I rarely post to HearthPwn, but felt compelled to respond here to the OP. I've been playing Hearthstone intermittently since pre-Naxx, and I can say with certainty that people have been complaining about the aggressive metagame, almost without interruption, for years now.
The classes change, and the cards change, but really, the meta doesn't change. The meta varies between "slightly aggressive" and "seriously aggressive", and that's just the way it is. Lots of people have threatened to quit playing, and some probably follow through on those threats....but there are simply more new players joining in than leaving, and the ones that do leave often return. Blizzard knows that a fast-paced, easy-to-pilot style of game is broadly attractive to more consumers than a complex, patient style of game. This is just the way it is.
While I'm sure that Blizzard wants your feedback, remember that they are probably never going to introduce cards that favor a control-heavy meta-game. That wouldn't fit their business model or their design philosophy. It wouldn't attract new players at the level Blizzard wants/needs.
Hearthstone is a tempo and damage driven game, at least in the Standard mode. This is not meant to sound rude or condescending: if you enjoy being a heavy underdog and you get satisfaction from "beating the system", then go ahead and play control decks. They exist. If your goals are to "make legend every month" (which really isn't important or worthwhile, to most players), then you have to get aboard the aggro train and ride.
Perhaps post your opinion in the already existing 48 page thread discussing this. You aren't a special snowflake. Yyou don't need your own thread to voice your opinion.
Perhaps don't be a condescending smug prick? You aren't a special snowflake either. You don't need your own post to voice your own opinion.
Probably another hidden face hunter/shaman player who is trying to make an argument for himself.
Problem with aggro decks ( Face hunter or face shaman generally). There is nothing you can you if they get a good hand they will destroy you in 5-6 Turns because you don't get heals or you don't get taunts. Even if you do then they silince it and continue to hit your face. The games you play against these cancer decks has nothing to do with which deck you play, which card you have or how experience player you are. It is annoying as hell.
No planning, no strategy, no creativity... nothing just stupid simple hitting face and using low mana cost spells on you.
Aggro decks need to go if Blizzard wants to make a way for their new fancy 10 mana cost cards.
I brought this up in another thread (and it's not a novel idea, but for whatever reason, some commenters seem to not understand).....Aggressive decks and "Face" decks (more appropriately called "rush" decks) are NOT the same thing. Aggressive decks do NOT "need to go" and there is zero chance that they will be leaving Hearthstone.
Yeah, I love Tempo Mage, too, a lot. My comment above is just so that players on the NA server keep their expectations realistic if they choose Tempo Mage. I see evidence all the time that the EU server has more variety of opponents/decks, and I think that is when Tempo Mage shines. On the other hand, when the meta leans heavily toward certain archetypes (Zoo, Secret Paladin, and Control Priest), it!/ just futile to rank up with Tempo Mage. It's an overstatement to claim that Tempo Mage has no unfavorable matchups...there's no way that Tempo Mage is above 40% against those three decks I mentioned.
The general negative attitude toward aggressive decks on HearthPwn is dumb, and in many ways, hypocritical. Loading up a control decklist with axes, removal spells, armor gain, and card draw does NOT make you a "skillful" or "smart" player. These recent Warrior decks that run double Brawl, double Bash, and double Deathlord are a coward's creation.
Would like to see the community realize that playing a completely passive control deck is just as bad (if not worse!) for the game and meta as the hyper-aggressive "face" decks.
Impressive run if you truly made Legend in two days' time using Tempo Mage. I took a similar Tempo Mage list up to Rank 2 last month, but then stalled out there really, really badly, and absolutely had to change decks to reach Legend. I have seen evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Tempo Mage is stronger and more viable on the EU server. Although it's likely that the EU meta and NA meta are similar, I would be willing to bet that the prevalences of Zoo Warlock, Secret Paladin, and Deathlord Control Priests are higher on the NA server. Those three matchups, in particular, are quite unfavorable for Tempo Mage, in my experience. Normally, those three unfavorable matchups aren't enough to discourage Tempo Mage, because it's pretty strong versus almost everything else (especially Combo Druids).....but, when the Zoo/Paladin/Priest trio makes up two-thirds (or more sometimes!) of your matches, it's just not realistic to climb effciently with Tempo Mage, in my opinion. I also would not recommend Antonidas, because he is way too slow to deal with aggressive opponents, and all the Warriors and Priests are running ridiculous amounts of removal currently. There is no way that your Antonidas stays on the board for even one full turn; Entomb, SW:Death, Execute, or Shield Slam is guaranteed to be awaiting the Archmage.
Gave this deck a spin today after watching your YouTube clips. Played 10 matches (two each versus Druid, Handlock, Secret Paladin, Priest, and Warrior); won 6 of them. This is definitely a deck that can be viable, in my opinion. It is not easy to pilot, however, and matches take a long time (often, seemingly because the opponent has no idea what the heck you are playing). There have been several occasions where I really wished I had Counterspell instead of Ice Barrier, and I wanted to ask your feedback on that proposed swap. One thing is for certain: this deck is unbelievably efficient for wrecking Secret Paladins. I knew that the Secret Paladin match-up is an intentional strength of this deck (per the guide), but even knowing that, I was still impressed by how smoothly I rolled right over Paladins using Firestorm. Granted, two matches against Secret Paladin is not a predictive sample size, but if I start seeing a meta that is very heavy on Secret Paladin (like around Rank 5 in December), I will definitely bust this deck out again and give it a shot. I think most players will want a faster deck for ladder climbing, and I think novice players should avoid this deck completely, but overall I want to praise your creativity and the quality of your guides!
I have not logged into my HearthPwn account for over a year, but I just had to log in to report the fun awesomeness I just had with this updated deck on ladder. I matched up with a full control/fatigue Warrior. Not the typical control Warrior that we see all the time. This guy was playing Justicar, Bouncing Blade, Ironbeak Owl, Revenge, etc., in addition to the typical axes, Dr. Boom, Sylvanas, Baron Geddon, Alexstraza, Ysera, Belchers, Shieldmaidens. Of course, he had PLENTY of tools to remove pretty much everything I could get on the board, and then built up a TON of armor. He was obviously playing for fatigue, and he held Alexstraza until the end to reduce my life total once the fatigue damage kicked in. But... he made one critical mistake by playing Ysera early (if you can still call something after Turn 9 "early"), and I Entombed it. He did not know it at the time, but that won the game. He definitely did not see the Priest massive OTK burst of 37 damage!! (two Mind Blasts, two Nightmares, one Ysera Awakens, plus 12 damage from my last minions on the board).
I just want to extend thanks to the author of this deck. This is the ONLY Priest deck that I have ever enjoyed playing. I was a huge fan of the original Holy 4000 when it was first created, and I am equally satisfied with the latest version now. THANK YOU.
Hi MarineKing! Thank you for your latest update. I really like and appreciate the gameplay demos you added! Very interesting. If you happen to make more demos, could you show us some matchups against common Mech Mage and Mech Shaman opponents? Also, do you check your PM's here on Hearthpwn?
Thanks for the reply! I switched in the Shadow Madness and MCT that you recommended. I can see the usefulness versus Mech Mage. Unfortunately, taking out the one Silence *significantly* weakens the deck versus Paladin, because winning that matchup often hinges on Silencing at least one of Sylvanas or Tirion. So, I think the Silence needs to be back in there. Your thoughts?
Very good deck and superb guide. I hate Priest but decided to give this deck a try. Went 12-5 right out of the gate, including an 11-1 run. Used Bomb Lobber since I don't have Vol'jin. Otherwise played deck as it's listed above. I think if people aren't succeeding with this deck, it's probably because they didn't read the guide thoroughly. It's rare to find such a well-written and thorough guide. Kudos to the author.
Any change that facilitate less aggro is welcomed.
No. This is a myopic POV. Aggressive decks are important in maintaining the overall balance of the game. If you think you'll enjoy Hearthstone more if aggressive decks were eliminated, you're probably much more wrong than you think.
Nerfing the Undertaker is a good thing. It was far superior to any other 1-mana nuetral minion. But we still want aggressive decks to be viable; trust me. They'll just have to be more creative now.
Well, it's definitely an aggro deck. Without the card draw that Hunter is accustomed to from Mad Scientist and Loot Hoarder, I'm not sure this deck will have enough gas to be consistent. The synergy with the mechs obviously makes sense, but it would only take one board clear or a couple of Taunts to erase this deck.
This is far-fetched, OP. It's a big stretch to presume that Hearthstone is struggling for cashflow. The game is enormously popular, worldwide. I realize that it's possible to be a truly "free to play" player, but even the most miserly players still spend at least SOME money on packs or Arenas occassionally. A couple dollars here or there X millions of accounts = plenty of money.
The game's developers are mainly interested in maintaining competitive balance and ensuring a diverse meta. When the meta is diverse, people are generally happier and far less likely to complain that they are "getting screwed" by a specific decklist/class. If the game stays diverse and interesting, people will play. When people play, they will spend money (a lot or a little, depending on the person). Hearthstone has become so huge that in-game purchases may eventually no longer be the main source of income for the game. If the tournament scene continues to grow (likely), then sponsorships and advertising at events will bring big revenues.
As a long time player who has used many decks that utilize Undertaker, I still support this change to the card. I have developed many decks over the months that would have been GREAT decks ... except they weren't viable against turn 1 Undertaker In Hunter and Warlock decks, which consistently comprise a large chunk of the meta.
Just so no one gets overly excited, though. There absolutely still will be aggressive deck builds on the ladder. They just won't have the ability to win the match on turn one anymore. I know some players think that they're so good they don't worry about Undertaker, but let's be honest -- the card was WAY stronger than any other 1-mana minion -- and it probably still is, even after this nerf.
People might complain that it "took too long" for this change to Undertaker, but I personally respect Blizzard for taking the time to MAKE SURE the card needed to be nerfed before acting. I am totally OK with that. It's better than making reactionary changes without carefully studying them first, over time.
Hopefully, this nerf will have the effect of further diversifying the meta. While perfect balance is impossible, I think most could/should agree that the greater variety of competitive decks, the better.
1
I rarely post to HearthPwn, but felt compelled to respond here to the OP. I've been playing Hearthstone intermittently since pre-Naxx, and I can say with certainty that people have been complaining about the aggressive metagame, almost without interruption, for years now.
The classes change, and the cards change, but really, the meta doesn't change. The meta varies between "slightly aggressive" and "seriously aggressive", and that's just the way it is. Lots of people have threatened to quit playing, and some probably follow through on those threats....but there are simply more new players joining in than leaving, and the ones that do leave often return. Blizzard knows that a fast-paced, easy-to-pilot style of game is broadly attractive to more consumers than a complex, patient style of game. This is just the way it is.
While I'm sure that Blizzard wants your feedback, remember that they are probably never going to introduce cards that favor a control-heavy meta-game. That wouldn't fit their business model or their design philosophy. It wouldn't attract new players at the level Blizzard wants/needs.
Hearthstone is a tempo and damage driven game, at least in the Standard mode. This is not meant to sound rude or condescending: if you enjoy being a heavy underdog and you get satisfaction from "beating the system", then go ahead and play control decks. They exist. If your goals are to "make legend every month" (which really isn't important or worthwhile, to most players), then you have to get aboard the aggro train and ride.
1
0
0
Yeah, I love Tempo Mage, too, a lot. My comment above is just so that players on the NA server keep their expectations realistic if they choose Tempo Mage. I see evidence all the time that the EU server has more variety of opponents/decks, and I think that is when Tempo Mage shines. On the other hand, when the meta leans heavily toward certain archetypes (Zoo, Secret Paladin, and Control Priest), it!/ just futile to rank up with Tempo Mage. It's an overstatement to claim that Tempo Mage has no unfavorable matchups...there's no way that Tempo Mage is above 40% against those three decks I mentioned.
3
The general negative attitude toward aggressive decks on HearthPwn is dumb, and in many ways, hypocritical. Loading up a control decklist with axes, removal spells, armor gain, and card draw does NOT make you a "skillful" or "smart" player. These recent Warrior decks that run double Brawl, double Bash, and double Deathlord are a coward's creation.
Would like to see the community realize that playing a completely passive control deck is just as bad (if not worse!) for the game and meta as the hyper-aggressive "face" decks.
1
Impressive run if you truly made Legend in two days' time using Tempo Mage. I took a similar Tempo Mage list up to Rank 2 last month, but then stalled out there really, really badly, and absolutely had to change decks to reach Legend. I have seen evidence (albeit anecdotal) that Tempo Mage is stronger and more viable on the EU server. Although it's likely that the EU meta and NA meta are similar, I would be willing to bet that the prevalences of Zoo Warlock, Secret Paladin, and Deathlord Control Priests are higher on the NA server. Those three matchups, in particular, are quite unfavorable for Tempo Mage, in my experience. Normally, those three unfavorable matchups aren't enough to discourage Tempo Mage, because it's pretty strong versus almost everything else (especially Combo Druids).....but, when the Zoo/Paladin/Priest trio makes up two-thirds (or more sometimes!) of your matches, it's just not realistic to climb effciently with Tempo Mage, in my opinion. I also would not recommend Antonidas, because he is way too slow to deal with aggressive opponents, and all the Warriors and Priests are running ridiculous amounts of removal currently. There is no way that your Antonidas stays on the board for even one full turn; Entomb, SW:Death, Execute, or Shield Slam is guaranteed to be awaiting the Archmage.
2
Gave this deck a spin today after watching your YouTube clips. Played 10 matches (two each versus Druid, Handlock, Secret Paladin, Priest, and Warrior); won 6 of them. This is definitely a deck that can be viable, in my opinion. It is not easy to pilot, however, and matches take a long time (often, seemingly because the opponent has no idea what the heck you are playing). There have been several occasions where I really wished I had Counterspell instead of Ice Barrier, and I wanted to ask your feedback on that proposed swap. One thing is for certain: this deck is unbelievably efficient for wrecking Secret Paladins. I knew that the Secret Paladin match-up is an intentional strength of this deck (per the guide), but even knowing that, I was still impressed by how smoothly I rolled right over Paladins using Firestorm. Granted, two matches against Secret Paladin is not a predictive sample size, but if I start seeing a meta that is very heavy on Secret Paladin (like around Rank 5 in December), I will definitely bust this deck out again and give it a shot. I think most players will want a faster deck for ladder climbing, and I think novice players should avoid this deck completely, but overall I want to praise your creativity and the quality of your guides!
1
I have not logged into my HearthPwn account for over a year, but I just had to log in to report the fun awesomeness I just had with this updated deck on ladder. I matched up with a full control/fatigue Warrior. Not the typical control Warrior that we see all the time. This guy was playing Justicar, Bouncing Blade, Ironbeak Owl, Revenge, etc., in addition to the typical axes, Dr. Boom, Sylvanas, Baron Geddon, Alexstraza, Ysera, Belchers, Shieldmaidens. Of course, he had PLENTY of tools to remove pretty much everything I could get on the board, and then built up a TON of armor. He was obviously playing for fatigue, and he held Alexstraza until the end to reduce my life total once the fatigue damage kicked in. But... he made one critical mistake by playing Ysera early (if you can still call something after Turn 9 "early"), and I Entombed it. He did not know it at the time, but that won the game. He definitely did not see the Priest massive OTK burst of 37 damage!! (two Mind Blasts, two Nightmares, one Ysera Awakens, plus 12 damage from my last minions on the board).
I just want to extend thanks to the author of this deck. This is the ONLY Priest deck that I have ever enjoyed playing. I was a huge fan of the original Holy 4000 when it was first created, and I am equally satisfied with the latest version now. THANK YOU.
2
Hi MarineKing! Thank you for your latest update. I really like and appreciate the gameplay demos you added! Very interesting. If you happen to make more demos, could you show us some matchups against common Mech Mage and Mech Shaman opponents? Also, do you check your PM's here on Hearthpwn?
0
Thanks for the reply! I switched in the Shadow Madness and MCT that you recommended. I can see the usefulness versus Mech Mage. Unfortunately, taking out the one Silence *significantly* weakens the deck versus Paladin, because winning that matchup often hinges on Silencing at least one of Sylvanas or Tirion. So, I think the Silence needs to be back in there. Your thoughts?
3
Very good deck and superb guide. I hate Priest but decided to give this deck a try. Went 12-5 right out of the gate, including an 11-1 run. Used Bomb Lobber since I don't have Vol'jin. Otherwise played deck as it's listed above. I think if people aren't succeeding with this deck, it's probably because they didn't read the guide thoroughly. It's rare to find such a well-written and thorough guide. Kudos to the author.
0
No. This is a myopic POV. Aggressive decks are important in maintaining the overall balance of the game. If you think you'll enjoy Hearthstone more if aggressive decks were eliminated, you're probably much more wrong than you think.
Nerfing the Undertaker is a good thing. It was far superior to any other 1-mana nuetral minion. But we still want aggressive decks to be viable; trust me. They'll just have to be more creative now.
0
Well, it's definitely an aggro deck. Without the card draw that Hunter is accustomed to from Mad Scientist and Loot Hoarder, I'm not sure this deck will have enough gas to be consistent. The synergy with the mechs obviously makes sense, but it would only take one board clear or a couple of Taunts to erase this deck.
2
This is far-fetched, OP. It's a big stretch to presume that Hearthstone is struggling for cashflow. The game is enormously popular, worldwide. I realize that it's possible to be a truly "free to play" player, but even the most miserly players still spend at least SOME money on packs or Arenas occassionally. A couple dollars here or there X millions of accounts = plenty of money.
The game's developers are mainly interested in maintaining competitive balance and ensuring a diverse meta. When the meta is diverse, people are generally happier and far less likely to complain that they are "getting screwed" by a specific decklist/class. If the game stays diverse and interesting, people will play. When people play, they will spend money (a lot or a little, depending on the person). Hearthstone has become so huge that in-game purchases may eventually no longer be the main source of income for the game. If the tournament scene continues to grow (likely), then sponsorships and advertising at events will bring big revenues.
0
As a long time player who has used many decks that utilize Undertaker, I still support this change to the card. I have developed many decks over the months that would have been GREAT decks ... except they weren't viable against turn 1 Undertaker In Hunter and Warlock decks, which consistently comprise a large chunk of the meta.
Just so no one gets overly excited, though. There absolutely still will be aggressive deck builds on the ladder. They just won't have the ability to win the match on turn one anymore. I know some players think that they're so good they don't worry about Undertaker, but let's be honest -- the card was WAY stronger than any other 1-mana minion -- and it probably still is, even after this nerf.
People might complain that it "took too long" for this change to Undertaker, but I personally respect Blizzard for taking the time to MAKE SURE the card needed to be nerfed before acting. I am totally OK with that. It's better than making reactionary changes without carefully studying them first, over time.
Hopefully, this nerf will have the effect of further diversifying the meta. While perfect balance is impossible, I think most could/should agree that the greater variety of competitive decks, the better.