Mage has been below 50% WR for weeks now. It’s still popular because some people find it fun to play, but they’re helping the rest of us out when they do it. (If you believe the people who claim Rush Warrior is getting overlooked, then Mage is the only class without a T1 or T2 deck in the past month.)
This is an interesting design question, actually. We sometimes debate whether to nerf a deck that’s not actually strong but feels like it is. This time, the question is whether to buff a deck that’s weak even though not everyone realizes it. I would say no - Mage is prominent enough that it feels right in the meta. But I can see the argument for doing it, too.
The other factor might be the overall impact on the meta. Warlock and Mage are the two classes holding Shaman back from total dominance, and some people are worried about Shaman taking over after Warlock’s next nerfs. Blizzard might have decided a small Mage boost is needed to keep Shaman in line. (Edit: Or a more obvious explanation is that with Warlock and Shaman both getting nerfed, Mage’s WR will plummet unless it gets some help.)
You need to watch for 15 minutes today or tomorrow to get the card back and icon, and 15 more minutes on Saturday to get the emote. It doesn’t take long, but don’t put it off until the weekend or you’ll miss the first drop!
I actually won two of my three games. The first one was against a Demon Hunter with Consume Magic. They were teching against Pogo Rogue, and had no defense from a vanilla minion. The second game was a predictable loss to a Pogo Rogue. And the third… was my first-ever Nozdormu vs. Nozdormu match! Hilarious!
In late August, Vicious Syndicate reported that Hand Warlock had a 53-54% win rate, depending on which slice of the meta you were looking at. Last Thursday, everything the tracked (high Diamond, legend, and top legend) had Hand Warlock at 52.X%, and it was the #2-#3 deck in all cases.
That’s a healthy position for a T1 deck. The nerf successfully bumped it down, and got rid of some cards that felt especially bad to lose against. It was a successful nerf.
I’m aware that things have continued to evolve since last Thursday’s report. In VS’s recent podcast, they said the new builds with Runed Mithril Rod are taking over. I’m not sure if the WR of those has edged up to an unhealthy level, but VS’ recommendation is to nerf Rod. Obviously, that wouldn’t have been a sensible nerf before now. Note that Vicious Syndicate isn’t calling for the quest to be nerfed either.
@IksarHS Will we be getting “new” Diamond cards for older sets any time soon? Are there any chards in particular you think would be cool Diamond ones?
@NateWolfeTCG We'll get there, just taking some time. Mercenaries has been a heavy lift for the team so most features beyond current content upkeep have been on hold while we gear up for release.
I wish I had a list of everything that Dean has said was put aside for Mercenaries. He’s brought that up a lot.
VS is my go-to source, but yes their latest article is out of date. In my last post, I included updated data from HSReplay, which shows Quest decks locked out of T1 completely.
I don’t listen to the VS podcast. I just read a summary, and it does sound like Quest Shaman will be back on top of the pack in the next report. But they also talk up a lot of non-Quest decks.
Since Quests are one of the big features of the new expansion, I’m not surprised that they keep showing up in T1/T2. But the fact that they’re bouncing in and out of these tiers, and rarely making up more than 25% of each tier, tells me that it’s a matter of card balance and meta shifting. Quests are not fundamentally flawed. The first couple days of Quest Mage’s dominance did get boring, but Blizzard has been quick with the balance adjustments, and since then it’s more a more varied, fair meta than we usually get in the initial weeks of a new expansion.
I think the real problem is that Blizzard doesn’t design for the long-term viability of Wild. Powerful cards rotate out of Standard, new powerful cards rotate in, and there is no balance of the old and new ones when they mix.
I don’t play Wild, but I did see what Doom in the Tomb did to Standard a couple years ago. A few strong cards from the past were all it took to completely unbalance the whole meta. If Wild is that times 100, then I can understand why Wild players are frustrated so often. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I hope it doesn’t come at the expense of the fun Standard experiences the team creates.
They're still a problem in standard, albeit not as much in wild.
Tier 1 right now is basically quest shaman v quest warlock v quest mage. Each with pretty polarizing match-ups.
According to the Vicious Syndicate report I quoted above, that’s not true at all. The latest HSReplay stats are different, but still don’t put Quest decks at the top. In fact, NO Quest decks are Tier 1 right now. Quest Shaman is the 6th best deck, Quest Warlock is 10th(!), and Warrior/Rogue/Mage are barely reaching 50% at spots 14-16. That tells me that Quests are viable, but not your best options. And my anecdotal experience is that most of my opponents aren’t playing them. It’s nothing like the Uldum Quest or Galakrond days.
This article is almost fully focused on Wild. (And what it does have about Standard is inaccurate - for example, Quest Warlock decks only relied on fatigue damage for the first few days after the expansion released.)
In Standard, Quests really don’t seem to be a problem. According to the latest VS report (#205), Quests are found in only 1 of the 4 tier 1 decks 1 of the 7 tier 2 decks! The Quest archetypes are mainly found in T3 and T4. People like to complain, but it’s really not a problem.
As for Wild: I’ve been playing the game for a few years, and I can’t remember a single period when the Wild community wasn’t angry about how broken their meta was. I can believe that Quest Warlock is a problem, but it seems like the fundamental problems go far deeper than that.
That’s fair. As long as you feel that it’s worth it for you, I won’t question that.
I will say that I still enjoy the game, including the past month. I’ve liked the new decks available to try, the team has been fast with balance adjustments, and despite what others say I find that most games last a satisfying 8-10 turns. Overall player numbers are apparently steady, so hopefully there are a lot of people out there who are having fun.
I do worry that a lot of players are just waiting for the game to become something it’s not. Maybe the game has changed, maybe the person has changed without realizing it, but I’m sure it’s never going to satisfy many of the people I see on Reddit. I just hope most of them move on and find a game they enjoy, which was the reason I answered you the way I did. But if you do think it’s likely to be fun again for you, then I’m glad. Good luck!
Wow. You have a lot of issues with the game. I disagree with many of them, and the ones I do agree with aren’t as important to me as they are to you, but that’s ok. Your opinions are valid, and of course it’s fine if you like different games than me. I’m only sorry that it’s taken you so much time, money, and mental energy to realize that Hearthstone is not the game for you.
For your sake, I hope that you’re close to making that break for real. You deserve to be putting that time and money into a game (or other hobby) that you do enjoy.
The gameplay looks pretty fun. But I don’t pay for single-player games the way I pay for competitive games. I can’t tell if the F2P experience will be fun, or if it will always feel like it’s bugging me to upgrade. I also can’t tell whether it will feel like my time in Mercenaries is earning gold for Hearthstone, or whether it will pressure me to take gold from Hearthstone and put it into this. The answers to those questions will make or break the game for me. (And the answer to “can I ignore it if I don’t like it?” may make or break Hearthstone for me.)
It’s a good nerf. For 4 3 mana, Merciless Hunter grants a unit vulnerable and summons a body for your board. Granting vulnerable is a cheap effect - several 1- and 2-mana spells give vulnerable for a turn and have another beneficial effect. I think the only comparable card that grants vulnerable is Chum the Waters. That costs 1 more than Hunter but gives you a 5/2 Overwhelm, and isn’t considered OP at all.
In short, “grant vulnerable and summon a unit” is fine for 4 mana. The real problem is that the unit gave a little too much value. Removing 1 health may not seem like a lot, but it will prevent the worst board swings that the card allowed before.
[Edit: Oops, I had the mana cost off. That’s a real mistake, but I think the basic point stands.]
Hearthstone assigns you an MMR (match-making rating), which predicts your general skill level. They adjust it with every game, so it tracks your skill fairly accurately. It’s not perfect, of course, and a single game against an opponent of similar skill will depend a lot on luck and whose deck counters the other’s. But in general, the game can ensure that you’ll have about a 50% win rate over time if it matches you by MMR.
1. As long as you have a star multiplier of 2 or higher, the game matches you by MMR. Your opponent may be at a different spot on the ladder, but you should have a fair fight. Because you are getting at least 2 stars per win and losing 1 per loss, and because you’ll be winning about half your games, you’re guaranteed to eventually progress to a 1-star multiplier as long as you keep playing.
2. Once you get to 1 star, then you’re matched against people at the same spot on the ladder, regardless of your MMRs.
3. Then when you get to legend, you’re matched by MMR again, with the difference being that you now see the overall rank that your MMR gives you.
The real change from the old system is that first step: At the start of every month, you’ll grind through a bunch of games to get to the place you “should” start at. The old system just started you at an appropriate spot on the ladder, equivalent to step #2 above. Effectively, I’m being asked to start every month with 50 (?) games on casual mode before I actually start fighting for rank. That’s not interesting to me.
(The reason that Legend match-ups don’t feel like Casual is that your wins and losses matter. If you get that 55% win rate, you’ll see your ranking rise accordingly. There’s no equivalent to that with the multi-star progression. Whether I play above or below my expected level, I’ll make it to the same place in the end.)
New ranked system I think has virtually no downsides in comparison to the old. Better rewards, communication, progression, matchmaking..
I’m a little surprised to hear that. I agree the rewards are better, but I miss the experience of the old ranked system. I want a skill-based climb where every game “matters”. Now, the first half of the month is spent in a mode where the matchmaker guarantees me a 50% win rate and ensures I’ll progress regardless of how I play. It’s not motivating at all.
I know that’s my opinion. Other people can have reasons to like it, and that’s fine. I’m just surprised that Dean believes everyone prefers it this way.
The events are happening more and more frequently. I assume that it’s the biggest money-maker for them. I don’t begrudge them making money through cosmetics, and I know it’s my own damn fault if I decide to buy too many optional things… but it’s really hard not to buy too many optional things.
I felt a little burned out by the end of the last event, and now two weeks later I really want the Bandlewood stuff. Will I regret this? Will Riot?
Mage has been below 50% WR for weeks now. It’s still popular because some people find it fun to play, but they’re helping the rest of us out when they do it. (If you believe the people who claim Rush Warrior is getting overlooked, then Mage is the only class without a T1 or T2 deck in the past month.)
This is an interesting design question, actually. We sometimes debate whether to nerf a deck that’s not actually strong but feels like it is. This time, the question is whether to buff a deck that’s weak even though not everyone realizes it. I would say no - Mage is prominent enough that it feels right in the meta. But I can see the argument for doing it, too.
The other factor might be the overall impact on the meta. Warlock and Mage are the two classes holding Shaman back from total dominance, and some people are worried about Shaman taking over after Warlock’s next nerfs. Blizzard might have decided a small Mage boost is needed to keep Shaman in line. (Edit: Or a more obvious explanation is that with Warlock and Shaman both getting nerfed, Mage’s WR will plummet unless it gets some help.)
You need to watch for 15 minutes today or tomorrow to get the card back and icon, and 15 more minutes on Saturday to get the emote. It doesn’t take long, but don’t put it off until the weekend or you’ll miss the first drop!
I came here to say the same thing!
I actually won two of my three games. The first one was against a Demon Hunter with Consume Magic. They were teching against Pogo Rogue, and had no defense from a vanilla minion. The second game was a predictable loss to a Pogo Rogue. And the third… was my first-ever Nozdormu vs. Nozdormu match! Hilarious!
In late August, Vicious Syndicate reported that Hand Warlock had a 53-54% win rate, depending on which slice of the meta you were looking at. Last Thursday, everything the tracked (high Diamond, legend, and top legend) had Hand Warlock at 52.X%, and it was the #2-#3 deck in all cases.
That’s a healthy position for a T1 deck. The nerf successfully bumped it down, and got rid of some cards that felt especially bad to lose against. It was a successful nerf.
I’m aware that things have continued to evolve since last Thursday’s report. In VS’s recent podcast, they said the new builds with Runed Mithril Rod are taking over. I’m not sure if the WR of those has edged up to an unhealthy level, but VS’ recommendation is to nerf Rod. Obviously, that wouldn’t have been a sensible nerf before now. Note that Vicious Syndicate isn’t calling for the quest to be nerfed either.
I wish I had a list of everything that Dean has said was put aside for Mercenaries. He’s brought that up a lot.
Agreed. I have a mostly-complete Classic set. I have no Naxx cards, so once that rotates in the mode is dead to me.
Rerolls seem to be the most commonly-requested feature for Saltwater Scourge. Now let’s see if it makes the mode as fun as base Lab of Legends.
VS is my go-to source, but yes their latest article is out of date. In my last post, I included updated data from HSReplay, which shows Quest decks locked out of T1 completely.
I don’t listen to the VS podcast. I just read a summary, and it does sound like Quest Shaman will be back on top of the pack in the next report. But they also talk up a lot of non-Quest decks.
Since Quests are one of the big features of the new expansion, I’m not surprised that they keep showing up in T1/T2. But the fact that they’re bouncing in and out of these tiers, and rarely making up more than 25% of each tier, tells me that it’s a matter of card balance and meta shifting. Quests are not fundamentally flawed. The first couple days of Quest Mage’s dominance did get boring, but Blizzard has been quick with the balance adjustments, and since then it’s more a more varied, fair meta than we usually get in the initial weeks of a new expansion.
I think the real problem is that Blizzard doesn’t design for the long-term viability of Wild. Powerful cards rotate out of Standard, new powerful cards rotate in, and there is no balance of the old and new ones when they mix.
I don’t play Wild, but I did see what Doom in the Tomb did to Standard a couple years ago. A few strong cards from the past were all it took to completely unbalance the whole meta. If Wild is that times 100, then I can understand why Wild players are frustrated so often. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I hope it doesn’t come at the expense of the fun Standard experiences the team creates.
According to the Vicious Syndicate report I quoted above, that’s not true at all. The latest HSReplay stats are different, but still don’t put Quest decks at the top. In fact, NO Quest decks are Tier 1 right now. Quest Shaman is the 6th best deck, Quest Warlock is 10th(!), and Warrior/Rogue/Mage are barely reaching 50% at spots 14-16. That tells me that Quests are viable, but not your best options. And my anecdotal experience is that most of my opponents aren’t playing them. It’s nothing like the Uldum Quest or Galakrond days.
This article is almost fully focused on Wild. (And what it does have about Standard is inaccurate - for example, Quest Warlock decks only relied on fatigue damage for the first few days after the expansion released.)
In Standard, Quests really don’t seem to be a problem. According to the latest VS report (#205), Quests are found in only 1 of the 4 tier 1 decks 1 of the 7 tier 2 decks! The Quest archetypes are mainly found in T3 and T4. People like to complain, but it’s really not a problem.
As for Wild: I’ve been playing the game for a few years, and I can’t remember a single period when the Wild community wasn’t angry about how broken their meta was. I can believe that Quest Warlock is a problem, but it seems like the fundamental problems go far deeper than that.
That’s fair. As long as you feel that it’s worth it for you, I won’t question that.
I will say that I still enjoy the game, including the past month. I’ve liked the new decks available to try, the team has been fast with balance adjustments, and despite what others say I find that most games last a satisfying 8-10 turns. Overall player numbers are apparently steady, so hopefully there are a lot of people out there who are having fun.
I do worry that a lot of players are just waiting for the game to become something it’s not. Maybe the game has changed, maybe the person has changed without realizing it, but I’m sure it’s never going to satisfy many of the people I see on Reddit. I just hope most of them move on and find a game they enjoy, which was the reason I answered you the way I did. But if you do think it’s likely to be fun again for you, then I’m glad. Good luck!
Wow. You have a lot of issues with the game. I disagree with many of them, and the ones I do agree with aren’t as important to me as they are to you, but that’s ok. Your opinions are valid, and of course it’s fine if you like different games than me. I’m only sorry that it’s taken you so much time, money, and mental energy to realize that Hearthstone is not the game for you.
For your sake, I hope that you’re close to making that break for real. You deserve to be putting that time and money into a game (or other hobby) that you do enjoy.
The gameplay looks pretty fun. But I don’t pay for single-player games the way I pay for competitive games. I can’t tell if the F2P experience will be fun, or if it will always feel like it’s bugging me to upgrade. I also can’t tell whether it will feel like my time in Mercenaries is earning gold for Hearthstone, or whether it will pressure me to take gold from Hearthstone and put it into this. The answers to those questions will make or break the game for me. (And the answer to “can I ignore it if I don’t like it?” may make or break Hearthstone for me.)
It’s a good nerf. For 4 3 mana, Merciless Hunter grants a unit vulnerable and summons a body for your board. Granting vulnerable is a cheap effect - several 1- and 2-mana spells give vulnerable for a turn and have another beneficial effect. I think the only comparable card that grants vulnerable is Chum the Waters. That costs 1 more than Hunter but gives you a 5/2 Overwhelm, and isn’t considered OP at all.
In short, “grant vulnerable and summon a unit” is fine for 4 mana. The real problem is that the unit gave a little too much value. Removing 1 health may not seem like a lot, but it will prevent the worst board swings that the card allowed before.
[Edit: Oops, I had the mana cost off. That’s a real mistake, but I think the basic point stands.]
100%
Hearthstone assigns you an MMR (match-making rating), which predicts your general skill level. They adjust it with every game, so it tracks your skill fairly accurately. It’s not perfect, of course, and a single game against an opponent of similar skill will depend a lot on luck and whose deck counters the other’s. But in general, the game can ensure that you’ll have about a 50% win rate over time if it matches you by MMR.
1. As long as you have a star multiplier of 2 or higher, the game matches you by MMR. Your opponent may be at a different spot on the ladder, but you should have a fair fight. Because you are getting at least 2 stars per win and losing 1 per loss, and because you’ll be winning about half your games, you’re guaranteed to eventually progress to a 1-star multiplier as long as you keep playing.
2. Once you get to 1 star, then you’re matched against people at the same spot on the ladder, regardless of your MMRs.
3. Then when you get to legend, you’re matched by MMR again, with the difference being that you now see the overall rank that your MMR gives you.
The real change from the old system is that first step: At the start of every month, you’ll grind through a bunch of games to get to the place you “should” start at. The old system just started you at an appropriate spot on the ladder, equivalent to step #2 above. Effectively, I’m being asked to start every month with 50 (?) games on casual mode before I actually start fighting for rank. That’s not interesting to me.
(The reason that Legend match-ups don’t feel like Casual is that your wins and losses matter. If you get that 55% win rate, you’ll see your ranking rise accordingly. There’s no equivalent to that with the multi-star progression. Whether I play above or below my expected level, I’ll make it to the same place in the end.)
I’m a little surprised to hear that. I agree the rewards are better, but I miss the experience of the old ranked system. I want a skill-based climb where every game “matters”. Now, the first half of the month is spent in a mode where the matchmaker guarantees me a 50% win rate and ensures I’ll progress regardless of how I play. It’s not motivating at all.
I know that’s my opinion. Other people can have reasons to like it, and that’s fine. I’m just surprised that Dean believes everyone prefers it this way.
The events are happening more and more frequently. I assume that it’s the biggest money-maker for them. I don’t begrudge them making money through cosmetics, and I know it’s my own damn fault if I decide to buy too many optional things… but it’s really hard not to buy too many optional things.
I felt a little burned out by the end of the last event, and now two weeks later I really want the Bandlewood stuff. Will I regret this? Will Riot?
Forged in the Barrens came out March 30th, and the Wailing Caverns 9 weeks (and two days) later on June 3rd.
Stormwind was released on August 3rd. 9 weeks after that is October 5th.
I don’t think we can predict an exact date for the mini-set, but early to mid-October sounds right.