A summary of lessons learned from pally posts

There are dozens of people who have come to the forums to complain about this deck. The issue with most of the complaints is that they are primarily anecdotal (personal experience or of limited sample size). This is, by my estimate, offset by the volume of complaints coming to the forums, on streamer chats, other media complaining. Many of the posts are victims of other fallacies as well but their concerns are real thought their arguments may be flawed or incomplete.

The primary defenses I have seen to defend murloc pally are

  1. It doesn’t have a good win rate at higher levels of competition and therefore is not a problem.
    (This is a oversimplification and narrow focus deflecting to balance and performance as opposed to entertainment and frequency)
  2. It discourages slow or poorly built decks by beating them out of the game.
    (This is almost always a red herring deflecting from the concerns brought up)
  3. It’s easy to defeat if you make an aggro deck and go face.
    (This is typically a false dilemma deflecting that the only options are to play other decks or quit)
  4. There are other more powerful decks so clearly this one isn’t an issue.
    (relative privation fallacy attempting to dismiss a problem by deflecting to other larger problems)
  5. There has always been a pug stomp deck and this is no different than any other time in Hearthstone history.
    (This is an appeal to tradition attempting to dismiss the concerns)

Now looking past all of these arguments I think the deck is clearly bad for the community with how many people who wouldn’t normally be on the forums running here to complain. In addition the defenders of the deck tend to be the same half dozen forum cybernauts with thousands of comments and posts behind each of them while there are dozens of complainers for the decks.

As for me I find the deck an issue because it zones out so many decks at the low levels where people are learning the game. People are discussing winrates at different tiers which is not relevant to the complaints being offered. I think the best tool is to look at total games played by deck because complaints are most frequently the frequency of the deck!

Hearthstone Meta Stats shows that in bronze in the last 4 days there have been around 6,000 games of quest paladin. The second highest is Beast Hunter with around 2,300 games played. At higher ranks you don’t see paladin any longer but if you count ALL the beast hunter decks played from bronze, plat, diamond, and legend you still only have about 4,000 games played. THATS 2/3 of the number of games of paladin IN ONE RANK!

Lets look at hsreplay. All decks sorted by games and the top two decks are two different paladin quest decks that account for 314,000 GAMES in the last 30 days. The top two Beast Hunter decks are second highest number of plays with 106,000! (by the way there are 2 more quest pally decks on the list before the second beast hunter deck which would technically make the quest pally number 368,000 but I’m trying to handicap it) That’s at MOST 1/3 of the number of games as quest pally! (edited out an error I had in rank disparity)

Lastly, though these are generally at lower ranked matches the win rates are still around 62% and if we consider how many of the games are mirrors messing with the win rates by inflating the pool of total games that’s a very very good win rate.

TLDR, after seeing all the arguments I’m very convinced quest pally is a huge issue but not for the reasons all the forums seem to believe. The deck isn’t a power issue, but a fun issue based on its absolutely incredible prevalence in the ladder and poor interactions in the game itself.

3 Likes

I agree that the devs should change decorations on the low ranks stage sometimes. But don’t have high expectations. Nerfs will be nothing more than changing decorations. Another simple deck will come and get a great playrate at low ranks and it will lead to many complaints.

Nowadays options are limited for low ranks not due to Paladin’s presence, but due to the fact that all control decks are relatively difficult. And it is not an easy problem to solve, bc when simple control decks appear, they look like Unkilliax Warrior and it also doesn’t create positive experience.

1 Like

A summary of lessons learned from pally posts: People would rather stomp their feet n demand nerfs instead of learning to play the game.

6 Likes

I don’t disagree with your points at all. I do question if a deck would be able to replace the quest pally with its sheer volume of games played. I also wonder if people would be more frustrated by the rise in control decks or more relieved by the larger variety of decks.

1 Like

What I learned from pally posts is that after 11 years people still haven’t learned how to play against anything aggro related.

3 Likes

What I learned from pally complaint posts is people would rather complain and demand nerfs instead of listening to any advice or anything they don’t agree with

4 Likes

A typical strawman fallacy.

2 Likes

I think people are just channeling your energy back at you bro. You started this thread strawmanning others, but you call it “a summary” when you do it.

1 Like

I started by strawmanning others? Where did I misrepresent or exaggerate an argument of opposition? Did you confuse a strawman fallacy with something else you think I did?

1 Like

I think murloc paladin is much more of a midrange deck than agro. You can build it to be a bit faster or slower but I wouldn’t call it agro at all. in fact, it is bad against almost every actual agro deck.

i think the hate against it is overhyped. It actually plays very honestly (no mana scam) and does a lot of trading to fight for board. Murloc mirrors are very reminiscent of classic hearthstone minion trading. It just has a lot of inevitability in long games if you can’t either pressure the life total or freeze the board into some kind of combo win.

2 Likes

Yes you did. You “summarized” the opposition’s arguments, which allows you to spin and twist (aka misrepresent) the context to be favorable to you/unfavorable to the opposition.

It’s the same as when a politician claims that people on other side just want [insert unfavorable take on what the other side wants].

It’s not like you don’t recognize it when the other side does it. Several posters above did just that with the “what I learned is [insert unfavorable take on what the complainers say/want]”

…which is why I said what I said. They just channeling your energy back at you.

1 Like

The Deal with murloc paladin is that If you lose to It consistently you gonna lose to anything that comes after consistently as well.

Not only the deck never was that good but is already nerf once.

If you say for blizzard to try to not design decks with such low depth again i can 100% agree. They are Just boring to play with and against.

But nerf It?
What you gonna accomplish ? Find the next bogeyman because people at low ranks have a bad time finding lethal ?

And i not even talking about “aggro”. Anything with a remotely motion of Win condition is faster most of the time.
Quest mage being one example.

And yes. This is how low i think of the players on the lowest ranks because i as many here did already pass by that so i know exactly how bad someone on gold is.

1 Like

Unless you have observed the original arguments I’m referencing you have no way to know how favorable or unfavorable I have depicted them. As it turns out public internet forums often produce poor arguments. Just because I dont steelman an argument doesnt mean I strawman it. The closest I can find to a strawman is in argument 5 using the term “pug stomp” as most posts about it explain at length that quest pally is effective against newer players or bots and is popular at low ranks to defeat those opponents. I used “pug stomp” as I saw one post use the term to summarize and its definition applied appropriately.

I dont disagree that folk are “channeling my energy” back. I tend to be really blunt in my comments and that often gets read into as arrogant or insulting. I dont usually see it so I get confused by the occasionally aggressive or accusatory response. Results of my personality and background of writing academically.

1 Like

Pally has always been a class for franks and beans players. It is like they designed it for them.

1 Like

People : It’s boring.
Pally : It’s not that good.

They speak with different mind.
That what I learn.

1 Like

You are totally right
I’m only play pally decks I’m on Legend NA region.

This deck is Boring and this deck is not that good for the brand fresh new meta compared to old meta Protoss (any deck) or warrior decks, which is 90% of the players play atm.

People dont undestand that its a value ramp.

You get a avarage of 2 value each turn as murloc pally.

Now compare Fishing protoss priest, Protoss Mage, Warrior.

Priest at turn 1 get 3 value already with that godamn 3/3 fish or a 2/2 lifesteal (that gives you +1 value on protoss cards). Without mention the rush plus the 5 mana ress card that bring everything again with reborn. It’s more then 15 value on turn 5. NOT EVEN CLOSE A POSSIBLE VALUE THAT A MURLOC PALADIN CAN DO ON TURN 5.

1 Like

See point 4 in my og post.

Highlighting that another deck can outperform does nothing to address the issue with the original deck. Here are some examples.
Both could be too strong.
One could counter the other while the first is still too strong for the majority of decks.
They could have completely unrelated balance issues. ie one has too high a win rate the other has problematic interactions.

I’m just pointing out that your post as an argument regarding the quest paladin deck isn’t very good. If you’re reason to post was to bring attention to the other decks, that’s fine, you just may want to explain the shift of focus. I think you were going for the latter here and just illustrating that some of the other decks are an even larger exacerbation of the value train issue. Sorry for the lengthy response, just had a hard time grasping what you intended.

1 Like