Writing strictly as a spectator, I'm afraid LoR is not greater than hearthstone - let alone being the best card game. Better monetization model, more accessible, and having more stuff to do - That can't be denied that LoR definitely has hearthstone on the ropes on all these. But for those watching it, and for those trying it out for the first time, hearthstone is much superior.
I've been watching hearthstone tournaments all the way back to its first unofficial world champion. Looking at the game now, its almost still as clear as it was back then. Wording is largely simple, the mechanics simple, and the game as a whole has a cunning simplicity to it that any viewer able to do basic mathematics would be able to more or less know what's going on, and who's winning, etc.
LoR, however, suffers from its readability. I can never truly understand what's going on, because there's a dozen of keywords that aren't very clear to anyone who hasn't read the glossary pages. What on earth does 'deep' mean anyway, for example. I watched a few videos and came out absolutely bewildered sometimes, because there's turns, then there's spell turns, etc. I'm not necessarily always sure whos winning too, because it almost always like nothing is happening and suddenly your opponent loses half his hp.
I'm going to be watching that LoR tournament with great interest. But if I come out of there knowing nothing of what's going on without having to go to LoR's keyword glossary pages yet again, then I'm fairly certain the game has a long way to go before it can 'quietly become the best multiplayer card game'.
(can someone confirm if the keywords in LoR explain itself when you scroll past them, Im not sure)
I think its because there wasn't any hsreplay and hearthstone tournaments was at its infancy. You can only bring 4 decks, 3 very obvious candidates, and the last is usually freeze mage, midrange priest or druid. Its a bit like warrior in that there's absolutely playable lists out there, but is largely shadowed away from the big 4.
But for those who did, this was not a new style of shaman. Back in the day, it was known as midrange shaman. Feral spirit, flametongue totem on the early game, al'akir and doomhammer for the end. Looking at the midrange list here, the only difference was that windspeaker was in, lava burst was niche, and every shaman always fits in harvest golem.
Maybe its just me, but this really isn't anything new. The fact of the matter is that Doomhammer has always been good even back in the day, more so when Rockbiter Weapon was still 1 mana, nearly everyone played harrison because of it. Remember how everyone once thought that Al'Akir the Windlord was a bad card and needs a buff, only for the devs to tell everyone (this was back when data wasn't available) that he had the best win rate of all of them. Hell, Feral Spirit was once one of the most fearsome card in the early game. So its bewildering that classic shaman is only now being thought as legend-viable, when it always had been.
I look forward to seeing news about concede shaman again. For those who might not had the pleasure, concede shaman was just two cards; Earth Elemental and Ancestral Spirit. Times have changed alot hasn't it?
Hearthstone is not a pool I will introduce my children to expecting them not to get pissed on.
But compared to the toxic waste dump that is LoL, DotA, Counterstrike, and even pokemon, I'm fairly happy to know that at very least I don't have to start explaining to my child what kind of world is it we live in.
Can blizz really pressure someone as high up the food chain as Kripp? I doubt it. Regis perhaps, but Kripp is among one of the biggest names in hearthstone, and if he says he ain't moving for someone else, he's not going to, and not even blizz can nudge him off.
Also, as you have stated, its not really a big deal for blizz to just break 2 extra slots. Yeah, that poster is going to look really weird, but they can do that. But if two streamers comes up and says they're taking a break, then its really blizz's call on this one, and evidently they made a choice to replace them with two female streamers. Its not about two women pushing two men off a cliff, its about two men stepping down and blizz replacing them with two women.
Besides which, its hard to say its 'tyranny of the mediocre' when you consider that one of the replacements is literally a GM. There's obviously no qualifications to be part of this event, so what exactly is wrong with a 50-50 representation, if indeed we even get there at all.
As you said, they stepped down voluntarily. This means if you're a fan of either Kripp or Regis, you may be pissed off. But to be frank, the only person you should be pissed off of isn't their 'replacements' but Kripp/Regis himself. They made their decision, likely without pressure from blizz, and both I believe have put out their own statements on it. It cant be favoritism, unless both selected their replacements, which is unlikely to be the case.
On another note, which is more relevant, doing so provides a bump to other streamers who would otherwise not be as well known. In any case, I think its an excellent business move for blizz to promote diversification, a rare case where good business and doing the right thing are on the same picture.
Sure fans of both might be too pissed to watch this. But other fans, perhaps more women, might be more inclined to do so. Its not a clear cut point to say this will always end badly.
To be specific, the article only mention that blizz is committed to more diversity in hearthstone events, not tournaments. To take this crossroad invitational for example, its clear from its participants that its not about skill, its about blizz promoting hearthstone. Put simply, this is an invitation that has no real qualifications for being invited; blizz can invite anyone it wants. Slysssa merely opined that there should be more women representation in these events, and quite frankly there's really very little excuse for blizz not to.
Artificial representation or to be more correct, 'affirmative action', is sometimes necessary because opportunities are not always necessarily dished out by merit. I do agree that while women, as with all other minorities, tend to face greater obstacles to success in this world, they are and should be expected to perform up to the standards of others. But this isn't about that. Its about blizz not using their platform to promote more* diversity.
Georgec. Wonder how many people even still remember that a few years ago he was tipped as one of the top up and coming hearthstone players in the world. He's still fairly young for a pro gamer, if I recall correctly.
Its amazing where hearthstone was just 3 years ago, compared to the depths of today. The game maybe much healthier, and perhaps even more 'fun', but the hype has since moved on.
I like the discussion from Jia, which actually made some sense as to why there this air of toxicity against women in gaming. Fact of the matter is that there really isn't alot of representation from women in tournaments, which is indirectly or directly creating this mistaken impression that mistreating women in the gaming world is something they can get away with.
Maybe blizz should start thinking about opening a womens only tournament for qualifying to worlds. That way we're always going to be guaranteed some women representation in the biggest tourney every year, and provide them with an opportunity to prove themselves against the best in the world.
As for the invitational, I genuinely feel that blizz made a mistake in not inviting more women into the field, seeing that its not only the right thing to do, its also good on pr, as well attracting more would-be players as I'm fairly certain the men's category are more or less fully saturated while the women's are not. Its an invitational after all, and since the ones invited are not even the best in the world, its clearly not related to skill so what sort of excuse is there to not at least have a 50-50 representation. Its not like there's not enough female hearthstone streamers who could use the publicity.
The game board choice idea is a nice idea, but impossible because Transfer Student exists. So either the devs have forgotten about that or they're just commenting on what the 'community' brings up to them.
Its the usual Q&A session where a good percentage of it is just fluff. I wouldn't blow my top over any of it mattering for the most part.
what is actually good against paladin? it seems like there are a bunch of iterations going around, each one extremely strong.]
edit: okay what beats big druid? im in an endless cycle of decks that beat whtever im playing.
Most decks that can easily remove single targets are good against paladin. Warlock, priest, and secret rogues are some common decks. Paladin is very predictable, which is also its main weakness.
Big druid is beaten entirely by itself. Mostly if they don't Overgrowth on 4, you're in for the win. If they draw the nuts, your only counter play is to pressure their life total so you can burn them to death, or to put enough minions so their predictable set of minions are easily removed, like Lake Thresher and Twilight Runner or Strongman
But ultimately, the best advice I can give is the same as the other commenters have given. There is no deck that beats everything, but there is also no deck that cannot be beaten. Priest vs controlock is probably the most skewed but even I managed a winrate near 50%. Learn the decks, and learn your chosen deck well. The best deck is usually the deck you're most comfortable with.
If the protagonist ends every match with a Wisp that should otherwise be complete rubbish in the game but somehow wins every battle in the anime then yes, its would be very much like pokemon.
- I'm actually a little intrigued by the suggestion of showing MMR figures per match. On one hand, it will definitely show some form of progression after you reach the rank you're comfortable with, and you can afford to lose matches as long as the MMR does not dip enough to lose you your star progress. On the other hand, it'll just create those scenarios where you lose to someone much lower level than you are and suddenly your MMR dips a ton, and you feel really bad about it. Worst still, you may have just lost to the cheesiest deck in the field.
- On the idea of buffs, here's a few suggestions;
Buff caravans to 4 health. It'll give shaman a much needed draw boost in Tinyfin's Caravan, and give priest more options on 2 other than Wandmaker all day. Keep the flavor (you know, like caravans reaching their destinations), but make it much much playable. I don't think I've even seen a single caravan so far.
Give Shadowform's its mind shatter back. Currently no one's playing this card and I can see why. There's no reason to ever put two in the deck and priest drawing like shit its a near miracle to ever draw that card and play it. It'll make the warlock matchup less like hanging on a threadrope if nothing else.
Dragonmaw Overseer to be 3 mana 2/3. Like seriously. Playing tempo priest is already a task in of itself. Why not make one of its worst card slightly less like smelling your own fart.
Professor Slate as a 2 mana 2/3? Im not too sure. But with pen flinger less of a bastard than it was, there's even less reason to play some form of spell hunter. Maybe slate as a 2 drop will at least let it see play if nothing else, but with face hunter back with a vengeance, Im hesitant to ever buff hunter cards. I was thinking of a making a slower hunter feel better to play
Lone Champion as a 3 mana 3/4. More tools against aggro. Just a suggestion.
I'm no expert myself, but I got my packs, so here's a few tips for those who may have watched but didn't get anything;
- Make sure your account is signed in, and connected to your battlenet ID
- Drops only work on livestreams. Watching reruns don't count.
- There's this diamond next to the like and dislike buttons. This will indicate that there are drops, and when you scroll over to it, it should read 'connected', signalling that it is connected to an account
- Ive searched but cannot find any info on what happens when you minimize the window, mute youtube (itself, and not the website), or otherwise leaving it inactive on your browser tab. I think its fairly safe to assume that something might happen so the best thing is to mute the website (if youre not actively watching), leave it maximized (or active, if you prefer) and go back to it every once a while.
After going through 2 days of games, I think it can be conclusively said that dhunters and paladin are at the top of the mountain and at the very bottom is unfortunately (or at least for now) rogue.
Warrior is the most midrange of midrange decks. Its so balanced in what it can do, just pure stats all round. I never really imagine losing Shield Block can be so devastating to warrior as a class, which along with the loss of Risky Skipper means there's just not enough ways for warrior to gain enough health for the late game.
Haven't really seen much mages that's not lunacy mage. Its still early, so I guess it'll be some time before we start seeing other decks from mage. Priest is weak, but mostly because its such a tall hill to climb vs warlock, which is currently popular around diamond at least.
So many face hunters, which combined with the deluge of midrange and fragment dhunters, the entire meta might as well be shaped around them. Unsurprisingly both mage and rogue has suffered greatly as a result of this.
Shaman, shaman, shaman. Might as well just prepare their own obituary until further nerfs/buffs or the midset. Draws are so pathetic that the entire gameplan might as well be revolved around Cagematch Custodian, Doomhammer, and whatever burn cards you can fit. I can't help but feel that if shaman could actually draw decently they'd be tier 1, and that's exactly what team5 has made shaman into. A coin toss class.
Paladin is strong all round. Perhaps because they hard counter dhunters so much that that's why they are tier 1 along with hunter and dhunters.
Well, I guess this is the meta then. Until the next round of changes, I expect only warrior and rogue to improve steadily upwards.
Then you're one of the luckier ones. I've been seeing a spread of paladin, mage, warlock and hunters. I think everyone is just still adjusting to the changes. No doubt most people think paladin got the longer straw from the nerfs this time so everyone's targeting it hard. Unfortuntely for controlock players, the deck is fairly abysmal against anything that's not paladin.
Ranking around diamond 3 with midrange dhunter and deathrattle dhunter. Guess I have to start rethinking the build again, because its not doing too well against paladin but does spectacularly against everything else. Might experiment more with priest and warrior in the next coming days.
They are saying that Tickatus is not a problem according to their stats but rarely does anyone on ladder play against Tickatus to the end or even till Tickatus is even played. The inevitability is already known and people move on to the next game. Only people that play have either an answer or are within killing distance so the statistics are misleading in my opinion.
Team5 does do their own play testing, and most pros tend to agree that tickatus decks are generally bad. From my own experience (and I never concede on seeing this card, not even after its played twice) and from the commentaries provided by high legend players, I think I can believe it when they say the stats are showing that the card is simply not that good.
Tickatus needs setup, and then it takes 6 mana to play it without also dying because this thing doesn't have taunt or rush. Not to mention that 5 cards burned is not the end of the world, and as long as you're keeping up tempo, its possible to still win even after its played.
The calls for this card to be nerfed is not so much that its good, but because its unfun. But that's hardly a reason to ever nerf cards, not in my opinion anyway.
Paladin will keep its top spot because its actually playing good minions on curve, but honestly there's plenty of ways things can go awry for paladin.
Not going first and your opponent has a 1 drop. That alone can already decide the game. Paladin is strong, but linear. And its that linearity that prevents it from ever truly ruling the roost the higher the skill level goes. I mean, paladin has been tier 1 since scholomance, and its only at the tail end of darkmoon (after plenty of nerfs to other classes) that we really ever saw anyone bringing it in GM or masters tour.
Now that they can't even cheese the end game with a handfull of librams and 2 pen twirling dicks, I'm having second thoughts as to whether Lady Liadrin is still a mandatory card to have. Might be that libram pally gets canned in favor of aggro pally, not too bad in its own right.
Writing strictly as a spectator, I'm afraid LoR is not greater than hearthstone - let alone being the best card game. Better monetization model, more accessible, and having more stuff to do - That can't be denied that LoR definitely has hearthstone on the ropes on all these. But for those watching it, and for those trying it out for the first time, hearthstone is much superior.
I've been watching hearthstone tournaments all the way back to its first unofficial world champion. Looking at the game now, its almost still as clear as it was back then. Wording is largely simple, the mechanics simple, and the game as a whole has a cunning simplicity to it that any viewer able to do basic mathematics would be able to more or less know what's going on, and who's winning, etc.
LoR, however, suffers from its readability. I can never truly understand what's going on, because there's a dozen of keywords that aren't very clear to anyone who hasn't read the glossary pages. What on earth does 'deep' mean anyway, for example. I watched a few videos and came out absolutely bewildered sometimes, because there's turns, then there's spell turns, etc. I'm not necessarily always sure whos winning too, because it almost always like nothing is happening and suddenly your opponent loses half his hp.
I'm going to be watching that LoR tournament with great interest. But if I come out of there knowing nothing of what's going on without having to go to LoR's keyword glossary pages yet again, then I'm fairly certain the game has a long way to go before it can 'quietly become the best multiplayer card game'.
(can someone confirm if the keywords in LoR explain itself when you scroll past them, Im not sure)
I think its because there wasn't any hsreplay and hearthstone tournaments was at its infancy. You can only bring 4 decks, 3 very obvious candidates, and the last is usually freeze mage, midrange priest or druid. Its a bit like warrior in that there's absolutely playable lists out there, but is largely shadowed away from the big 4.
But for those who did, this was not a new style of shaman. Back in the day, it was known as midrange shaman. Feral spirit, flametongue totem on the early game, al'akir and doomhammer for the end. Looking at the midrange list here, the only difference was that windspeaker was in, lava burst was niche, and every shaman always fits in harvest golem.
Maybe its just me, but this really isn't anything new. The fact of the matter is that Doomhammer has always been good even back in the day, more so when Rockbiter Weapon was still 1 mana, nearly everyone played harrison because of it. Remember how everyone once thought that Al'Akir the Windlord was a bad card and needs a buff, only for the devs to tell everyone (this was back when data wasn't available) that he had the best win rate of all of them. Hell, Feral Spirit was once one of the most fearsome card in the early game. So its bewildering that classic shaman is only now being thought as legend-viable, when it always had been.
I look forward to seeing news about concede shaman again. For those who might not had the pleasure, concede shaman was just two cards; Earth Elemental and Ancestral Spirit. Times have changed alot hasn't it?
Hearthstone is not a pool I will introduce my children to expecting them not to get pissed on.
But compared to the toxic waste dump that is LoL, DotA, Counterstrike, and even pokemon, I'm fairly happy to know that at very least I don't have to start explaining to my child what kind of world is it we live in.
Considering its one of the topics that likely to piss everyone, right or left, off its been remarkably contained.
Can blizz really pressure someone as high up the food chain as Kripp? I doubt it. Regis perhaps, but Kripp is among one of the biggest names in hearthstone, and if he says he ain't moving for someone else, he's not going to, and not even blizz can nudge him off.
Also, as you have stated, its not really a big deal for blizz to just break 2 extra slots. Yeah, that poster is going to look really weird, but they can do that. But if two streamers comes up and says they're taking a break, then its really blizz's call on this one, and evidently they made a choice to replace them with two female streamers. Its not about two women pushing two men off a cliff, its about two men stepping down and blizz replacing them with two women.
Besides which, its hard to say its 'tyranny of the mediocre' when you consider that one of the replacements is literally a GM. There's obviously no qualifications to be part of this event, so what exactly is wrong with a 50-50 representation, if indeed we even get there at all.
As you said, they stepped down voluntarily. This means if you're a fan of either Kripp or Regis, you may be pissed off. But to be frank, the only person you should be pissed off of isn't their 'replacements' but Kripp/Regis himself. They made their decision, likely without pressure from blizz, and both I believe have put out their own statements on it. It cant be favoritism, unless both selected their replacements, which is unlikely to be the case.
On another note, which is more relevant, doing so provides a bump to other streamers who would otherwise not be as well known. In any case, I think its an excellent business move for blizz to promote diversification, a rare case where good business and doing the right thing are on the same picture.
Sure fans of both might be too pissed to watch this. But other fans, perhaps more women, might be more inclined to do so. Its not a clear cut point to say this will always end badly.
To be specific, the article only mention that blizz is committed to more diversity in hearthstone events, not tournaments. To take this crossroad invitational for example, its clear from its participants that its not about skill, its about blizz promoting hearthstone. Put simply, this is an invitation that has no real qualifications for being invited; blizz can invite anyone it wants. Slysssa merely opined that there should be more women representation in these events, and quite frankly there's really very little excuse for blizz not to.
Artificial representation or to be more correct, 'affirmative action', is sometimes necessary because opportunities are not always necessarily dished out by merit. I do agree that while women, as with all other minorities, tend to face greater obstacles to success in this world, they are and should be expected to perform up to the standards of others. But this isn't about that. Its about blizz not using their platform to promote more* diversity.
Georgec. Wonder how many people even still remember that a few years ago he was tipped as one of the top up and coming hearthstone players in the world. He's still fairly young for a pro gamer, if I recall correctly.
Its amazing where hearthstone was just 3 years ago, compared to the depths of today. The game maybe much healthier, and perhaps even more 'fun', but the hype has since moved on.
I like the discussion from Jia, which actually made some sense as to why there this air of toxicity against women in gaming. Fact of the matter is that there really isn't alot of representation from women in tournaments, which is indirectly or directly creating this mistaken impression that mistreating women in the gaming world is something they can get away with.
Maybe blizz should start thinking about opening a womens only tournament for qualifying to worlds. That way we're always going to be guaranteed some women representation in the biggest tourney every year, and provide them with an opportunity to prove themselves against the best in the world.
As for the invitational, I genuinely feel that blizz made a mistake in not inviting more women into the field, seeing that its not only the right thing to do, its also good on pr, as well attracting more would-be players as I'm fairly certain the men's category are more or less fully saturated while the women's are not. Its an invitational after all, and since the ones invited are not even the best in the world, its clearly not related to skill so what sort of excuse is there to not at least have a 50-50 representation. Its not like there's not enough female hearthstone streamers who could use the publicity.
The game board choice idea is a nice idea, but impossible because Transfer Student exists. So either the devs have forgotten about that or they're just commenting on what the 'community' brings up to them.
Its the usual Q&A session where a good percentage of it is just fluff. I wouldn't blow my top over any of it mattering for the most part.
Most decks that can easily remove single targets are good against paladin. Warlock, priest, and secret rogues are some common decks. Paladin is very predictable, which is also its main weakness.
Big druid is beaten entirely by itself. Mostly if they don't Overgrowth on 4, you're in for the win. If they draw the nuts, your only counter play is to pressure their life total so you can burn them to death, or to put enough minions so their predictable set of minions are easily removed, like Lake Thresher and Twilight Runner or Strongman
But ultimately, the best advice I can give is the same as the other commenters have given. There is no deck that beats everything, but there is also no deck that cannot be beaten. Priest vs controlock is probably the most skewed but even I managed a winrate near 50%. Learn the decks, and learn your chosen deck well. The best deck is usually the deck you're most comfortable with.
If the protagonist ends every match with a Wisp that should otherwise be complete rubbish in the game but somehow wins every battle in the anime then yes, its would be very much like pokemon.
Just wanted to comment on a couple of things;
- I'm actually a little intrigued by the suggestion of showing MMR figures per match. On one hand, it will definitely show some form of progression after you reach the rank you're comfortable with, and you can afford to lose matches as long as the MMR does not dip enough to lose you your star progress. On the other hand, it'll just create those scenarios where you lose to someone much lower level than you are and suddenly your MMR dips a ton, and you feel really bad about it. Worst still, you may have just lost to the cheesiest deck in the field.
- On the idea of buffs, here's a few suggestions;
Buff caravans to 4 health. It'll give shaman a much needed draw boost in Tinyfin's Caravan, and give priest more options on 2 other than Wandmaker all day. Keep the flavor (you know, like caravans reaching their destinations), but make it much much playable. I don't think I've even seen a single caravan so far.
Give Shadowform's its mind shatter back. Currently no one's playing this card and I can see why. There's no reason to ever put two in the deck and priest drawing like shit its a near miracle to ever draw that card and play it. It'll make the warlock matchup less like hanging on a threadrope if nothing else.
Dragonmaw Overseer to be 3 mana 2/3. Like seriously. Playing tempo priest is already a task in of itself. Why not make one of its worst card slightly less like smelling your own fart.
Professor Slate as a 2 mana 2/3? Im not too sure. But with pen flinger less of a bastard than it was, there's even less reason to play some form of spell hunter. Maybe slate as a 2 drop will at least let it see play if nothing else, but with face hunter back with a vengeance, Im hesitant to ever buff hunter cards. I was thinking of a making a slower hunter feel better to play
Lone Champion as a 3 mana 3/4. More tools against aggro. Just a suggestion.
Okay, I got the drops after 4 hours. So that's some progress, well done youtube.
Now please for the love of god have some sense and implement the drop timer please.
I'm no expert myself, but I got my packs, so here's a few tips for those who may have watched but didn't get anything;
- Make sure your account is signed in, and connected to your battlenet ID
- Drops only work on livestreams. Watching reruns don't count.
- There's this diamond next to the like and dislike buttons. This will indicate that there are drops, and when you scroll over to it, it should read 'connected', signalling that it is connected to an account
- Ive searched but cannot find any info on what happens when you minimize the window, mute youtube (itself, and not the website), or otherwise leaving it inactive on your browser tab. I think its fairly safe to assume that something might happen so the best thing is to mute the website (if youre not actively watching), leave it maximized (or active, if you prefer) and go back to it every once a while.
After going through 2 days of games, I think it can be conclusively said that dhunters and paladin are at the top of the mountain and at the very bottom is unfortunately (or at least for now) rogue.
Warrior is the most midrange of midrange decks. Its so balanced in what it can do, just pure stats all round. I never really imagine losing Shield Block can be so devastating to warrior as a class, which along with the loss of Risky Skipper means there's just not enough ways for warrior to gain enough health for the late game.
Haven't really seen much mages that's not lunacy mage. Its still early, so I guess it'll be some time before we start seeing other decks from mage. Priest is weak, but mostly because its such a tall hill to climb vs warlock, which is currently popular around diamond at least.
So many face hunters, which combined with the deluge of midrange and fragment dhunters, the entire meta might as well be shaped around them. Unsurprisingly both mage and rogue has suffered greatly as a result of this.
Shaman, shaman, shaman. Might as well just prepare their own obituary until further nerfs/buffs or the midset. Draws are so pathetic that the entire gameplan might as well be revolved around Cagematch Custodian, Doomhammer, and whatever burn cards you can fit. I can't help but feel that if shaman could actually draw decently they'd be tier 1, and that's exactly what team5 has made shaman into. A coin toss class.
Paladin is strong all round. Perhaps because they hard counter dhunters so much that that's why they are tier 1 along with hunter and dhunters.
Well, I guess this is the meta then. Until the next round of changes, I expect only warrior and rogue to improve steadily upwards.
Then you're one of the luckier ones. I've been seeing a spread of paladin, mage, warlock and hunters. I think everyone is just still adjusting to the changes. No doubt most people think paladin got the longer straw from the nerfs this time so everyone's targeting it hard. Unfortuntely for controlock players, the deck is fairly abysmal against anything that's not paladin.
Ranking around diamond 3 with midrange dhunter and deathrattle dhunter. Guess I have to start rethinking the build again, because its not doing too well against paladin but does spectacularly against everything else. Might experiment more with priest and warrior in the next coming days.
Team5 does do their own play testing, and most pros tend to agree that tickatus decks are generally bad. From my own experience (and I never concede on seeing this card, not even after its played twice) and from the commentaries provided by high legend players, I think I can believe it when they say the stats are showing that the card is simply not that good.
Tickatus needs setup, and then it takes 6 mana to play it without also dying because this thing doesn't have taunt or rush. Not to mention that 5 cards burned is not the end of the world, and as long as you're keeping up tempo, its possible to still win even after its played.
The calls for this card to be nerfed is not so much that its good, but because its unfun. But that's hardly a reason to ever nerf cards, not in my opinion anyway.
Paladin will keep its top spot because its actually playing good minions on curve, but honestly there's plenty of ways things can go awry for paladin.
Not going first and your opponent has a 1 drop. That alone can already decide the game. Paladin is strong, but linear. And its that linearity that prevents it from ever truly ruling the roost the higher the skill level goes. I mean, paladin has been tier 1 since scholomance, and its only at the tail end of darkmoon (after plenty of nerfs to other classes) that we really ever saw anyone bringing it in GM or masters tour.
Now that they can't even cheese the end game with a handfull of librams and 2 pen twirling dicks, I'm having second thoughts as to whether Lady Liadrin is still a mandatory card to have. Might be that libram pally gets canned in favor of aggro pally, not too bad in its own right.