Considering when united in stormwind came out i think its time we put hunter away its been around long enough and i can safely say the majority of people are tired of seeying this deck.
6 Likes
i can safely say the majority of people are tired of seeying this deck.
Libram Paladin was around for two full years, was consistently tier 1 and the package was not touched once. Was that peak gameplay compared to this? If that’s truly the sentiment of this community then I just don’t get it. And even if it it, its beyond any of us to know that conclusively. Therefore disagree.
7 Likes
Why? It’s a good tier 2 deck for sure and has been around for a bit, but it doesn’t make up that big of a proportion of the metagame so it’s not like you are going to be queing into loads of Quest Hunters… most Hunters prefer Big-Beast aswell which is clearly the superior deck. Can’t just nerf a deck because you are guessing that most people are tired of it.
libram paladin didn’t punish players for ever playing minions
2 Likes
Not to mention Quest WARRIOR
Playing minions is literally how you beat Quest Hunter. Also Libram Paladin punished you in other ways. If every deck had the same basic strategy for winning games (playing the biggest dumbest pile of stats you can every turn) nobody would still be playing this game.
People aren’t all annoyed by the same thing. We aren’t a hive mind, I have no idea why people pretend we are.
1 Like
I don’t understand why quest shaman requires 8 overload cards, intrinsically harder to play due to overload, while hunter only needs 6.
Rogue needs only 6 as well, but they are specific and below average cards, with also a bad reward (compared to tavish)
8 Likes
There you go again with “logic” …
We dont deal on that here , Quest Shaman was nerfed before it even became a problem .
Some other class gets a pass and crikets ,0 consistency on nerfs.
8 Likes
nerf quests and buffs they cost nothing basically
While libram paladin was around for longer it was less frustating and much more beatable then hunter because you need to beat hunter before a certain point or you just lost at least this is my opinion.
I know that some decks feels bad to lose to while others dont mind losing to that deck i dislke quest hunter and i also dislike snowfall gaurdian - possibly i wouldnt mind it if the battlecry could not be repeated by mcaw.
I think the main thing people dislike about quest hunter is that it punishes you for playing minions the only way you beat hunter is by outputting more stats then they can clear in one turn unless i am wrong.
Hunter didn’t have lightning bloom.
Quest Shaman was also the best deck in the game, albeit briefly. Quest Hunter was Tier 2 when nerfed.
Complaints about Q Hunter boil down to feelings, I’ve yet to say any evidence to the contrary. Yet the same people who whine about it also whine about their pet classes being nerfed for same reason.
You all know who you are, and what classes (class) I’m talking about.
1 Like
Playing minions early on is just feeding Quest hunter (unless they have DS)
How beatable a deck is, is objective. You just look at its winrate.
You’re just ignoring an earlier reply:
Here’s the truth: Quest Hunter was (is?) considerably more effective against idiots. There’s some kind of borderline magical psychological effect where the mentally weak, when exposed to Defend the Dwarven District, become convinced that plays that win are actually plays that help the opponent win, as if hypnotized, and they play in what Magic players might call Mindslaver mode.
No, idiots, Quest Hunter doesn’t punish you playing minions. If the spells Hunter draws can go face, then the quest line counter will go up anyway. If the spells Hunter draws can’t go face, then the only thing that card was ever going to do was kill minions. You’re playing as if you can stop Quest Hunter from completing its Quest. You can’t, except by killing them first. If you think otherwise, well, that’s where you’re wrong, bucko.
And that “hypnosis” thing isn’t just some theory. I have evidence. Standard Quest Hunter was disproportionately powerful below Diamond, a decent Tier 2 in Diamond, and below 50% winrate in top Legend. You climb enough rank and suddenly your opponents are immune and Quest Hunter doesn’t melt brains anymore.
Stop trying to nerf things that aren’t winning too much.
2 Likes
Quest was already “nerfed” because of the meta. It was very good, since the last rotation and Prince Prenatal it’s considerably weaker. I’ve been playing the deck a lot and it’s definitely not overpowered.
Paladin doesn’t hit you in the face is really what it comes down to for people.
But uh, they probably could have nerfed Paladin a little more too honestly.
Questline Hunter is a deck that just keeps rearing up it’s head every time they think they have it beat. I don’t feel like the questline itself is that broken. Just that Hunter has a really good damaging spell pool right now.
They could probably unnerf the shaman questline. It was nerfed last year when they had Lightning Bloom and Guidance. Which made it way more consistent. Now it’s much more of a slow mid-range deck, so a faster finish time would probably be appropriate. I think they thought that Azsharan Scroll would help people finish it, but there just aren’t any cheap overload cards.
Unless they’re adding some more cheap overload cards in the mini-sets or next set (which may or may not be appropriate).
I mean Renethal made it better. A value-based Questline Hunter doesn’t really have too much of a limit to the damage it can do, and it doesn’t care about specific card draw that much.
I mean it isn’t. Hunter has like… what? 2 spells that can’t go face?
So at worst you’re saving your life total to have enough of a buffer to survive into the late game and kill your opponent. So you both want to pressure the opponent to play removal spells on your board so they don’t have a lot of resources in the late game.
If you don’t pressure your opponent they can just sit back and draw cards and develop their hand.
Just because a deck has been around for a long time, doesn’t mean that it needs a nerf.
1 Like
Quest Hunter has some very lopsided matchups where you’re wasting your time queuing into them. This is what people have a problem with. When people bring up tier lists, they’re saying, “Don’t worry. The Quest Hunter will lose the next game against Boar Priest.” A game designer might be happy with that and declare “balance”. That doesn’t help me as a player on ladder. At that point, I’m playing matchup casino.
2 Likes
Completely false.
https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/drr/matchup-chart-data-reaper-report/
Only very lopsided matchup in Quest Hunter’s favor is Abyssal Warlock. That’s it. There is no plural “matchups.”
Edit: archive link
https://archive.ph/zDQEU
Matchups that are 5_%-4_% aren’t very lopsided, they’re not a waste of time trying to win, they’re just bad matchups. Every deck has bad matchups.
1 Like
And what deck do you play mostly on ladder? I am sure your deck has highly favoured matchups aswell, but do you complain about that? Besides, QH’s only real highly favoured matchup is against Curse Warlock, which is an average deck anyway.
People really need to get it into their heads that they are not usually going to nerf a deck because a handful of people come onto a forum complaining about it. Look at Tickatus Warlock for example, the deck had pages full of complaints because people didn’t like playing against it, but it rightfully never got touched that I remember.
I mean there’s more to this game than just win rates. Being able to burn huge swaths of your opponent’s deck just 'cuz you played some cards out of order was really degenerate and I found it obnoxious. Compare that to Rin, which was still a good card, but actually required effort for such a debilitating effect. Even Altar of Fire and Gnomeferatu are fairer than that. So it’s not that deck burning in of itself was a problem.
Blizzard used to know better than that. But now it’s all “how many excessive effects can we shove into a standard meta?”. Like if I wanted to deal with excessive nonsense like that, I’d play Yu-Gi-Oh more than I do.
Having said all that: Questline Hunter isn’t really that bad typically, but if people don’t like the playstyle they’re free to give that feedback. Personally I’m not a fan of the excessive number of decks that just don’t have to play a board. And how not awful these decks are. That’s not an issue unique to questline hunter, though. That’s just a fundamental game design thing they’ve decided on.