I still meet a ridiculous amount of Big Priests at rank 5 and 4 and even 3, which means people just want to sh1t upon the game with broken synergies, instead of systematically improving their wr.
Very few players change their habits, and they do so only if they find another broken or top tier deck (eg Secret Mage and Mech Paladin).
Dragon Priest is still a solid deck, and/or a Combo counterpart. It's just that it is either a common Midrange deck with raw power but nothing entirely broken (so not appealing enough, as opposed to BP), or it's too complicated to play (especially if compared to BP). So nobody plays them.
Hell, nearly any deck is viable in Wild right now, you just need to include Spellbreaker (Silence, Mass Dispel) against Paladins and Taunts, and Eater of Secrets against Mages, and carry some healing/burst power of your own. I brought my Even Hunter to rank 3 with minor effort (and i am not even a good player), i can't believe Priest can't find a decent deck!
I reiterate, people are just too lazy in Wild, and BP fuck3d their minds...
I have to second this.
It's not priest's identity that is stagnating the class, but is the mindset that so many players have in deriving fun from cheesing out crazy legendary minions and often not having to worry about the opponent's board because the priest's large rezzed boards dictate which player ends up needing to do the trading while the priest just smashes face and protects things like Catrina or Rag with endless taunts. There isn't anything wrong with anybody enjoying fun about whatever they want to enjoy, but the obsession about the type of playstyle pigeonholes the class in wild because of it. Hell, big priest was even slights nerfed via Barnes (Although like I've said before the nerf was pointless because Vargoth was infinitely more powerful for the deck in the long game against control classes if only due to Mass Resurrection highrolls by itself) the deck is still heavily played in the format when compared to other priest archtypes. Nerfs aren't the answer, but players' preferences have to change or the priest class will still generally remain stagnant.
I do think priest laziness gets people to overlook Dragon Priest more often than they should. Not that long ago I get to legend for the first time (honestly first time above rank 5 even) with a Reno Dragon Priest build despite shamans, rogues, and big priests being everywhere. Old decks =/= bad, unviable, or inconsistent decks.
I usually feel a little bothered when its said aggro provides little to no interaction while ignoring that some control decks are the slow version of supposed little to no interaction in their own class. What is the difference between being a slow deck and losing quickly against an overtuned aggressive deck and being a 'weaker' control deck against a better one that has more removal, more threats, and more overall value engines? Either way you're facing a deck that feels like an uphill battle.
In your OP you mention that you felt the game failed when it came to OTKs and hyper aggressive decks existing. The fact of the matter is that HS is not only about control archtypes where you min max value minion trades and endless removal. Other games like MtG and Yu-Gi-Oh both have valid strategies that don't just removal around this grindy control style to varying degrees so why shouldn't HS also have these, especially this 'late' into the game's life?
It should also be noted that the entire concept of T5 trying to pigeonhole the classes into "themed" (restricted) strategies and cards it means that if you punish aggro too much it leaves a good third of other classes without valid control options each meta for the very fact that T5 intentionally does not give certain classes control tools all that often. What ends up happening then is you get classes like rogue and hunter that aren't given control tools each meta and then their only option (usually aggro/midrange/tempo) just continually gets nerfed because people feel aggro should not have as strong of a place in the game as control. So basically the T5 established control classes don't usually get nerfed because they are not often based around aggro, while the non-control classes do get nerfed more often, not always because aggro has become too strong but because the vocal minority simply doesn't like aggro and complain to get it nerfed as the non-legitimate strat in their eyes.
I've watched a couple streamers play it briefly but it honestly doesn't look like my thing (granted I have yet to give it an honest first chance yet), but as far as merely being a spectator of HS BGs vs mainstream HS the former looks a lot less interesting to watch. It seems so overly repetitive.
Again this could be due to me not having given it a first try. I don't even know how to play yet (which may be part of the problem?)
My favorite deck for the past couple of years has been Spectral Pillager Rogue, but recently I saw that Hysteria had highlighted as one of his 50 top combos of 2019 a version that, although just as memey, utilized an infinite Nozdormu-based version of the combo. I ended up carrying out a few wins today, one of which I got the Pillager killing blow to over 200 x 2 damage.
What it bothers me more is that people really play WILD MECHA THUN QUEST RENO WARLOCK as if is funny and enjoyable"!!!!
I actually think it is pretty fun honestly. It forces your opponent to actually try and kill you instead of stall things out forever with value and min/max value trading. Plus, you don't have to dilute your deck with an anti-Ice Block tech, which EVERY mage seems to get even if they aren't control/combo
An in between mode for wild and standard. That way ex standard players and/or anti-combo players can stop trying to nerf my fun decks and ruin the only eternal mode that HS has. Every physical card game has a mode where anything can go, if you warp wild into something it is not then HS has no mode where anything can go.
Can't help but feel way too many players don't want balance patches to balance out the game, but more that they don't like any of the decks currently on top and/or are bored with the meta (imagine that with still a fairly new meta) and just want to nerf everything on top to reset the entire meta.
Now I do agree that it is easy to see shaman had/has things that are too overtuned and would become a problem unless addressed, but wanting things like rogue nerfed too when it isn't even the top deck just really sounds like people are wanting nerfs to be used in a way that they aren't meant to be used (ie a whole meta reset).
The goal of nerfs nowadays isn't to kill a deck or make it to necessarily not dominate (In the end something needs to dominate even if only by a percent or two), but modernly nerfs are to make sure something isn't oppressive.
A deck being dominant in an appropriate meta is not always the same thing as a deck that is oppressive or game breaking.
Easy. I've already hit legend so I don't have a need to restrict myself to only play in ranked where it should be assumed that optimized decks will do better than fun decks more often. When you play in casual wild you can honestly make almost any type of deck work, you just need to keep your expectations in check (ie Know that meme decks will always have lower winrates regardless of the format being wild or standard).
As for the comments referencing most cards/big collections not being viable in wild, that would happen regardless of the power level/power creep in wild. Decks are only 30 cards, not Yu-Gi-Oh's 40 card minimum or MtG's even larger possible sizes. When you have that restriction and the ever growing hundreds (and years later maybe thousands) of cards that you can't put in a single deck it makes sense that many many many cards will eventually not be 'useable' versus almost any competitive meta.
Deck size and the tug of war between high tempo and slower control really have nothing to do with each other.
You'd have to overhaul the mana resource system of the entire game to really address what you're getting at directly.
To digress a little I will say that there was once a time when at least one of the tempo playstyles (midrange) almost did not exist in the game at all for many seasons (outside of Midrange Hunter). People also very often have this compulsory need to constantly redirect the game to a main control meta, ignoring that such a meta actually makes combos & OTKs stronger (which I love, but many players hate) and many classes do not have legitimate non-tempo means to build decks around, such as control paladin.
Hearthstone is a game, and as a Game Designer I know that the game must be fun for anyone involved.
So, even if something is not above "50%" winrate but makes the player experience bad it will/should be changed.
At least that what the designers should do.
The issue with that comes in the form of the cliche "Fun is subjective" statement.
You will never be able to ever make a card or deck that everyone likes playing against.
You also have to consider which players are actually not liking to play against any card/deck (I'm not just talking about the standard format DoD meta) vs those that are ambivalent vs those that like playing against them.
Lastly, where do you draw the line in the stand that disallows just any 'Not fun complaint' to get chucked at a card/deck/class? I for one really really dislike how overly saturated the priest class is with removal options, as well as dislike how disgusting warlock can get with every other expansion when getting some super value generation machine. Does that mean that just because I dislike those two things that I am entitled for them to get nerfed simply because I don't consider them fun?
Try playing WoW for 10 years straight & having very rare tcg mounts/items that you ground out months' worth of gold for handed out on the BMAH copy pasta style like it was nothing.
I'm hardly salty over Blizzard giving away old cardbacks or heroes in HS. The only 'work' HS players put into cosmetics is pretty much summed up as "Did I spend a few dollars during this promotion?" or "Did I bother playing a few games on ranked across an entire month to get this one random card back?"
This argument pretty much holds no water in HS when compared to many of the other Blizzard games where in many instances you almost do have to make the game your 'job outside of work' to get rare, hard, or super grindy stuff sometimes.
Would rather have the current cards chosen to be the one to take the ax than to nerf mechwarper and have some fun meme combos get destroyed by a mechwarper nerf too.
Another "If you draw me earlier in the game I really boost your winrate more, but if I don't draw you early in the game I really lower my winrate." Not the most healthy of decision choices, but it is a cool card and not anywhere near as bad as things like Keleseth.
Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more.
I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.
And i know many including myself who don't give a damn about combos and yet would like to play decks that are not bashed by current broken top tiers.
And keeping Wild as it is will possibly keep your group there, but it will make many others to leave the game, and the mode to die out (assuming it is not already dead).
Now, i am not willing to kill Thaurissan or any other OTK for that matter, but Wild is not fine now, and demanding for a serious fix is not a hate thread just because you are not involved by current problems.
Stating that there are also players on the other side of the argument doesn't invalidate that making a such big change to hate on combos wouldn't hurt a devoted part of the playerbase. I can also think of 2 (3 if you count Dane) streamers that constantly put the wild format out there more in the public eye due to streams/youtube and fun combos (many of which actually do need Thaurassian ticks). Who does more for the wild format? Those public players and streamers who promote the format (even with silly combos) or players on forums who do nothing positive to put the format into the public eye in a positive way?
As for wanting to play decks that are not bashed by current top tiers, I have to ask why you think axing combos is going to change that whatsoever. Do you honestly think that more optimized control classes/cards or more optimized aggro/midrange classes or cards still wouldn't push less net-decked lists out of the wild meta game? You'd be dead wrong on that sir.
For example, say wild combo decks prevent you from laddering with a lower tier control deck. Well, other decks/classes that can do control better will still ALWAYS sh*t on you, such as warlocks permanently having access to Gul'Dan (N'Zoth too if the meta got super slow/greedy), Godfrey & Defile, Mal'Ganis (making Gul'Dan even more polarizing during high rolls), Voidcaller, etc. The same logic can be applied to things like aggro (e.g. Murloc Shaman, variations of optimized aggro pally lists, Zoolock) still also pushing out lower tier aggro decks out of ladder. The point I'm getting at is that some classes are saturated in the tools of a particular playstyle while others are starved of them. You can try to significantly overhaul/nerf combos but it will never change the fact that optimized control/aggro/midrange decks are still going to prevent you and like-minded players from having as much success with control/aggro/midrange decks that aren't top netdecks of their respective playstyles. Using combos as a scapegoat won't suddenly make less popular decks work and not get curbstomped by control and aggro power creep.
Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more.
I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.
I have to second this.
It's not priest's identity that is stagnating the class, but is the mindset that so many players have in deriving fun from cheesing out crazy legendary minions and often not having to worry about the opponent's board because the priest's large rezzed boards dictate which player ends up needing to do the trading while the priest just smashes face and protects things like Catrina or Rag with endless taunts. There isn't anything wrong with anybody enjoying fun about whatever they want to enjoy, but the obsession about the type of playstyle pigeonholes the class in wild because of it. Hell, big priest was even slights nerfed via Barnes (Although like I've said before the nerf was pointless because Vargoth was infinitely more powerful for the deck in the long game against control classes if only due to Mass Resurrection highrolls by itself) the deck is still heavily played in the format when compared to other priest archtypes. Nerfs aren't the answer, but players' preferences have to change or the priest class will still generally remain stagnant.
I do think priest laziness gets people to overlook Dragon Priest more often than they should. Not that long ago I get to legend for the first time (honestly first time above rank 5 even) with a Reno Dragon Priest build despite shamans, rogues, and big priests being everywhere. Old decks =/= bad, unviable, or inconsistent decks.
I usually feel a little bothered when its said aggro provides little to no interaction while ignoring that some control decks are the slow version of supposed little to no interaction in their own class. What is the difference between being a slow deck and losing quickly against an overtuned aggressive deck and being a 'weaker' control deck against a better one that has more removal, more threats, and more overall value engines? Either way you're facing a deck that feels like an uphill battle.
In your OP you mention that you felt the game failed when it came to OTKs and hyper aggressive decks existing. The fact of the matter is that HS is not only about control archtypes where you min max value minion trades and endless removal. Other games like MtG and Yu-Gi-Oh both have valid strategies that don't just removal around this grindy control style to varying degrees so why shouldn't HS also have these, especially this 'late' into the game's life?
It should also be noted that the entire concept of T5 trying to pigeonhole the classes into "themed" (restricted) strategies and cards it means that if you punish aggro too much it leaves a good third of other classes without valid control options each meta for the very fact that T5 intentionally does not give certain classes control tools all that often. What ends up happening then is you get classes like rogue and hunter that aren't given control tools each meta and then their only option (usually aggro/midrange/tempo) just continually gets nerfed because people feel aggro should not have as strong of a place in the game as control. So basically the T5 established control classes don't usually get nerfed because they are not often based around aggro, while the non-control classes do get nerfed more often, not always because aggro has become too strong but because the vocal minority simply doesn't like aggro and complain to get it nerfed as the non-legitimate strat in their eyes.
I've watched a couple streamers play it briefly but it honestly doesn't look like my thing (granted I have yet to give it an honest first chance yet), but as far as merely being a spectator of HS BGs vs mainstream HS the former looks a lot less interesting to watch. It seems so overly repetitive.
Again this could be due to me not having given it a first try. I don't even know how to play yet (which may be part of the problem?)
Does anyone else still feel this way?
Fun decks are where it is at everyone :)
Remember, after you hit legend once the only reward is the grind back up to legend so remember to meme it up too :D
My favorite deck for the past couple of years has been Spectral Pillager Rogue, but recently I saw that Hysteria had highlighted as one of his 50 top combos of 2019 a version that, although just as memey, utilized an infinite Nozdormu-based version of the combo. I ended up carrying out a few wins today, one of which I got the Pillager killing blow to over 200 x 2 damage.
Finish him indeed
I actually think it is pretty fun honestly. It forces your opponent to actually try and kill you instead of stall things out forever with value and min/max value trading. Plus, you don't have to dilute your deck with an anti-Ice Block tech, which EVERY mage seems to get even if they aren't control/combo
This year has been pretty awful tbh so hoping the new year ends up much better, and I hope everyone else's new years is swell too!
An in between mode for wild and standard. That way ex standard players and/or anti-combo players can stop trying to nerf my fun decks and ruin the only eternal mode that HS has. Every physical card game has a mode where anything can go, if you warp wild into something it is not then HS has no mode where anything can go.
Can't help but feel way too many players don't want balance patches to balance out the game, but more that they don't like any of the decks currently on top and/or are bored with the meta (imagine that with still a fairly new meta) and just want to nerf everything on top to reset the entire meta.
Now I do agree that it is easy to see shaman had/has things that are too overtuned and would become a problem unless addressed, but wanting things like rogue nerfed too when it isn't even the top deck just really sounds like people are wanting nerfs to be used in a way that they aren't meant to be used (ie a whole meta reset).
The goal of nerfs nowadays isn't to kill a deck or make it to necessarily not dominate (In the end something needs to dominate even if only by a percent or two), but modernly nerfs are to make sure something isn't oppressive.
A deck being dominant in an appropriate meta is not always the same thing as a deck that is oppressive or game breaking.
Easy. I've already hit legend so I don't have a need to restrict myself to only play in ranked where it should be assumed that optimized decks will do better than fun decks more often. When you play in casual wild you can honestly make almost any type of deck work, you just need to keep your expectations in check (ie Know that meme decks will always have lower winrates regardless of the format being wild or standard).
As for the comments referencing most cards/big collections not being viable in wild, that would happen regardless of the power level/power creep in wild. Decks are only 30 cards, not Yu-Gi-Oh's 40 card minimum or MtG's even larger possible sizes. When you have that restriction and the ever growing hundreds (and years later maybe thousands) of cards that you can't put in a single deck it makes sense that many many many cards will eventually not be 'useable' versus almost any competitive meta.
Deck size and the tug of war between high tempo and slower control really have nothing to do with each other.
You'd have to overhaul the mana resource system of the entire game to really address what you're getting at directly.
To digress a little I will say that there was once a time when at least one of the tempo playstyles (midrange) almost did not exist in the game at all for many seasons (outside of Midrange Hunter). People also very often have this compulsory need to constantly redirect the game to a main control meta, ignoring that such a meta actually makes combos & OTKs stronger (which I love, but many players hate) and many classes do not have legitimate non-tempo means to build decks around, such as control paladin.
The issue with that comes in the form of the cliche "Fun is subjective" statement.
You will never be able to ever make a card or deck that everyone likes playing against.
You also have to consider which players are actually not liking to play against any card/deck (I'm not just talking about the standard format DoD meta) vs those that are ambivalent vs those that like playing against them.
Lastly, where do you draw the line in the stand that disallows just any 'Not fun complaint' to get chucked at a card/deck/class? I for one really really dislike how overly saturated the priest class is with removal options, as well as dislike how disgusting warlock can get with every other expansion when getting some super value generation machine. Does that mean that just because I dislike those two things that I am entitled for them to get nerfed simply because I don't consider them fun?
Try playing WoW for 10 years straight & having very rare tcg mounts/items that you ground out months' worth of gold for handed out on the BMAH copy pasta style like it was nothing.
I'm hardly salty over Blizzard giving away old cardbacks or heroes in HS. The only 'work' HS players put into cosmetics is pretty much summed up as "Did I spend a few dollars during this promotion?" or "Did I bother playing a few games on ranked across an entire month to get this one random card back?"
This argument pretty much holds no water in HS when compared to many of the other Blizzard games where in many instances you almost do have to make the game your 'job outside of work' to get rare, hard, or super grindy stuff sometimes.
Would rather have the current cards chosen to be the one to take the ax than to nerf mechwarper and have some fun meme combos get destroyed by a mechwarper nerf too.
$Free.99 you mean?
But why?
Another "If you draw me earlier in the game I really boost your winrate more, but if I don't draw you early in the game I really lower my winrate." Not the most healthy of decision choices, but it is a cool card and not anywhere near as bad as things like Keleseth.
Stating that there are also players on the other side of the argument doesn't invalidate that making a such big change to hate on combos wouldn't hurt a devoted part of the playerbase. I can also think of 2 (3 if you count Dane) streamers that constantly put the wild format out there more in the public eye due to streams/youtube and fun combos (many of which actually do need Thaurassian ticks). Who does more for the wild format? Those public players and streamers who promote the format (even with silly combos) or players on forums who do nothing positive to put the format into the public eye in a positive way?
As for wanting to play decks that are not bashed by current top tiers, I have to ask why you think axing combos is going to change that whatsoever. Do you honestly think that more optimized control classes/cards or more optimized aggro/midrange classes or cards still wouldn't push less net-decked lists out of the wild meta game? You'd be dead wrong on that sir.
For example, say wild combo decks prevent you from laddering with a lower tier control deck. Well, other decks/classes that can do control better will still ALWAYS sh*t on you, such as warlocks permanently having access to Gul'Dan (N'Zoth too if the meta got super slow/greedy), Godfrey & Defile, Mal'Ganis (making Gul'Dan even more polarizing during high rolls), Voidcaller, etc. The same logic can be applied to things like aggro (e.g. Murloc Shaman, variations of optimized aggro pally lists, Zoolock) still also pushing out lower tier aggro decks out of ladder. The point I'm getting at is that some classes are saturated in the tools of a particular playstyle while others are starved of them. You can try to significantly overhaul/nerf combos but it will never change the fact that optimized control/aggro/midrange decks are still going to prevent you and like-minded players from having as much success with control/aggro/midrange decks that aren't top netdecks of their respective playstyles. Using combos as a scapegoat won't suddenly make less popular decks work and not get curbstomped by control and aggro power creep.
Thread pretty much seems like another copy pasta combo hate thread. Nerf things like Thaurassian due to wild players not liking to lose to combos will guarantee that many wild players may potentially quit the game, hurting the format even more.
I know I play wild primarily because you can make so many cool combos and I know many other players who primarily use the format for decks like that as well.