over to another deck to fight against Mech Shaman (like Midrange Demonzoo). And so on and so forth. Meanwhile, dedicated Hunter players, noticing that they're not in as great a spot against this current Handlock setup and are in awful shape against Mech Shaman, adapt their own builds, and so on and so forth.
It's a sign of a well-developed game, but like I said the biggest bummer is that you won't see much of this on the ladder since you're seeing a lot of players who choose to play cheaper decks for whatever reason (and those cheaper decks are almost always aggro and some Patron builds). I don't begrudge them for that at all, but I do wish Blizz would actually create some cheaper bomb cards for those who wish to play control. North Sea Kraken just ain't gonna cut it.
It's the same reason that while the high-level Modern meta in MtG is not exactly friendly towards Affinity right now with several modern decks running one of the best artifact hate cards ever in Kolaghan's Command, you will see lots of Affinity decks at your local shop in Modern events since it's a relatively cheap Modern deck, costing anywhere from 40%-100% cheaper than other Tier 1 decks.
people judging joust and inspire as "too slow" and ineffective before ever playing are jumping the gun at the very least. Blizzard play tested this and their staff loves their job and wants to create a fun game, so Im sure these mechanics offer more interesting gameplay than the pessimistic complainers assume.
I have no doubt they loved their job but the testing part is probably where Blizz failed. In BRM, did they test out any of the dragon decks?...Are any of them in the meta(Except Malygos lock, which is probably unintentional)? Especially for Priest and Paladin whom have their own class specific dragon cards....why aren't they viable AT ALL?
I remembered in one of the Blizz interviews from way before. They said they have a way of creating cards that allow players to come up with their own decks...in a way you can say they just randomly create cards to see what people can do with them. So really there is no guarantee that any of the cards in the expansion will work as intended...as good as bad as intended etc.
Because Dragons are too costy and way to slow to hope make a deck revolving around dropping inefficient late game minions. Control decks out there were already using late Dragons card such as Alexstrasza and Ysera as finisher. The Dragon-theme was simply the theme of the adventure, nothing more. The adventure was not warrant of bringing any competitive deck to the table... but succeeded at providing cards that are competitive. Stop looking for what BRM was not, a Dragon-themed expansion. Yes some cards combined themselves with Dragons, we obviously saw this. What about Grim Patron, Tempo Mage and the infamous Thaurissan that were all new decks/card implementing itself (Grim Patron, Flamewaker and Thaurissan) into completely viable new decks.
Now say thanks and be grateful that you're not on Blizzad development/design team.
Maybe my expectation is just too high then? But Naxx expansion was a much better expansion than BRM in terms of having playable cards. To me if they have all these dragon synergy cards there should be at least a few viable decks. If they failed to deliver that, then the expansion is a failure.
people judging joust and inspire as "too slow" and ineffective before ever playing are jumping the gun at the very least. Blizzard play tested this and their staff loves their job and wants to create a fun game, so Im sure these mechanics offer more interesting gameplay than the pessimistic complainers assume.
I have no doubt they loved their job but the testing part is probably where Blizz failed. In BRM, did they test out any of the dragon decks?...Are any of them in the meta(Except Malygos lock, which is probably unintentional)? Especially for Priest and Paladin whom have their own class specific dragon cards....why aren't they viable AT ALL?
I remembered in one of the Blizz interviews from way before. They said they have a way of creating cards that allow players to come up with their own decks...in a way you can say they just randomly create cards to see what people can do with them. So really there is no guarantee that any of the cards in the expansion will work as intended...as good as bad as intended etc.
Because Dragons are too costy and way to slow to hope make a deck revolving around dropping inefficient late game minions. Control decks out there were already using late Dragons card such as Alexstrasza and Ysera as finisher. The Dragon-theme was simply the theme of the adventure, nothing more. The adventure was not warrant of bringing any competitive deck to the table... but succeeded at providing cards that are competitive. Stop looking for what BRM was not, a Dragon-themed expansion. Yes some cards combined themselves with Dragons, we obviously saw this. What about Grim Patron, Tempo Mage and the infamous Thaurissan that were all new decks/card implementing itself (Grim Patron, Flamewaker and Thaurissan) into completely viable new decks.
Now say thanks and be grateful that you're not on Blizzad development/design team.
Maybe my expectation is just too high then? But Naxx expansion was a much better expansion than BRM in terms of having playable cards. To me if they have all these dragon synergy cards there should be at least a few viable decks. If they failed to deliver that, then the expansion is a failure.
Make the list about playable cards from each expansion. It's quite similar. Also... Naxxramas had way more neutrals then Blackwork. Don't get things wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
.....This game was designed to be based on board control and midrange minion-based decks, ......
I am very curious. Any source to prove this claim?
I know of nothing direct, but in a lot of the game notes post nerfs, it seems like some of them have been to punish combo or aggro decks. It does seem they want to encourage minion interaction and interplay based on some of those comments. It doesn't seem to be too outrageous of a claim to me.
.....This game was designed to be based on board control and midrange minion-based decks, ......
I am very curious. Any source to prove this claim?
I know of nothing direct, but in a lot of the game notes post nerfs, it seems like some of them have been to punish combo or aggro decks. It does seem they want to encourage minion interaction and interplay based on some of those comments. It doesn't seem to be too outrageous of a claim to me.
I am afraid you misunderstood what I am trying to say. While "encouraging minion interactions and interplay" is a legit claim, that does not translate into "board control" or "midrange". I am trying to point out that this claim of "This game was designed to be based on board control and midrange minion-based decks" is just a vision that the OP is trying to project on the game, rather than a fact that the developers come out and proclaim.
There are players who love playing face-aggro. There are players who enjoy control and burn your arse with Ragnaros the Firelord. There are players who love to play combo decks and 30 to 0 you in a single turn. But that is not, and should never be, a reason for someone to try and dictate how a card game should be. It is these thoughts of entitlement, that "I played since beta and midrange should be the game's vision!!" or "I paid copious amount of cash so I should be able to play this outrageous combo in your card game!!" or "I am 7 times tournament champion, 14 times legend players, and you should kill cancer-hunter and eboladin!!" - these thoughts stop people from thinking, and should not be encouraged. Card games evolve. Meta changes. It is we as players who should think of a way to come up on top, rather than just whine and moan how the developers of Hearthstone have pee all over MY VISION OF HOW THIS GAME SHOULD BE, or HOW I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow OP...what have you been smoking? So far there isn't much buff to aggro...if any at all. In this set so far they're giving a lot of options for heavy control decks ...I still don't see too tools to slow down the meta though(u're right at that)...we have Gadgetzan Jouster(50/50 Zombie Chow) and Tuskarr Jouster...Bash for warrior....that's about it.
Haters gonna hate.... I really expect the meta to slow down this September!
I think this has been said to every card batch release for previous content, but it wont. The meta will always be fast while the game is still popular and mainstream because the bulk of players want to play that way. The meta might change cards but people aren't going change their play style. What makes aggro popular is the pace... it's pressure and either your opponent has an answer or (s)he doesnt. Even if the card pool ends up favoring mid range or control, the game is designed to reward casual players with aggressive decks.
I have no doubt they loved their job but the testing part is probably where Blizz failed. In BRM, did they test out any of the dragon decks?...Are any of them in the meta(Except Malygos lock, which is probably unintentional)? Especially for Priest and Paladin whom have their own class specific dragon cards....why aren't they viable AT ALL?
I remembered in one of the Blizz interviews from way before. They said they have a way of creating cards that allow players to come up with their own decks...in a way you can say they just randomly create cards to see what people can do with them. So really there is no guarantee that any of the cards in the expansion will work as intended...as good as bad as intended etc.
Waaaaaaah. Waaaaaah.
Because Dragons are too costy and way to slow to hope make a deck revolving around dropping inefficient late game minions. Control decks out there were already using late Dragons card such as Alexstrasza and Ysera as finisher. The Dragon-theme was simply the theme of the adventure, nothing more. The adventure was not warrant of bringing any competitive deck to the table... but succeeded at providing cards that are competitive. Stop looking for what BRM was not, a Dragon-themed expansion. Yes some cards combined themselves with Dragons, we obviously saw this. What about Grim Patron, Tempo Mage and the infamous Thaurissan that were all new decks/card implementing itself (Grim Patron, Flamewaker and Thaurissan) into completely viable new decks.
Now say thanks and be grateful that you're not on Blizzad development/design team.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
No, what makes aggro popular is the fact that most aggro decks cost around 1500-3000 dust to create, while control is usually around 10k. In fact, you can make a solid Face Hunter deck for around 560 dust, which is F2P levels of cheap. This actually is a complaint I have about Hearthstone design, where it's very difficult for F2P players to attain the bombs that are necessary for control decks (i.e. Boom, Rag, Ysera) and no real suitable replacements for them (the neutral seven-drop slot is simply dreadful outside Boom, with Stormwind Champion only really being useful in Arena, Baron Geddon being marginally useful in Control Warrior (which is expensive anyways) and the rest just being shit).
In tournaments, aggro cycles constantly between being the dominant archetype and struggling against the other ones. Patron Warrior really does shut down so many aggro decks, while aggro feasts upon the various control decks that opt to shut down Patron Warrior (Handlock is dreadful against any aggro and Control Warrior can't do much against Shockadin and Mech Shaman). It's funny to think of it this way, but this meta does have a cool little rock-paper-scissors thing going between Patron Warrior, control, and aggro, with Control Mage being the oddball exception, doing well against Shockadin and Face Hunter.
Handlock doesn't struggle much against aggro once you've teched it with Demons. People will need to start to realize that Handlock is no longer what it used to be... the slow and grindy control deck with the infamous turn 4. It's becoming faster then people expect it to be !
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I am very curious. Any source to prove this claim?
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius
And this is a perfect example of how a meta continuously evolves. People tinker with existing decklists to find ways to adapt to the meta, and all of a sudden it's not so great to see Handlock when you're a Hunter. Some people jump ship to another deck that does well against the newer version of Handlock (let's use Mech Shaman as an example), meaning that people will jump over to another deck to fight against Mech Shaman (like Midrange Demonzoo). And so on and so forth. Meanwhile, dedicated Hunter players, noticing that they're not in as great a spot against this current Handlock setup and are in awful shape against Mech Shaman, adapt their own builds, and so on and so forth.
It's a sign of a well-developed game, but like I said the biggest bummer is that you won't see much of this on the ladder since you're seeing a lot of players who choose to play cheaper decks for whatever reason (and those cheaper decks are almost always aggro and some Patron builds). I don't begrudge them for that at all, but I do wish Blizz would actually create some cheaper bomb cards for those who wish to play control. North Sea Kraken just ain't gonna cut it.
It's the same reason that while the high-level Modern meta in MtG is not exactly friendly towards Affinity right now with several modern decks running one of the best artifact hate cards ever in Kolaghan's Command, you will see lots of Affinity decks at your local shop in Modern events since it's a relatively cheap Modern deck, costing anywhere from 40%-100% cheaper than other Tier 1 decks.
Maybe my expectation is just too high then? But Naxx expansion was a much better expansion than BRM in terms of having playable cards. To me if they have all these dragon synergy cards there should be at least a few viable decks. If they failed to deliver that, then the expansion is a failure.
Make the list about playable cards from each expansion. It's quite similar. Also... Naxxramas had way more neutrals then Blackwork. Don't get things wrong.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I know of nothing direct, but in a lot of the game notes post nerfs, it seems like some of them have been to punish combo or aggro decks. It does seem they want to encourage minion interaction and interplay based on some of those comments. It doesn't seem to be too outrageous of a claim to me.
Play Star Wars: The Customizable Card Game - www.starwarsccg.org
I think that the expansion actually looks a lot better after this reveal, as well as some of the reveals we've been getting recently.
I am afraid you misunderstood what I am trying to say. While "encouraging minion interactions and interplay" is a legit claim, that does not translate into "board control" or "midrange". I am trying to point out that this claim of "This game was designed to be based on board control and midrange minion-based decks" is just a vision that the OP is trying to project on the game, rather than a fact that the developers come out and proclaim.
There are players who love playing face-aggro. There are players who enjoy control and burn your arse with Ragnaros the Firelord. There are players who love to play combo decks and 30 to 0 you in a single turn. But that is not, and should never be, a reason for someone to try and dictate how a card game should be. It is these thoughts of entitlement, that "I played since beta and midrange should be the game's vision!!" or "I paid copious amount of cash so I should be able to play this outrageous combo in your card game!!" or "I am 7 times tournament champion, 14 times legend players, and you should kill cancer-hunter and eboladin!!" - these thoughts stop people from thinking, and should not be encouraged. Card games evolve. Meta changes. It is we as players who should think of a way to come up on top, rather than just whine and moan how the developers of Hearthstone have pee all over MY VISION OF HOW THIS GAME SHOULD BE, or HOW I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME.
"Are you not entertained?! ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!"
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity." - Maximus Decimus Meridius