Perhaps the only consolation out of this meta is that most decks actually require skill to pull off, not least because the games don't really last all that long. Quest dhunter is one of the most skill testing mostly because unlike all the other quests, this one isn't just a card dump every turn, you need to plan and complete each tier within the turn itself or it resets. Would be interesting if we get plenty of those matches in GM, because the skill ceiling of those decks are off the charts.
Kinda makes us wonder why mage's isn't designed like that.
The Brave and the Bolner - Trigger Battlecries with Bolner 25/50/100 times.
Instantly complete ALL 3 tiers of this XP achievement with Bolner Hammerbeak combined with Kazakus, Golem Shaper. It is probably not intended to work this way, so this will probably be patched in the near future.
As for complementary card suggestions, just add 2 Lightning Blooms and fill up the rest of your deck with draw cards.
Enjoy!
Just curious. How does this work? You mean the second you did this once the achievement just sprung?
I dont think I've ever seen the win rate for going first be so radically different than second. But it makes sense. The unfortunate mess we have today is that the quest rewards ends games the following turn its played. So if going first means the quest reward drops 1 turn earlier, then obviously going first would be radically different than second.
Looking forward to that nerf list next week team5. In the meantime I'll be casually watching GM and waiting for that oh so wonderful turn 2 Incanter's Flow that'll be rolling every GM's eyes and tickling every caster's belly because that's the very peak of skillful play from that deck.
Just a question from a non LoR player. How many expansions does LoR get per year? Its like for every one hearthstone expansion I'll be seeing two of these.
This is the one time Im going to do this. If anyone hold up stats in front of my face, I'll tell them to fuck off.
Why? Because mage isn't on the top of the list, and we all know damn well its broken as hell and only countered by aggro decks and nothing else. And even then that can easily turn around with a simple Incanter's Flow on 2.
Ive never had an experience as bad as when I see mage play incanter's flow. I'll have 'uncounterable' barrens secret paladin anyday. Hell, just unnerf crabrider, because if it destroys that bloody class it'll be worth it.
Im less concerned about wild because more broken things are available than being able to continually cycling Ignite. For now, if they would remove or nerf Incanter's Flow then I'd say we can leave the other mage stuff in standard alone for the time being.
The point of changing the mana cost of the quest rewards has less to do with investment and more to do with the length of the game and the madness of the quest reward's ability to close games so consistently the following turn its played, not to mention the absurdity that a combo deck can consistently finish a game by turn 5-7.
Its actually a break from the usual, because convention would be to offer 20 packs from the previous expansion now, and then two months later to offer another with 20 of the current expansion.
Well, this deal does get you 10 more packs from stormwind, but the split can mean you're a little less likely to get a legendary off the 20 packs since they're 10 each rather than 20 of the same.
Unsurprising that they decided to wait because the balance is currently too delicate for a hasty decision.
Its not merely Incanter's Flow that twists all games in mage's favor, its also the fact that most games barely last beyond turn 7. Battleground Battlemaster and quests kinda ensures that the match never reaches the late game so many late game cards simply vanished like new alex, Illidari Inquisitor, and the old gods.
Pretty sure the change will be aimed at slowing all the quests down (maybe changing the mana cost of the quest rewards), a nerf to battleground battlemaster, and if we're lucky we get some buffs to cards too. Perhaps team5 might consider banning Incanter's Flow or doing something to it, because we can't keep having the same problems over and over until rotation.
Jia and TJ don't match well together. They tried once in early barrens and unsurprisingly we never see them both cast together again throughout the rest of the expansion.
Specialist is good in theory, but it does expose the frailty of the meta at times because obviously nearly everyone would be playing the best class. Too bad the sideboard thing didn't catch on to the other formats because that's the most interesting part of specialist anyway.
Also, I'd like to agree with meisterz39's assessment. In metas where attrition based control were prominent, it was mostly an awful experience. I like slower games myself, and was gleefully playing control bomb warrior before the last rotation, and was playing lots of control priest in the early parts of the barrens meta. But whenever I face up against a mirror match I often find myself silently praying my opponent just t1 concedes. And I think this is a general sentiment towards control decks in the community.
This feels kind of hypocritical: "gleefully" playing bomb warrior, or control priest but then when you go into a mirror match hoping that they concede. What's that saying? "You can't have your cake and eat it too". You can't be someone who "enjoys slower games" and "plays control decks" but then agrees with the sentiment that "control decks bad".
And meisterz sentiment about how "control doesn't play a large part in Hearthstone's metagame" is PRECISELY why aggro is always running rampant. Aggro at it's core is about consistency and (lately) card draw. Control doesn't generally want a ton of card draw because naturally their cards are more expensive. Control's archtype is to keep aggro in check. Going back to the "holy trifecta". Control's role in card games is to keep aggro in check. OTK decks keep control in check. If control is pushed out of the meta all the time because of lack of support that's on the devs. If control is pushed out of the meta because people can't be bothered to play a match for anything longer than 5-10 minute games. That's on the players: The game is not here to cater to ADD kids who can't be arsed to think beyond their 5 minute face hunter smorc gameplan. Control is often given a bad rap because "my game lasted 20 minutes....hearthstone is so boring" , then perhaps those people are playing the wrong game.
Is it hypocritical to like playing with slow decks while not liking to play against slow decks? Im not sure. I'll leave that for others to judge.
But to address what I think is the central point of your response to mine; I simply don't believe hearthstone needs to follow a strict holy trinity, a 'trifecta' of how archetypes work, or should work because hearthstone decks regularly crosses between the lines. Quest mage plays like a control deck, controlock has at its core a combo that wins the game for them (whether its tickatus or neeru), as does barrens control shaman. Token druid is a combo deck that sometimes play like an aggro deck. It can never have a strict definition, much less a 'role' because one card can mean all the difference (Lock and Load in face hunter, Doomhammer or Whack-A-Gnoll Hammer in elemental shaman, etc.). For the sake of brevity we apply labels to them, but there's no holy book to mandate their roles in the game. Metas and viability are determined by deck builds, and certainly not by its 'roles' as the labels seem to imply. Control warrior in barrens specifically have a good match against pre-nerf control priest, and are played in tournaments to do just that. Pre-nerf token druid has good matchup against face hunter but not against rush warrior.
Im not saying we can't continue to use the labels, but to imply that they have to have certain specific roles in the game is perhaps a tad too far for something so fluid in a game like hearthstone.
1) But I'd argue that its deliberate made that way by the devs, to increase interactivity (and therefore, subjectively, fun). Play a couple of games in classic and suddenly the game may be fairer (Lack of removals means more minion activity) but honestly unless you're specifically playing miracle rogue you're basically playing 1-2 cards per turn. The mechanics were simple, and there's very little reason to think because nearly everything is predictable: druid ramp on 2, zoo curvestone, turn 4 giant, etc.
In order to break that cycle you have to either 1) increase the rate and efficiency of card draw, or 2) increase card generation. They balance that out by designing the cards with a lower statline or at a higher cost. So in effect you're trading tempo for card draw/generation.
2) I wouldn't say that an increased in card draw efficiency makes the game less interesting. Looking at the meta in the earliest history of hearthstone and honestly, the games were fairly predictable and repetitive. The most extreme example would be to look at hunter's history. The early parts were entirely made up of face/midrange hunters that practically played nothing but curvestone. It was not until Master's Call was introduced that we had hunter actually playing off curve and keeping cards in hand for a bigger finish. Similarly shaman in barrens didn't really got anywhere until Primal Dungeoneer was introduced, which then proceed to make possible elemental shaman, doomhammer shaman, and arguably control shaman.
3) We are moving towards a phase where the old definition of control can no longer exist because hearthstone has evolved past curvestone. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The ultimate objective should be to keep the value just low enough that control decks can exist, but high enough to give decks stuff to do instead of having their stuff repeatedly removed from board every turn. In my view, the best meta should ideally be 50-50 no matter the archetype, and avoiding polarising rock-paper-scissors games.
…
4) That is…until we were given this freakish meta to exist in.
I agree it was very likely deliberate, and I don't disagree with improving draw a bit, but I do think they have massively overshot what was necessary. I actually think priest's card draw is in a good and healthy spot right now it has some again, but it's the outlier. As with shaman a couple of months ago, it looks like it hasn't got much, only because everyone else has a tonne.
Whether it increases interactivity is questionable though. If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?
Regarding the simple mechanics of Classic, I think that's an entirely separate matter. Part of why I disliked the Barrens meta was because it felt a lot like Classic in terms of its simplicity, and certainly not for lack of card draw. Meanwhile Hearthstone's history is riddled with fancy and interesting cards/effects that didn't need the amount of card draw we have today.
As for the statline reduction - or lack thereof - that's arguably where a lot of power creep exists. Vanilla stats haven't moved an inch since Classic, but the stat cost associated with effects (not just card draw, but including it) has reduced significantly. Tempo loss for card draw is small to nonexistent these days, which is exactly why aggro and combo can afford to run so much of it.
2)
Show Spoiler
Since you raise hunter, I would point out you have forgotten spell and big-beast-recruit hunter, both driven largely by K&C, and both existing before Master's Call arrived. Neither had much in the way of card draw, but they still functioned fine without taking the usual play-minions-on-curve route, partly because there wasn't such a strong need for card draw. The best anyone had was Elven Minstrel, so the amount needed to compete with other classes was far lower than what we have today. Master's Call helped bring (aggro) beast hunter back, but it wasn't required for hunter to be effective as a class.
This is why I think shaman's problem in Barrens was the amount of draw other classes had, rather than truly lacking any itself.
3)
Show Spoiler
I agree a redefinition of 'control' isn't the end of the world, but it does come with problems. Whether we are talking about control as fatigue decks or in the more Classic sense where they actually had finishers, there's a large part of the playerbase that most enjoys those decks. Those players have already taken an in-game beating for the last 16 months, and while I can only speak for myself here, I'm coming to the end of my tether with it.
The collateral damage to meme decks is huge too. These decks often only find success against slow control decks. If those are removed, then cool meme cards like Elwynn Boar might as well not exist.
Idyllic as a perfect 50:50 win rate spread would be, there must always be some degree of rock-paper-scissors, because decks are built to counter other decks. We don't want things quite so polarising as OG quest rogue, but there should be some deviation from 50:50.
4)
Show Spoiler
I fully acknowledge that card draw is only so good as the cards it draws, and it cannot be held solely responsible. Mana reduction and burst from hand are also playing a part that is greatly inflated compared to previous years. Those two again benefit aggro and combo over control. Both have been problematic over the years of course, with a lot of burst damage being sent to the Hall of Fame and mana cheating often being cited as a load of bs.
What really concerns me is the current design philosophy seems to be to push all 3 to extreme levels, which runs completely counter to the design philosophy of the past, which had been explicitly stated to limit burst damage, and was clearly much more reserved with draw and cost reductions.
They might not be changing the core mechanics of the game, but between them they are completely changing what aggro, control and combo even mean. If aggro's not worrying about eking out every last bit of damage because it never runs out of cards, and if combo can play everything so fast it doesn't need to worry about its own survival, and is control doesn't even know what to do anymore, is it really still the same game?
I'm sure lots of people like the changes in design philosophy, but for me it is committing to every design choice that undermines the reason I was playing in the first place. Neither Wild nor Standard really let me play out the shenanigans I log on for anymore, and Classic doesn't even have the cards to try it with. The really frustrating thing is that it isn't burnout. There's lots I want to try in Stormwind, but deep down I know I'd much rather be in any meta between TGT and SoU. (I'd include DoD if it didn't mean pre-nerf Galakrond shaman *shudder*.)
5) Whoops, yes, thanks. It shows how much I use that card! I have now corrected it.
Its taken me a while to respond back, mostly because Ive been a little busier than usual. But just comment on each of your points of response, to my original response to yours;
1. Specifically on this point: "If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?". If an aggro player can sustain a tempo reload against control up until turn 8 (which was fairly impossible back in the day), that's added interactivity as a result of card draw. Just because control players are forced to play one or two cards per turn up until then, that's not a signal that interaction has not been improved by increased card draw. Besides which, there are examples of control decks that benefited from the increased card draw/generation like control priest.
Also, I stand by my opinion about the tempo loss tradeoff with card draw/generation cards. You are right in pointing out that effects have been added into the vanilla statline, but I'd argue where card draw/generation are concerned this is not exactly true. Most card draw options have either slightly downgraded stats or are conditional because whereby they aren't it tends to create polarisations, like Voracious Reader for 2 mana, Skull of Gul'dan for 5, etc.
Which is why Im all for some nerfs to mage simply because Cram Session and Refreshing Spring Water are specifically making the meta unbearable, because the card draw is insane and the conditions non-existent. Outside of these though, most cards draws are either conditional, at a high mana cost (like Overflow), or comes with a tempo loss.
2. This is not really relevant to the conversation, but I'd like to point out that outside of DK rexxar, deathrattle hunter before Master's Call was mostly a midrange deck. But of course, its not a strictly aggressive one, so you have me on that.
Also, shaman's problem is not strong card draw from other classes. Ive played doomhammer shaman before the midset, and it was honestly card draw that's the problem, because if I have the god hand I just win, so it was never about other classes' reload factor, it was about shaman's own inconsistent gameplan execution.
3 & 4 and conclusion
Here's the thing: I don't think its preferable for there to be decks which plays nothing but removals with the win condition being solely attrition. Its even worse when these are the top decks in the meta (control warrior, odd warrior etc.). Curbing the card draw powercreep may help improve their game, but its not necessarily going to make the game fun. Its better, in my view, for control decks to actually have a win condition rather than fill their decks with reactive cards. Control shaman in barrens in a good example of that, being able to control the pace of the early game, while packing a win condition (al'akir + multiple nightmares, or headmaster keltuzad + perpetual flame) of its own.
On the viability of meme decks, I will reiterate what I have said plenty of times, and is reflective in my own deck building philosophy: Everything you build must take into consideration of the current meta. And if aggro is commonplace, and your deck falls to that, it might be better to adapt by playing more anti-aggro tools like taunts. But bear in mind that the win rate will suck either way. You can't build a deck to meme out Elwynn Boar, then complain about the aggro decks farming you. That's exactly why its a meme deck: its a deck made entirely for fun, not for wins. If it were consistently winning, it wouldn't be a meme deck.
I do sympathize with players who wishes to play more for meme than rank, but I feel its a little hypocritical to trumpet in favor of control decks - simply because it makes meme decks more viable.
Also, I'd like to agree with meisterz39's assessment. In metas where attrition based control were prominent, it was mostly an awful experience. I like slower games myself, and was gleefully playing control bomb warrior before the last rotation, and was playing lots of control priest in the early parts of the barrens meta. But whenever I face up against a mirror match I often find myself silently praying my opponent just t1 concedes. And I think this is a general sentiment towards control decks in the community.
Combo with Stealer of Souls, Darkglare, and Free Admission would have been the best deck had it not been for the goddamned slow as hell animations of the quest itself. The number of times I've lost my games because the bs quest takes forever to flip between tiers. Otherwise, it's death by turn 5-6 one way or another. Turn off the animations and I can finish all 3 tiers and kill my opponent on turn 5-6 more consistently than it would otherwise.
Of course, another problem that's currently creeping up the corners is as pointed out, Battleground Battlemaster. I can see why you hate that card so much in this post: you're playing warlock, and you're zooming past all corners to get the giants out. Coincidentally, any deck that's not playing combo now has this one card in it that reads: deal double damage on turn 5 if your opponent ignores your minions on board.
The madness of how fast the combos tend to come out is countered by how fast minion based decks can scam wins with this one card. Its a near mandatory inclusion into any minion based deck right now, and unless nerfs happen, will continue for time to come.
I do think the giants are strong, but I don't think its going to get nerfed. Zoolock in the past has dropped giants on 3 before and no one batted an eye. The reason being that you're basically trading health away to do it so you're playing on a clock as well as they are. With turn 5 battleground battlemaster, and the notable lack of taunts, the only way zoolock steal wins is by double giants on 3-4, with a good existing board like Bloodbound Imp and Darkglare support. That's the equivalent of token druid turn 1 bs, and just about as consistent.
If team5 decides to slow combo down in the next change (maybe switch the quest reward mana cost from 5 to 7, or just straightup nuke Incanter's Flow) zoolock may well be killing themselves faster than they can scam that win out because no one needs to tech against mage anymore. Nerfing battleground battlemaster would be the correct choice, not flesh giant.
With Darkglare and Stealer of Souls on, is that really surprising? Questlock and zoolock can get those giants out fairly reliably on turns 3-5 now since the gameplan is to hurt yourself anyway. But Im actually thinking the reason why they can get away with it so much is because every deck is teching against combo and an 8/8 early can easily change things, given that most players are running a light and fast deck if they aren't combo themselves.
Battleground battlemaster as a 5/5 on 5 is really too much. But I suspect that it'll be nerfed along with the rest as well. Its power to burst games early is fairly oppressive, but then again, without this thing there's just no other way for most decks (except face hunter) to finish games earlier than combo decks can anyway.
I really don't mind people ranting because everyone needs to release some pent up anger at something and it might as well be a written piece in the internet than the house cat. But really, this sort of thing belongs in the salt thread. Just use it, you'll find more sympathetic people there than you would making two (for some reason) new threads doing the same thing.
Also, while I share alot of despondence about the current meta, I wouldn't call it low skill exactly (apart of quest mage because Im absolutely convinced you can build a bot to man the deck and still manage a positive win rate).
Devs are meeting on tuesday to make some changes. We'll all just exercise some patience until then.
But seriously: Use the salt threads. It'll be a happier experience I assure you
Best thing is to simply allow us to disenchant those golden cards. If I opened a Primordial Protector in a pack, the last thing I need is a golden copy that I can't disenchant for an epic card I actually need.
Does this defeat the point in granting golden cards? Yes. But more choice is always better than less. Besides which, there's little point in showing off something everyone has. That's why whales tend to play their non-golden SN1P-SN4Ps instead.
Mass nerfing is an interesting concept to explore. Keeping a weaker core set makes the expansions more playable, but does come at a cost of diversity. I wouldn't dismiss it altogether, though I'm also interested whether it makes hearthstone a little more dependent on its expansions (and therefore a more costly product to have fun in).
Glad to also know that the team will be discussing nerfs and confirmation of at least one card that will be changed cough* cough*Incanter's Flow. This may be the hardest to balance, because some stuff in stormwind seems to anticipate a combo heavy meta so we have absolutely insane aggro cards like Battleground Battlemaster. Will be surprised if this wasn't hit (maybe to the stats) in some way after combo decks get nerfed.
Incanter's flow is useful even in the late game because that's usually how they kill you after completing the quest. Just draw their whole deck with cram sessions and refreshing spring water, and then ignite all the way. So its not necessarily needed early actually.
Yes, that's correct. And then some guy I faced had a big brain idea to start teching in devolving missiles so even divine shield doesn't save it. Its kinda harsh but robes can absolutely be countered by mage. They can even chance a discover at it. Back to the drawing board.
Perhaps the only consolation out of this meta is that most decks actually require skill to pull off, not least because the games don't really last all that long. Quest dhunter is one of the most skill testing mostly because unlike all the other quests, this one isn't just a card dump every turn, you need to plan and complete each tier within the turn itself or it resets. Would be interesting if we get plenty of those matches in GM, because the skill ceiling of those decks are off the charts.
Kinda makes us wonder why mage's isn't designed like that.
Just curious. How does this work? You mean the second you did this once the achievement just sprung?
And complicated it certainly sounds like. Interesting though. It'll be like hearthstone releasing the expansions by groups of classes every 2 months.
Thanks for the explanation.
I dont think I've ever seen the win rate for going first be so radically different than second. But it makes sense. The unfortunate mess we have today is that the quest rewards ends games the following turn its played. So if going first means the quest reward drops 1 turn earlier, then obviously going first would be radically different than second.
Looking forward to that nerf list next week team5. In the meantime I'll be casually watching GM and waiting for that oh so wonderful turn 2 Incanter's Flow that'll be rolling every GM's eyes and tickling every caster's belly because that's the very peak of skillful play from that deck.
Just a question from a non LoR player. How many expansions does LoR get per year? Its like for every one hearthstone expansion I'll be seeing two of these.
This is the one time Im going to do this. If anyone hold up stats in front of my face, I'll tell them to fuck off.
Why? Because mage isn't on the top of the list, and we all know damn well its broken as hell and only countered by aggro decks and nothing else. And even then that can easily turn around with a simple Incanter's Flow on 2.
Ive never had an experience as bad as when I see mage play incanter's flow. I'll have 'uncounterable' barrens secret paladin anyday. Hell, just unnerf crabrider, because if it destroys that bloody class it'll be worth it.
Im less concerned about wild because more broken things are available than being able to continually cycling Ignite. For now, if they would remove or nerf Incanter's Flow then I'd say we can leave the other mage stuff in standard alone for the time being.
The point of changing the mana cost of the quest rewards has less to do with investment and more to do with the length of the game and the madness of the quest reward's ability to close games so consistently the following turn its played, not to mention the absurdity that a combo deck can consistently finish a game by turn 5-7.
Its actually a break from the usual, because convention would be to offer 20 packs from the previous expansion now, and then two months later to offer another with 20 of the current expansion.
Well, this deal does get you 10 more packs from stormwind, but the split can mean you're a little less likely to get a legendary off the 20 packs since they're 10 each rather than 20 of the same.
Just so everyone is aware, mind tether does help accomplish that achievement in stormwind for dealing damage with hp as priest.
So before it gets nerfed or changed, that's the fastest way to grind up that 500 xp.
Unsurprising that they decided to wait because the balance is currently too delicate for a hasty decision.
Its not merely Incanter's Flow that twists all games in mage's favor, its also the fact that most games barely last beyond turn 7. Battleground Battlemaster and quests kinda ensures that the match never reaches the late game so many late game cards simply vanished like new alex, Illidari Inquisitor, and the old gods.
Pretty sure the change will be aimed at slowing all the quests down (maybe changing the mana cost of the quest rewards), a nerf to battleground battlemaster, and if we're lucky we get some buffs to cards too. Perhaps team5 might consider banning Incanter's Flow or doing something to it, because we can't keep having the same problems over and over until rotation.
Jia and TJ don't match well together. They tried once in early barrens and unsurprisingly we never see them both cast together again throughout the rest of the expansion.
Specialist is good in theory, but it does expose the frailty of the meta at times because obviously nearly everyone would be playing the best class. Too bad the sideboard thing didn't catch on to the other formats because that's the most interesting part of specialist anyway.
Is it hypocritical to like playing with slow decks while not liking to play against slow decks? Im not sure. I'll leave that for others to judge.
But to address what I think is the central point of your response to mine; I simply don't believe hearthstone needs to follow a strict holy trinity, a 'trifecta' of how archetypes work, or should work because hearthstone decks regularly crosses between the lines. Quest mage plays like a control deck, controlock has at its core a combo that wins the game for them (whether its tickatus or neeru), as does barrens control shaman. Token druid is a combo deck that sometimes play like an aggro deck. It can never have a strict definition, much less a 'role' because one card can mean all the difference (Lock and Load in face hunter, Doomhammer or Whack-A-Gnoll Hammer in elemental shaman, etc.). For the sake of brevity we apply labels to them, but there's no holy book to mandate their roles in the game. Metas and viability are determined by deck builds, and certainly not by its 'roles' as the labels seem to imply. Control warrior in barrens specifically have a good match against pre-nerf control priest, and are played in tournaments to do just that. Pre-nerf token druid has good matchup against face hunter but not against rush warrior.
Im not saying we can't continue to use the labels, but to imply that they have to have certain specific roles in the game is perhaps a tad too far for something so fluid in a game like hearthstone.
Its taken me a while to respond back, mostly because Ive been a little busier than usual. But just comment on each of your points of response, to my original response to yours;
1. Specifically on this point: "If it mostly benefits aggro and combo, then where is the added interactivity in practice?". If an aggro player can sustain a tempo reload against control up until turn 8 (which was fairly impossible back in the day), that's added interactivity as a result of card draw. Just because control players are forced to play one or two cards per turn up until then, that's not a signal that interaction has not been improved by increased card draw. Besides which, there are examples of control decks that benefited from the increased card draw/generation like control priest.
Also, I stand by my opinion about the tempo loss tradeoff with card draw/generation cards. You are right in pointing out that effects have been added into the vanilla statline, but I'd argue where card draw/generation are concerned this is not exactly true. Most card draw options have either slightly downgraded stats or are conditional because whereby they aren't it tends to create polarisations, like Voracious Reader for 2 mana, Skull of Gul'dan for 5, etc.
Which is why Im all for some nerfs to mage simply because Cram Session and Refreshing Spring Water are specifically making the meta unbearable, because the card draw is insane and the conditions non-existent. Outside of these though, most cards draws are either conditional, at a high mana cost (like Overflow), or comes with a tempo loss.
2. This is not really relevant to the conversation, but I'd like to point out that outside of DK rexxar, deathrattle hunter before Master's Call was mostly a midrange deck. But of course, its not a strictly aggressive one, so you have me on that.
Also, shaman's problem is not strong card draw from other classes. Ive played doomhammer shaman before the midset, and it was honestly card draw that's the problem, because if I have the god hand I just win, so it was never about other classes' reload factor, it was about shaman's own inconsistent gameplan execution.
3 & 4 and conclusion
Here's the thing: I don't think its preferable for there to be decks which plays nothing but removals with the win condition being solely attrition. Its even worse when these are the top decks in the meta (control warrior, odd warrior etc.). Curbing the card draw powercreep may help improve their game, but its not necessarily going to make the game fun. Its better, in my view, for control decks to actually have a win condition rather than fill their decks with reactive cards. Control shaman in barrens in a good example of that, being able to control the pace of the early game, while packing a win condition (al'akir + multiple nightmares, or headmaster keltuzad + perpetual flame) of its own.
On the viability of meme decks, I will reiterate what I have said plenty of times, and is reflective in my own deck building philosophy: Everything you build must take into consideration of the current meta. And if aggro is commonplace, and your deck falls to that, it might be better to adapt by playing more anti-aggro tools like taunts. But bear in mind that the win rate will suck either way. You can't build a deck to meme out Elwynn Boar, then complain about the aggro decks farming you. That's exactly why its a meme deck: its a deck made entirely for fun, not for wins. If it were consistently winning, it wouldn't be a meme deck.
I do sympathize with players who wishes to play more for meme than rank, but I feel its a little hypocritical to trumpet in favor of control decks - simply because it makes meme decks more viable.
Also, I'd like to agree with meisterz39's assessment. In metas where attrition based control were prominent, it was mostly an awful experience. I like slower games myself, and was gleefully playing control bomb warrior before the last rotation, and was playing lots of control priest in the early parts of the barrens meta. But whenever I face up against a mirror match I often find myself silently praying my opponent just t1 concedes. And I think this is a general sentiment towards control decks in the community.
Combo with Stealer of Souls, Darkglare, and Free Admission would have been the best deck had it not been for the goddamned slow as hell animations of the quest itself. The number of times I've lost my games because the bs quest takes forever to flip between tiers. Otherwise, it's death by turn 5-6 one way or another. Turn off the animations and I can finish all 3 tiers and kill my opponent on turn 5-6 more consistently than it would otherwise.
Of course, another problem that's currently creeping up the corners is as pointed out, Battleground Battlemaster. I can see why you hate that card so much in this post: you're playing warlock, and you're zooming past all corners to get the giants out. Coincidentally, any deck that's not playing combo now has this one card in it that reads: deal double damage on turn 5 if your opponent ignores your minions on board.
The madness of how fast the combos tend to come out is countered by how fast minion based decks can scam wins with this one card. Its a near mandatory inclusion into any minion based deck right now, and unless nerfs happen, will continue for time to come.
I do think the giants are strong, but I don't think its going to get nerfed. Zoolock in the past has dropped giants on 3 before and no one batted an eye. The reason being that you're basically trading health away to do it so you're playing on a clock as well as they are. With turn 5 battleground battlemaster, and the notable lack of taunts, the only way zoolock steal wins is by double giants on 3-4, with a good existing board like Bloodbound Imp and Darkglare support. That's the equivalent of token druid turn 1 bs, and just about as consistent.
If team5 decides to slow combo down in the next change (maybe switch the quest reward mana cost from 5 to 7, or just straightup nuke Incanter's Flow) zoolock may well be killing themselves faster than they can scam that win out because no one needs to tech against mage anymore. Nerfing battleground battlemaster would be the correct choice, not flesh giant.
With Darkglare and Stealer of Souls on, is that really surprising? Questlock and zoolock can get those giants out fairly reliably on turns 3-5 now since the gameplan is to hurt yourself anyway. But Im actually thinking the reason why they can get away with it so much is because every deck is teching against combo and an 8/8 early can easily change things, given that most players are running a light and fast deck if they aren't combo themselves.
Battleground battlemaster as a 5/5 on 5 is really too much. But I suspect that it'll be nerfed along with the rest as well. Its power to burst games early is fairly oppressive, but then again, without this thing there's just no other way for most decks (except face hunter) to finish games earlier than combo decks can anyway.
I really don't mind people ranting because everyone needs to release some pent up anger at something and it might as well be a written piece in the internet than the house cat. But really, this sort of thing belongs in the salt thread. Just use it, you'll find more sympathetic people there than you would making two (for some reason) new threads doing the same thing.
Also, while I share alot of despondence about the current meta, I wouldn't call it low skill exactly (apart of quest mage because Im absolutely convinced you can build a bot to man the deck and still manage a positive win rate).
Devs are meeting on tuesday to make some changes. We'll all just exercise some patience until then.
But seriously: Use the salt threads. It'll be a happier experience I assure you
Best thing is to simply allow us to disenchant those golden cards. If I opened a Primordial Protector in a pack, the last thing I need is a golden copy that I can't disenchant for an epic card I actually need.
Does this defeat the point in granting golden cards? Yes. But more choice is always better than less. Besides which, there's little point in showing off something everyone has. That's why whales tend to play their non-golden SN1P-SN4Ps instead.
Mass nerfing is an interesting concept to explore. Keeping a weaker core set makes the expansions more playable, but does come at a cost of diversity. I wouldn't dismiss it altogether, though I'm also interested whether it makes hearthstone a little more dependent on its expansions (and therefore a more costly product to have fun in).
Glad to also know that the team will be discussing nerfs and confirmation of at least one card that will be changed cough* cough* Incanter's Flow. This may be the hardest to balance, because some stuff in stormwind seems to anticipate a combo heavy meta so we have absolutely insane aggro cards like Battleground Battlemaster. Will be surprised if this wasn't hit (maybe to the stats) in some way after combo decks get nerfed.
Incanter's flow is useful even in the late game because that's usually how they kill you after completing the quest. Just draw their whole deck with cram sessions and refreshing spring water, and then ignite all the way. So its not necessarily needed early actually.
Yes, that's correct. And then some guy I faced had a big brain idea to start teching in devolving missiles so even divine shield doesn't save it. Its kinda harsh but robes can absolutely be countered by mage. They can even chance a discover at it. Back to the drawing board.