Hearthpwn

People who complain about emotes but do not Squelch are just as bad as people who complain about the government but skip voting in elections. If emotes bother you, Squelch. If you don't Squelch, then don't complain about emotes.

I don't think that's true at all, Bollspattarn. But even if it was true, big deal? The World Champion, Firebat, played Zoo and Midrange Hunter at Blizzcon. Did he get lucky once or twice? Yes (top-deck Leokk against DTwo comes to mind), but no one can argue that Firebat didn't do his homework or that he's a "cheap" player or a "no skill" player. Right?

Interesting discussion in this thread.

Some might say I am biased because I do like playing Hunter, but I'm trying to stay objective here. Maybe some players run Hunter because it's inexpensive. I disagree, though. I have the cards available to play other decks (including the expensive "wallet Warrior"). Cost isn't a factor; I just prefer a fast-paced match, and I prefer a deck that has few bad match-ups on paper. Hunter fits the bill. I realize not everyone likes fast-paced matches, but I think it's silly for anyone to assume that there aren't others out there who want to play an upbeat/quick game.

What I would like others to consider is that nerfing Hunter or Mad Scientist isn't going to change how you feel toward Hearthstone. Hunter might be the locus of your hatred, because it's in your face constantly on the ladder. However, the root of the problem, in my opinion, is not the design of Hunter, but rather the design of Hearthstone's game modes overall. Ranked Play is ultra-competitive, and that's just how it is. Some might argue that it's too competitive, because the intensity eliminates many decks from being viable. I hear that. On the flipside, we have Casual Mode ... which is just that: casual. It's mostly people screwing around with garbage decks and/or novices getting their feet wet with entry-level cards/decks.

What Hearthstone REALLY needs is one or more NEW GAME MODES. I'm not sure exactly how to design it, but the community needs a place to play Hearthstone at a level somewhere between the "tryhard" Ranked Play and the "noob" Casual Play. I would venture that the majority of Hearthstone players fall somewhere in-between "pro" and "noob". Give us an intermediate gameplay mode. Challenging but with different rules and incentives. Maybe require each player to load up five decks and have the server randomly select one for each match. Maybe limit the number of times you can play a specific class consecutively befor requiring a class change. Just a couple ideas.

in short, it's easy to direct one's ire at Hunter, but it's myopic to do that. Hunter has been nerfed more than any other class (I think) but it remains strong and popular, and as long as Ranked Play remains the main method of playing Hearthstone, that isn't going to change. Instead of petitioning Blizzard to nerf Hunter, instead petition them to offer more new modes of play. Thanks for reading.

No. Just no. This deck did not win 82% of matches unless you were playing between ranks 25 and 11. 

Spare me the "but I did win 82%!!" response. No. You did not. 

This deck lacks early game presence and you'll either be passing the turn, wasting your one (only one?) Flare, or just using Steady Shot on turns 1 and 2, and probably 3 sometimes, too. Webspinner is nice, but it doesn't constitute enough early game by itself. You're gimping yourself by not playing Haunted Creeper and/or Mad Scientist, in favor of underwhelming minions like Tundra Rhino and Timberwolf. The only way this deck could win consistently is if you're playing against bad/inexperienced players who don't understand how to not feed into huge Buzzard/Unleash or Unleash/Hyena combos.

Quote from Cronaz »

Hello.

Today I went laddering again with some good results. I won every game and got to rank 3 again. Then there it is; The hunter zone. At rank 3-1 all I ever meet is hunters and they are simply unbeatable. I'm playing zoo since ever,  I really like fast paced games and I enjoy the whole mechanic (filling up your board, refueling your hand with hero power). The tactic works against every class, but not against hunters. If I wanna put up some pressure and create a strong board, they simply have more targets to unleash the skill on, so they literally draw their whole deck and got answers for everything anyway. If I try to play it tactical and just play big minions like Iron Dwarf, Doomguard and Life Tap on the early turns, then there is simply not enough pressure and they just take out big threats with hunter's mark.

So my question is: Is there an ANTI-Hunter Deck (preferably a warlock deck) which wins against them for a fair amount? All I wanna do is play against them, own them, and then BM like hell (slowrolling, acting like I made a mistake and missed lethal, add them on Friendlist just to flame them and delete them again.

I really hate hunters deeply.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Cronaz

Um, you're a loser. But to answer your question, Warlock is probably the worst class to play against Hunter. Some might say Shaman is worse, but I disagree. If you want to play a Warlock deck in a Hunter-heavy meta, then Zoo is probably your best bet, but don't expect a super-high win rate. Unfortunately, there really isn't a strong counter for Hunter decks, at least not right now. Some decks are slightly favored against Hunter, but no decks that I've seen are strongly favored over Hunter. There is a reason why you're facing 50% or more Hunter opponents ... and it's not just because the Hunter deck is inexpensive. It's also very effective and has a quick pace of play. 

Mind Control Tech can be a good Constructed card. It just depends on the meta. I wouldn't use two, but there are definitely situations where you could justify running one MCT in a Constructed deck. The reason you don't see many on the ladder is two-fold. For one, many of the strongest decks don't have any wiggle-room to swap in a 3-drop ... you'd have to take out something important from the deck. Secondly, MCT does not fit in any aggressive deck, because unlike most 3-mana minions, its ideal use comes in the late game rounds. Ramp Druid and control Warrior are two places where MCT could work, rather than Mark of the Wild, Force of Nature, Brawl, or Faceless Manipulator. Most players wouldn't choose MCT over any of those cards, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work.

I concur with others' comments here. Playing against Priests slows the gaming experience down way too much, to the point where it's dull. I'm not saying that all matches need to be super fast ... just saying that playing against Priest is kinda like watching a baseball game where the pitcher shakes off a half-dozen times before each pitch, the batter steps out of the box to adjust his gloves repeatedly, and the coach keeps coming out of the dugout to chat with the pitcher ... in other words, slow and BORING.

Priest doesn't need to be nerfed. The class is more obnoxious than over-powered. I think Blizzard should implement a fix that prevents you from seeing too many of the same class within a specific window of time. Then people would not be able to complain about repeatedly being matched against the same opponent decks, whether it's Priest or anything else.

Quote from Psybe »

Hey, is as the title says: Is it worth it to craft Ysera right now? And in which deck could I use it besides control warrior?

No. 

Don't waste your cash or dust. 

In a vacuum, Ysera is a spectacular card. And it can be used in any control-style deck, such as Paladin, Warrior, or Priest. 

However, if you want to play those decks, you're much better off crafting Sylvanas or Ragnaros. And, if you choose Paladin or Warrior, then Tirion or Grommash, respectively, are essential.

Ysera is almost a "win more" card, but can be decisive in a long drawn-out control vs. control match-up. She also has the advantage of not being killable by Big Game Hunter or Shadow Word Death. Still, I would not recommend Ysera over any of the other legendaries I mentioned above.

From an entertainment standpoint, 20 minute matches with a full control deck versus another full control deck might be interesting .... if you want to play one or two matches per day. 

From a standpoint of wanting to actually rank up, those matches are for the birds.

The level of competition rises significantly when you reach roughly Rank 6. Once you reach that level, I would no longer evaluate my performance based on any previous matches. It's a brand new ballgame, more or less. That doesn't mean you should ditch the deck you had been using successfully. It just means you need to know what your win percentage is against Rank 6 or better competition. If your overall win percentage for the month is skewed by unusually high win rates against Rank 20 - 10 players, then you're not getting an accurate read on your current performance against better players. 

If your **current** win percentage is between 50% and 55% then it will be a very long and very slow climb from Rank 5 up to Legend. If you stay consistent and play a ton of matches, you'll eventually get there. But most Legendary players have win rates between 55% and 65% during their climb from Rank 5 to Legend ... and even then it still takes hundreds of matches, typically. Players who brag online about having 70% or 75% win rates in Constructed are mostly full of crap. They're either including a bunch of fluff wins against weak opponents, or they're just flat out embellishing. 

Haven't read all the replies in this thread, and not going to. Responding just in case the OP is still following this thread for advice. The answer to your question, "is coaching worth it?" is probably "yes", in the sense that it will help you dissect your mistakes and learn to make better decks and better plays using those decks.

However, there are a lot of factors involved. Depends on your resources. Hearthstone coaching (like any other coaching type) isn't cheap. But maybe you have plenty of cash, and in that case, it isn't an issue. The other big factor is your goals or expectations. What are your goals? If you have reasonable, achievable goals, then coaching will help you reach those goals more efficiently, time-wise (while less efficiently, money-wise). But if your goals are way, way above your current performance, then coaching won't make much of a difference. 

Question for all interested:

Over my last 50 or so matches, more than 50% of those have been Hunters, and the large majority of the other 50% is control Warriors and Priests. I started playing on the ladder last month, when these 3 classes (Hunter/Warrior/Priest) were all extremely uncommon. So, I really don't have much experience playing against any of them. Last weekend, I reached Rank 1 for the first time ever, playing an updated Zoo Warlock with Undertaker. Unfortunately, even though I got so, so close to Legend Rank, my Zoo deck is not faring well against Hunter/Warrior/Priest, and I've dropped back down to Rank 3 very steadily.

I've also never played in a meta that was this predictable ... I literally ONLY see Hunters/Warriors/Priests ... and it's really bothering me that I haven't found a way to exploit the predictability of this meta. Can anyone please suggest a deck that has a very favorable match-up versus at least two of these three classes?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions and sound advice!

Unfortunately, this problem will persist until Blizzard adjusts the Warlock "Life Tap" power. I fully agree that facing Warlock after Warlock after Warlock makes the Hearthstone game-play too monotonous and heavily dilutes the fun/entertainment value of the game. Even if you play with a deck that has favorable match-up against Zoo and/or Handlock opponents, it's still boring. "Boring" is not an adjective that a game developer wants attached to his/her product ... if that boredom factor starts influencing profits, then changes can start happening pretty quickly. It may be cliche to say this, but if you want to see change in Hearthstone, make sure you don't buy any in-game credits or in-app purchases. If you do buy, then you're condoning the game's status quo, including the ridiculous Warlock encounter rate.

I think it's important for people to remember that a delayed, problem-free-ish release is far, far better than a rushed mega-buggy/crashy/problem-riddled release for anything. I do think Blizzard's staff should be held accountable, and timeliness is indeed part of accountability. But if an app is released in an unfinished state that's rife with coding errors ... that's a losing scenario for the gaming developers.

Personally, I wish mobile app gaming development studios would announce a release date that gives them LOTS of wiggle-room, and then if they happen to finish the project early (hey, it *could* happen), then everyone is happily surprised that they get to play the new game sooner than anticipated. Instead, the trend seems to be just patronizing (teasing?) the gaming community with announcements like "Coming soon! Really!"

Blizzard is not the only gaming studio doing this (I'm looking at you, Capital Games / EA), and it is obnoxious. The studios are setting themselves up for scrutiny and disgruntled customers; we see the evidence of that in these (and other) discussion forums. Ultimately, most customers will begrudgingly be patient through all the non-specific "Coming soon!" announcements, but that generates a lot of buzz, and that buzz ultimately sets the expectations bar *very* high when the new game/expansion finally does release. If the game is anything less than extremely awesome when it finally releases, it will get absolutely shelled by the community.

It's important for folks to remember that Hearthstone is a cross-platform game now, and Apple apparently has very, very strict guidelines about developers adding/updating software via ITunes. This is a roadblock that lots of cross-platform developers face, not just Blizzard. I don't presume to make excuses for Blizzard, but it's entirely possible that the Naxx expansion could be "ready-to-go" for the PC desktop version, but still may require some tweaking and polishing in order to appease Apple for the IPad version. Just something to consider.