Undertaker Hunter Was Once 25% of the Meta
Hearthstone Game Designer, August Dean Ayala, shared some interesting numbers on reddit today.
Quote from August Dean Ayala
- Undertaker Hunter at one point was around 25% of the meta.
- Undertaker Hunter at its peak has a winrate of 55-57%. (If remembered correctly)
- Currently the most popular Shaman archetype is less than half of what Undertaker Hunter was in its prime.
- The highest class win rate Dean ever saw was Druid at 57%.
- Highest Single Player in Legend win rate (minimum 50-70 games) was around 75%.
- The Highest Single Player in Legend win rate is normally about 70%.
Now I am sad I missed the chance to play that great deck :((
It was not fun. Just face hunter with a 1-drop that if left unanswered you lost the game.
All games were essentially decided on T1
You talk from the perspective of the guy playing against it but I bet it was very fun for the guy who was actually playing with Undertaker .
FWIW - it was a mid-range deck, running all the mid-range deathrattles.
yea face hunter is soooo fun to play
Hey guys, remember the good old days when shaman sucked ?
Yep, had a golden Shammy long before agro Shaman (in it's present day condition, anyways) was a thing!
Good i had a break in the time undertaker-meta was going on without even knowing about it. :)
Can't imagine how cancerous it was when i read the differences to aggro shaman.
Aggro shaman is basically a fatigue deck compared to undertaker hunter.
So true! Turn 1 Undertaker (1/2), Turn 2 Leper Gnome (2/1), Leper Gnome(2/1), hit by 3/4 Undertaker GG
If any of you haters actually bothered to read the source of this quote, you'd see that the numbers were supplied in response to a player's wondering whether Hearthstone has ever had a so-called "Tier 0" deck. They weren't given out of the blue, and no one was trying to prove a point about the current meta.
Blizzard kindly supplied the numbers to give the closest answer to that question, and everyone jumps down their throat as if it's some kind of horrific PR ploy.
I remember watching a tournament once on twitch, someone fireballed a 5/6 undertaker and the caster said "Fireballing a 1 drop... That's gotta feel bad..."
Hearthstone veterans be like:
"The nightmares... no... NO... THEY ARE BACK! HIDE YOUR RANKS!"
I guess those numbers are including the normal pleb who stopped playing Heartstone because of the Huntertaker meta. Didn't know 75% of the population stopped tough o.O
Otherwise, they need to show us how these rates are done. Per played person or statistically around ALL games EVER played in ranked mode during Undertaker meta? This includes the undertaker priest, zoolock, hunter and whatever more
Bring out your stats.
You know, just because the current state of heartstone does not represent one of the biggest mistakes blizzard ever made in hearthstone (releasing undertaker), does not mean everything is sunshine and rainbows now. In fact i'm kinda pissed the they use those times as a measure, so now if a state of the game is not as bad as that crap fest was its all okay? Really???
Undertaker or no-Undertaker, I am still missing the Naxx and GvG times. The cards out there felt like proper cards, not this RNG shit. The game itself had so much potential to be competitive and fun for casual and pro players alike. Now pro players are almost completely gone from tournaments and the casual players are all pissed up about the state of the game and the current releases.
Well played, Blizzard.
True. But I wanted to give standard a go as well.
And - shame or not - I am also a net-decker. And 99% of decks I see on sites are standard decks. And all the streamers I enjoy watching do play standard format exclusively. So switching to Wild isn't that straight forward to me, but I will definitely give it a go sooner rather than later.
Short memory - the sets were only rotated a few months ago, and posters regularly bitched about "this RNG shit." Boombots, Implosions, Shredders, Blastmages, Spare Parts, Unstable Portals, Voidcallers and Mal'ganis. There were plenty of others. The sky is always falling, the grass is always greener, etc.
I would be much more interested to see numbers spread across the rankings. I.e. give me data on the number of shamans rank 5-1, Legend, etc.
Blizzard dev : "Here's some numbers to give you some perspective as to what we see."
Average Hearthpwn user: "Fuck you! I don't want to see any real data that disagrees with my anecdotal data. I'm the one who knows everything here."