Just a normal day in wild.
Your deck looks like tier 6 range btw.
Just a normal day in wild.
Your deck looks like tier 6 range btw.
Nice try (as all tries before).
Spell damage hunter will stay a meme deck. You rarely can put enough pressure on the opponent in the early game to be able to finish him off with spells so much later (Vareesa being too slow / too expensive).
I will never play wild again cause all I saw where standard decks in wild don’t tell people that wild is different when all I saw were meta standard decks in wild
This may be true if you play bronze 10-5 with an mmr close to the innkeeper.
Try getting anywhere in wild with a standard deck and you're in for some serious disappointments
Export to BBCode Export to Cockatrice Export to MarkDown Export to Html Clone this deck Minion (13) Ability (15) Weapon (2) Loading Collection
What's this list? Looks weak af
So, you're not only complaining about your situation but call the new ranking system that affects all hearthstone players a disgrace.
Why? Because you want to play your homebrew decks (which are of a best case mediocre power level). Plus you want to climb on the ladder.
Can't you see that this cannot work? Who ever stated that ranked mode is for people who want to play subpar decks and win nevertheless enough times to advance in ranks?
If you want to play underpowered decks you, can always switch to casual. Many people complain there are netdeckers as well but maybe you just want to see if your own decks stand a chance against them?
Sorry but to call the ranking system a disgrace only because it doesn't favor your playstyle is very whiny and selfish as well.
The system doesn't hurt f2p players. Only players who don't want to spend time or money or energy on the game have a disadvantage but one should only consider this as fair.
As long as you think making decks that don't happen to have been made by many others is 'the' way to play, you're just going to continue winding yourself up.
The problem you seem to have is that you don't seem to grasp that the way YOU enjoy the game is kot the same way that others enjoy it. So if you don't have the emotional intelligence to consider why other people don't enjoy making decks with the purpose of them being unique, you're again going to continue to wind yourself up.
The game designers themselves include a feature that allows you to import deck codes. So by design they want people to share and use decks or at the very least, enable it. If they simply enable it then it leads me to suspect that its because the majority of people want that feature. Which puts you in the minority.
If you have tons of time to sit and tweak decks Iver the course of hours, sound. Not everyone does, I don't enjoy deck building, it's not a part of the game I find interesting or fun. I also have things like a family, friends, social and work commitments, I don't have hours to pour over whether one card needs changing out or not.
You're incorrectly conflating deck building and playing the game. I see an expansion reveal and I know the types of decks and cards I want to try out. I could spend a week messing about, getting annoyed because I'm not a very good deck builder, before I naturally change my deck to something more effective or I can see the ideas that much better deck builders have and I get to use the cards I want to play with.
You need to accept that your way is not 'the' way. Clearly the majority of players and the developers themselves don't agree with you.
I'll tell you what would happen if you remove the ability to share and import decks.....
First, you lose a bunch of players. There are tons of reasons people don't play the way you do, they may be free to play and just can't afford to tweak and trial, they may kot enjoy it etc etc etc. So remove this feature and you likely lose a chunk of players. Then those left will naturally end up where we are now anyway. When I started playing the game, I had absolutely no clue what I was doing. I got wrecked by a DK warlock deck. Right I thought, I'll make that! So I scrambled together what I could and make a control lock deck. I played a while, encountered plenty of mirrors and their decks were simply superior. Ahhhh, I thought, I shouldn't have THAT card, that last person had a different one and that makes a ton of sense. I'm the end, I ended up with basically a netdecked control lock. I had no idea what 'netdecking' was (cringe term btw), I had just started playing the game and was adapting to getting rolled over by more refined decks. Then as I played more and more I looked hearthstone up online, found forums and sites etc and came to realise there were tons of deck ideas out there that I could try. Far better way to play the game, from my perspective.
Stop treating the way you choose to play ad the only acceptable way. You're creating this rule yourself and then getting frustrated that others don't follow it, which is ridiculous.
'homebrew' is just code for 'shit deck' or 'less than optimal deck' but little nerds love using it to try and claim some sort of weird highground. Not everyone can live in a card game man, some of us have shit to do.
I get your point and kinda agree OP.
but also I wanna add something. with this new core set rotating thing, we are losing Hall of Famed cards and the dust boost that we get every year.
I think that HoF dust thing contributes most of my dust value, like every year I would get 5000-8000 dust. now that system is gone, about 60% of the dust income is gone as well.
I also want to point out that now they are planning to add mini-set to every expansion this year, which would mean players need more resources to keep up with 170 cards per expansion instead of 135.
I am kinda hopeful that they said there will be more rewards about the next expansion reward track, but I doubt that that would be enough to keep up with 170x3 cards this year.
to conclude, I am skeptical about when they say they will make this game more affordable. I think they are making the game more expensive but they are tying to do that discreetly.
I'm currently at Level 25 and need 3,450 XP for the 150g that comes with reaching Level 26. This represents almost 4 daily quests' XP. In the old system it would've taken fewer than 3 dailies to net the same gold.
While the new system has its flaws, this kind of manipulation is simply ridiculous.
You pretend that weekly quests don't exist. We are talking about 6500 weakly XP, aka ~900 XP per day. That means you are simply ignoring nearly a half of daily XP gain from quests. That means that 3450 XP takes two days (min daily XP is 800XP(min daily quest)+900XP (1/7th of weekly quests) And don't say me that doing weekly quests is too hard. It is no harder than doing all dailies.
I'm just comparing like for like. Will I get the same if I do the same? I agree that many of the weeklies are easy to finish, but they are additional.
Pay-walling an uncraftable legendary...err yeah that sounds right up Blizzard's alley. Great.
They can try it if they like, the back-lash on reddit (and here too I guess lol) would be massive, and probably justified. They don't need to be borrowing crap ideas from fortnite.
IMO fuck anything in the games industry to do with "Passes" - pre-order passes...DLC 'premium' passes...now fucking Battlepasses...wtf is this shit? Can we please stop encouraging the suits to squeeze and bleed us dry. This shite is rotting the game industry from the inside and its nothing to do with devs, just suits pushing for more and more profit all the time with zero connection to the players or the artform and it's itegrity.
Fuck those guys and fuck the publishers and shareholders.
Normally, they put the OP cards in the third set of the year.
This year, they jumped the gun and added a bunch of ridiculous cards from Wild before the third set came out.
Once those Wild cards are gone (at the same time as the third set is released), I'm sure the game will be plagued by the normal third-set OP-ness. So things will be different, but not necessarily better.
It's a crushing disappointment, really. The year started out with such promise -- Blizzard basically admitted to a terrible design mistake from last year at the same time as another set of terrible design mistakes rotated out naturally. The optimism mounted as they did something cool by buffing old cards, then actually reined in two of those buffs that quickly proved problematic.
But now here we are -- AGAIN -- with Blizzard staunchly refusing to admit that they went too far in "shaking up the meta" this time with those Wild cards. Nope, we're stuck with them until set three comes out.
Except we're not. We can play other games, and maybe we'll even fail to notice when set three comes out, because there are an awful lot of other interesting games to spend money on these days, right now and in the not-so-distant future.
Blizzcon promises more drama than hype this year, and I honestly don't imagine anything at that show will make up for the unbelievable string of blunders Blizzard has been making in terms of both PR and game design.
From a free-to-play perspective, none of that should matter at all. You should not expect to be able to participate equally in all aspects of the game if you are not paying, and you absolutely should not expect to have access to exclusive cosmetic items.
Single-player content is completely optional, so again, there's nothing wrong with asking people to pay for it.
I didn't mention these as examples for how the game is becoming less fair, but for how Blizzard's increasing its efforts to monetize the game. Bad structuring of the paragraph on my part.
it is either disingenuous or truly ignorant to compare adventures such as Naxxramus to full expansions like Saviors of Uldum. I have trouble believing you actually can't see the difference.
I can certainly understand why you personally might prefer the Naxx type of content delivery, but at the time there were many players complaining that the best cards were uncraftable and locked behind a pay wall. It seems Blizzard simply cannot win.
I do see a difference between an adventure and an expansion. I even pointed out why some might prefer expansions over adventures. Not sure what you are confused about.
Anyway, my point was that 2800/3500 gold or 25$ for all new cards in a 4 month period is a lot more accomodating to someone's attempts to keep up/expand his collection than an expansion every 4 months where you can (and likely will) spend 80$ and more without getting close to all the (good) cards. And I think, not having this "break" anymore is too much for many players, while from the business perspective, adventures were not hurting Blizzard either.
Again, I am aware some people felt unhappy about the structuring of adventures as well; how you could only purchase cards in order and not have the option to craft only those that you wanted, but I mostly disagree with these people. Both, because I think an expansion is a lot harder to catch up on than an adventure, and because I think that what you can legimitately criticise about adventures could have also been adressed without giving up the idea entirely.
The most recent Activision/Blizzard earnings statement indicated a quarter-over-quarter increase in MAUs for Hearthstone, Are you accusing them of lying to their investors? That's a pretty serious charge.
I said "generally", as in "with exceptions". Look at the 2018 annual report, and you'll see that Blizzard had 42 million MAUs in September 2017, and they kept declining to 35 Million in December 2018. It directly points out (on page 33): "The year-over-year decrease in Blizzard's average MAUs is due to lower MAUs for Hearthstone and Overwatch".
I'm not remembering the recent quarter report, so I'll trust you that it showed an increase again, and that is worth mentioning. However, I'd wait until the end of the year to see if that trend continues, since it might be due to the new expansion and effects you already described (the Standard rotation that brought so many changes). You can also look at the 2017 report, and you'll see that they had 42 million in September 2016, 41 after that, 46 million in June 2017, and then it dropped again to 42 the following quarter; although that's for the entire Blizzard branch, not only Hearthstone. However, the report does point out that Hearthstone was one of the factors why revenue increased in 2016 compared to 2015, AND why it decreased in 2017 compared to 2016. Maybe they'll be again at a stable 40+ million by the end of this year, but we have to see.
Besides, I don't think a Hearthstone developer would ask the public what would make players return to the game if things were looking all that great to them.
Again with the full collection thing? Do you understand that that is not even a remote consideration for most people? You do not need a complete collection to enjoy the game. You don't even need it to be competitive. One pre-order plus accumulated gold and dust is more than enough to get you what you need. Obviously, the more you buy, the wider your options will be, but you don't actually need that much just to play the game.
What's your point? I agree that nobdoy needs a full collection. Technically, you don't need anything "just to play the game". But I understand if someone wants a full collection, or at least wants to have more options available. And I think someone who spends 100$ every 4 months on the game should get more out of that than 5-8 legendaries out of 23 and maybe 3000 dust in extra cards, and is still expected to play the game frequently.
Do you have any idea how much it would cost you to have a complete collection in Magic: Arena? It's a lot more than Hearthstone, I assure you. Anyone who has ever played any collectable card game can tell you how expensive (and unnecessary) it is to be a completionist.
No, I don't. Does it matter? Is there a minimum price point of a full collection in a digital card game? You can say that Hearthstone is looking better in this specific regard than its competitors, but you don't make an argument for why a high price point for completionists is a tradition worth keeping. I mean, pointing out how others or even all others do it worse is not really a good defense here. Actually, I think that's a good reason for Hearthsthone to do something different. If people like to collect things and cardgames have been historically bad for them, why not have Hearthstone be a cardgame that allows you to be a completionist relatively easily? Now you could say it already is, but only insofar as you don't need to spend quite as much as in other card games. It's still a lot of money.
The business model has been very consistent. if you personally aren't happy with it, you are welcome to spend less, or even nothing at all. But don't fall into the trap of believing your personal experience or opinion reflects that of a majority of users. It's human nature to think that way, but it's very often a huge mistake.
If you are personally happy with it, you are free to keep your spending habits as well. But you can't truly believe that nobody or only a very small fraction of players has a problem with Hearhtstone's pricing. You are active enough on this board to know better how frequent that complaint is, and even though you do your best to tell them at all times how wrong they are, you can't pretend that they don't exist.
Sure, this is not representative, and it's probably not a majority even. However, I think there is more of a point in changing things than in keeping things as they are.
And I actually do believe that changing things would be better for the game. Yes, I lack the inside knowledge to say so with much confidence, but, no offense, I don't think you speak from professional experience either when you effectively say that Hearthstone is in the best state it can be. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me when you try to argue against any sentiments that the game might be a bit too expensive and demanding.
Free players are not customers. If you think they are -- if you base your arguments on the premise that they are -- you can never be taken seriously in this discussion.
Uhm... no, F2P players are still players, even if you don't like them. Maybe you want to argue with the word "customer", but effectively they will be considered "customers" as well. Customer service won't investigate if you've spend any money on the game before they get back to your request. If you participate in a survey, they won't check how much money they can expect from you before considering your answers. Dean Ayala won't do a background check before reading your comment on Reddit. And if you want to suggest that F2P players are irrelevant to the game's success, or any F2P game's success, and thus should not be considered at all in any aspect of game development, I couldn't disagree more with you.
But that's not the point here anyway. As I said, there are different ways to run a F2P model, and while Hearthstone isn't the worst, I struggle counting it as one of the best. Their current model is a cause of frustration to some, and I think it's unnecessary and worth changing.
Feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my ass (because I am), but I think it would benefit the game long-term if it was a bit more accessible overall. You can give reasons why it doesn't need to, or even why it shouldn't be, but saying "you think X so you can't be taken seriously" is pretty childish. I entirely disagree with your rather aggressive diction, something far more disqualifying to me than any specific statement you have made, but I still try to respect what you say, even though I fully expect that we will never agree on a single point, and I even expect you have some other quasi-insulting reply ready like "You must be truly imbecilic for believing something I say you must believe due to what you just said". I don't like you, but I won't tell you that you have to agree with me on something or else I wouldn't consider your points.
I skimmed your post, but it was much too long to read in it's entirety.
When you grow up, you can run your own company the way you see fit. HS belongs to Blizzard. They get to run it the way they see fit. They don't have to listen to anyone, not even "geniuses" like yourself.
See how simple it is to explain something in two sentences?
And when you grow up, maybe you learn how to read more than a paragraph and how a discussion works.
Sooner or later, you may have to face the notion (if true) that ten losses in a row DOES reflect your skill combined with the lack of strength in the deck. Hunterace himself couldn't get to legend with some of the memery out there.
On the broader subject of lack of skill in this game, I'll never understand why people latch onto that particular bit of masturbatory nihilism. Hearthstone has a lower skill ceiling than Magic the Gathering, I grant you, but that's roughly akin to saying Differential Equations is an easier class to pass than Number Theory. Statistically true, but practically useless information.
People should actually watch some of the GM League matches. Last season, you could watch several iterations of each mirror matchup among the competitive meta decks, and if you pay enough attention and have enough knowledge of the game yourself, you can find one or two major errors in the highest levels of play with thousands of dollars on the line. It's amazingly interesting to watch.
I suppose folks get the idea that skill is lacking in the game because there are certain specific matches where the game hinges on RNG. If that is your philosophy, I laugh to think of how "skill-less" you must consider poker. Games based on RNG are iterative processes. No one particular game is guaranteed to reveal the player with the most skill. Players must execute the correct plays numerous times, and sometimes those plays will not be sufficient to win, BUT win rates over time certainly show huge differences in levels of play.
It's relevant to point out that some folks just aren't cut out to handle games with an RNG element. There are games, such as Starcraft, that reduce the influence of random factors down to functionally zero, and because of this, the better player will tend to win a MUCH higher amount than in Hearthstone, but this does not mean there aren't equally provable differences of skill in both games. By the way, build order losses in Starcraft are NOT RNG. They represent a conscious decision by one player to play greedily and leave the possibility open to be hard-countered by an opponent.
In any case, I realize that people who bitch about "no skill gamez" aren't susceptible to facts and evidence, but I can't resist sometimes. It's disappointing to see, especially in a community I enjoy. There are reasons the same players continue to post stellar results. There are reasons you'll see someone take a deck with which you couldn't make Rank 5 if your life depended on it, and take that deck to #1 legend. For that matter, there are reasons Brian Kibler single-handedly convinces people that Tess Greymane is part of the meta.
As a final thought, if anyone seriously despairs of substantiating the skill component of Hearthstone, I strongly recommend going to the Hearthstone eSports YT channel and looking up the 2017 World Championships. In particular, the Quarter or Semi-Finals match between Frozen and Sintolol. To this day, the greatest tournament match of this game I have ever seen. If you want a challenge, spot the game-losing error Frozen makes that is not acknowledged by the casters. Amazing match that most players on the ladder would have lost horribly on many different occasions throughout both sides of all games.
VS posts a Wild report every month or two. Big Priest has steadily fallen off meta for the better part of the current year, with an overall win-rate that has dropped by almost 4% since January - it currently loses more often than it wins at almost every skill level. The deck only dominates a couple of popular decks (Jade Druid and Renolock), and has slightly favourable match-ups against three others. The deck is even or worse against the remaining decks in the VS Top 20.
It can be argued that the kind of slow, value-based control decks that Big Priest would potentially dominate have simply been pushed out of the meta-game by Big Priest - but those kinds of decks are being pushed out of the format by just about every competitive deck in Wild. The format will likely always be defined by huge swings that need to be answered immediately, and decks which are fast enough to win before those swings can happen. That's pretty par-for-the-course with respect to the Eternal formats in just about every card game - attrition heavily favours win-now decks over win-later decks.