Hearthpwn

@1xbenx1; I think we might have a year or two left before that happens, Wild is definitely shaping up to be the super-high synergy format people were expecting it to head into. I'll be curious to see how they handle something like N'Zoth (who really isn't that broken, but over time certainly could be). 

Right now though I think the format is super healthy. I'd be absolutely shocked if they made any adjustments.

@DMaster2; I think those are also fair responses to Cogito_Ergo_Sum's points. It's really not a bad thing to praise a game if you're enjoying it, and I can absolutely understand that CDPR have done a really good job of differentiating themselves in a currently very crowded genre; my main (granted, extremely cynical) opinion on it is more that it's still pretty clearly in a honeymoon phase. 

Criticisms of the UI are fair, though it's not super awful. Game balance feels reasonably good, except that they've gone through so many overhauls with a small userbase that I'm inclined to think that this is more due to slower refinement in the meta; similar to how the argument is that it's more skill intensive to play, but part of that is a lack of content overall for people to harvest information from. This pretty much applies to your second and third point, because those will come with time if the game remains popular; this is why Wild is still very "flexible" compared to Standard in Hearthstone, and now that we've had a solid month of streamers and competitive interest in the format it's solidified quite a bit more simply because there's been more content to consume related to Wild.

I actually agree there's no point in crying or worrying about the future, but to put it quite bluntly this is a bit of a double standard with the things I'm reading about Gwent where people are more than happy to cry/worry about the future of Hearthstone. Most complaints I think really just fall down to the current design issues people take issue with; you might hate "RNG bs", but the reality is that low variance gameplay is also fraught with issues in the long-term. CDPR's choice of platforms to launch on is also reasonable to criticize, though I do think there are merits with targeting non-mobile users. Overall it's naive to focus only on the "good" portions of a game without analyzing the "bad" portions.

Elitism in communities is just a given I think. The main cause of the friction is that it's being piggybacked off of the Hearthstone communities like Hearthpwn or Reddit, and if we were in a parallel universe where Hearthstone was the up-and-coming CCG and Gwent was the gold standard it would just have the roles reversed. We'd be talking about it on Gwent forums, and people would feel annoyed about it. Personally I don't care if we talk about other games, but people shouldn't be surprised when those communities feel like they should be taking extended conversations about those other games to their respective platforms.

As far as your sixth point, unfortunately as time wears on people will get a lot saltier. Welcome to competitive games, it really has very little to do with RNG (though I do not doubt that a lot of people genuinely prefer low-RNG and being able to play out most of your deck every game); right now you have a really docile playerbase in Gwent because the only people who really cared about it in the first place were going to bother tracking down closed beta keys, and as the population grows during Open Beta I'd wager you're going to see the discontent climb. Every other card game went through the same thing, why would we expect anything different from Gwent? Just assuming that removing RNG will remove the salt is a bit... optimistic.

@GloriousFaceRace; that's an... interesting take on things I suppose. Very few decks are really looking to vomit their hand currently, and even the flood decks get severely punished for overextending when we have Mage/Shaman/Warrior/Priest/Paladin running a handful of sweepers. Pirate Warrior might be the one deck that fits that description, and it's been pretty heavily reigned in. This isn't to say that ladder doesn't reward fast decks (it does), just that you're conflating a ladder system being problematic  with imbalanced archetypes. 

So really at that point, how are we supposed to create a healthy community? Maybe by not throwing logic out the window and actually paying attention. If you want a healthy community it starts with you not being intellectually dishonest just to push a narrative.

I'll be honest, people claiming a low skill ceiling on Hearthstone have likely never even come close to that ceiling. They're making statements poor players would make, with mindsets deeply entrenched in a dozen cognitive biases. They're tossing out whatever thought X random streamer said because it resonates with them, not because it's actually correct. Just like they're regurgitating all of the awesome aspects of Gwent right now with little to no regard for the very real negative aspects their designs have created. 

But yeah, Gwent is the best and there's nothing wrong with it. And you think I'm the fanboy? :P

Quote from jainaishot >>

Quote from Fakerino >>

Quote from Tze >>

@jainaishot; I don't really have a lot of time so I won't bother typing out a rebuttal, but that's an awful dissection of the differences between the two games.

 I dont have any time either. So you are wrong. Checkmate.

 

@jainaishot; I don't really have a lot of time so I won't bother typing out a rebuttal, but that's an awful dissection of the differences between the two games.

@KRFournier; a little delayed getting back to your reply, but I did want to say I can totally accept that viewpoint from an objective standpoint. Climbing with Aggro Druid last season it was a very similar case with Taunt Warrior where you'd simply just scoop after a certain number of turns because the outs were basically hoping your opponent concedes, and I do agree you can make that kind of statement without it being a bad mindset (we are, after all, trying to play to our best outs and the best chance to win). I'm probably just significantly jaded (no pun intended) after the thousands of words I've read on those kind of matchups just being simply "unwinnable", which like I said is almost certainly still people approaching it with a poor mindset. 70/30 is polarized, but that still means if you're playing properly you have a chance to win.

That being said, I'm actually perfectly happy with tech cards still being useless in the matchup (Silence cards in general would be what I consider tech options outside of Purify Priest). I'm also perfectly happy with two of the strongest reactive effects in the game not being good in certain matchups. In the case of Hex/Devolve like I had mentioned as well, if you're using them to aggressively disrupt their Quest triggers they're still pretty good; Hex or Devolve on an Igneous Elemental is still pretty good. Like any reactive card, you always just run the risk of having them perform poorly (once again, welcome to what Priests have dealt with since the game went into beta). We can agree to disagree on that though, I do think both opinions have merit to them.

Feelbads are kind of a tricky one to fix, because Quest Rogue really isn't universally disliked as much as Hearthpwn would have you believe otherwise. Similar to Patron this is going to require looking at underlying causes more than just that they solitaire for a portion of the game.

@KRFournier; also anecdotally, I've beaten Quest Rogue with Control Shaman (and my list is not particularly fast or particularly good). Aggressive use of Hex/Devolve is pretty important, and if I had actually built it more proactively I think it would been a lot easier to push the game. Keep in mind, I'm not favored and I realize that; all I did was play to the weaknesses of Rogue the best I could, got a bit lucky, and won, simply because my mindset wasn't that I had lost the game before it had even started. Mindset in those matchups is exactly where I think people tend to sabotage themselves. It was a very close win and a very tricky game to navigate, but giving up doesn't help either of those.

I'm not arguing against the deck needing adjustments, I believe I've stated not so distantly that Charge is where I think the list gets too nutty for its own good; I think it should be strong for how tricky it can be to play, but similar to Patron it's much healthier in my mind as a list that wins with midrange pressure more than burst combos. What I am arguing against is the defeatism that generally goes alongside analysis of this deck, or something like Jade Druid.

I've had quite a few that made me laugh, but for some reason Living Mana is straight up my favorite card in Un'Goro. It's got a lot of nuance in how you play it or play against it, I just wish it worked in something outside of all-in Aggro Druid (I like Tokens, but always preferred the slower builds that run things like Violet Teacher and Wisps of the Old Gods).

@DMaster2; oh, I get what you meant to say. It's definitely one of the cheaper CCGs on the market (and maybe the cheapest, but I'm not super convinced), but just in general this genre is one that is probably never going to be as accessible as other genres. It's also prone to change when you start talking expansions or extra content, because right now by just having a smaller card pool it's obviously going to be a lot easier to collect. I find f2p models fascinating so I'm happy to see for myself, but nothing that I've heard sounds remotely earth shattering.

Quote from Tze >>

Wild is basically the same game Hearthstone would have been if they never implemented rotations,

Quote from Hooghout>>

@Iandakar.

I compliment you for your willingness to think against all odds of succes of this game. 70 million and they are "humbled." They give away free packs. So more fanboys to defend them. How do I dare to critize in terms of balance and the sheer rule (over expansions) of aggressive aggro. I'm sure that its succes is based on this low skill, fast paced 'fun' aggression, which we all know, by its very unbalance, is bad for the game but very good for increasing the player base and revenues.

Spending the first paragraph bashing those who disagree with you doesn't help your argument. It doesn't matter if they are a fanboy or a blizzard hater.  Focus on the argument.  

All that this paragraph does is make you look horrible.  So please stop. 

We should rethink Rock-Paper-Scissor. I am still in the thinking process how this relates to asymmetry. 

In card design it's meant to be the method of achieving symmetry.

The dream in a card game is a cycling meta.  For example, in the old days of MTG, Control was thought to beat Combo, Combo beat Aggro, and Aggro beat Control.  Thus if a Control deck reached Tier 1 status, an otherwise weaker Aggro deck would become popular to stop it resulting in aggro being popular.  This would then result in Combo feeding on aggro until it reigned, until Control would find room to recover.  

Well rock paper scissor doesn't do well these days, is it? Control and midrange are virtually wiped out in viable meta. Things that suppose to take their place is 'thy shall not pass' (taunt warrior) and 'if you don't win by turn x, you're toasted' (jade-mechanic, quest rogue, quest mage). All of them boring, autopilot, low skill. It also denotes the direction of card design phylosophy: aggro against wall/explosive mechanics.

Well firstly, a key issue is that the phylosophy isn't control/midrange/aggro.  Never was, never is.  Many made that mistake. Including me for about 2 years into this game.

The original system, via MTG, was Control/COMBO/Aggro.  To use older HS systems from 2015, Face Hunter would beat Control Warrior, Freeze Mage would beat Face Hunter, then Control Warrior would beat Freeze Mage.  

However, we killed Combo decks a while back since we hated 'explosive mechanics' which is what combo decks actually do.  That whole 'solitaire' style of play IS the Combo archetype at its core.  

Control/Midrange/Aggro isn't a system.  Midrange is a deck suited to stopping Control and lose to Aggro.  That makes two archetypes that beat Control and nothing to stop aggro.  That's why Midrange Hunter 'feels' like an aggro deck to you, because it fills the same role Aggro does, though it also dies to Aggro itself.

The decks that beat Aggro and lose to control are Tempo decks and Combo decks.  With Combo effectively nuked at the moment that leaves Tempo decks, like Taunt Warrior.  This, btw, is why I was critical about quests.  Quests demand a tempo mindset, not a control one, due to the need of playing specific cards to get a reward. At BEST it can bring a combo style of play (see mage) but I still wonder if HS can even have a truly viable combo deck without utterly breaking apart.  Yes, Patron warrior was a very interesting and skillful deck, but it doesn't change the fact that it utterly ruined the meta for diversity.  Same goes with 2014 Miracle Rogue.

Thta means the HS trifecta would have to be Aggro/Tempo/Control.  However, Control has a particular problem: no win condition.  They keep making 8-10 mana cards that are great for value but not for converting value into a game winning push.  Rag was the closest thing but that thing was an unstable RNG mess of a card.  So was the other Control-enabler, Yogg for that matter.  Otherwise, go look at our top end cards and ask yourself, what can give me the win here?  

#*($)#0 Even Kalimos isn't a win condition.  3 out of 4 of his moves are just a defensive board move. The 6 to the face IS damage but given how defensive the elemental deck is beforehand it's rare for that move to actually give you the win.  

the Old Gods were the last attempt at giving an actual win condition and eeven for them they weren''t really CONTROL based.  N'Zoth/C'thun required tempo styled curve decks with the exception of warrior figuring out how to get tricky with their setup for a time.  Y'Saarg and Yogg weren't meant to be competitive; Y'Saarg is meant to be niche for meme decks and Yogg was meant to be for Trolden.

After that, nothing for control win conditions except perhaps Midivh but that's very tricky to use given his requirements.

Control has always had a problem with actually winning games.  We tried to ignore it by claiming "oh fatigue, so they don't have to actually TRY to win."  But Jade ruined that and honestly, that's a horrible mentality for them to have anyway.

More symmetry means increasing the skill level of the game. Agreed? YES/NO. Of NO, why?

Disagree so long as Ranked remains. In fact, symmetry takes meta reading off of the table.

I can't follow you on the meta reading. Why is that important? Not being able to read the meta would put an end to netdecking as a way to copy viable decks. Ranked would have a more diverse meta and who doesn't want that. What is a 'cyclinic' meta as I don't consider being skilfull only knowing what your opponent will play the next move (that is predictability and that is not skill, but part of low skill autopilotism). In unpredictability skill emerges. The arena-meta for instance requiers more skill as the nearest thing I can think of.

Actually not reading the meta locks down netdecking as an option.  Instead of trying to outsmart the meta with a counter deck that's not on the field you simply use whatever deck is the most popular.  

It also doesn't stop netdecking since, in the end, it's still an X set of decks that are viable, even if all of the classes are involved.  It'll increase how many decks you use but it won't stop people from finding out what those top 27 decks are (3 decks per class) and playing the one they deem as 'best'.  Especially if you can't punish them with a counter deck (as counter deck design ruin synergy systems and push for cyclinic metas).  

NOTHING stops netdecking.  People were netdecking before there was even a Net.  The HS public have regularly netdecked decks that weren't even the best deck to netdeck.  

As far as how that affects skill, I refer to within the deck building situation.  Ever hear of those folks who say "I play an anti-aggro deck and get nothing but contro. I play anti-control and get nothing but aggro"? That's diversity since you have both decks showing up. But when ti comes to what YOU play you stop thinking of  outplaying your opponent and instead just playing whatever deck sits in that top 27.  

Note that this has nothing to do with in-game activity.  THAT is based on the cards at play within the deck.  This refers to deck design and deck choice, whether you can just pick whatever deck is on a list or whether you have to choose based on what you may face in the field.

Meanwhile knowing how to play it all so that you win teh games you are meant to win avoid tilting on games you are meant to lose, and can occasionally sneak a win from the latter.  THEN we get to skillful games.

Well that caters into rock, paper, scissor; as we've seen not really functioning. But skill as being able to win the games you are suppose to win calling that skill is really odd to me. And winning from those you are suppose to lose from isn't skill but primarely RNG or the weaker opponent who doesn't know how to play a winning game with a deck you are suppose to lose from. Maybe we should rethink what it means to have skill in this game.

If we are at the point where you are declaring the very actions you choose in the game as 'not skill' but RNG or based purely on what your opponent does (as if you have no real input at all but your opponent makes the decisions) then we really do need a conversation about skill in this game.  

Though honestly that's VERY much a topic for another thread.  Feel free to start it if you are interested.  But this topic is about increasing deck diversity, not increasing skill really.  

Which is why I worry about this anti-aggro/buff/whatever talk weaving into your text.  I just worry that it's not just a wish to see a balance between control and aggro but thinking that 'control=skill=best' and 'aggro=bad game' that far too many people fall into.  The talk about aggro somehow resulting from a greedy, lazy, company, completely ignoring my post showing how a greedy, lazy company would do the opposite, REALLY worries me.  I just want to be sure this isn't the case.

 I might have given that impression but no it is not the case. I really consider boredom, lack of creativity in card design, imbalance, lack of value game and the absence of mechanics that really challenge the intellect of you as a player (even 10-year olds don't like to be dumbed down). The direction in which card design seem to develop. The simplism of aggro vs. try-to-kill-me-in-time-mechanics.That is the scope of my analysis. And really there are a lot out there being silent, but I'm sure have good ideas. But I'm weary of fanboy-everything-is-allright-dominance here. That's not positive, make-the-game-better-thinking. That is North-Korean style adoration. It is pointless stupidity as the lazy guy in the video so well proved. The fair of pointing to problems and say hey what's the solution, is so dominant, that you have to battle that first, before people come around with ideas.

Honestly I don't see that much fanboyism going on around here.  Blizzard forums tend to be notorious of being the opposite; a festering hive of utter "nothing they do is right everything sucks Blizzard should all die in a fire then be banned from hiring so I never have to hear from them again OHWAITTIMEFORMYNEXTGAME!"  

It's been a lot less of that here because of Un'Goro.  You see a lot more positive statements because:

1. Many people here see Un'Goro as a positive impact on the game.  Note that we just came from the Pirate meta of MSG so you can excuse their enthusiasm. 

2. you DID misID your original argument.  That whole 'what is a viable deck' thing I started this whole thing about.  People are still reading that first post and thinking you are talking about Legend capable decks.  Well except those that are going "oh he's talking about tier 1 decks guys, nevermind"  There's actually far fewer people arguing with you than it seems given that they are arguing a point you aren't really making.  

3. " I might have given that impression but no it is not

I brought that up because it's important.  You use a lot of phrases that, sadly, I see a lot in very anti-aggro rhetoric.  The forums get pretty swarmed by folks who really wouldn't mind banning players who dare play a deck that wins before turn 10.  They tend to talk about 'balance' and 'skill' and 'fun' but when pressed declare that aggro is the enemy and that those that play it are braindead fools that are ruining the game and that those that defend them are all aggro blizzard fanboys.  

I've lived through that style of talk for about 3 years now.  It gets old.  It gets REAL old.  

So a good few folks are seeing those talking points and going "oh (#)$#( another one" and tuning out.  It's not to say you can't do so but it helps to explain why you are getting so much flak.  It's less about folks defending blizzard (here?!  HA!) but more about them switching to a typcal response to what they think is a typical argument. 

A well intentioned company that's making (lots of) mistakes has use for this debate.

If they only would call for communities' input to better the game is what I think a well intentioned company should do. Even fanboys then would start thinking for a change. And I agree, this debate is really going somewhere.

They do that.  Often.  Don't judge based on being here, where no one really pays attention to anything.  But they HAVE been listening to feedback and responding to them in twitter, youtube, and reddit.  They also regularly talk to the key influential folks in the community.  The rotation system was completely based on community feedback. Blizzard's original idea was to keep all the cards together and use 'lateral building' to keep the power creep down.  See TGT to see how well THAT worked.  Not only was rotation a regular demand from much of the community, but HOW it was designed was also community chosen, specifically when many of the notible folks were brought in to discuss the matter.

(sidenote, they don't always agree though. Said community wanted Classic to rotate out. Blizzard said no to that)

The current Curvestone is also community caused, sadly.  Remember when I said Combo was the traditional aggro killer of old?  Well, we VERY directly demanding Blizzard do something about those decks back during the Naxx days.  This resulted in the change to Leeroy and, eventually, the nuking of combo decks as a whole and the push for more minion on minion combat.  Which translates to Tempo decks.  'Tempo deck' wasn't even a TERM in 2014 beyond a failed Tempo rogue deck.  Now it's everywhere.  

Oh, and there was a LOT of hate for Control decks.  Go look up old 2014 warrior vs warrior or warrior vs paladin games and see how often such games start with the announcers saying "time to get your pillows" or "residentsleeper".  

Blizzard listens.  What they aren't is fast.  Picture a very attentive turtle trying to give you a sandwich.  Sadly this is an improvement.  Blizzard of the Starcraft days would've delayed each HS expansion by about 2 years and kept game breaking bugs for about 5.  Blizzard is what Valve would've been if they didn't create Steam and stopped relying on making games.

Also sadly, the community they listen to is rather..well... not very good at game design.  

Last but not least the wierd notion that dominance of aggro decks in ranked have something to do with the ladder system. That aggro is sui generis best to rank up. Well I don't belief that ranking up has something to do with ladder design, but simple with card design. Especially if keep printing buff - and charger mechanics, you will automatically organize an aggro meta. Stop doing that. Give aggro their win condition in later turns. Aggro druid is in this respect such a mess. Slowing down the meta is not a ladder problem but a card design choice. Not doing this has the smell all over of fair the pace of growth in numbers of people playing the game will suffer. Well that is a unjustified fair.

Back in 2015 the best deck to play was Patron warrior, a combo deck who's only counters were Control warrior and Handlock.  It ate aggro for breakfast.  Meanwhile, Tempo decks, which were more than comfortable pushing the game past turn 10 if necessary, were coming into fruition.  We also had decks like Chinese priest that literally fed purely on aggro.  bah by then NO ONE in the tournament scene bothered with aggro decks. It was all Patron/Handlock/Druid.  Even hunter moved to a midrange build, and by midrange I mean turn 2 freezing trap, no desire to kill before turn 7.  

Ladder was STILL rocking aggro decks.  Yes Patron was hard to use but not THAT hard for stomping rank 15-5 folks.  But it was STILL faster to win with aggro, so people used it.  Same went pre-naxx when Miracle Rogue swallowed aggro decks but people still played face hunter in mass.  

I'm not against the idea of less chargers.  But I've seen the meta in many different iterations and the result is still the same with aggro flooding ranked below rank 5, with folks playing aggro in the first few days even with it can't even crack a 50% win rate, because 5 minute games relying on win streaks is better than 20 minute solid wins with stronger decks.  I'm not spouting theory here.  Folks have posted the data to stand behind it.  It's also why Blizzard swears that many of the decks we see often don't show high win rates on their side.  Because Aggro tends to not dominate in actual real power.  They are just FAST, cheap to make so peopel can make them without spending cash, and tend to punish horrible decks made by folks who focus on playing Crawler in a pirate deck or trying to make the Paladin quest work.  

I promise you, so long as people feel that they need to hyper grind every month to get to legend, aggro will flood most people's ladder experiences no matter the card design.  This doesn't distract from the discussion of card design but compliment it: BOTH issues need to be addressed.

As far as the mater of solutions, I don't feel it's a copout to demand for solutions by folks who state about problems.  For example:

1. We REALLY need to come to terms with Combo.  Do we want it to exist?  Do we not? 

This isn't a simple answer.  If we kill combo then that means we are stuck with an Aggro/Tempo/control system, and I'm not seeing a lot of people supporting decks like Taunt warrior and Secret Paladin.  We also need to figure out IF we could do Combo at all with our system.  MTG can handle combo since they have the means to disrupt the combo during its output.  I can't disrupt Leeroy with a Counterspell played on their turn.  

I ask you because I'm sure folks wouldn't like my answer, since I have no problems with Tempo and not sure a true Combo deck can really exist here properly.  

2. We REALLY need to be willing to have proper high expense 'play this and I win' cards, which is the essence of what Control is trying to do.  Control high end minons should be devastating enough that you want to play fast to avoid them.  Imagine Sulferas as a 10 mana weapon with no quest requirement.  THAT is a control win condition.  Without that Control has no reason to stall the game.  

No, Fatigue isn't a natural control mentality.  NO win condition decks can't be a primary archetype.  it can exist but that's not a regular control deck.  

3. If we really want to do away with the rock/paper/scissors mentality, we'll need an alternative.  Note that this is going to take more than just "just make them equal" given that the very system this game pulls from, MTG, uses a RPS system as does most other card systems.  It'll take a complete overhaul to change that and, at some point, you aren't fixing HS but instead closing it down to make a completely new game.  So CAN a completely new system be put into HS without just gutting the game completely?

If not then RPS it is. Which means we need to come to terms that some games WILL be unwinable and some not winnable no matter who you are.  It also means that you really aren't meant to stick to just one class and just one deck.  You are meant to need to change your deck to suit the situation.  This is important since any time the game gets closer to this system there's a mass of "I'm playing Control Priest and Face Hunter just rocks me. NERF IT! THIS GAME SUCKS!" 

HS has a lot of work to do.  I don't see a lot of folks saying its not.  The question comes down to 'what work' and 'how will it look when done'.  THAT is the point we are at.

Quote from Tze >>

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Stop crying. This topic is so played out.

They make for awesome twitch/vod watching. That's all I care about. This one in particular will be cool because we will see a lot of players who don't typically play Wild playing against people who play it more often.

 The Top 64 qualifier thing is also helping with that too, I know at least Firebat was tryharding the ladder for it which is always fun to watch. Overall I'm pretty excited that Wild is getting exposure on a much bigger scale this month.

I actually don't think arguments about the cost, or taking away normal Tavern Brawl, or that it shouldn't be competitive have much merit; I do think that there's some merit to the idea that this HTB was too close to the last one, and that we got a whopping 24 hours notice when it was going live. They did explicitly state there would be a Wild HTB after Un'Goro went live, but to me the announcement would have made more sense to have last week.

Personally I'd rather they at least put the damn things on a set schedule already, just because it's currently the best thing we've got to a tournament mode in-client. Having 2 per expansion (1 in Standard, 1 in Wild) seems like a reasonable amount. Casual players can have the other 46 weeks of the year for normal Brawls, short of an ACTUAL in-game tournament mode being implemented this is the best tournament players have to something that caters to them. And not even hardcore competitive players, I'm just talking the guys like me who enjoyed Pre-Release events for Magic and don't live in a city where Fireside Gatherings happen.

Quote from DhaAlekz >>

For anyone saying there is no MMR in Hearthstone

Quote from Tze >>

@Skylarapas; Wild is certainly more powerful, but it's not like it lacks variety either. Here is the Tier list from r/wildhearthstone.

Quote from Tze >>

@Skylarapas; Wild is certainly more powerful, but it's not like it lacks variety either. Here is the Tier list from r/wildhearthstone.

Also, you can play anything in either format. Do you want to win? That's a separate issue that encompasses any format, your deck is always going to need to beat what's good/popular or else you're going to plateau quickly.

Quote from Skylarapas >>

No... fuck Wild. 

Wild is a trap. At first you think that you can play anything, because of the huge range of cards. But there are also insanely broken cards that prohibit a lot of creativity.

Wild is for people who want to duel with broken decks. For those who just want to try different varieties of decks, there lies Standard.

Quote from Tze >>

I do think Blizzard dropped the ball on making Wild more appealing,