• 1

    posted a message on How to make Hearthstone more enjoyable

    And, yet, you continue to post here, even after you claimed to have stopped playing the game.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 7

    posted a message on Lunar Blessings is This Week's Tavern Brawl

    Just played a game with Pen Flinger and Year of the Pig. Could ping every single minion on my opponent's board, costing me nothing.

    That was pretty freaking fun!

    Posted in: News
  • 0

    posted a message on Unholy DK potential
    Quote from Suke >>

    Anti-Magic Shell feels just outdated in general. Your guys keep getting hit by spells cast from the Nagaling's battlecry, they get hit by the Mage hero power from Reckless Apprentice, they can be targeted by Locations which were not a thing when this card originally appeared and there's a lot of untargeted damage going around besides. I wonder if a mechanic of "can only be targeted (or damaged?) by attacks" would be too OP but currently it feels too flimsy.

     I've personally always liked the idea of some minions having full-on magic immunity: can't be harmed at all by hero powers or spells (including things like Twisting Nether). But that's mainly because I hate spell-only decks.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

     I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond.

    1) Not sure I understand your point about objective measure of power levels. Yes, you can (to some degree) calculate the "real" mana value of a particular card by looking at stats, draw, battlecry direct damage, taunt, etc. And, yes, current decks are vastly more powerful than "vanilla" decks you could create using Core cards. So what? Unless you're trying to make the case that people should be able to ladder with reasonable success using a vanilla deck (which is silly; see below), all that matters in terms of meta balance is the relative power of various decks.

    2) A bad deck is, by definition, one that is unlikely to win against any meta deck. Thus, the idea that a balanced meta (which is what this thread is about) should "leave room" for bad decks is absurd. That's logically impossible. If you play a deck with a 20% win rate, you're not going to ladder effectively. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that people should play the game for fun. If your idea of fun is playing some goofy deck with a lousy winrate, go for it. Nothing in HS prevents you from doing so. But the "cost" of that fun is that you're going to lose a lot, earn less XP, and not move up the ladder. If you want to ladder, you need to play a deck that's at least competitive.

    3) I'm not an aggro player, but still don't get the aggro hate you're sending out. Some people do find them fun, even if I don't. As I've tried to explain, without good viable decks of each style, there's no hope for a balanced meta. I hate decks like Face Hunter with a passion, but I recognize they play an important role in the meta. I would also point out that aggro decks are, historically, significantly cheaper than midrange or control decks and are, therefore, easier to build and more popular with new players. You say you're concerned about new players: hurting aggro hurts them.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

    So, a few comments on some of the more recent posts. All very interesting.

    @M1ch43l: Disagree. Blizzard certainly does care about deck winrate. In fact, I'd say in most cases a specific deck's winrate is the primary reason for a nerf. They look at a deck, try to figure out which card is the most problematic, and reduce its power. Now, certainly it also looks at how many decks the card is in. (That appears to be what they did for Theotar, the Mad Duke) But I think that's a less common occurrence.

    @XanKortal: Interesting. I hadn't really thought about class playrate as a metric. Not sure how I feel about that, since I don't care as much about whether class X is a dumpster fire for a given expansion (as long as each class eventually gets a good deck). In fact, I think I'd argue that it's good for a given class to suck for a while: it encourages people to learn how to play other classes, which I think improves the overall quality of play. (Maybe.) And, I think if you balance across deck types, you're going to get a reasonable spread of classes as well.

    @DrFlan: To some degree, a healthy meta will always have an element of rock, paper, scissors. I'm primarily a control deck player, so going into a match against a midrange deck, I know I'm at a disadvantage. But, I think the key question is: how big a disadvantage? (Some of this will obviously depend on what type of control deck I'm playing.) Assuming equal player skill, is 60/40 too big? I don't know, but that doesn't seem unreasonable. It's close enough that you still have a decent chance of winning, but still encourages a diversity of deck types.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on This is what ruins the game/fun etc
    Quote from Anarchy1 >>

     It does take much more to build a deck from scratch. Especially in wild were you have much more cards and nearly anything can reach at least d5 if not legend if built correct. And that might depend on a single card or two. And no, the decks I built don’t share 27 cards with meta decks :D

     Again, depends on the archetype. If you're building a well-established archetype (say, Even Shaman), it really doesn't take much more knowledge. If, on the other hand, you're coming up with some completely new, off-meta deck (Pirate Shaman), then yes, you'll need to spend more time refining it so that it can compete in the meta. But even then, we're not talking about some deep knowledge of the inner workings of HS. We're mostly talking about trial and error. (In that case, probably a lot of error.)

    My issue with TMRobinson's post is his insinuation that a) deck builders are superior to the unwashed masses that use meta decks; and b) that everyone SHOULD build their own decks. It's a stupid and insulting position. To use a personal example, my favorite hobby is brewing beer. And I'm actually pretty freaking good at it. I've won several homebrew awards and am constantly being bugged by friends for for a few bottles of my latest batch. But I don't strut around saying, "You can't really appreciate beer unless you make your own, like me. Beer drinking would be so much better if people were like me. Aren't I special?" If you like to buy beer, great. (Hell, most of the beer I drink I buy.) But, for me, making my own is fun.

    HS is a game: games exist to have fun. People telling other people how to have fun need to STFU.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

    Thanks for your comments. For the record, I don't like C either, but these decks are very definitely out there and some people really like them. And, remember, spell-based is not the same as burn. Spell Hunter (from back in the day) did make heavy use of spell-created minions.

    The reason I put A forward is because there are a lot of players who play one class exclusively/ heavily. It's the "I'm a Paladin main" sort of thing. How much should Blizzard factor class preference into balancing decisions? Personally, while I do have favored classes, I'm pretty willing to play any class (except DH: I just frickin hate everything about it). So, for me, this is a non-issue. If Mage is in the crapper, I'll play a Rogue deck for the next few months, as long as it's a fun deck. But you constantly hear, "Blizzard hate [insert class here]."

    Good point regarding win rate, though I would say that aiming for that gets very complicated very quickly. Nerfing any deck reduces the number of people willing to play it. If Blizzard doesn't know how many people will quit playing Miracle Rogue when it gets nerfed this month (as seems likely) or what decks they'll migrate to, it's very hard for the company to know what that nerf will do to winrates across the board. Some other deck's winrate may increase more than expected. I have often wondered if that's why balance changes so often fail: Blizzard fails to realize how players will react to a give nerf or buff. That's why I wonder if it's just easier to aggregate them into aggro, midrange, control, and combo. It makes the analysis somewhat easier. Maybe aiming for a winrate no higher than 55% for each type of deck is more feasible.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on This is what ruins the game/fun etc
    Quote from TMRobinson >>
    Quote from TallStranger >>
    Quote from TMRobinson >>
    The sad thing is most pros and streamers still dictate the meta and very few players actually spend the time and patience to build a deck of their own that works.

     Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag here. The reason you see "netdecks" is because the decks they create (which they "actually spend the time and patience to build") ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. Why? Because the current crop of cards in Standard provide sufficient support for said decks. There's a reason you don't see an Undead Hunter or Pirate Shaman. You'd have to be an idiot to try to ladder with it.

    I'd venture to bet that most people, if they bothered, could come up with a Quest DH deck that is 95% identical to the "meta" deck that a streamer puts together. It's not that hard. So why waste valuable time reinventing the wheel? I could grow my own food, but I'd rather go to the grocery store.

    I swear, some people think it takes some deep brilliance to put together a deck of 30 cards. It's not rocket science.

     No it's not rocket science and yet everyone just copies tier 1 and 2 decks from HS replay or any other deck site. I wouldn't call it deep brilliance but yes players need a deeper understanding of the game to build a deck that functions well from top to bottom (early game to late game). I'd say 1 out of every 10 games do i see someone using a meta deck that has a single different card than the net deck version. At a certain point it becomes so easy to counter because every turn is so predictable. Judging by the fact that you've posted no decks on this site and you've been a member since 2016 leads me to believe you've always copied others decks and you're trying to justify not taking the effort to do it yourself.

    1) No, actually, you don't need "a deeper understanding of the game" to build a good deck. You need a few functioning brain cells and some experience playing the game. To take a dated example, look at Mech Mage. Do you honestly want to tell me that creating that deck takes a deep understanding of the game? Any idiot could create that deck in 10 minutes. Over time, people realized that certain cards weren't very good in the deck, but that's a change at the margin. The basic wincon and play choices remained pretty steady. I realize some people need to feel like they're special by saying "I create my own decks," but in most cases, they've taken 28 cards shared by all decks of that archetype, tossed in a couple different cards, and walked away telling themselves they're better than everyone else.

    2) That said, the very term netdeck is stupid. As an example, I looked up deck lists for the contemporary version of Miracle Rogue. Some of the decks use Necrolord Draka, others use Astalor Bloodsworn. Some use Gone Fishin', some Tooth of Nefarian. So, which one's the netdeck? Look at any of the major archetypes and you'll find the same: 90% identical, with a few differences (often tech cards). When most people complain about netdecks, what they're really complaining about is the fact that the number of high-performing archetypes is too small.

    3) As for your snide little deckbuilding comment, here's a news flash for you: One can, in fact, create a deck without posting it here. Those are two separate things. I do, periodically, create decks entirely of my own, mostly to play either in Casual or at a floor in Ladder. If I'm looking to climb the ladder, I'll typically look at 4-5 different version of the deck I'm interested in playing to see what cards are in common and which ones are different. The cards that all the decks have in common are usually going to account for 27 or 28 of the cards in the deck. Then, I'll make a decision about what the final couple of cards will be. That decision will depend on a) what cards I have/ what I'd need to craft and b) what decks I have been seeing on ladder. Does that make me a hated "netdecker?" I don't know and I don't care. I'm having fun and succeeding. In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess that sometimes I find a deck that looks good and fun, so I copy it entirely. I sure hope that doesn't make you lose respect for me. /sarcasm

    4) While we're on the subject of people's decks, I took a look at yours. Yeah, I see what you mean. That N'Zoth Deathrattle Hunter was really cutting edge. I'm sure no one else thought of it. Same for your Quest DH. I'm blown away.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on This is what ruins the game/fun etc
    Quote from TMRobinson >>
    The sad thing is most pros and streamers still dictate the meta and very few players actually spend the time and patience to build a deck of their own that works.

     Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag here. The reason you see "netdecks" is because the decks they create (which they "actually spend the time and patience to build") ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. Why? Because the current crop of cards in Standard provide sufficient support for said decks. There's a reason you don't see an Undead Hunter or Pirate Shaman. You'd have to be an idiot to try to ladder with it.

    I'd venture to bet that most people, if they bothered, could come up with a Quest DH deck that is 95% identical to the "meta" deck that a streamer puts together. It's not that hard. So why waste valuable time reinventing the wheel? I could grow my own food, but I'd rather go to the grocery store.

    I swear, some people think it takes some deep brilliance to put together a deck of 30 cards. It's not rocket science.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

    Interesting. Thanks for responding.

    My only problem with a) is that, by that definition, we've never had a balanced meta. There have always been top-tier decks and crappy ones. I can recall a time when every class was "the one to beat." I'd say some have had more time at the top than others, but all have had their day.

    As for going to legend, my question there is does that make sense if the vast majority of players don't want to hit legend? Also, (and many may not want to hear this) there's also a skill question at some point on the ladder, and certainly by the time you hit Legend. Certain decks have a much higher skill cap than others. A player who cannot get above Silver is simply not as good as someone who can get to D5. So, would we have to "dumb down" decks to make it possible for every class to reach Legend? Not sure.

    Does anyone know the breakdown of how many players hit the various levels by the end of the month? That might help us figure out what level we should be aiming for.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

    We now know that, later this month, Blizzard will be releasing some balance changes. There have also been countless threads here about the need to nerf this deck/ card. But, what never seems to be addressed is what we mean by a "balanced" meta? In most cases, the poster calling for a nerf completely fails to address what will happen AFTER that nerf takes effect. What will that change do to other decks? What deck will then be the new top dog? (For example, many are calling for nerfs to Miracle Rogue and Quest DH. Will that, as seems likely, make Spitter Hunter the dominant deck?)

    So, let me ask you all, is a balanced meta:

    a) one in which every class has a viable deck to ladder? If so, how high? Legend? Diamond? Platinum?; OR

    b) one in which every type of deck (aggro, midrange, control, combo) has a viable deck?; OR

    c) one in which both minion-based and spell-based decks are viable?; OR

    d) some other condition I can't think of.

    I, speaking for myself, lean towards b), but could be convinced otherwise. Would love to hear some real thoughts and analysis, vice bile. (May be asking too much!)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Druid is turning meta toxic
    Quote from emkarab >>

     Quest Rogue was in the same spot - beatable, but still toxic and preventing meta diversity.

     As I recall, Quest Rogue was only nerfed because it was a "feel bad to play against" type deck. There were no balance issues with it, and it certainly wasn't a high winrate deck. (That said, it's been a while and my memory on this is fuzzy, so I could be wrong.)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Druid is turning meta toxic
    Quote from olestuga >>
    Quote from TallStranger >>
    Quote from olestuga >>

    Who doesn't know that you can use an equally or more busted deck to beat another busted deck?

    'No deck has 100% win rate' does not equate to 'nothing is broken or OP'.

     As was pointed out in a different thread, "busted" or "OP" only has meaning in relation to other decks. So if there are multiple "busted" decks, there are, in fact, none.

     By that logic, balance changes shouldn't be necessary, because no card is busted or OP if there are multiple busted cards. 

     No. Not even remotely accurate. Cards are judged by different criteria, for obvious reasons. Decks can only be judged by winrate, by definition relative to one another. (Let me play an off-meta Standard deck against the best decks in Classic, and my winrate will be obscene.) Cards, however, must be judged not only by winrate when played, but also by the classes/ decks it can be played in and the synergies it has with other cards. For example, if a player could put Purified Shard in his opening deck, it would be horribly broken. But, given the class it's limited to and the hoops one has to jump through to get and play the card, only a nutjob would call it OP. Similarly, Stealer of Souls isn't a good card without The Demon Seed. But the synergy between the two made it utterly broken and got it banned in Wild.

    Balance changes are typically done because either a) a specific card has an unforeseen but massive impact (usually as a result of pairing it with another card) that renders the overall deck too strong (see, for example, Wretched Tiller when paired with Deathspeaker and the unnerfed Hysteria); or b) a deck's overall winrate (i.e., RELATIVE strength) is too high and Blizzard believes that a particular card or cards in the deck are primarily responsible. Since it is virtually impossible to have 3-4 decks with too high a winrate (I think Blizzard starts getting worried when it hits the high 50s, but don't quote me on that), you probably cannot realistically have more than 2 "broken" decks at any given point in the meta.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Druid is turning meta toxic
    Quote from olestuga >>

    Who doesn't know that you can use an equally or more busted deck to beat another busted deck?

    'No deck has 100% win rate' does not equate to 'nothing is broken or OP'.

     As was pointed out in a different thread, "busted" or "OP" only has meaning in relation to other decks. So if there are multiple "busted" decks, there are, in fact, none.

    It sounds to me like you have a preferred class or deck that simply does not perform well in the current meta. Guess what: everyone who's played this game a while has been there. In this situation, you have two choices: play a deck that performs well in the current meta, or play the decks you enjoy and don't worry about climbing the ladder. (I do this all the time. Seriously, laddering is not that important.) Instead, however, you seem insistent on demanding changes to the game so that YOU can have more fun. You're free to do so, of course, but you can't offer a rational (vice personal) argument for it.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on DK Isn't Weak, The Old Meta Is Too Strong
    Quote from BroF1sT >>
    Quote from Scorpyon >>
    Quote from BroF1sT >>
    Quote from Scorpyon >>

    Have to disagree. Of all the decks I am currently running, my Blood DK deck is the only one (barring Celestial Druid) that remains almost unbeaten. In fact, when I test a new deck, like OTK Hunter, etc, and it fails miserably, DK is the deck I go back o to cheer myself up again! Haha!

    I did try a Full Hybrid DK (one of each Rune - it was bad), and an UnHoly DK (it was average), so it may be that the other DK decks are lacking in power a little, but Blood DK is definitely uber-strong in the right hands.

    Cool story, bro. I didn't even have to buy (Gold) any new expansion packs to realize how smoothly I was gliding through Ranked with all those fancy new decks trying (and failing) to be as unfair as Imp-Curselock.

    Quick glance at HSreplay confirmed, the DK Class is actually unplayable competitively, the "strongest" list roaming barely around 50% . Extra Miserable stats against Imp-Curselock (My Top 200 Legend deck of last month) as well as vs Ramp Druid.

    Then again you are probably a Diamond ranked dude (at best) so your fancy Blood DK is getting you somewhere in Silver/Gold.

    Hearthstone Decks - HSReplay.net

    Blood DK at 60%+ winrate... seems pretty playable to me...

    Please someone tell me, this 🤡 is not for real ?

    So ur showing us a example with 300 Games Samplesize, but not enough you didn't even bother to specify which rank, just the general / all ranks setting.

    How did this Amateur who doesn't even know how to navigate HSreplay properly become a Moderator in here ? Yuck.

    Blood DK is unplayable, let me repeat. Un-play-able at Legend if you want to climb, without having to amass enough sample size that would require like 12 hours a day in front of your computer, trying to break even.

    Warlock and Druid are the only playable classes right now if you plan to rank really high. But why listen to someone who was among the best 200 Hearthstone players in Europe just last month, when you can just troll and defend your nons as a Moderator, right ?

    Instead of attempting to reach Legend rank for the first time, why don't you just go ahead, make good use of those pOwErS - ban me, because I'am obviously mocking you... and having a BLAST with it. lul. 

     And this, boys and girls, is why you NEVER post while high.

    Seriously, dude. I'm not sure what's sadder: your pathetic effort to bait him or the fact that you think your argument makes an ounce of sense.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.