I can understand he'd get a bit annoyed by ppl playing general meta decks in casual.
But no, there are no unwritten rules, and you have no obligation to change what you play based on what others think of it. If the game allows it, it is allowed, that simple.
I don't run elekk for the most part. I think you can go out a 2 turn burst combo. The only issue might be odd warriors. But if you are running into those, a zola with th DK can do wonders. As the guy above me said, you're better off teching survivability.
So if you're facing a lot of priests these are worth considering, some of these are even staples, and some are just good even if they don't directly complement your deck.
Only issue with big priest is the insane winrate spike with Barnes, hit that, and its a genuinely fair deck.
Other archetypes in wild are rocking over 65% winrate while big priest sits at about ~62 ish.So big priest isn't a "Big" (hehe) problem. Let me give you an example:
In HSReplay, go to any big priest deck, and tell me what card has the highest mulligan winrate, drawn winrate and played winrate. That's right, it's Barnes Mulligan is the most horrifying, sitting at about 80% winrate if drawn. The card in itself is like Keleseth, as it boosts winrate by an insane amount if drawn early.
So in short, no big priest is not a serious problem, but barnes is. Simply hit barnes a tiny bit and the deck would be incredibly fair.
I think tuning it down to 8 cards per class and 28 neutrals (100 cards) would do wonders. Less space for dumb filler, and a better opportunity for f2p players to get what they want a bit faster. That being said, blizzard loves their money, so wouldn't count on it.]
I like the idea of the core set getting some adjustments. for example, the sad sad Silverback Patriarch could easily have 1 more health, or maybe even 2. Just some silly tiny nerfs give f2p players a slightly bigger edge against the big ole wallet dudes. It doesn't change the game that much and gives new players a bit more opportunity to contest against people with a better collection.
Err: freezing trap only increasing cost by 1, candleshot 2 durability
wtf: eaglethorn to 4 mana, zul'jin only casting 5 spells max.
A S C E N D E D: hunter having its hero power disabled for the entire game, all hunter cards cost 10, no hunter, instant loss for picking hunter, hunter unable to rank up, losing your entire collection when you pick hunter, hunter costs $10 to play for each time you play, all hunter players being sent to siberia, firing all developers responsible for any hunter card, bombarding blizzard whenever anyone in there thinks of hunter, travelling back in time to torture the world of warcraft developer to never create a hunter class: which results in no hunter class ever being made in hearthstone. Going back in time and causing a huge war on technology: resulting in game development being behind for decades and thus hearthstone not existing which means no hunter.
So yeah those are some ideas, seem pretty fair to me.
Wild is really fun, there are so many decks to play. It's just a shame that they are all overshadowed by the top decks. I think it wouldnt hurt to take a look at some of the craziest cards in wild, such as Barnes.
2
welcome the the REAAAAL show buddy,! Wild is the way to go
0
Better ways to get gold for sure. new players wont stay in game if they have to throw away their hard earned collection every year.
0
I can understand he'd get a bit annoyed by ppl playing general meta decks in casual.
But no, there are no unwritten rules, and you have no obligation to change what you play based on what others think of it. If the game allows it, it is allowed, that simple.
1
I don't run elekk for the most part. I think you can go out a 2 turn burst combo. The only issue might be odd warriors. But if you are running into those, a zola with th DK can do wonders. As the guy above me said, you're better off teching survivability.
1
Next expansion youll all complain its too fast
4
Also as some pointed out, there are a fair number of tech cards to fight off big priests:\
Cornered Sentry Gravelsnout Knight Saronite Taskmaster Marsh Drake Hungry Dragon Leeroy Jenkins Muck Hunter Hungry Ettin and even The Beast are good examples of enemy summoning cards
there's also transformation cards Polymorph Polymorph: Boar Potion of Polymorph Devolve Hex and Tinkmaster Overspark.
So if you're facing a lot of priests these are worth considering, some of these are even staples, and some are just good even if they don't directly complement your deck.
1
Only issue with big priest is the insane winrate spike with Barnes, hit that, and its a genuinely fair deck.
Other archetypes in wild are rocking over 65% winrate while big priest sits at about ~62 ish.So big priest isn't a "Big" (hehe) problem. Let me give you an example:
In HSReplay, go to any big priest deck, and tell me what card has the highest mulligan winrate, drawn winrate and played winrate. That's right, it's Barnes Mulligan is the most horrifying, sitting at about 80% winrate if drawn. The card in itself is like Keleseth, as it boosts winrate by an insane amount if drawn early.
So in short, no big priest is not a serious problem, but barnes is. Simply hit barnes a tiny bit and the deck would be incredibly fair.
0
I think tuning it down to 8 cards per class and 28 neutrals (100 cards) would do wonders. Less space for dumb filler, and a better opportunity for f2p players to get what they want a bit faster. That being said, blizzard loves their money, so wouldn't count on it.]
I like the idea of the core set getting some adjustments. for example, the sad sad Silverback Patriarch could easily have 1 more health, or maybe even 2. Just some silly tiny nerfs give f2p players a slightly bigger edge against the big ole wallet dudes. It doesn't change the game that much and gives new players a bit more opportunity to contest against people with a better collection.
10
Reasonable: Spellstone to 6, deathstalker to 8
Err: freezing trap only increasing cost by 1, candleshot 2 durability
wtf: eaglethorn to 4 mana, zul'jin only casting 5 spells max.
A S C E N D E D: hunter having its hero power disabled for the entire game, all hunter cards cost 10, no hunter, instant loss for picking hunter, hunter unable to rank up, losing your entire collection when you pick hunter, hunter costs $10 to play for each time you play, all hunter players being sent to siberia, firing all developers responsible for any hunter card, bombarding blizzard whenever anyone in there thinks of hunter, travelling back in time to torture the world of warcraft developer to never create a hunter class: which results in no hunter class ever being made in hearthstone. Going back in time and causing a huge war on technology: resulting in game development being behind for decades and thus hearthstone not existing which means no hunter.
So yeah those are some ideas, seem pretty fair to me.
2
Jade Idol has always been an eldrich horror to me. Amongst other horrible cards are Prince Keleseth, Barnes and The Caverns Below
0
Lol, druids mad cuz they cant UI turn 5 anymore.
0
Wild is really fun, there are so many decks to play. It's just a shame that they are all overshadowed by the top decks. I think it wouldnt hurt to take a look at some of the craziest cards in wild, such as Barnes.
0
I'm playing even priest, it's alright but it's missing some core cards:
- card draw <- especially this
- More talanji targets (seance and bone drake aren't enough)
- Or a good win condition (instead of talanji)
The lack of card draw hurts the deck a lot.
0
Or maybe l2p and try to actually counter
1
Jades
Fun
something is very, very wrong with that statement