Hearthpwn

I have played since the open beta.  I have rarely complained about the meta and in those first several years, was usually disappointed when nerfs came out.  I often thought the meta could handle the issues without them.  I do not object to aggro, control or combo and have happily played all three. 

One of the things that have frustrated me most are cards that when drawn, have the ability to effectively undo the rest of the game.  The prime offender to that was Reno--I hated that card, but thought it good for the game because it made control viable at the time.  When they made another push for highlander, they made Kazakus--this is where I really thought they got it right.  The card was very strong (worth playing highlander for it), but did not win the game outright.  Despite it's rng element in the choices it offered, it allowed a more skilled player to profit.  (Side note--this is why I never objected to Grim Patron.  It was only giving high winrates from the best of players--most people were terrible with it.)  Now we have Zephyrs.  I have despised that card more than just about any other.  I can no longer play around a class's strengths and weaknesses as I am vulnerable to any card from the entire classic set if you happen to draw Zephyrs.  You can navigate the game to a point in which the opponent's class cannot come back, but they drew Zephyrs and the game is over....

I have also been deeply disappointed in the balance of the game.  An earlier poster cited The Caverns Below.  That card was derided by nearly everyone at release as a piece of garbage.  It was quite a long time before people figured out how strong it was.  I cannot blame Blizzard for missing that in testing.  What I do find ridiculous are the metas in which on day one, a single ridiculously overpowered deck rises to the top.  How could they not see Tempo Demon Hunter (at release) in testing?  How did they not realize Galakrond Shaman was ridiculous?  It feels like I am playing in a beta version when a new set is released and I did not have that experience in the earlier years of the game.

Less of a problem with the current meta, but the last major complaint I would have would be rng cards.  I know it was always cited by the developers as part of the charm.  For the most part, heavy rng cards were relegated to the fringes.  There were some that would rise to competitive decks (Sylvanas, Ragnaros, Brawl), but those were strong cards even when they missed.  While it feels bad to have Rag miss the needed target over multiple turns or have Brawl leave the only relevant minion up, I accepted that level of rng.  Where I get irate though are cards like Yogg Saron or his Puzzle Box.  I am completely losing the game, but let's see if the rng will shine my way and hand me a win.

I enjoy the game and grateful that Blizzard made it.  But this past year, I have played a lot less than I once did.

LOL--and seeing as there is a thread demanding a nerf for just about every card in the game, it's a little dicey to congratulate yourself when Blizzard indicates they are "looking at a card" you complained about.

I have to disagree with "all of it depends on this card".  I have played a lot of C'Thun games (many mirror matches included) and it was over before either player had a C'Thun hit the board.

Quote from ultratribes jump

This game needs to give more reasons for players to log in.  At the moment, the ladder system is irrelevant, the casual mode is cancerous with netdecks, arena is nothing but pure RNG nonsense.  There's actually NO reason to even play this game at the moment unless you are either a pro gamer or someone making a living off streaming.  

"But you are supposed to play for fun" - this game got boring in 2 days.  

 I just don't get this.  The game is boring, so you need more rewards so you can keep playing a boring game...?

Thank you for the video.  I had been floundering in the 2-5 ranks for a while, but after watching, focused on a single, fast deck and was able to hit Legend.