Hearthpwn

That's hilarious. I will have to try that the next time I play.

I think if you nerfed Murlocs in one way you would likely have to buff it in another way at the same time, or else they would be a really bad comp. The only think keeping them alive really is their chance to highroll an easy first place, because if you don't highroll you generally have a bad time.

Quote from Geoff >>

 The funny thing is getting high rank in Battlegrounds is so easy. I don't mean winning consistently. I mean getting rank. For this you only need to finish top 4 consistently. That's all. And there are comps, which almost guarantee you top 4. Yes, the grind will be slow and repititive. But as long as you are satisfied with going only for top 4, you can basically climb and climb and climb, because you don't take any risks to go for the win and don't lose much mmr.

 That applies to pretty much all of Hearthstone. If you play the most effective strategies you will go pretty far in standard and arena as well.

Quote from EternalHS >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

Quote from pox >>

Murlocs win a lot of high mmr lobbies. In fact most that I'm seeing so far.

It's high risk only because the game is too fast. If they fix the game like they need, megasaur will be a constant problem.

 What do you consider high mmr? I'm at 9k and don't notice an overabundance of murlocs.  They are one of the toughest end game builds to beat, but I don't seem them winning more lobbies than the other really strong comps just because they are usually harder to assemble. 

 This is Hearthpwn. Everyone is by default at 9k and top 100 legend. Didn't you know that?

 Top 100 legend equates to more like 12k mmr, so 9k mmr is no where near as impressive. Some would consider it high, some would consider it more mid level, which is why I asked. 

Quote from pox >>

Murlocs win a lot of high mmr lobbies. In fact most that I'm seeing so far.

It's high risk only because the game is too fast. If they fix the game like they need, megasaur will be a constant problem.

 What do you consider high mmr? I'm at 9k and don't notice an overabundance of murlocs.  They are one of the toughest end game builds to beat, but I don't seem them winning more lobbies than the other really strong comps just because they are usually harder to assemble. 

Ghoul with Nadina and dragons usually makes quick work of murlocs if your dragons are similarly sized. Also ghoul with big cleaves can works depending on the comp. Basically you need a comp that can handle big poisonous minions, and tech in a ghoul to pop the shields. It's not easy, but certainly possible to do.

So you think that all of their testers only tried one type of deck for a new class? That seems like a huge hole in their testing. I can understand a testing team not finding the best builds and not finding strange combos that eventually break the game, but to not even try to throw together a simple aggro deck that is not hard to come up with? That seems like a major miss.

I think that would make things much harder to balance. There have been a lot of decks in the past that only have one really good counter, and that counter keeps them in check. This would allow you to just ban that counter, which means blizzard would have to make sure every deck has multiple counters, which is something that should already be doing and haven't done a great job at as it is.

Quote from czapejro >>

Quote from Wagnuz >>

They will win, but also lose. If all would play DH then the winrate would be 50, so your theory is wrong.

 wrong, if everyone was playing DH then the winrate of the Demon Hunter would be 100%, not 50%

That's not how winrates work. If there is a game between DH and DH then one wins and has a winrate for that game of 100%, and one loses and has a winrate of 0% for that game. If you average the two you get 50%.

You shouldn't receive any duplicates until you have 2 copies of all of the cards of that rarity in that set. Do you have 2 copies of all of the other cards of the same rarity in that set?

Quote from sPacEtiMe19 >>

Quote from maroon5five >>

No one is excited to pay for something that they could get for free before, but I think some people are looking at this all wrong. Battlegrounds has basically been a free trial so far to let people see what they would eventually have to pay for. It's not like the mode was always meant to be free and then they got greedy. The free trial is now over and it is never exciting when that happens, but we knew it was coming. 

The question really is, is this cost fair? I think if it receives regular updates like it has recently then it might be fair price. 2500 gold is pretty easy to get by just doing daily quests, but I would prefer if there was a reasonable way to pay for it by doing battlegrounds instead of forcing you to play another mode or paying money. I pay for the expansions and play ranked myself a fair amount, so this really doesn't change much for me, but for players who mostly play Hearthstone for Battlegrounds now I think there should be a reasonable way for them to do F2P without playing other modes.

 There is a reasonable way for them to play BG's for free without playing other modes, in that they can just play it. They get less heroes to choose from, and they need to be okay with that. If they're not okay with it, buy the pass.

Trust me I agree with you for the most part, but being able to play for free at the drawback of only being able to pick from 2 champions is completely fair. 

 I'm obviously talking about being able to play and have all the same advantages as someone who pays. In ranked mode you can play a reasonable amount and get the same advantages that people who paid money get, that is not true for Battlegrounds.

No one is excited to pay for something that they could get for free before, but I think some people are looking at this all wrong. Battlegrounds has basically been a free trial so far to let people see what they would eventually have to pay for. It's not like the mode was always meant to be free and then they got greedy. The free trial is now over and it is never exciting when that happens, but we knew it was coming. 

The question really is, is this cost fair? I think if it receives regular updates like it has recently then it might be fair price. 2500 gold is pretty easy to get by just doing daily quests, but I would prefer if there was a reasonable way to pay for it by doing battlegrounds instead of forcing you to play another mode or paying money. I pay for the expansions and play ranked myself a fair amount, so this really doesn't change much for me, but for players who mostly play Hearthstone for Battlegrounds now I think there should be a reasonable way for them to do F2P without playing other modes.

Quote from ethanadragon >>

You have to pray you get a good hero that is high tier to actually win.  I feel like blizzard should buff a lot of the unplayable heroes that are just plain garbage. 

 Obviously some heros are better than others, but none of them are unplayable. The difference in average finish for even the worst heros isn't that far below the average finish of the best heros. 

Quote from Nicodemus >>

 Apparently it's winnable against Deathwing now (he's not the best at "higher ranks" (whatever that means... I usually see him lose(well not got 1st) at 5900 which is in the top 12%) but once again Blizzard is nerfing for the masses. It would be better if people just learned to play around him. 

 I usually see every hero not got 1st. Just because a hero doesn't get 1st every game doesn't mean it is balanced. I don't think I've ever seen Deathwing get less than top 4, which is a problem in my opinion.

Quote from Roadie >>

 Not really, but if thats how you see it.  Legend is a function of the deck you play and the time you grind.  Nothing else.  If it was skill then the alleged best players could get there with just about any deck but they dont.  

 I've seen them do it with low tier decks plenty of times. I've even gotten legend with a tier 4 deck before, and I am far from the best player in the game.