Akali is definitely just a "win more" card in this deck, as he gives you a similar value to Galakrond. There are some other strong cards in the deck you could double up on, like Restless Mummy or another Galakrond invoker. As for Ramming Speed, a Supercollider would have the same effect times 3, but works differently. A second Shield Slam, or possibly an Execute can do some work for you as well.
The rush minions and other endless sources of value stuff can be used as a control tool!
The good old days of just removing your opponent board until they give up on fatigue is just gone, man... we have to deal with it. I like control decks too, but I have adapted in this way above. It feels better.
Also, you still have small chances of these archetypes to emerge when the sets rotate (like when we has control warrior in the beginning of this year).
And if you like playing wild, like me, this is even worse. I mean, your control deck MUST have some sort of wanna-be combo finisher, otherwise, you'll eventually die. Forget about Jaina DK, dead man's hand, etc...
Thing is, most people don't like long matches... they play on mobile and like to solve the battle in a few minutes (I'm not complaining, just guessing what the reason might be).
Usually, at this point of the year, Control gets their hot decks. Aggro should be the strongest during the first expansion each year as it is much harder for other decks to keep the board in check. (Boardclears are only getting added step by step)
However as other people already pointed out: There are way to many pseudo-infinite value generators at the moment plus several viable midrangey decks (I'd count Shaman for this purpose) to keep Control in check. Hence Aggro *could* still play to their hearts content.
Just wait for the next cycle and then feel free to complain about a true aggro meta. ^^
I will probably spend more money with a better pity timer, me like many others players = more money to blizzard. How many people pre order? Less every year, people are quitting.
Honestly getting kinda tired of people whining about secret mage at this point. It's not like the deck can't be countered. My Mech'thun lock ran at 76% winrate against them on the Legend push this season.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "aggro", but I would argue that true aggro has been very weak for most of the past year. Other than divine spirit inner fire priest, most of the top aggressive decks have slow starts and crazy power spikes in mid and late game(Conjurer mage, Galakrond/quest shaman, Beast hunter, etc.). For a large part of last year, the only deck running one-drops was Control Warrior. DoD has enabled/revived some of the more aggressive archetypes but I'd still say midrange decks that can generate oodles of value are dominating the meta, not aggro.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "losing by turn-6 without having any opportunity for counter-play" - you really ought to consider what the reasons for lack of counter-play actually were. Since Wild games are typically decided earlier than in Standard, there is an expectation that you will always have fewer opportunities to actually draw answers to the questions your opponent has posed - but that isn't a problem that can be "solved," it's simply a feature of eternal formats. By their nature, they are less interactive than slower formats.
Vintage MtG has the largest card-pool in any competitive CCG format. It also has the smallest pool of viable decks - literally thousands of otherwise groovy decks are pushed out of the Vintage meta-game by the power-level of a handful of established decks. Eventually, once the Wild format matures, it will be defined by its "pillars" - the decks which are sufficiently powerful to perpetually survive the introduction of new content. Again - that isn't a problem that plagues eternal formats, requiring constant curation from a balance team in order to avoid. Rather, it's an unavoidable consequence that can't be designed around - some folks find it alluring, but most don't, and stick to other formats.
How quickly people forget that we had a Dr. Boom, Mad Genius meta earlier this year. Where aggro decks basically pressed the concede button the second they saw that their opponent was Magni/Garrosh.
The meta always gravitates towards more aggressive decks because those are far more efficient at laddering. That's just how the system works. That doesn't mean control is in a bad spot.
Hell, if Necrium Apothecary gets nerfed as well with the upcoming update, I'm pretty sure highlander mage (a control deck through and through) will become one of the top dogs.
I definitely think that aggro has become stronger over the time. The overall power level of cards has risen throughout the expansions, I feel that not only the early game and aggressive cards got stronger, but also the late game value cards(like dq alex), but since they didn't really print strong early game aoe recently(miss you defile) and you still start with 30health, it is way harder to keep up if you want to survive and reach the late game.
When I first saw that new hellfire-drake for warlock I thought surely this will help controllock have a comeback, and sure a couple of expansions ago hellfire on a stick would have been nuts. But what could is 3dmg aoe if you're opponent plays 10/8 rush or 10/12 taunt or 11/11 chargers on turn 5 or 6? I feel there is just too many ways to create crazy boards in the early or mid game or alternatively, like in token or questhunter, to many ways to create small boards throughout the whole game.
The bad news is, that in my opinion the design team wants it this way. It is in the way the game is made, since you can't block you attackers(only indirectly by playing taunts) the aggressor will always be in favor in hearthstone since they control the action. Plus in metas when we actually had valuable control decks, people complain alot about how boring the game had become, how they don't want to play 8hour control mirrors etc. I think most players prefer a quick 5 minute game on the toilet to a intense 20 minute resource battle between two control decks.
So in conclusion I totally agree with op and I don't see much hope in the future. I mean control decks are still kind of viable, as long as you have crazy big swing turns available (like most of the highlander decks do), but classic control like in the old days might be dead(for now at least).
I’d say that there are way too many ways for aggro decks to refill the board now. After the first wave, cards like Faceless Hoerupptor immediately create large tempo swings while leaving behind big bodies. Our good removals usually come at turns 7/8 and if you somehow reach that stage, well good luck dealing with 4 8/8 rush dudes after expiring all your removal..
Both Standard and Wild have strengths and weaknesses. Personally I find Rank 5 in Wild quite liberating. Since you don't really have anything to lose you are free to play a wide variety of decks and I face a wide variety as well. Now, if you plan to climb to Rank 4 and beyond then the situation changes dramatically and for the worse.
And while I am obviously influenced by other decks and the Meta I never, ever copy a deck. All my decks are of my own construction and design.
I can sympathise with what you are saying, but the fact is that Rogue has historically had some of the best early game tools at its disposal that can fend off all but the most brutally aggressive starts. Most Rogue builds these days focus on value generation and combos rather than building an early game board- few classes can compete with the tempo that rogue can generate with backstab/ si/ dagger/ vendetta/ edwin etc. Rogue and mage (along with priest) are my most played classes, and I completely understand why they are so limited with healing/taunt. A rogue with access to healing tailored to the class identity would be pretty terrifying. Think about the nightmare that was the prenerf leeching poison/ kingsbane combo. Every class needs to be vulnerable in certain areas while excelling in others.
The packs in between don't have to be pack fillers. I can also enjoy pulling some good epics which are similarly crucial for all decks.
But it feels brutal to open the same pack filler epic for the third or fourth time. Therefore any change to the chances of opening better cards should include a no duplicate rule for epics.
So that's exactly the average of 1:20 (7 legendaries in 140 packs). But have to tell you those two times I got over 30 packs between legendaries had me bummed, especially since they were back-to-back. I guess that's kind of the crux - lowering the timer would make people "feel better" since it really sucks when you hit the pity timer (or come very close) more than once in a short period.
To the anecdote from phiL up there - if I ever bought an expansion bundle and only opened for this example say 3 legendaries that would absolutely be enough to make me never spend another dollar on this game, if not quit it outright. That's the fine line any product - let alone a "loot boxy" game - has to walk: balancing getting the most money from your customers without alienating them when the odds bank against them and losing them as customer entirely. I obviously don't have any of Blizzard's data, but I can't imagine they'd lose that much money by lowering the pity time to 30 or 35 packs, which would lower the average to around 15-18 packs. Not a big swing, and would quell at least some of the bad feelings about the general lopsided value of the dusting system/duplicate epics/etc.
Now if we want to get really crazy, my thought was: Conditionally lowering the pity timer. For example, if you open 30/35/40 packs without a legendary, your next pity time is lowered to just 20/25/30 packs (pick whichever numbers you like). That way you wouldn't run into my situation where I had multiple 30+ pack opens in a row and would again lower the overall average by a little without "giving away something for free" since the majority of players rarely experience that kind of thing.
" lowering the timer would make people "feel better" since it really sucks when you hit the pity timer (or come very close) more than once in a short period."
I'm not sure it would, though. Suppose the pity timer were at 35 in the example above: Would it have been a better experience to actually hit the pity timer for legendary #5? Or would that have made opening that legend even more bittersweet? That's the problem with a pity timer: if you know about it and especially if you keep track of it, it lessens the joy of getting a legend to know it was guaranteed by the pity system. To give a more extreme example to illustrate the point: suppose instead of randomness you were guaranteed a legend every 20ieth pack, but only every 20ieth pack. It'd completely ruin the experience of opening packs because you know with certainty that the 19 packs in between are guaranteed filler, and you also know no luck was involved in opening any legendaries.
I absolutely understand that a long streak of not opening legends is a real bummer, but I don't think drastically reducing the pity timer would be a satisfying fix. I think increasing the drop rate for legendaries would similarly reduce the occurrence of long dry spells while at the same time increasing the number of very positive player experiences, like getting back-to-back legendaries.
Thanks for checking out the deck. If you have the dust to try it out then why not go for it. Just remember wild has some busted decks so if youre having some decent success in standard it might just be better to stick with it.
1. If I don't have a 1-drop, I'll toss my whole hand most of the time. The Quest does not count as a 1-drop, it needs to be a minion that deals damage early and you're very likely to draw 1 with 6 in the deck. If you have a 1-drop already, I'd then mulligan for the Phase Stalker, Toxic Reinforcements, and Eaglehorn Bow in that order.
2. Nah, I don't play wild much sorry (pretty much only Exodia Mage and Mill Rogue). The standard meta runs heals almost exclusively as a result of this deck. But if you're losing to Warlock, Paladin, and Priest I'm suprised; most of the meta is Shaman/Rogue.
I totally agree and relate with you. I hate aggro so much and I despise how classes like mage and rogue just have such a disadvantage because the class literally has no good heal outside of zilliax. It’s crazy how those two classes can get rushed down so much just because it’s part of the class ‘identity’ not to have taunt or heal.
Without the quest completion I think its fair to say that quest shaman is mostly dead. At that point its a highroll Mogu Fleshshaper (by far the most oppressive card in SoU) mutate combo or get your prayers from ethereal lackey.
Quest shaman actually starts with pretty weak tempo and until their quest completion, can't actually push anything aside from Mogu Fleshshaper. That was why quest druid destroys the deck. I think by increasing the quest requirement from 6 to 8 or 9 substantially weakens the deck enough for most mid range decks to get through. That is, of course, if quest shaman remains to be anything after this nerf.
It was oppressive early in SoU but mellowed a little until the Doom in the tomb event. Its not easy to pilot this deck and its far from being the best deck in the meta then. There's no need to push it that far off the edge.
MC Kronx feat. Big G
Akali is definitely just a "win more" card in this deck, as he gives you a similar value to Galakrond. There are some other strong cards in the deck you could double up on, like Restless Mummy or another Galakrond invoker. As for Ramming Speed, a Supercollider would have the same effect times 3, but works differently. A second Shield Slam, or possibly an Execute can do some work for you as well.
Here's some art, make a card! [Legacy Game]
Last: A Murloc with Spell Synergy
Next: A Druid/Shaman minion that interacts with Deathrattles.
Legends of Runeterra - Explore Ionia
Actually it is: "Zed's dead".
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
You can think from another point of view
The rush minions and other endless sources of value stuff can be used as a control tool!
The good old days of just removing your opponent board until they give up on fatigue is just gone, man... we have to deal with it. I like control decks too, but I have adapted in this way above. It feels better.
Also, you still have small chances of these archetypes to emerge when the sets rotate (like when we has control warrior in the beginning of this year).
And if you like playing wild, like me, this is even worse. I mean, your control deck MUST have some sort of wanna-be combo finisher, otherwise, you'll eventually die. Forget about Jaina DK, dead man's hand, etc...
Thing is, most people don't like long matches... they play on mobile and like to solve the battle in a few minutes (I'm not complaining, just guessing what the reason might be).
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
Usually, at this point of the year, Control gets their hot decks. Aggro should be the strongest during the first expansion each year as it is much harder for other decks to keep the board in check. (Boardclears are only getting added step by step)
However as other people already pointed out: There are way to many pseudo-infinite value generators at the moment plus several viable midrangey decks (I'd count Shaman for this purpose) to keep Control in check. Hence Aggro *could* still play to their hearts content.
Just wait for the next cycle and then feel free to complain about a true aggro meta. ^^
Should the pity timer be lower?
I will probably spend more money with a better pity timer, me like many others players = more money to blizzard. How many people pre order? Less every year, people are quitting.
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
Honestly getting kinda tired of people whining about secret mage at this point. It's not like the deck can't be countered. My Mech'thun lock ran at 76% winrate against them on the Legend push this season.
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
Lack of answers in few turns cannot be solved, maybe, but it can be normalized by printing cheaper and more efficient Tech cards.
Obviously, I'll NEVER find answers, if the answer for brokenness does not even exist, or if it is highly inefficient.
They keep printing obviously flawed cards, why not printing equally powerful tech cards, regularly over time?
Standard would be mostly unaffected, because the powerlevel there is hardly as high as to require tech cards at all.
But Wild would be viable for a wider spectrum of players, much more than pure Spikes or pure memers...
And with hardly any need of nerfs.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
I suppose it depends on your definition of "aggro", but I would argue that true aggro has been very weak for most of the past year. Other than divine spirit inner fire priest, most of the top aggressive decks have slow starts and crazy power spikes in mid and late game(Conjurer mage, Galakrond/quest shaman, Beast hunter, etc.). For a large part of last year, the only deck running one-drops was Control Warrior. DoD has enabled/revived some of the more aggressive archetypes but I'd still say midrange decks that can generate oodles of value are dominating the meta, not aggro.
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "losing by turn-6 without having any opportunity for counter-play" - you really ought to consider what the reasons for lack of counter-play actually were. Since Wild games are typically decided earlier than in Standard, there is an expectation that you will always have fewer opportunities to actually draw answers to the questions your opponent has posed - but that isn't a problem that can be "solved," it's simply a feature of eternal formats. By their nature, they are less interactive than slower formats.
Vintage MtG has the largest card-pool in any competitive CCG format. It also has the smallest pool of viable decks - literally thousands of otherwise groovy decks are pushed out of the Vintage meta-game by the power-level of a handful of established decks. Eventually, once the Wild format matures, it will be defined by its "pillars" - the decks which are sufficiently powerful to perpetually survive the introduction of new content. Again - that isn't a problem that plagues eternal formats, requiring constant curation from a balance team in order to avoid. Rather, it's an unavoidable consequence that can't be designed around - some folks find it alluring, but most don't, and stick to other formats.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
Card Generation, Undercosted Rush, and Archivist Elysiana killed the Control Archetype.
Control is Giga-dead. Control Players love for Control Decks is not though.
Good job losing players Blizzard, they will slowly drift to MTG Arena or Legends of Runeterra.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
How quickly people forget that we had a Dr. Boom, Mad Genius meta earlier this year. Where aggro decks basically pressed the concede button the second they saw that their opponent was Magni/Garrosh.
The meta always gravitates towards more aggressive decks because those are far more efficient at laddering. That's just how the system works. That doesn't mean control is in a bad spot.
Hell, if Necrium Apothecary gets nerfed as well with the upcoming update, I'm pretty sure highlander mage (a control deck through and through) will become one of the top dogs.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
I definitely think that aggro has become stronger over the time. The overall power level of cards has risen throughout the expansions, I feel that not only the early game and aggressive cards got stronger, but also the late game value cards(like dq alex), but since they didn't really print strong early game aoe recently(miss you defile) and you still start with 30health, it is way harder to keep up if you want to survive and reach the late game.
When I first saw that new hellfire-drake for warlock I thought surely this will help controllock have a comeback, and sure a couple of expansions ago hellfire on a stick would have been nuts. But what could is 3dmg aoe if you're opponent plays 10/8 rush or 10/12 taunt or 11/11 chargers on turn 5 or 6? I feel there is just too many ways to create crazy boards in the early or mid game or alternatively, like in token or questhunter, to many ways to create small boards throughout the whole game.
The bad news is, that in my opinion the design team wants it this way. It is in the way the game is made, since you can't block you attackers(only indirectly by playing taunts) the aggressor will always be in favor in hearthstone since they control the action. Plus in metas when we actually had valuable control decks, people complain alot about how boring the game had become, how they don't want to play 8hour control mirrors etc. I think most players prefer a quick 5 minute game on the toilet to a intense 20 minute resource battle between two control decks.
So in conclusion I totally agree with op and I don't see much hope in the future. I mean control decks are still kind of viable, as long as you have crazy big swing turns available (like most of the highlander decks do), but classic control like in the old days might be dead(for now at least).
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
I’d say that there are way too many ways for aggro decks to refill the board now. After the first wave, cards like Faceless Hoerupptor immediately create large tempo swings while leaving behind big bodies. Our good removals usually come at turns 7/8 and if you somehow reach that stage, well good luck dealing with 4 8/8 rush dudes after expiring all your removal..
MC Kronx feat. Big G
I’m missing Akali and Ramming Speed, any replacements?
[Legend] Leprosy SMOrc Hunter
Nice deck, won 4 games in a row vs Shamans
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
Both Standard and Wild have strengths and weaknesses. Personally I find Rank 5 in Wild quite liberating. Since you don't really have anything to lose you are free to play a wide variety of decks and I face a wide variety as well. Now, if you plan to climb to Rank 4 and beyond then the situation changes dramatically and for the worse.
And while I am obviously influenced by other decks and the Meta I never, ever copy a deck. All my decks are of my own construction and design.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
I can sympathise with what you are saying, but the fact is that Rogue has historically had some of the best early game tools at its disposal that can fend off all but the most brutally aggressive starts. Most Rogue builds these days focus on value generation and combos rather than building an early game board- few classes can compete with the tempo that rogue can generate with backstab/ si/ dagger/ vendetta/ edwin etc. Rogue and mage (along with priest) are my most played classes, and I completely understand why they are so limited with healing/taunt. A rogue with access to healing tailored to the class identity would be pretty terrifying. Think about the nightmare that was the prenerf leeching poison/ kingsbane combo. Every class needs to be vulnerable in certain areas while excelling in others.
Legends of Runeterra - Explore Ionia
Someone once asked me, "Chronologically, what is the last sentence spoken in "Pulp Fiction"?'
Zed is Dead.
Should the pity timer be lower?
The packs in between don't have to be pack fillers. I can also enjoy pulling some good epics which are similarly crucial for all decks.
But it feels brutal to open the same pack filler epic for the third or fourth time. Therefore any change to the chances of opening better cards should include a no duplicate rule for epics.
Should the pity timer be lower?
" lowering the timer would make people "feel better" since it really sucks when you hit the pity timer (or come very close) more than once in a short period."
I'm not sure it would, though. Suppose the pity timer were at 35 in the example above: Would it have been a better experience to actually hit the pity timer for legendary #5? Or would that have made opening that legend even more bittersweet? That's the problem with a pity timer: if you know about it and especially if you keep track of it, it lessens the joy of getting a legend to know it was guaranteed by the pity system. To give a more extreme example to illustrate the point: suppose instead of randomness you were guaranteed a legend every 20ieth pack, but only every 20ieth pack. It'd completely ruin the experience of opening packs because you know with certainty that the 19 packs in between are guaranteed filler, and you also know no luck was involved in opening any legendaries.
I absolutely understand that a long streak of not opening legends is a real bummer, but I don't think drastically reducing the pity timer would be a satisfying fix. I think increasing the drop rate for legendaries would similarly reduce the occurrence of long dry spells while at the same time increasing the number of very positive player experiences, like getting back-to-back legendaries.
Midrange: Galakrond Warrior
Thanks for checking out the deck. If you have the dust to try it out then why not go for it. Just remember wild has some busted decks so if youre having some decent success in standard it might just be better to stick with it.
[Legend] Leprosy SMOrc Hunter
1. If I don't have a 1-drop, I'll toss my whole hand most of the time. The Quest does not count as a 1-drop, it needs to be a minion that deals damage early and you're very likely to draw 1 with 6 in the deck. If you have a 1-drop already, I'd then mulligan for the Phase Stalker, Toxic Reinforcements, and Eaglehorn Bow in that order.
2. Nah, I don't play wild much sorry (pretty much only Exodia Mage and Mill Rogue). The standard meta runs heals almost exclusively as a result of this deck. But if you're losing to Warlock, Paladin, and Priest I'm suprised; most of the meta is Shaman/Rogue.
Has Aggro Become Too Strong?
I totally agree and relate with you. I hate aggro so much and I despise how classes like mage and rogue just have such a disadvantage because the class literally has no good heal outside of zilliax. It’s crazy how those two classes can get rushed down so much just because it’s part of the class ‘identity’ not to have taunt or heal.
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Without the quest completion I think its fair to say that quest shaman is mostly dead. At that point its a highroll Mogu Fleshshaper (by far the most oppressive card in SoU) mutate combo or get your prayers from ethereal lackey.
Quest shaman actually starts with pretty weak tempo and until their quest completion, can't actually push anything aside from Mogu Fleshshaper. That was why quest druid destroys the deck. I think by increasing the quest requirement from 6 to 8 or 9 substantially weakens the deck enough for most mid range decks to get through. That is, of course, if quest shaman remains to be anything after this nerf.
It was oppressive early in SoU but mellowed a little until the Doom in the tomb event. Its not easy to pilot this deck and its far from being the best deck in the meta then. There's no need to push it that far off the edge.