The entire community cried shaman , mean while we'll be stuck with 10/10 one drops from rogue and pirate warrior..
How did someone from the design team not speak up and say hey you know what guys? All of these are really over powered, so maybe let's not turn it up to 11 on this expansion.
Wild is actually pretty okay, they just need to do something about the most prevalent decks in order to give other decks a chance to compete. Previously it was big priest with early swing turns with barnes and when they nerfed him it basically disappeared. Now it's secret mage, whose main problem is that it stops you from playing your removal spells because of counterspell or sticking any minions because of explosive runes, while dealing huge amounts of burst damage to you. The only counter is eater of secrets, which is a really bad card on its own, you need to draw it and it still doesn't provide enough of a swing turn to guarantee you're still in the game. That's just an inherent design flaw on blizzard's part which was bound to come to light and it's only matter of time before they realize it. I just hope they aren't as slow with it as they were with barnes.
I have been counting my pack openings for almost 2 years now, and I can say that in my case, opening over 25 packs without legendary is more common than obtaining one within the first 20 packs (guaranteed legendary within 10 packs at the start of any expansion excluded).
I too think that showing the most recent decks commented on would be a better idea than showing the most recent comments. It would be better for advertising more decks.
Yeah I do think he means the ladder system as a whole here so legend #1 doesn't play a rank 50 guy/gal.
I've never read they try to fiddle with a same rank matchup to ensure you get a 50% winrate. I've been able to get 85-90% winrate over 15 or so games sometimes at lower ranks.
Again, they've stated the exact opposite which I believe in the absence of proof to the contrary. The ladder system and meta environment as a whole acts to somewhat balance the matchups/winrates.
I do understand though sometimes it doesn't *feel* that way :)
Maybe. Maybe not. It definitely depends on the point of view.
People don't comment too much on decks right now, leading to the primary issue, so it would appear that showcasing the latest comments rather than the latest decks commented on, is a wasted opportunity to display more decks. Consider though, if one sees a lot of active discussion on the same deck, it can give you an idea that a hot, recent discussion is taking place on the deck and maybe you should check it out. This could, of course, be sort of solved if we displayed the deck's comment count on the discussion row.
I think there are better things we could do to help deck discoverability on the site and to encourage more people to comment on decks, providing greater turnover.
Increasing the requirement by two wouldn't hurt the deck at all. For one, there are plenty of battlecry cards that add battlecry cards to your hand (most notably lackeys, but also any bouncers/copy to your hand minions also count), so increasing the requirement by two would only delay them by a turn or two. Plus, the deck isn't overpowered because they get the quest so early and overwhelm you with tempo (it is partly that) but most of the time they are able to win because they have so many ways to recover and continue to apply pressure throughout the entire game due to the quest reward. So pushing back the quest by only one or two turns wouldn't stop them.
Making the hero power only affect the next battlecry would be fair though. You say it would just kill them, but no, it would however stop them from getting double lackeys into double discover a spell into double two cost minion, and now they have a full board and hand just from playing a single Sludge Slurper. It wouldn't kill the quest, it would just stop shaman's from getting stupid amounts value in a single turn. You could still use the quest, but you would have to play less, bigger battlecries, instead of spamming hundreds of little ones. With this change, you could still get value from your quest, you just have to be smarter, and more conservative about it.
I don't. Standard is shamans and wild is as you described.
I do my dailies and then play something else. Arena has never interested me and I couldn't care less about Battlegrounds.
Just waiting for December 10th, really...
I come from the future. Standar Is Still plagued by shaman but at least nerfs are coming. Wild Is Still fun :)
Wild is the real deal!!!
Now that they are printing more stuff to support wild, balancing more frequently (aka Barnes and SN1P-SN4P nerfs), adding the possibility to buy wild packs with gold, etc. I just hope more and more players join us!
The ones not running corrupt the waters in their galakrond shaman are doing it wrong. Keep in mind that the most op part of galakrond shaman is the rush minions from invoke, so you can just run galakrond as an engine without having to play it and override your hero power, and it still remains a summon 4 8/8 with rush trump card in case things go south (heart of vir nal into galakrond, 9 mana play)
Galakrond shaman can definitely afford to lose 1 card in their openers considering just the sheer amount of battlecry minions it runs, and the heavy board aggression it sets up with its rush cards.
Just to complain about something else for a change: why can't I jump to the last page in a thread in one click? I can only click the ... to load the next 5 pages, but there's not 'jump to end' button. There should be.
Back on topic: wtf is up with Arena at the moment? I'm not the greatest player, but I do mostly get to 5 or 6 wins. These last few runs I thought I had pretty decent decks, only to get completely destroyed by OP decks. Has the powerlevel spiked or something? I played a Shaman whose first FOUR cards were active Dragon synergy cards. Cards 5 and 6 were a Dragon and another Dragon synergy card respectively.
I'm pretty sure there is a reason for having so many of these complicated trashy meme-y cards as epics, namely limiting their impact/occurrence in the actual game and keeping them out of the hands of total beginners. Magic has a very similar pattern, with most of these types of cards being printed as "trash/crap rares". While it's not exactly analogous, because drop rates in arena are not based solely on rarity, nevertheless I don't think it's a coincidence that most convoluted janky cards are released as epics.
Edit: Here are two of many articles by Magic head honcho mark Rosewater explaining the need for bad rares in Magic. The situation isn't identical, but a lot of the arguments do translate to HS.
Well, idk, ok, maybe it's because I'm playing around at trash rank ~15, but I actually didn't have any problems against galakrond shaman with galakrond miracle rogue. It's what most of the enemies are, and I did not lose even a single game against them.
Is the deck really that OP?... Treant druid and pirate warrior seem much better to me (against rogue)
It has been stated so far more than once by Hearthstone developers that there is a algorithm built in matchmaker that tries to keep all players around 50% win rate.
Do you have a source for that? In my post earlier in the thread they've been clear there isn't.
Any 50% winrate goal would be based on the idea you rank/MMR tried to pit you against players of your skill level (or deck power level at least) over time. Perhaps that is what was referred to.
That's also possible. Oddly, I can't find any source atm (will try some more later), but I remember clearly reading about it more than once.
Also, this video kinda explains what I'm talking about here. Interesting part starts at 11:07
That's right, that's why epics should be more common.. The likely hood of a 40 dust packs is too high.. I really think that the worst value should also be a rare case... Opening packs is exciting, but most of them being the worst case suck.
I would like to know this play to rank 15 meta. For me its just rank 5 to legend. All meta decks. Rank 19 in standard got shaman tier s deck wild rank 17 its pally snip big priest etc. No memes. Maybe 1 out of 10
Battlegrounds Performance Improvements Coming to Mobile on Tuesday
Meanwhile on standard ladder shaman will get gutted and rogue will be untouched leaving an even more polarized meta with insanely stated 1 drops.
Who ever tested this expansion really dropped the ball.
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
The entire community cried shaman , mean while we'll be stuck with 10/10 one drops from rogue and pirate warrior..
How did someone from the design team not speak up and say hey you know what guys? All of these are really over powered, so maybe let's not turn it up to 11 on this expansion.
Worst expansion launch experience yet
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
Wild is actually pretty okay, they just need to do something about the most prevalent decks in order to give other decks a chance to compete. Previously it was big priest with early swing turns with barnes and when they nerfed him it basically disappeared. Now it's secret mage, whose main problem is that it stops you from playing your removal spells because of counterspell or sticking any minions because of explosive runes, while dealing huge amounts of burst damage to you. The only counter is eater of secrets, which is a really bad card on its own, you need to draw it and it still doesn't provide enough of a swing turn to guarantee you're still in the game. That's just an inherent design flaw on blizzard's part which was bound to come to light and it's only matter of time before they realize it. I just hope they aren't as slow with it as they were with barnes.
Should the pity timer be lower?
I have been counting my pack openings for almost 2 years now, and I can say that in my case, opening over 25 packs without legendary is more common than obtaining one within the first 20 packs (guaranteed legendary within 10 packs at the start of any expansion excluded).
Battlegrounds Performance Improvements Coming to Mobile on Tuesday
Excellent! I can play the frog man now!
Latest deck discussions
I too think that showing the most recent decks commented on would be a better idea than showing the most recent comments. It would be better for advertising more decks.
Suspicious Matchmaking
Yeah I do think he means the ladder system as a whole here so legend #1 doesn't play a rank 50 guy/gal.
I've never read they try to fiddle with a same rank matchup to ensure you get a 50% winrate. I've been able to get 85-90% winrate over 15 or so games sometimes at lower ranks.
Again, they've stated the exact opposite which I believe in the absence of proof to the contrary. The ladder system and meta environment as a whole acts to somewhat balance the matchups/winrates.
I do understand though sometimes it doesn't *feel* that way :)
Latest deck discussions
Maybe. Maybe not. It definitely depends on the point of view.
People don't comment too much on decks right now, leading to the primary issue, so it would appear that showcasing the latest comments rather than the latest decks commented on, is a wasted opportunity to display more decks. Consider though, if one sees a lot of active discussion on the same deck, it can give you an idea that a hot, recent discussion is taking place on the deck and maybe you should check it out. This could, of course, be sort of solved if we displayed the deck's comment count on the discussion row.
I think there are better things we could do to help deck discoverability on the site and to encourage more people to comment on decks, providing greater turnover.
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Increasing the requirement by two wouldn't hurt the deck at all. For one, there are plenty of battlecry cards that add battlecry cards to your hand (most notably lackeys, but also any bouncers/copy to your hand minions also count), so increasing the requirement by two would only delay them by a turn or two. Plus, the deck isn't overpowered because they get the quest so early and overwhelm you with tempo (it is partly that) but most of the time they are able to win because they have so many ways to recover and continue to apply pressure throughout the entire game due to the quest reward. So pushing back the quest by only one or two turns wouldn't stop them.
Making the hero power only affect the next battlecry would be fair though. You say it would just kill them, but no, it would however stop them from getting double lackeys into double discover a spell into double two cost minion, and now they have a full board and hand just from playing a single Sludge Slurper. It wouldn't kill the quest, it would just stop shaman's from getting stupid amounts value in a single turn. You could still use the quest, but you would have to play less, bigger battlecries, instead of spamming hundreds of little ones. With this change, you could still get value from your quest, you just have to be smarter, and more conservative about it.
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
Wild is the real deal!!!
Now that they are printing more stuff to support wild, balancing more frequently (aka Barnes and SN1P-SN4P nerfs), adding the possibility to buy wild packs with gold, etc. I just hope more and more players join us!
Everyone, get in here!!!
Battlegrounds Performance Improvements Coming to Mobile on Tuesday
Most likely Thursday... That is the usual patch day... They patch on Tuesdays and Thursdays
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
I come from the future. Standar Is Still plagued by shaman but at least nerfs are coming. Wild Is Still fun :)
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Does anyone else remember when Shaman was a laughing stock? I do.... 😢
Hearthstone Balance Changes Confirmed For Next Week
The ones not running corrupt the waters in their galakrond shaman are doing it wrong. Keep in mind that the most op part of galakrond shaman is the rush minions from invoke, so you can just run galakrond as an engine without having to play it and override your hero power, and it still remains a summon 4 8/8 with rush trump card in case things go south (heart of vir nal into galakrond, 9 mana play)
Galakrond shaman can definitely afford to lose 1 card in their openers considering just the sheer amount of battlecry minions it runs, and the heavy board aggression it sets up with its rush cards.
[Legend] Leprosy SMOrc Hunter
thank you man! Crafting right now
Group Therapy! Need to blow off some steam? Mega salty? Here's the place!
Just to complain about something else for a change: why can't I jump to the last page in a thread in one click? I can only click the ... to load the next 5 pages, but there's not 'jump to end' button.
There should be.
Back on topic: wtf is up with Arena at the moment? I'm not the greatest player, but I do mostly get to 5 or 6 wins. These last few runs I thought I had pretty decent decks, only to get completely destroyed by OP decks. Has the powerlevel spiked or something?
I played a Shaman whose first FOUR cards were active Dragon synergy cards. Cards 5 and 6 were a Dragon and another Dragon synergy card respectively.
I mean come on guys, that's not a fun experience.
Should the pity timer be lower?
I'm pretty sure there is a reason for having so many of these complicated trashy meme-y cards as epics, namely limiting their impact/occurrence in the actual game and keeping them out of the hands of total beginners. Magic has a very similar pattern, with most of these types of cards being printed as "trash/crap rares". While it's not exactly analogous, because drop rates in arena are not based solely on rarity, nevertheless I don't think it's a coincidence that most convoluted janky cards are released as epics.
Edit: Here are two of many articles by Magic head honcho mark Rosewater explaining the need for bad rares in Magic. The situation isn't identical, but a lot of the arguments do translate to HS.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/good-bad-and-ugly-truth-2005-07-18-0
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/rare-well-done-2002-02-25-0
Battlegrounds Performance Improvements Coming to Mobile on Tuesday
Grinch would be more fitting 😉
Standard Meta Report #15 - Fixing (Yet Another) Shaman Meta
Well, idk, ok, maybe it's because I'm playing around at trash rank ~15, but I actually didn't have any problems against galakrond shaman with galakrond miracle rogue. It's what most of the enemies are, and I did not lose even a single game against them.
Is the deck really that OP?... Treant druid and pirate warrior seem much better to me (against rogue)
Suspicious Matchmaking
That's also possible. Oddly, I can't find any source atm (will try some more later), but I remember clearly reading about it more than once.
Also, this video kinda explains what I'm talking about here. Interesting part starts at 11:07
Should the pity timer be lower?
That's right, that's why epics should be more common.. The likely hood of a 40 dust packs is too high.. I really think that the worst value should also be a rare case... Opening packs is exciting, but most of them being the worst case suck.
Iksar's Legend Galakrond Rogue (Hearthstone Dev)
Filk is a she, just saying
Latest deck discussions
Wouldn't it be better, to show just threads in the latest deck discussions and not single posts?
As it is now, every new post is displayed, which leads to the section being full with posts for one deck.
I think, that it would be better and more diverse, if more decks could be shown there.
So just the threads/deck discussions with the latest posts, not the latest posts itself.
BR, kramerofboandls
Wild players: how do you still enjoy it?
I would like to know this play to rank 15 meta. For me its just rank 5 to legend. All meta decks. Rank 19 in standard got shaman tier s deck wild rank 17 its pally snip big priest etc. No memes. Maybe 1 out of 10
Sea of Dunes
The only one I missed so far :( How does one recover from grief over a card back forever lost?