Hearthpwn

DH is undoubtedly the biggest problem, but bear in mind that he is only part of the larger issue. Thing is, most control decks have received too few new tools compared to aggro and they simply can't keep up with power creep. DH crushes everyone, but so do Face Hunter and Aggro Rogue. In fact, only Control Warrior can stand up to them... to some extent.

This is not okay. Blizzard is once again allowing some classes to disappear from meta entirely. If nothing changes in the near future, they might as well delete Priest, Warlock, Druid and Mage.

Quote from ShadowAldrius >>

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Quote from sahtradoog >>

HEALING you need healing a lot of healing, the demon hunter burst potential is huge and you should never be below 16 hp versus one for that very reason, taunts don't make you safe

 Ye, try to apply this to Control Warlock...

Control Warlock has a lot of other draw tools now. They don't have to half-kill themselves with life tap. And has plenty of healing with soul fragments, nether breath, broodmother (two of which can be recycled with plot twist).

It looks good only on paper, in reality it's highly inconsistent and simply doesn't work. That's why Warlock was the worst class in scholomance meta (despite the fact that all the cards you pointed out were available for several months) and why we haven't seen any viable Control Warlock deck in about 2 years (pretty much since Gul'dan rotated out).

Aggro is now way too effective so damage can't be just stopped like in the old days (with taunts, removals or whatever). The only way to survive their aggression is through an effective and reliable source of healing. If certain class lacks it, it won't be able to form successful control deck. And since Warlock will probably never get one (because reasons...), we won't see such deck from him anymore.

And no, Control Warlock has very few tools to draw (or generate) cards aside from hero power.

Quote from RendInFriend >>

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Quote from sahtradoog >>

HEALING you need healing a lot of healing, the demon hunter burst potential is huge and you should never be below 16 hp versus one for that very reason, taunts don't make you safe

 Ye, try to apply this to Control Warlock...

 Oddly enough Mo’arg artificier and nether breath healing for 8 damage with lifesteal that can go face is way better healing than anything priest has. The real reason demon hunter and also face hunter are flourishing, is that there is a lack of good control cards for priest and warrior. They both have some new cool tricks like the thief cards from scholomance and the rush/menagerie synergy from dark moon, but both classes are lacking pieces for effective control, specifically mass removal and healing. Control Shaman could even be prominent again, if there was better healing than witches brew.

You need Mo'arg Artificer and Nether Breath and the dragon in your hand and minion target... This is 4 mana 3 card setup and you can pull it only twice per game. It's way too inconsistent and inefficient when you need this before turn 5 (when most of the games against Face Hunter ends).

Quote from sahtradoog >>

HEALING you need healing a lot of healing, the demon hunter burst potential is huge and you should never be below 16 hp versus one for that very reason, taunts don't make you safe

 Ye, try to apply this to Control Warlock...

Don't worry, any kind of Control Warlock will be soon washed out by aggro decks and you won't see him again for next couple months. Give this deck a week or so and it will simply die off.

Quote from OoZuNoO >>

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Yes, It's OK against other control decks (yet only if Tickatus clicks), but loses miserably to any aggro deck. And since aggro deck are always the most popular decks in the meta, Control Warlock will be T3 at best, which is meme level.

 Dont bother, warlock needs a complete rework at this point. Lost its aggro niche to DH, lost its control niche to priest rework, the changes to other classes basic/classic sets made warlock redundant, and this will become even more apparent next year once rotation hits. People are still messing with greedy shit rn so tickatus looks good, but once aggro takes over the class will disappear again. 

Indeed. He should get way better class cards, because his hero power is not that strong and meaningful anymore. Most classes can draw or generate cards pretty efficiently nowadays, so paying 2 mana and 2 HP for each, feels bad and outdated (also because health is now rather valuable resource due to ever growing power creep of aggro).

Right now Warlock has no card generation (which sucks when you have to use standard 30 cards against 60-70 cards played by Rogue, Priest or Mage), no healing, no mana cheating, no value generation, no weapons, no burst, no burn... pretty much nothing. As you said, he is redundant class, worthless and hopeless. Why would you play him, when other classes can do everything better (I mean with at least 50% winrate which is impossible for Warlock right now...)?

This is probably already good moment to bump the thread, as the claims made here proved to be 100% true again. We have another expansion and yet Warlock's situation seems to be exactly the same as before. As an aggro (zoo) he is outdated and limited (no weapons, no burn / burst, no anti-control tools). As control he has no chance against aggresive decks because he lacks strong and reliable source of healing. He also can't compete to outvalue slow and greedy control-ish decks, because he lacks value generation or heavy mana cheating himself (though Tickatus can fix that a little bit if you're lucky to play him early enough and mill some of their key cards).

Overall, I have the impression that Blizzard has no idea what to do with Warlock in the context of the current state of the game. For about 2 years now it's been clear that control cannot exist without healing anymore (because aggro has too much reach and anti-control tools), and yet they are constantly trying to push control archetype for Warlock, not giving him reliable healing source. Zoo is also out of place. DH showed what a modern aggro deck should look like and, in comparison, Warlock is simply outdated (pure board based aggro is laughable in 2020).

So far I find it rather weak against aggro.

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

 Told ya, blizz out to milk the whales and try to pick up a few spenders out of the f2p's while alienating the rest. This is what a game looks like when the devs are just trying to get as much cash out of it as they can before it dies. 

Keep in mind though, that there are still people defending Blizzard and claiming that HS is cheap and anyone who thinks otherwise is whiner.

Quote from ShadowVetrin >>

Dekkster made a video about this as well as Zeddy, Solem and Rarran. They had the same complaints about not getting enough XP and gold. Dekkster came up with solutions for this problem. Solem was saying that Blizzard is doing this to anger the players, then fix it to get the adulation of the base. Check out their videos.

 Old Guardian too:

Quote from dirvenstylez >>

I think Tickatus is the main problem. It forces people to play aggro.

 Are you being serious? Tickatus decks are complete garbage and it's not like they're bad only because they lose to aggro. Aggro will always be the largest part of the meta (ONE meta in 6 years wasn't aggro-centred, think about that, just one) because A) it's quicker to climb the ladder with and B) it's cheaper (which is even more important now that we get mini-expansions, fewer rewards and less gold). If you're a new player (no idea why anyone would be at this point, but let's hypothetise) you can play either soul dh or aggro dh as they're by far the cheapest best decks on ladder.

Tickatus...lol

Quote from dirvenstylez >>

I think Tickatus is the main problem. It forces people to play aggro.

 As if no one played aggro before Tickatus. The problem is that control didn't receive any support this expansion contrary too DH. After trying various control decks all over the weekend only control warrior got slightly positive winrate vs soul DH (53%). While removing Tictatus would help control a bit (no hard counter) it won't stop DH (or evolve shaman). 

Quote from P4dge >>

Quote from DrDynamite1 >>

Honestly I don't know how do you expect anyone to read your wall of text titled as "zeddy is bad".

I don't care about what he did before, because this doesn't change the fact that he's spitting facts. Before anyone replies to this, just start with the average amount of days you need to level up from level 49 to 50 only with weekly and daily quests and whether you think this is okay or not

 If you think that's a 'wall of text' then it just says more about you to be honest. Maybe next time the OP can write it in size 20 font and include mots of nice, big pictures for the kids. 

The fact you think he is 'spitting facts' (come on, grow up) suggests you aren't bothered about actual facts, you just want to hear more of what feels good to you. 

This whole uproar is laughable. It really is. I get the small bundle each expansion (and haven't even always got that), I've bought the large bundle one time. I have around 5/6k gold each expansion and I'm smart with dusting, nerfs and Hall of fame. 

I have 28k dust currently and a few k in reserve. I craft the cards I need for any decks I want to play on a whim and can't think the last time I couldn't play something I wanted to. 

I keep seeing tears about how much the entire expansion costs. If you're obsessing over having every single card in every expansion then you're causing your own issue. I have probably got anywhere from about 50-90% of each expansion since witch wood. Some expansions have more cards I want to use, others have less. I couldn't get less about a good quarter of the legendaries etc. You're talking about the absolute finished article in collecting everything and expecting it to be a low outlay.

Essentially, your ignorance and stupidity are causing you your own problems. This game is a TON better than it was when I started playing. Better questing, levels to track and work towards, multiple game modes, brawl doesn't have the days between being open that it used to, more expansions every year, solo content, more portraits, better monthly rewards (much better), a new class. Like, it's not even close. Sure, the cost may go up a bit to support it all, that's how things work but I'm fine with it. 

These modes, new classes, more frequent balances, more expansions, more portraits and card backs, all of it, it costs more. Up until around the end of last year, this game really struggled to hold my attention between expansions. I would play for around half the length, with a burst initially and then in bits across the remaining time but now of I don't fancy playing ladder, I can jump into duels or even BG which isn't really my cup of tea but I'll have a blast here and there. Announcing the mid set expansions was more brilliant news to me. Will it increase the cost? Yes. Do I care? Absolutely not, I fully expect it to but I would rather that than no new content for months at a time.

If I ever feel this game is too expensive to play or I stop enjoying it, I will simply leave and find better things to do with my time and stop putting money into it. It really is that simple. I've done it with many other games in the past and I've no doubt I'll do it plenty more in the coming years. 

 angry hearthstone defender guy, you crack me up. 

A monthly fee or limiting the prices to like $20 pr expansion. You should get at least 75-80% of the cards for that imo..

Paying more than a AAA-game every 3-4 months to try and keep up a collection is just stupid. Blizzard are excluding so many players just because of the insane pay-to-play model.

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

 When people use words like "should" or "proper", I'm always very curious where they come by whatever principles led them to such conclusions.  What philosophy or doctrine does one draw upon to come up with a basis for what anything "should" be or the "proper" amount of anything related to a game?  Particularly a game which is drawn from intellectual property that you do not own.

So as not to be a hypocrite, I will say that I often use generally-accepted business ethics and the knowledge that the employees of Blizzard have a fiduciary duty to their investors.  Those doctrines would lead one to conclude that Hearthstone "should" carry price points for its packs and cosmetics such that the largest amount of revenue is collected.  Sometimes, that means dropping the price, but only when there is a well-founded belief that reducing the price will cause more people to buy whatever's price one is reducing.  But then, you have to not only believe more people will buy it, but ENOUGH more people will buy it to make up for the reduction in price.

Let's say the pre-release bundle is $80.  Someone suggests we drop the price to $40.  But that means that everyone who would have bought it at $80 is now only paying half of what they would have paid.  So, let's say 10,000 people were buying at $80.  They would need at least 20,001 people to buy at $40, or the price reduction "should" not have happened.  But of course, this works both ways.  If they thought they could raise the price to $160, and only 4,999 people would omit buying it that would have bought it at $80, then they "should" double the price.

While many people have a gut reaction that says they "should" not sell a pre-release bundle for $160, I rarely hear why or on what basis that is true.  I gave you my basis.  Someone else share theirs.

 As any other intelectual property, and game based on one, Hearthstone isn't different. I can look at other games and tell you an appropriate model.

 I do not need to own anything to tell you what a proper price is, I need only know what it is and what it requires to produce. I still am not the one that will decide the price, since I don't own it, but I can still give you a proper price for it. It's like you think someone cannot think of a price for a product.

That is the entire demand side of the equation. It is not only the Supply side that decides appropriate price, it is both sides, meaning the Demand side can also tell what is proper. It is the necessity for both sides to meet on what they find proper that makes it work.

Anyway, obviously their goal is to get the highest amount of revenue they can. I am certain their prices are not good for this. You want prices to reflect the goal.

I am certain the model similar to normal games with DLC is better for revenue on the long run. Their model is the best for short term revenue, it is bad for long term.

Their model relies on whales and that is a tiny audience which is hard to replace once they get fed up with the game or face a problem in the game they aren't willing to deal with anymore.

You want the most people willing to pay as possible, that means lower decrease in revenue if you make mistakes or if there is a bad economical situation, or even just a period of lesser interest.

Essentially, do you want to make a play for high risk high reward in short term? Or make the best play for long term success?

Quote from Poghy >>

I have climbed to legend with this deck:

 

Clown druid is not control, there's nothing even remotely "controlling" about the archetype, it's more of a combo deck. For the most part you just ignore what your opponent does so you can ramp/draw into your clown then get a board state that they cannot interact with.

Even if you were right about the f2p... even the whales are getting screwed. You think that paying $120+ three times a year and not even having the full collection of cards is reasonable? Even assholes like EA with their Battlefront lootboxes and FIFA copypasting have to stare in absolute awe at Blizzards greed and the monetization model they have been able to get away with for almost 5 years. This game is no longer carried by regular whales, but by mega-whales from the mobile client. Kids with rich parents, who can throw away $1000 yearly on a game without hesitation cos it will get hidden inside the mobile bill.

The Tickatus package does give Warlock a new niche though, 

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Quote from OoZuNoO >>

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Yes, It's OK against other control decks (yet only if Tickatus clicks), but loses miserably to any aggro deck. And since aggro deck are always the most popular decks in the meta, Control Warlock will be T3 at best, which is meme level.

 Dont bother, warlock needs a complete rework at this point. Lost its aggro niche to DH, lost its control niche to priest rework, the changes to other classes basic/classic sets made warlock redundant, and this will become even more apparent next year once rotation hits. People are still messing with greedy shit rn so tickatus looks good, but once aggro takes over the class will disappear again. 

Indeed. He should get way better class cards, because his hero power is not that strong and meaningful anymore. Most classes can draw or generate cards pretty efficiently nowadays, so paying 2 mana and 2 HP for each, feels bad and outdated (also because health is now rather valuable resource due to ever growing power creep of aggro).

Right now Warlock has no card generation (which sucks when you have to use standard 30 cards against 60-70 cards played by Rogue, Priest or Mage), no healing, no mana cheating, no value generation, no weapons, no burst, no burn... pretty much nothing. As you said, he is redundant class, worthless and hopeless. Why would you play him, when other classes can do everything better (I mean with at least 50% winrate which is impossible for Warlock right now...)?

 The Tickatus package does give warlock a new niche though, a control killer. If warrior and priest make a comeback and push aggro down, a control lock list can be viable. Still missing some cards, but im gonna test it for sure.

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Yes, It's OK against other control decks (yet only if Tickatus clicks), but loses miserably to any aggro deck. And since aggro deck are always the most popular decks in the meta, Control Warlock will be T3 at best, which is meme level.

 Dont bother, warlock needs a complete rework at this point. Lost its aggro niche to DH, lost its control niche to priest rework, the changes to other classes basic/classic sets made warlock redundant, and this will become even more apparent next year once rotation hits. People are still messing with greedy shit rn so tickatus looks good, but once aggro takes over the class will disappear again.