Hearthpwn

Quote from proptionstrade >>

 What I think yourself and many others that craft questlock might be failing to take into account is that D6 (which is the iteration that many GMs played and that many people have crafted) is a high skill cap decklist that can be incredibly strong in the hands of a top tier pro but not necessarily so much when piloted by the average player or even most people in legend. That deck actually does have a relatively low wr at every rank where it is played including legend, and the reason why is that it is difficult to play optimally. So I think context is important to take into account here.

 Hahahahahahahahahah what’s the skillcap? Draw draw draw discount, vomit stuff, heal, heal, clear board, have no punishment in decisions? Lol dude the warlock deck ain’t a science. The mirror match is not even decided by who pilots the deck better, but who draws better. Nice try pal… hearthstone ain’t that skilled and is def the joke of “esports”. Matter oF fact hearthstone “pros” are just there because they play 15-20 hours a day 🤣 of course the winrate will be flawless. While you sleep, or have sex or are at work they are playing nonstop “grinding” infinite to keep those spots month to month. Hearthstone in it’s current form it’s very poor on decision making and with discover and the rng% being so high, the game the least it has it’s “skillcap”.  

 Ok, you've clearly never played the deck and are also apparently incredibly salty, lol. D6 is difficult to play well. If you don't believe me feel free to ask any of your standard legend friends, if you have any. I myself am consistently high legend and am triple legend this month, and I had difficulty playing the deck optimally. It's not just "draw draw draw", you have to balance draw with completing the quest, clearing the board, and ensuring that your opponent doesn't kill you in the process. And there is considerable APM and decision making involved with any drawn out combos. Note that I am referring specifically to the D6 iteration of the archetype, not the giants version. 

Quote from Pherosizm >>

Quote from Kathranis >>

Most of the suggestions in the thread would just make the quest unplayable, and it's already a low winrate deck.

 "iTs A lOw WiNrAtE dECk"

That's why every single person at GMs recently brought some form of a questlock deck. It's such a low winrate deck. All those clowns are just memeing on us bringing such a low winrate deck. How silly.

 What I think yourself and many others that craft questlock might be failing to take into account is that D6 (which is the iteration that many GMs played and that many people have crafted) is a high skill cap decklist that can be incredibly strong in the hands of a top tier pro but not necessarily so much when piloted by the average player or even most people in legend. That deck actually does have a relatively low wr at every rank where it is played including legend, and the reason why is that it is difficult to play optimally. So I think context is important to take into account here.

Quote from tripzplash >>

wow my deck now have the highst win rate on all rank in wild now :)

 It has the highest wr in bronze through gold, which is what you've taken a screenshot of. Not so much in high diamond/legend, although the archetype still does quite well throughout ladder.

Quote from tripzplash >>

Quote from Sevasmios >>

This is impressive and congrats, but people should take your win rate/success with a grain of salt before they attempt to craft this deck. As you noted, having never played wild your mmr in the format was as low as it could possibly be, which essentially means that you qued into the most inexperienced or easy to win against players on the ladder for much of your run. That's not to take away from how well you did, but I think players with mmr that is higher relative to yours (which is pretty much everyone since you had the lowest conceivable mmr) should take this into consideration before they potentially spend dust in an attempt to replicate your results.   

 i agree i meet very easy players up to diamind 7 then i started to meet alot better players that know how to play... i get to legend each season in standard so i know how to play the game 100% but i just never wanted to play wild becouse the deck there is very overpowered... but compared to standard this season the power level is not that far off now lol but thats a bad thing

 Very interesting that you say diamond 7 was the cutoff, it's always been diamond 5-4 for me. As for power levels, I think quest lock in wild is still a good deal stronger than d6 in standard, but it definitely does feel like the game is much faster and more uninteractive now in both standard and wild so they do kind of blend together. It will be interesting to see which, if any, control archetypes become viable/popular over the course of this expansion. 

This is impressive and congrats, but people should take your win rate/success with a grain of salt before they attempt to craft this deck. As you noted, having never played wild your mmr in the format was as low as it could possibly be, which essentially means that you qued into the most inexperienced or easy to win against players on the ladder for much of your run. That's not to take away from how well you did, but I think players with mmr that is higher relative to yours (which is pretty much everyone since you had the lowest conceivable mmr) should take this into consideration before they potentially spend dust in an attempt to replicate your results.   

This is an interesting question bc, according to hsreplay, the decks that do best into quest lock vary depending on where on the ladder said decks are qued. In high legend, ignite mage, face priest, and mozaki (in that order) are strongest against quest lock over the last week. In diamond, however, it's secret pala, then mozaki, then various iterations of face priest. Since you are in diamond, it seems advisable that you go with secret pala or mozaki or face priest. It's also worth noting that mozaki has the highest sample size by a considerable margin relative to the other two archetypes (420 games as opposed to 90 for pala and 180 for priest), so statistically it appears to be the most reliable option into quest lock if you're queuing in diamond.

Out of curiosity, what star bonus did you start the month with? And congrats on your success with the deck!

I have to say, I find it hard to agree with the premise of this thread. To the OP, I don't know if this is your first time getting to legend (it kind of sounds like it is if your incredulity is any indication), but players in legend make misplays all the time. Admittedly the ones that you've cited here are pretty bad, but these things happen. People make stupid mistakes at every rank. Even the best players in the world are prone to make the occasional blatant misplay that someone at a considerably lower skill/experience level might not have made. All of which is to say, this whole "look at this these legend players made some stupid mistakes so legend is super easy now" argument you're making is illogical to say the least. 

Quote from Hardyguard >>

I mean there is a deck that is always viable and easy to go with, but the question is either you are ready to play on that sh*t or not. Lots of players find it pretty cancerous. It works well against Quest warlocks.

It's a secret mage. 

 I admittedly haven't played wild/qued secret since the 1st of the month, but I'm fairly certain secret mage does not do well into quest warlock or in the current wild meta in general. Certainly not if its winrate according to HSreplay is any indication. The archetype is just too slow and awkward now. Even before the quest, glare was not a favorable matchup for secret. And when you consider how secret hasn't changed or increased in power level at all with the advent of the new expansion, I think it's safe to say that at least for now, secret mage is fairly obsolete in the grand scheme of the wild meta. 

anyone else get an error code (0) every time they try to connect?

Quote from P4dge >>

Quote from RolandofGilead >>

Quote from Pyrokinesis >>

I don't care about any of those i just want cards man

 I can say with 100% certainty that anyone up voting this comment is a white male, like me.

It's very hard to do, but I encourage anyone reading this to really imagine experiencing something like harassment or racism, and then you can be just a little bit less selfish, for the betterment of all.

 

"very hard to do"

Oh wow, how patronising and ignorant. I lived in an Arab country for a good part of my life, a country that legit has zero regard for rights like this. No HR. Nobody gives a shit if you're treated badly and I've had everything from not being able to shop in places because I'm white, being refused entry at 'normal' price, being removed from buses for insisting on paying the local price and not the white price, being openly talked about and laughed at on a personal and cultural level because they assume you don't understand the Arabic. Literally every day I'd have to give up in a shop, spend ages arguing about transport, ignoring the cat calls, weird noises and hisses made my way when I walked down the main street, having to take an escort with me to do X, Y or Z. When political riots kicked off, my uncle was targeted for being white and beaten to the point he later died. Yes, I know how it feels and no, Allie is doing fuck all to help anybody in that position. 

People like you love to pay yourself on the back at your computer screen. Get up and do something useful instead of preaching for Internet brownie points. 

 It sounds like your experience in the Middle East was terrible and I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your uncle. But, with respect, none of that means that Allie is in the wrong bc she is making a gesture to condemn gender discrimination in the work place. Regardless of whether you feel that said gesture is meaningless and that it does nothing to help people in positions like yours was in the ME, it is nonetheless an act that draws attention to this lawsuit and, consequently, gender discrimination in the work place. If nothing else is taken away from this other than increased awareness, that in and of itself justifies what she is doing for me. You may disagree, but I'm sure we can at least agree that increased awareness regarding a pertinent and pervasive social issue is something we should strive for. Awareness may incentivize people that were previously unaware or unconcerned to act, and if more people stand up against discrimination, there is a greater chance that it may be diminished or even reduced to the point of irrelevancy.  

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Sevasmios >>

 But it is relevant, because it represents a separation/difference between the old system and the new. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, but what I've saying for the last several comments is that the skill floor for attaining legend in the old system is higher relative to the skill floor for attaining it in the new system. I never said that it was impossible back in the day or that there was a limit on the number of games you could play to get there. So it absolutely matters how long it takes, if how long it takes is directly correlated to how consistent (read: skilled) a player has to be to get to legend. Greater consistency was required in the old system to reach legend, as is demonstrated by my statistic, so it follows that greater skill was required. This is the crux of everything I've been saying and you don't seem to understand or be capable of addressing that, lol. So once again, you have not addressed my argument. As for whether reaching legend in and of itself is a good indicator of skill, that is an entirely different conversation to the one we have been having. I have clearly been making the case that more skill was required to get to legend in the old system than is now required in the new system, not that legend is "a good indicator of skill". You directly argued against this viewpoint when you wrote "But the skill needed hasn't changed", and you have been actively arguing against it in your last several posts. So it's more than a bit disingenuous to now claim that you were never really opposed to the premise that legend was harder in the old system and that you were just saying that "legend is not a good indicator of skill" the entire time.

 My original statement -- the one you chose to snipe at in the first place -- was never about how long it takes. It was only about the possibility. "Can this player reach legend, yes or no?" Not "How long will it take this player to reach legend?"

You took it upon yourself to reframe the discussion in terms of consistency and time, and then you insisted that you were right and I was wrong even though we weren't even talking about the same thing. You continually tell me I'm not addressing your points, even though your points have nothing to do with my original statement. You are, in effect, cheating at debate like the shadiest politician, and I'm very tired of talking to you.

 Apologies for the delayed response, I wasn't notified that you had responded for some reason. As I've established in the post you responded to, you took it upon yourself to directly disagree with my argument that legend was harder to achieve within the old system than the new. I literally quoted you doing so. So as far as I'm concerned this is pretty cut and dried. There is no "cheating" on my end, just you attempting to act as if an argument in which you could not come up with valid counter-points/rebuttals to any of my points, did not happen. I won't deny that my argument may not have had everything to do with your original comment, but the conversation we were having did develop to the point that we ended up talking about something that wasn't completely aligned with your original comment. That's how conversations work sometimes; sometimes topics change. So yeah, that's all to say I don't blame you for wanting to be done with this conversation, given how unfavorably it has developed for you.

Quote from Rippy >>

• Influencers must do their job as the contracts says.
• Guilty must be proven by laws and lawyers.

Influencers are the only proven guilty at the moment.

 What "contract" are you referring to? So far as I'm aware, there is no contract that compels the streamers provided with a card to release said card. Sure, they're given a date and a time slot, but they aren't legally obligated to release the card tmk, unless you have a source that says otherwise? 

I'm generally not one to comment on this sort of thing, but these streamers are perfectly justified in withholding their card releases as far as I'm concerned. They are doing what they can to call attention/bring awareness to workplace discrimination and moreover to stand against it. If some people are upset that they can't see some cards on their virtual TCG a little earlier than they would otherwise and don't think that standing up to one of the largest social issues we currently face in America is worthy of that relatively trivial inconvenience, then frankly I think they should reconsider their priorities. This is bigger than Hearthstone people, and it's certainly bigger than getting a sneak preview of some virtual cards you think might be cool.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Because your statistic is not relevant. There is no limit to the number of games you can play in your attempt to reach legend, so it does not matter how long it takes. Two players of differing skill levels (or playing different speeds of decks) may take different amounts of time to get there, but they will both get there. So, back to my original point, reaching legend (which is a binary state, not a time-based spectrum) is not a good indicator of skill and never was.

Go back and read my first post to remind yourself what you're actually arguing against.

 But it is relevant, because it represents a separation/difference between the old system and the new. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here, but what I've saying for the last several comments is that the skill floor for attaining legend in the old system is higher relative to the skill floor for attaining it in the new system. I never said that it was impossible back in the day or that there was a limit on the number of games you could play to get there. So it absolutely matters how long it takes, if how long it takes is directly correlated to how consistent (read: skilled) a player has to be to get to legend. Greater consistency was required in the old system to reach legend, as is demonstrated by my statistic, so it follows that greater skill was required. This is the crux of everything I've been saying and you don't seem to understand or be capable of addressing that, lol. So once again, you have not addressed my argument. As for whether reaching legend in and of itself is a good indicator of skill, that is an entirely different conversation to the one we have been having. I have clearly been making the case that more skill was required to get to legend in the old system than is now required in the new system, not that legend is "a good indicator of skill". You directly argued against this viewpoint when you wrote "But the skill needed hasn't changed", and you have been actively arguing against it in your last several posts. So it's more than a bit disingenuous to now claim that you were never really opposed to the premise that legend was harder in the old system and that you were just saying that "legend is not a good indicator of skill" the entire time.