Hearthpwn

Quote from user-26847294 >>

Quote from Minibassada >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Now I don't have a source for this but as for why the meta is mainly aggro, I think depends more on the playerbase than team 5's desicions. Many players don't have a lot of time to play and then turns to aggro. You accomplish more by playing 2 5-minute games with an aggressive deck than 1 10-minute game as a control deck. Especially considering both options should have about the same chance to win.

No I don't think so that meta is mainly aggro due to the playerbase. It is a card design choice of developers to let the playerbase choose for mainly aggro. You can't blame the masses for card design politics as much as you can't blame Marcus Aurelius to abolish arena fights, while his son Commedus reinstated it (with a huge approval of the masses). 

HS is not grassroots, it is top down.

 I am not blaming the masses for card design. This has nothing to do with card design, as Kaladin said earlier, this has to do with game design. The game design is beneficial for aggro, thus people play aggro. In fact Blizzard have not pushed an aggresive meta since MSoG, they saw how that went and stopped doing it. Please pin point recent card design pushing aggro.

Completely opposite to this we have Commodus reinstating arena fights. Noone can blame the masses of ancient Rome for that nor can you blame them for wanting to be entertained. An emperor as deluded and insane as Commodus needed the arena fights for various reasons; it was the best and easiest way of making the people feel "involved" in the world around them and entertaining them, so they are not bored as that lessens the chance of rebellion. Apart from that, arena fights was a good way of seeing how popular you were ad regent. How does the crowd react to a thumb up or a thumbs down? How do they behave when you speak? If they boo, you probably need to do something in their favor. 

The masses using the system to their benefit =/= Authority using the system to their benefit.

 

 Finally a reasonable respons. But don't blame game design when card design ensures the dominance of aggressive decks by printing BBCSWD-cards. As a result OTK is the opposite, finally developers wished for constructed  polarized win condition - meta.

As noted the top tier meta is not constructed by the community. They are just executioners what is thought out up front. It may feel and seem so, but the strength of card design politics is the cunningness of developers to make you think the community makes the meta.

 Hearthstone favors aggro compared to other TCGs. The fact that the attacker chooses the defender makes you able to continously go face, then end games quickly. Combined with the fact that aggro decks are usually cheap and rather simple to play makes them attactive to especially player with limited resources like f2p players and players with minimal time to spend on the game. 

The top of meta is decided by the player base. People discover what is strong, then play that. Then people discover effective counters and starts to play that.

Worth noting is also the fact that the meta has not always been dominated by aggro (Druid and Cubelock meta).

Currently this thread really just seem like a bunch of unjustified conspiracy theories getting thrown around tbh.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Now I don't have a source for this but as for why the meta is mainly aggro, I think depends more on the playerbase than team 5's desicions. Many players don't have a lot of time to play and then turns to aggro. You accomplish more by playing 2 5-minute games with an aggressive deck than 1 10-minute game as a control deck. Especially considering both options should have about the same chance to win.

No I don't think so that meta is mainly aggro due to the playerbase. It is a card design choice of developers to let the playerbase choose for mainly aggro. You can't blame the masses for card design politics as much as you can't blame Marcus Aurelius to abolish arena fights, while his son Commedus reinstated it (with a huge approval of the masses). 

HS is not grassroots, it is top down.

 I am not blaming the masses for card design. This has nothing to do with card design, as Kaladin said earlier, this has to do with game design. The game design is beneficial for aggro, thus people play aggro. In fact Blizzard have not pushed an aggresive meta since MSoG, they saw how that went and stopped doing it. Please pin point recent card design pushing aggro.

Completely opposite to this we have Commodus reinstating arena fights. Noone can blame the masses of ancient Rome for that nor can you blame them for wanting to be entertained. An emperor as deluded and insane as Commodus needed the arena fights for various reasons; it was the best and easiest way of making the people feel "involved" in the world around them and entertaining them, so they are not bored as that lessens the chance of rebellion. Apart from that, arena fights was a good way of seeing how popular you were ad regent. How does the crowd react to a thumb up or a thumbs down? How do they behave when you speak? If they boo, you probably need to do something in their favor. 

The masses using the system to their benefit =/= Authority using the system to their benefit.

It is super fun to play, but you are probably not hitting legend with it.

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Kaladin >>

"Look at the meta" is not evidence.   You are paranoid.  

Let's look at actual facts.  Here's former game developer Ben Brode answering, "Are there any cool card combos players have found that you never expected from testing?"

https://youtu.be/-n8T0kuLRzA?t=160

 Referring to YouTube is not evidence.

 lol what more do you want, real live Ben Brode, in person, being asked this question under a lie detector?   

edit: 

@minibassada

The meta has always been and will always be driven by aggro decks, not because of the card sets or because "T5 specifically wants aggro to dominate/hates control," but because of the game design itself.  The player attacking chooses the defenders (unlike MTG), so Hearthstone will always be a "questions first" game.  

 I completely agree. It might have been unclear what I meant in my previous post. I'm aware that T5 does not push aggro, in fact I think Blizzard have been toning their aggressive cards down, while printing some super solid control tools. The fact that HS is a "questions game" is indeed profitable for aggro by making you able to end games very quickly, mean you reach accomplishments fast than you likely would by playing a control deck and just by reading posts on sites like this one, I'm aware that a lot of players don't have a lot of time to play, making aggro decks much more attractive to play. Apart from that aggro decks are usually cheap, shares a lot of cards and often requires less resource management than other archetypes.

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Kaladin >>

Team 5 doesn't pick or create decks, they release cards that sometimes suggest specific archetypes, but they don't makes cards like Baku and go, "We want Odd Paladin to be top tier," then when it's too strong, nerf CTA because "Okay now we want EVEN Paladin to be top tier."

Team 5 doesn't give a fuck what specific deck or class is the best. 

 Fundamental BS. T5 print specific for aggressive decks to rule and even dominate the meta.  Seen it every expansion. It's card design politics. Who thinks that they don't know in advance which archetypes will be top tier, is fundamentally ignorant how HS became a succes (feeding mindlessness).

 Source?

 Source? Let me return the favor dear mr. Kaladin:

Team 5 doesn't pick or create decks, they release cards that sometimes suggest specific archetypes, but they don't makes cards like Baku and go, "We want Odd Paladin to be top tier," then when it's too strong, nerf CTA because "Okay now we want EVEN Paladin to be top tier."

Source?

Team 5 doesn't give a fuck what specific deck or class is the best.

Source?

You see dear mr. Kaladin, we all know T5 - Blizzard is a closed organization on virtually all topics that has the interest of the community. To name a few:

1. Reasons why certain cards are printed. (remember Brode on Shudderwock?).
2. Reasons why certain cards are nerfed and others don't.
3. No openess to the RNG- mechanic to investigate possibility of rigging.
4. Reasons why at least 75% of all T1 decks are either aggressive aggro or agressive midrange.
5. Why the skill floor and win condition of meta decks respectively is low and that easy.
6. Why there is no diversity in win conditions: the two main win conditions are: a) aggressive spam, buff go face or b) if you don't kill me in time you are dead by default.
7. The nature of balance politics.
8. The relation between avarage skill level of the game and pack selling.
9. Why the meta is generally polarized, therefore RPS is that steep.

And so forth. So Blizzard is never giving insight in anything to anybody. The only thing we have is speculation and analysis. There you have your answer. There are no sourcess for no one.

Opinion about the game depends on the way you analyse.

So dear mr. Kaladin you like to show off your knowledge of the game within the framework of what Blizzard puts on the table (this card vs. that card, this class, vs. that etc.). I, myself take a step back and analyse the performance of developers based on provided skill, balance, diversity, questions mentioned and more.

Do you really think cards are conceived on a saterdaynight after 10 beers? Do you really thing developers don't think about the impact on the meta in relation to pack selling? Do you really think they don't have a target audience for whom they predominately print cards: the fanboys?

Everyone who thinks developers just print cards and don't know upfront what the meta will be as basis of their succes and the succes of the game as a whole, is quite naive. Succes of this game  =  target audience = the mindless low skill demanding fanboy = card design politics.

 

 

 

  That's not how it works.  You, who made the claim in the positive, have the burden of proof.  The onus is not on me to prove that something is NOT true.

T5 devs give much information on social media, stream, that's according to this source atleast: https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com. You might actually find that google answers a lot of your question.

Here is the answer to question 2: https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Card_changes.

Another thing worth noting is that expansions are actually created a lot of time in advance fx. Boomsday were finished just as WW released, meaning that Blizzard don't actually know how the meta will be affected, thus nerfs happen after the expansion is released.

Source: https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Expansion

Now I don't have a source for this but as for why the meta is mainly aggro, I think depends more on the playerbase than team 5's desicions. Many players don't have a lot of time to play and then turns to aggro. You accomplish more by playing 2 5-minute games with an aggressive deck than 1 10-minute game as a control deck. Especially considering both options should have about the same chance to win.

Quote from Murl0c_Slayer >>

Quote from iWatchUSleep >>

Get real, will you? You didn't know Master's call hunter would be a thing. You didn't know that Odd Taunt warrior would rise once again. You weren't the one who invented cubelock during the Witchwood. 

"Just add cards to existing decks and see if they work". This guy, lmao...

 Yes i knew that Odd Taunt Warrior would rise once again -_- 

wanna see the process of how i knew  ?

long time ago about 8 months or something when WW cards revealed and i saw Baku the first class pop in my mind was Warrior ! why because long long time ago when i was enjoying playing Control warrior before nerfs Justicar Trueheart was one of the best cards in the deck . it was played only in warrior and i think priest in that time , and then i remembered that Quests cost one Mana ! ( Odd Number ) i got exited to play some kind of control  Warrior once again ..... 

Its not a Rocket Science dude .... its just a Cards game ! geeez

 

Edit : I said before Boom Day Project that i can be comptietve by play the same version of Shuderwock Shaman that i played in WW in next expansion without adding any cards from the new SET and i did it !! 

you can find my post in my profile if you want to see ...

 Taunt Warrior fares well against aggro (hunter, rogue etc.) Obviously it is a good deck now. Just like Quest Rogue is good in a control dominated meta. You are right; that's not rocket science. Your arguments are not waterproof.

Justicar was also played in Control Priest and Midrange Paladin, not only warrior. You can check old decklists on this site.

As for your edit. Obviously a strong deck is still going to be strong, even after new additions to the game, as long as a popular counter is not implemented, this was the case with Shudderwock Shaman in Boomsday. The deck did not lose anything. I honestly don't get what your point is.

Play something else.

Lol though this would be a cry-thread about Time Out and all the healing. 

Is it really a bad thing though, that Paladin has potential for multiple strong archetypes? 

No, diversity is a good thing. Paladin as a class is not limiting design space, that's a deluded idea. If anything Genn and Baku are limiting design space for paladin. I don't believe they are, not right now atleast, but many people seem to believe they are.

Also paladin currently is not even close to being as bad as it has been with Secret Paladin during TGT.

It's takes a lot of time indeed. Statistically it takes around ~125 games to reach legend from rank 5 with a 60% winrate.

Tru

That is not the ranks buddy. We are not doubting your winrate.

Lord Jaraxxus

Haha, I live!? - Dude from Noble Sacrefice

Whenever I get this piece of garbage into play I only get Bearsharks and Bloodfen Raptor.. What am I doing wrong?