people are living in denial because they don't want to admit they are just not that good and Patron is actually not an OP deck..
That's right. It's everyone else's fault. Not the deck. Everyone who doesn't like Patron just stinks. All those high level players who don't like it? They are just bad. SMH. Personally, when I beat Patron I'm just as annoyed by it as when I lose. Has nothing to do with wins or losses. It's the diversity of the OHK charge. It's really too powerful. That's why there is an entire deck based around it. Really, it's Warsong Commander letting things like Frothing Berserker buff to ridiculous attack and keep their charge. IMO, if that was fixed the combos would still be strong but not too strong like now. The thing is most people haven't even fully exploited how good these combos could be at the moment because they are stuck following deck archetypes.
Patron really isn't overpowerd except for maybe battle rage. Everything else can be dealt with.
Just make it so battle rage doesn't count you as damaged if you have at least 30 health and armor instead of just health. Good players purposely don't armor up until they have damage for that reason.
I was thinking the same thing, nerfing battle rage a bit is a very good start. Just make it so it only counts minion.
IMO it's okay(but according to blizz is not okay) to OTK somebody all class can do that. When you basically draw your whole deck + emperor all the combo pieces. I think all class can do that but they can't draw as much. Think if priest can draw this much. Won't OTK priest be so good?
And I don't see miracle rogue as the same as patron. Yes they win in the same way. But how it leads up to that point is not the same. Patron is more like freeze mage where you need to draw a lot of cards while clearing your opponent. (freeze mage will deal 15 damage in one turn btw, if you haven't notice that yet and most of the time you will die next turn if you are not a warrior or have any healing). In rogue, you don't collect cards to get your combo. Your combo starts the moment you get one card. Having a 1 certain card in hand is not two times of "having 2 certain card in hard". It much harder to get two cards, then it's much much harder to get 3 cards.
The point here is, if we remove draw from patron or freeze mage. The deck will be unplayable as you will not get your combos. You won't be able to emperor in time.
Battlerage isn't a problem, it's only run in this particular deck as a fringe case for extra card draw. Often times you pay 2 mana for drawing 1 card with some cases you can't even draw a single card (due to armor) and in very situational cases drawing 2 or more which gives the card it's strength for it's draw back. Battlerage never even saw play before patron and doesn't need to be nerfed, honestly no card needs to be nerfed. It's just the illusion that those rare games you draw 3+ cards in a situation you let a patron warrior set up to draw all those cards is when it seams OP but any other high swing card like flame strike getting a 1 for 4+ feels like. Also it brings the warrior close to milling fast with all the drawing should you get the slim chance for such an intense draw. The title of of the thread is Patron warrior isn't over powered, this should be a discussion able it being so or not (which it isn't) not what your going to nerf about because you've deemed it already OP which is 1 step beyond the discussion.
People in tournaments tech counter cards or play a deck that counters patron warrior. Cause it's obvious that patron deck gets to see play, which is why some run handlock in tournaments.
It's a tournament, of course they're gonna do everything to shut down an OP deck with high winrate (in LADDER) entirely.
People in tournaments tech counter cards or play a deck that counters patron warrior. Cause it's obvious that patron deck gets to see play, which is why some run handlock in tournaments.
It's a tournament, of course they're gonna do everything to shut down an OP deck with high winrate (in LADDER) entirely.
Blizzard confirmed the ladder win rate isn't higher than other decks (it's actually a lot lower than previously nerfed decks) so the strength and win rate of patron isn't in question here (it isn't OP). The stats here even show it's under 50% win rate in tournament. Perhaps people tech against patron because they just have a personal weakness against the deck or the psychological factor it invokes with the burst it can achieve.
I dont know why all the hate about the patron warrior, its a fun cheap archetype that the warrior needed and the comeback of combo decks into hearthstone scene. About its powerlevel? it crumbles to early game pressure and struggle to get past any lategame taunters so you are usually banking on the window your weapons might give you in the mid game, theres nothing more devastating than getting your deathsbite destroyed before a patron turn, i actually think the deck is a success for blizzard to implement back a viable combo deck without breaking the game as the old miracle rogue did in his golden age.
This is arguably the worst data possible to present to represent a deck's overall power (in this case, patron warrior).
This is tournament data. The pros in tournaments are definitely going to tech in cards to specifically counter the most powerful deck(s) (like patron warrior) because they know for certain they'll be matched up against them.
So instead of looking at winrate % with this data, the total number of games the decks themselves have seen play in tournaments should be considered instead. Given those numbers, Midrange Druid and Patron Warrior are by far the most popular (and by extension, the most reliably powerful) decks seen in tournament play. With just over 2000 games played for Druid and just under 2000 games for Patron, there's a reason why these decks are seen the most in tournaments. It's because they are the most universally powerful decks currently available to players in the game. Whether that makes them 'overpowered' or not though is still up for debate.
49.74% winrate in 947 tournament games. That means at the top level, where people are competing for more than just a number on their legend rank, patron is winning about half the time. I'm sure many people have opinions on this deck. How do your opinions fare when taking data into account? (I predict most people will just ignore the data in favor of their own anecdotal evidence.)
If you read the article, it also states that this ~50% number is actually an improvement of the 47% it used to be!
Oh wow, what a shocking tab. Maybe it should be considered that tournament play is literally shaped around Grim Patrons? And despite people using counter decks and techs it still have a 50% win-rate, that should tell you how broken that deck is and desperately need a nerf. Blizzard waited until TGT hoping a new meta would be created. That failed, Grim Patron is still the deck to play and now they have to go themselves and make it more reasonable.
lol what kind of backwards logic is this? All tournaments tech against grim patron because it's overpowered? Doesn't your point assume you're right before you're right? Whether or not a deck is "overpowered" or not is based on the actual results. If it's possible to tech against it to the point where it only wins about half the time, doesn't that mean it's not overpowered?
I just don't understand some people. It's like they're absolutely convinced that this deck is overpowered no matter what.
I just don't understand some people. It's like they're absolutely convinced that this deck is overpowered no matter what.
This statistics actually shows that the deck is OP. Everyone plays patron on big tournaments and 2 other decks. From these two other, people only bring decks which are good against patron and they put tech cards in every possible deck. People do not bring decks which are bad against patron. It is basically a hostile environment for patron, and yet it manages to win half of the games. If this is not OP, then what is?
I just don't understand some people. It's like they're absolutely convinced that this deck is overpowered no matter what.
This statistics actually shows that the deck is OP. Everyone plays patron on big tournaments and 2 other decks. From these two other, people only bring decks which are good against patron and they put tech cards in every possible deck. People do not bring decks which are bad against patron. It is basically a hostile environment for patron, and yet it manages to win half of the games. If this is not OP, then what is?
"OP" means it is unstoppable or stronger than it should be. Being able to bring patron down to 50% by definition means it's not OP. Please don't confuse the terms "overpowered" and "popular." Something can be popular without being overpowered. A good analogy for this is how certain openings in chess become more or less popular as time goes on purely because of "fashion." Grim Patron has gained in popularity, and the PERCEIVED power of the deck is the only reason why it's become such a hot topic. Think about what you're saying. Everyone is running 1 patron and 2 other decks? They're still only winning approximately half the time with the patron deck. Still not overpowered.
I still maintain that a deck with only 49.74% winrate at the highest level of play should not be labeled as overpowered
It is based on the player. Of course some scrubs are definitely gonna insta-craft this netdeck masterpiece.
It's a combo deck that requires skill. those you see in the lower ranks are the players who aren't doing well with the deck, therefore contributing a large scale of percentage in which blizzard or whatnot statistics.
But it doesn't change the fact that this deck is good. For the right players, it's INSANELY GOOD.
Sorry, OP. You're wrong. Ben Brode confirmed that the deck is "Concerning" but it's not highly used (in ladder) and doesn't have a high win rate (in ladder).
Statistically speaking though, the % win rates they are looking at are looking at decks that include Patron Warrior from rank 25-Legend. Some people pilot patron decks very badly. Others pilot them very well.
However, the skill floor for patron decks is very low. So low in fact that it's main combos (warsong-Patron, or warsong-frothing) are extremely simplistic to understand and execute. The skill ceiling is very high though as waiting too long can get you killed, and not drawing into your warsongs can put you under pressure.
That being said, Hearthstone doesn't have Instant effects or disruptive cards to prevent said combos from going off. Therefore the only way players can "counter" combo decks is either pro-actively (something that prevents the combo from being executed in the first place---Think Loatheb in Miracle rogue) or something that counters it reactively (like secrets, or taunts to a lesser degree). Now since only 3/9 classes have secrets, this means that only 3/9 can even play any mind games with Patron Decks. I won't even go into how most of the secrets won't even phase a Patron turn.
Long story short? Patron is a problem, but because blizzard's statistics aren't concerning enough, they aren't going to do anything about it. I think this is a lazy developer mindset because the whole point of using a digital medium is updateable cards. If they don't want to update the cards, then I might as well stop playing this and start playing MTG, at least there when a card set is banned/no longer valid in tournaments I can sell my cards to some other collector to recover some of my investment.
49.74% winrate in 947 tournament games. That means at the top level, where people are competing for more than just a number on their legend rank, patron is winning about half the time. I'm sure many people have opinions on this deck. How do your opinions fare when taking data into account? (I predict most people will just ignore the data in favor of their own anecdotal evidence.)
If you read the article, it also states that this ~50% number is actually an improvement of the 47% it used to be!
Because all other decks tech against, because pretty much everyone is going to bring patron. If you don't tech against it, you're an idiot. The data you link also shows its popularity very clearly.
It is also interesting that you link the table, but you dispute the linked article's discussion regarding it. That seems like cherrypicking to me.
@TrollShroud With the logic that drawing 3+ cards on 2 mana is balanced because.... it brings the deck closer to fatiguing, you could agrue the balance of pre-nerf Auctioneer or Buzzard, logic is self-serving and flawed. Card needs nerfed and blizzard has a record of nerfing cheap card draw. Recall Auctioneer and Buzzard having conditions to be met (playing beasts/spells) and it didnt stop them from being nerfed.
I just don't understand some people. It's like they're absolutely convinced that this deck is overpowered no matter what.
This statistics actually shows that the deck is OP. Everyone plays patron on big tournaments and 2 other decks. From these two other, people only bring decks which are good against patron and they put tech cards in every possible deck. People do not bring decks which are bad against patron. It is basically a hostile environment for patron, and yet it manages to win half of the games. If this is not OP, then what is?
"OP" means it is unstoppable or stronger than it should be. Being able to bring patron down to 50% by definition means it's not OP. Please don't confuse the terms "overpowered" and "popular." Something can be popular without being overpowered. A good analogy for this is how certain openings in chess become more or less popular as time goes on purely because of "fashion." Grim Patron has gained in popularity, and the PERCEIVED power of the deck is the only reason why it's become such a hot topic. Think about what you're saying. Everyone is running 1 patron and 2 other decks? They're still only winning approximately half the time with the patron deck. Still not overpowered.
I still maintain that a deck with only 49.74% winrate at the highest level of play should not be labeled as overpowered
You still not answered my question.
Anyway, we think differently. I consider one deck OP, when people try to hard counter it and it can still maintain 50% winrate.
The question of whether or not the deck is overpowered is a tricky one, mostly because everyone is using different definitions of what that means. Personally, I don't think the deck is overpowered across a large number of games, as it takes a lot of skill to play consistently well and to see success with. That said, I do think it's a deck that shouldn't exist in its current form, because it goes against the stated goals of Blizzard's design team and what they want for this game.
There are games where you can do everything right and still lose in the end by taking 50+ damage in a turn. I was watching a stream earlier today where the streamer lost to patron from 30 life and afterwards said "I made a mistake. I shouldn't have played a minion, that gave him lethal." This was with the streamer already having 0 minions on board.
Putting players in a position where the act of doing something as central to the game as playing any minions, at all, can get them killed from full health, isn't in line with where the developers want the game to be, and as such I think it's worth looking at. It generally isn't a good idea to have something in the game that prevents people from playing the way the game tells them they should. The ultimate success of the deck isn't as relevant here as the unfairness of some of its capabilities.
That's right. It's everyone else's fault. Not the deck. Everyone who doesn't like Patron just stinks. All those high level players who don't like it? They are just bad. SMH. Personally, when I beat Patron I'm just as annoyed by it as when I lose. Has nothing to do with wins or losses. It's the diversity of the OHK charge. It's really too powerful. That's why there is an entire deck based around it. Really, it's Warsong Commander letting things like Frothing Berserker buff to ridiculous attack and keep their charge. IMO, if that was fixed the combos would still be strong but not too strong like now. The thing is most people haven't even fully exploited how good these combos could be at the moment because they are stuck following deck archetypes.
Patron really isn't overpowerd except for maybe battle rage. Everything else can be dealt with.
Just make it so battle rage doesn't count you as damaged if you have at least 30 health and armor instead of just health. Good players purposely don't armor up until they have damage for that reason.
I was thinking the same thing, nerfing battle rage a bit is a very good start. Just make it so it only counts minion.
IMO it's okay(but according to blizz is not okay) to OTK somebody all class can do that. When you basically draw your whole deck + emperor all the combo pieces. I think all class can do that but they can't draw as much. Think if priest can draw this much. Won't OTK priest be so good?
And I don't see miracle rogue as the same as patron. Yes they win in the same way. But how it leads up to that point is not the same. Patron is more like freeze mage where you need to draw a lot of cards while clearing your opponent. (freeze mage will deal 15 damage in one turn btw, if you haven't notice that yet and most of the time you will die next turn if you are not a warrior or have any healing). In rogue, you don't collect cards to get your combo. Your combo starts the moment you get one card. Having a 1 certain card in hand is not two times of "having 2 certain card in hard". It much harder to get two cards, then it's much much harder to get 3 cards.
The point here is, if we remove draw from patron or freeze mage. The deck will be unplayable as you will not get your combos. You won't be able to emperor in time.
Battlerage isn't a problem, it's only run in this particular deck as a fringe case for extra card draw. Often times you pay 2 mana for drawing 1 card with some cases you can't even draw a single card (due to armor) and in very situational cases drawing 2 or more which gives the card it's strength for it's draw back. Battlerage never even saw play before patron and doesn't need to be nerfed, honestly no card needs to be nerfed. It's just the illusion that those rare games you draw 3+ cards in a situation you let a patron warrior set up to draw all those cards is when it seams OP but any other high swing card like flame strike getting a 1 for 4+ feels like. Also it brings the warrior close to milling fast with all the drawing should you get the slim chance for such an intense draw. The title of of the thread is Patron warrior isn't over powered, this should be a discussion able it being so or not (which it isn't) not what your going to nerf about because you've deemed it already OP which is 1 step beyond the discussion.
People in tournaments tech counter cards or play a deck that counters patron warrior. Cause it's obvious that patron deck gets to see play, which is why some run handlock in tournaments.
It's a tournament, of course they're gonna do everything to shut down an OP deck with high winrate (in LADDER) entirely.
Blizzard confirmed the ladder win rate isn't higher than other decks (it's actually a lot lower than previously nerfed decks) so the strength and win rate of patron isn't in question here (it isn't OP). The stats here even show it's under 50% win rate in tournament. Perhaps people tech against patron because they just have a personal weakness against the deck or the psychological factor it invokes with the burst it can achieve.
I dont know why all the hate about the patron warrior, its a fun cheap archetype that the warrior needed and the comeback of combo decks into hearthstone scene. About its powerlevel? it crumbles to early game pressure and struggle to get past any lategame taunters so you are usually banking on the window your weapons might give you in the mid game, theres nothing more devastating than getting your deathsbite destroyed before a patron turn, i actually think the deck is a success for blizzard to implement back a viable combo deck without breaking the game as the old miracle rogue did in his golden age.
THE LEGEND!!!! (not really)
This is arguably the worst data possible to present to represent a deck's overall power (in this case, patron warrior).
This is tournament data. The pros in tournaments are definitely going to tech in cards to specifically counter the most powerful deck(s) (like patron warrior) because they know for certain they'll be matched up against them.
So instead of looking at winrate % with this data, the total number of games the decks themselves have seen play in tournaments should be considered instead. Given those numbers, Midrange Druid and Patron Warrior are by far the most popular (and by extension, the most reliably powerful) decks seen in tournament play. With just over 2000 games played for Druid and just under 2000 games for Patron, there's a reason why these decks are seen the most in tournaments. It's because they are the most universally powerful decks currently available to players in the game. Whether that makes them 'overpowered' or not though is still up for debate.
lol what kind of backwards logic is this? All tournaments tech against grim patron because it's overpowered? Doesn't your point assume you're right before you're right? Whether or not a deck is "overpowered" or not is based on the actual results. If it's possible to tech against it to the point where it only wins about half the time, doesn't that mean it's not overpowered?
I just don't understand some people. It's like they're absolutely convinced that this deck is overpowered no matter what.
herp
This statistics actually shows that the deck is OP. Everyone plays patron on big tournaments and 2 other decks. From these two other, people only bring decks which are good against patron and they put tech cards in every possible deck. People do not bring decks which are bad against patron. It is basically a hostile environment for patron, and yet it manages to win half of the games. If this is not OP, then what is?
"OP" means it is unstoppable or stronger than it should be. Being able to bring patron down to 50% by definition means it's not OP. Please don't confuse the terms "overpowered" and "popular." Something can be popular without being overpowered. A good analogy for this is how certain openings in chess become more or less popular as time goes on purely because of "fashion." Grim Patron has gained in popularity, and the PERCEIVED power of the deck is the only reason why it's become such a hot topic. Think about what you're saying. Everyone is running 1 patron and 2 other decks? They're still only winning approximately half the time with the patron deck. Still not overpowered.
I still maintain that a deck with only 49.74% winrate at the highest level of play should not be labeled as overpowered
herp
It's not even 49.74%, it's less than that even because of all the mirror match up and the amount of patron.
It is based on the player. Of course some scrubs are definitely gonna insta-craft this netdeck masterpiece.
It's a combo deck that requires skill. those you see in the lower ranks are the players who aren't doing well with the deck, therefore contributing a large scale of percentage in which blizzard or whatnot statistics.
But it doesn't change the fact that this deck is good. For the right players, it's INSANELY GOOD.
Sorry, OP. You're wrong. Ben Brode confirmed that the deck is "Concerning" but it's not highly used (in ladder) and doesn't have a high win rate (in ladder).
Statistically speaking though, the % win rates they are looking at are looking at decks that include Patron Warrior from rank 25-Legend. Some people pilot patron decks very badly. Others pilot them very well.
However, the skill floor for patron decks is very low. So low in fact that it's main combos (warsong-Patron, or warsong-frothing) are extremely simplistic to understand and execute. The skill ceiling is very high though as waiting too long can get you killed, and not drawing into your warsongs can put you under pressure.
That being said, Hearthstone doesn't have Instant effects or disruptive cards to prevent said combos from going off. Therefore the only way players can "counter" combo decks is either pro-actively (something that prevents the combo from being executed in the first place---Think Loatheb in Miracle rogue) or something that counters it reactively (like secrets, or taunts to a lesser degree). Now since only 3/9 classes have secrets, this means that only 3/9 can even play any mind games with Patron Decks. I won't even go into how most of the secrets won't even phase a Patron turn.
Long story short? Patron is a problem, but because blizzard's statistics aren't concerning enough, they aren't going to do anything about it. I think this is a lazy developer mindset because the whole point of using a digital medium is updateable cards. If they don't want to update the cards, then I might as well stop playing this and start playing MTG, at least there when a card set is banned/no longer valid in tournaments I can sell my cards to some other collector to recover some of my investment.
Because all other decks tech against, because pretty much everyone is going to bring patron. If you don't tech against it, you're an idiot. The data you link also shows its popularity very clearly.
It is also interesting that you link the table, but you dispute the linked article's discussion regarding it. That seems like cherrypicking to me.
@TrollShroud With the logic that drawing 3+ cards on 2 mana is balanced because.... it brings the deck closer to fatiguing, you could agrue the balance of pre-nerf Auctioneer or Buzzard, logic is self-serving and flawed. Card needs nerfed and blizzard has a record of nerfing cheap card draw. Recall Auctioneer and Buzzard having conditions to be met (playing beasts/spells) and it didnt stop them from being nerfed.
You still not answered my question.
Anyway, we think differently. I consider one deck OP, when people try to hard counter it and it can still maintain 50% winrate.
The question of whether or not the deck is overpowered is a tricky one, mostly because everyone is using different definitions of what that means. Personally, I don't think the deck is overpowered across a large number of games, as it takes a lot of skill to play consistently well and to see success with. That said, I do think it's a deck that shouldn't exist in its current form, because it goes against the stated goals of Blizzard's design team and what they want for this game.
There are games where you can do everything right and still lose in the end by taking 50+ damage in a turn. I was watching a stream earlier today where the streamer lost to patron from 30 life and afterwards said "I made a mistake. I shouldn't have played a minion, that gave him lethal." This was with the streamer already having 0 minions on board.
Putting players in a position where the act of doing something as central to the game as playing any minions, at all, can get them killed from full health, isn't in line with where the developers want the game to be, and as such I think it's worth looking at. It generally isn't a good idea to have something in the game that prevents people from playing the way the game tells them they should. The ultimate success of the deck isn't as relevant here as the unfairness of some of its capabilities.
Nothing doing, traveler.
Even Lothar is complaining about the Frothings. AT that point, you know that Patron needs to change.
https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/3m3e16/blizzard_please_do_something_about_frothing/
Give a man a Murloc, and he'll eat for a day.
Give him a Murloc Knight, and people will hate him.
This deck is good but not that easy to play.