How would you change this meta?

Multiplayer Discussion
65

I actually disagree. I had no issues with that deck or decks like it. I would take those all day over the plodding turtle warrior stall pile.

You could fill those things with plagues or bombs or whatever and ruin their day just as much as they were ruining other people’s days.

The start of game change is a massive, massive buff to the cards.

With Reno as start of game you win before it’s played and that’s it. You can’t dirty rat it, you can’t counterspell it, you can’t blademaster them, or any of the other ways you try to counteract a play.

Be faster or die is why people call the game uninteractive and solitaire.

Edit: Didn’t they tell us not that long ago that they wanted to get away from druid ramp… and now they gave all that ramp to warrior, too?

66

Well…

Think of It this way

Turbo reno is non intended by design

Goes against the entire Idea of a Highlander deck

Add an extra layer of rng on top of the ones existing.

As i said earlier. Just rotate the damm card.

67

I don’t think that’s true, I just think it was better than expected. Turbo Reno decks got lol’d at by plague druid and would have been lol’d at by bombs, too. I just think turbo reno performed better when the players optimized it better than the devs expected.

Nevermind the fact that the whole idea of highlander is excrement.

As someone who still plays plenty of wild, I would rather see them put it back, like I said.

All the reasons it’s pissing off standard are going to be permanent wild issues… fix the card so you can stuff their deck and ruin their day.

68

Bring back prenerf Theotar. Put back and unnerf/buff every tech card that’s ever been printed *. Print a couple more side board cards like etc.

They suck at balancing the game. Let the players do it.

  • A partial list:
    Spell ward jeweler
    Ice block
    Mutanus
    Pre-nerf mindrender illucia
    Kobold sticky finger
    Tony, king of piracy.
1 Like
69

I say Reno goes to 7. Make Reno great again!!

70

Ok i got another question, instead of trying to fix the meta i would like to know your definition of a healthy meta, the way i see it personally a healthy meta involves control-aggro, midrange and combo coexisting without one being vastly superior to the other

71

A very diverse one, with most played decks having less than 5% frequency

Kinda like the one we had before the mini-set xD It’s a rare occurence, and short-lived, I’m afraid.

2 Likes
72

The perfect meta only exists for a very brief period of time before a mini set drops or something else changes the meta drastically, usually for the worst

1 Like
73

First, as a matter of semantics (and yes, I’m aware a lot of people aren’t fans of semantics), that is not what counterplay is. Counterplay is originally a term from chess, and it refers to a situation when neither player properly goes on the defense, and instead you have both players attacking their opponents king, usually on opposite sides of the board. This creates “race” situations where the player who SHOULD be defending but isn’t, needs to calculate who’s going to checkmate first and realize that it isn’t them.

So in Hearthstone terms, the terminologically correct meaning of counterplay would be when both players are going face instead of trading. This usually refers to a deck with spell or battlecry burn vs a more traditional minion aggro — does the burn kill a minion, or does it go face? But it could be minion vs minion, theoretically.

But enough semantics, let’s go on to how your definition. I think your definition is too broad to really mean anything. To “increase their chances of winning or mitigate their chances of losing” covers both aggression and defense/control. There’s a huge difference between responding reactively and acting proactively, yet you include both here. It makes me wonder what ISN’T counterplay, according to your definition of it.

So when you then said

I was thinking to myself something like: :roll_eyes: yeah, no kidding.

And then:

Considering that counterplay pretty much means everything (according to you), that makes it mean nothing. What you’re really talking about is just a lack of effective options. The word “counterplay” here is unnecessary.

And all I really have to say about that is that good decks are good decks because they have good options. We know that some options exist which are better than other options versus [put the name of any specific deck here] because different decks have different winrates against that target deck. There is NOT a lack of effective options, in terms of the overall meta. There is only a lack of effective options in YOUR deck, possibly.

74

I disagree.

I think a deck being very popular is NOT a bad thing. A deck could be 30% of the meta and that isn’t necessarily a problem. It could be a problem, if that deck didn’t lead to a wide variety of different game states. In other words, a deck that is popular and consistent can be problematic, because it’s frequently encountered AND it’s (pretty much) the same thing every time. That becomes repetitive, and gamers have a love-hate relationship with repetition.

But really, I am not trying to single out “diversity” here. My core issue is that fun games are fun and diversity is NOT the same thing as fun. Whenever a game developer starts to pursue a design vision that tries to simplify fun into a different concept, then myopically focuses on that concept, fun is often a casualty of that dogma. Sometimes diversity is fun, sometimes it isn’t, and ultimately you need to look at the audience, get their feedback. Fun is an inherently subjective experience, and you can’t boil it down to an objective measurement like “5% popularity or lower.”

If there is a concept that I think is important to fun, I think that concept would be audience levels. I think players at high skill levels have significantly different tastes from players at lower skill levels. I think the core difference between high skill and low skill is that a high skill player can look at a board state and see several effective options, with an engaging internal debate within themselves regarding which is best, while a lower skilled player can look at the exact same board state and not see those options at all. In other words, a higher skill player inherently experiences a more dynamic environment with more options.

I think that diversity of experience is therefore way higher of a priority for less skilled players. I think that decks that are “consistent” should be designed to be difficult to play, and that decks that are more streamlined and easier to pilot should have more random effects to create less predictable board states. I don’t think it’s a problem for a deck to have double digit popularity in top Legend, because players at that level can, do and should change decks to counter anything that becomes too popular; at lower ranks, this kind of metagaming is not as enjoyable, so people don’t do it even when maybe they should, and it should NOT be expected of them. (This is one of several reasons I think balance at Diamond matters more than it does at top Legend; if anyone deserves to be told to suck it up and git gud, it’s them.)

I guess what I’m trying to say is that, if I had to pick one sign of a healthy meta, it would be that the top Legend meta and the Diamond meta wouldn’t look alike. When they do look alike, it probably means that one group is getting what they want, and the other is stuck getting what someone else would have ordered. Decks should purposefully be designed to function differently at different levels of piloting skill, and as one climbs one should go through metas that feel substantially different from each other.

TL;DR nerfing Sonya Rogue was a mistake

75

I would delete all the cards less than 10 mana and increase health to 1000000, remove the turn limit and remove fatigue. Then we will have the perfect game that everyone claims to want, games that never end until someone leaves.

3 Likes
76

Least insane hater of netdeckers

77

I don’t think we lack diversity, I think the biggest problems are the scam decks with unanswerable boards, specifically mage’s 4 elementals on turn 4-5 and to a lesser degree Razzle Dazzler. These push many midrange and weapon decks out of the meta. There are very good aggro decks around but all classes can make adjustments to counter them if they choose to, but only a few can handle the midgame scam (specially followed by Conman). So my number one priority would be to revert Tsunami.

There are a few other cards I’d adjust the power level for being are little too good, but these aren’t as important:

Funnel Cake - one adjacent minion
Malfurion’s Gift - replace Wild Growth with Nourish
Desert Nestmatron - 5-mana, refresh 5 mana crystals
New Heights - max mana by 2
Painter’s Virtue - 3/2
Brain Masseusse - no longer a pirate
Razzle Dazzler - summon a 5-cost minion for each spell you’ve cast
Pop’gar - revert
Safety Goggles - 5-armor
Shield Block - 4-armor
Hozen Roughhouser - 2/3

Some nerfed cards that I think are safe to revert:

Umpire’s Grasp - 3-mana, reduce demon’s cost by 1
Embrace of Nature
Deputization Aura - +2 damage
Crash of Thunder
Prison Breaker - 2/2 stats, deal 3 damage
Tony - 5-mana

Finally my regularly updated list of buffs:
From the Year of the Pegasus:

Illidan’s Gift - replace Fel Barrage with Skull of Gul’dan
All Terrain Voidhound - 6/11
Magtheridon - 7-mana
Ranger Gilly - 4-mana 4/5
Furious Fowls - 5-mana 3/2
Uther’s Gift - replace Blessing of Kings with Seal of Champions (+3 attack and Divine Shield) or Holy Light (restore 8 health)
Judge Unworthy - 3-mana
Wind-up Enforcer - 4/7 taunt
Power Spike - 5-mana
Pipsi - 8/4
Sea Shanty - 6/6
Chalk Artist - 3-mana
Delayed Product - 3-mana
Sensory Deprivation - 5-mana
Repackage - 4-cost box
Valeera’s Gift - replace Backstab with Blade Flurry
Goldbeard - pirate doesn’t die
Maestra - 4-mana 5/4, additionaly buff some old hero cards
Cursed Campaign - 2-mana
Fireworker - 7/5
Chemical Spill - deal 3 damage
Safety Expert - 9-mana
Wind-up Musician - 5-mana
Replicator-Inator - 4-mana 4/4

From the Year of the Wolf/Core Set:

Bone Shredder - 4-mana 4/4
Eye of Shadow - 1-mana 1/3
Bartend-O-Bot - 4/1
Aldrachi Warblades - revert
Argunite Golem - 1/6
Load the Chamber - deal 3 damage
Eredar Deceptor - 3/6
Fel Fissure - 3-mana
Guitar Soloist - 4-mana
Deadly Shot - 2-mana
Hodir, father of Giants - 7-mana
Banjosaur - 9-mana 6/7
Holotechnician - 3/3, “after any other minion takes damage…"
Norgannon - 5-mana 3/7
Thrive in the Shadows - 1-mana
False Disciple - 3/2
The Stars Align - 2-mana, “Discover two minions in your hand, transform them into ones that cost 3-more.”
Tram Heist - 3-mana
Void Shard - 3-mana
Shapeless Constellation - change every 8 into a 7
Fal’dorei Strider - 3-mana 3/3
Hench-Clan Burglar - 3-mana 3/3
Flik Skyshiv - 5-mana
Slagmaw -12/12, elusive, dormant for 4 turns, excavate to awake a turn sooner
Snake Oil Seller - 3-mana 3/4
Runefueled Golem - 3-mana 3/3
Son of Hodir - 7-mana

1 Like
78

And this is why we didn’t balance stuff based on How people feel.

Like…
At this point It is easier to design your own game.

2 Likes
79

That’s my answer to “how would you change the meta”, doesn’t matter if it’s “feels-based” or “numbers-based”. The only nerf I really think is necessary is to BSM, my choice being a revert to Tsunami. Also I dislike both ramping and excessive armor as mechanics.

As for the buffs, no harm in trying to push more decks and cards into viability, specially when these cards are actually bad (unlike Tsunami and Razzle Dazzler).

80

Nah.
There are things that only exist for that one diehard fan and should never have been buff.

Like plagues

Win or lose your game drawing cards without even play. So much Fun.

81

cards cannot be reduced below 1

you can only control 1 titan at a time

82

I’d go a bit further. No more copying Titans. I’m sick and tired of watching a priest play six Titans in one match

If I wanted to go even further than that, no more generating any more of the same legendary you started your deck with. Example: if you started your deck with a Helya, you can’t discover another one later in the match

2 Likes
83

That’d be great with Reska (which I wouldn’t mind if became undiscoverable).

3 Likes
84

Are fantastic and at the correct power level.

If they were that effective, they would still be meta.

I would send them all back wherever they came from, honestly. Can’t wait for them all to be out of standard.