Sounds like a terrific idea, and you’re right. All due credit to Aegeon.
You should take your own advice, for sure.
Those are your statements.
They are connected, though. If, as you say, spell casters are treated differently then it is because of capitalist greed, because as you said,
You literally put them together in this thread.
If that wasn’t your intent, fine, but that’s what happened and what people who read and thought about your statements understood.
I don’t think anyone is intending to lie, but there’s clearly misunderstandings here. The synthesis of your two statements is that it is more profitable for mage to suck than to have it healthy in the meta.
Dont take the bait ,they have nothing else now math doesnt lie everything else besides this is " Theatricality and deception powerfull agents to the uninitiated".
Until you realize when you have a bit of money you can just invest on the stock exchange and generate free money and small businesses cannot compete economically on so many levels and largely due to inefficient logistics. So maybe back in your day there were lots of ways to go out on your own and make something of yourself, but nowadays there are fewer chances, only through university jobs to flip your life around and the many can’t even afford or justify to put themselves through university really because now it doesn’t even guarantee a job, it’s like rolling the dice and taking a gamble.
That might have been his interpretation, fair enough, but it certainly wasn’t what I meant.
My claim, is that the entire game is unbalanced because profit is the only thing that matters. Team 5 prints clearly overpowered cards for sales that they know will have to be nerfed.
Not just mage. Every class has received the same treatment, although with these figures, the argument could be made that Priest and Mage have been treated this way more often.
That is my claim, and my belief. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, though I will say I would need very convincing evidence.
I know that my dim view of Team 5 upsets others.
I just think that actions speak far louder than words.
If my suspicion isn’t true then please offer me an alternative that seems more reasonable, because all I see is a typical US corporation attempting to bleed as much money as possible from a trusting and rather naive player base.
Print broken cards
Sell broken cards
Nerf broken cards
Repeat step one and continue
1 Like
There are fewer chances because there are greedier people, and no, there weren’t more opportunities in my day for ordinary people.
The same greedy people that were in charge then are still in charge.
If you want to know who runs this Nation, look no further than the members of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
They have been working for decades to destroy the model that gives equal opportunity and freedom to every man, and make a World where only those who have money can make decisions.
In other words: A fascist Oligarchy.
mh, afraid you have to be kind enough to open a new topic for further data, this one seems to be properly derailed and o´m sorry i took a small part in catching a bait aswell.
I won’t respond to anything but the topic anymore. And I do apologize. I should have just ignored anything that wasn’t related to the topic.
Doesn’t change the fact that the way mages have always done their thing is to build around certain key if not crutch cards…
Meta performance doesn’t change the nature of how the decks played, which is to say even if mage doesn’t do those things well, they still try to do those thing the same way as before (build around a few key cards).
It’s like… we’re talking about mages driving red cars. The red car could be an awesome tier 1 car, decent tier 2 car, or a crappy tier 3 or 4 car. But through it all… it’s still a red car.
No, the numbers show mages reach top tier less often. I told you already way up. Correlation is not causation. The numbers only tell you the former.
That you keep wording your statements to imply the reason or cause is the one you want it to be (that they were “given” top tier decks, as to imply somebody like the devs made them that way on purpose) is spin on your part.
The old saying is there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. The numbers alone actually don’t “tell” us anything. It’s the person who looks at the numbers and interprets them that try to tell a story using those numbers.
You noted somewhere above that those other people you keep bringing up have been quiet… that’s actually a point for them, and against you, as it means other people haven’t been pushing their spin on things. You on the other hand…
3 Likes
So, following up on this with two new tables: one for before AoO and one starting with AoO.
I’m also going to edit the opening post to include these as well.
VII. Number of VS Reports each class had at least one Tier 2 or better deck — WotOG through DoD
Note: Because some of the archived reports on the VS site were missing or never originally included the Pre-Legend and Legend Tier lists, each column is based on a different number of reports. There are 153 Reports available for All Ranks, 147 for Pre-Legend, and 133 for Legend.
So, each column will report the raw number of reports each class had at least one Tier 2 deck or better with the equivalent percentage of the total in parentheses beside it.
| Class | All Ranks | Pre-Legend | Legend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Druid | 123 (80.39%) | 103 (70.07%) | 93 (69.92%) |
| Hunter | 115 (75.16%) | 96 (65.31%) | 93 (69.92%) |
| Mage | 98 (64.05%) | 76 (51.70%) | 79 (59.40%) |
| Paladin | 115 (75.16%) | 113 (76.87%) | 103 (77.44%) |
| Priest | 88 (57.52%) | 80 (54.42%) | 67 (50.38%) |
| Rogue | 108 (70.59%) | 104 (70.75%) | 96 (72.18%) |
| Shaman | 113 (73.86%) | 98 (66.67%) | 87 (65.41%) |
| Warlock | 109 (71.24%) | 92 (62.59%) | 68 (51.13%) |
| Warrior | 133 (86.93%) | 121 (82.31%) | 110 (82.71%) |
VIII. Number of VS Reports each class had at least one Tier 2 or better deck — AoO until Present
Note: Since VS did not start including a Tier list for Top 1K Legend until Scholomance, the Diamond 4-1 and Legend columns are based on 41 Reports, while the Top 1K Legend column is based on 30 Reports.
| Class | Diamond 4-1 | Legend | Top 1K Legend |
|---|---|---|---|
| DH | 38 (92.68%) | 36 (87.80%) | 23 (76.67%) |
| Druid | 25 (60.98%) | 26 (63.41%) | 19 (63.33%) |
| Hunter | 41 (100%) | 41 (100%) | 28 (93.33%) |
| Mage | 25 (60.98%) | 28 (68.29%) | 17 (56.67%) |
| Paladin | 29 (70.73%) | 29 (70.73%) | 28 (93.33%) |
| Priest | 10 (24.39%) | 8 (19.51%) | 17 (56.67%) |
| Rogue | 34 (82.93%) | 36 (72.18%) | 26 (86.67%) |
| Shaman | 15 (36.59%) | 16 (39.02%) | 14 (46.67%) |
| Warlock | 14 (34.15%) | 16 (39.02%) | 11 (36.67%) |
| Warrior | 33 (82.31%) | 39 (95.12%) | 29 (96.67%) |
3 Likes
thanks a lot, that really shows that they seem to do a lot better with certain classes than others, warlock, mage and priest really stand out as the bottom three classes by quite a margin.
On the other hand Paladin and Warrior seem to get a ton of good stuff, and from reading the forum a bit it seems indeed easier for them to get away with overpowering those classes for a while for some reason as they apparently can´t find a way to make priest or warlock powerful without having everyone up in arms about it. (also the difference for priest between top legend and a broader maybe more competitive meta is staggering).
3 Likes
And I have seen your nerf and sell, rinse, and repeat point, but if profit is the only motivation, then it must be more profitable to have mage and priest not in Tier 1 or even too far in Tier 2 or you would have seen much, much more of them.
I think mage and priest being suck is profit driven, but not in the print and sell broken cards for suckers, it’s to stop any class from being so played or dominate that people stop logging in.
Paladin was allowed to have decks that strong for so long because it was actually under played relative to power for much of its time. If a comparable power mage deck was unleashed, it would end the game because mage has always been over played relative to power.
It can be profit driven without being craven… they want people to enjoy their playtime and this is the wider issue for why priest and mage are crapped on, imo.
2 Likes
Thank you for the counter point. I promised to stay on topic, so I have nothing to add.
1 Like
This ^^^
If anything is profit-driven in regards to game balance, it’s balance patches, not card design for sales. People will always buy the cards if they want to play the game at max capacity. They will not continue playing that game, however, if they’re having a miserable experience.
Ultimately, a degree of the game’s balance actually IS at the mercy of the playerbase.
If Mage and Priest having a winrate greater than 20% (intentional exaggeration) causes a noticeable profit dip in the game simply because that many people get butthurt over losing to spell-based shenanigans, the correct choice for the future of the game is to do what is necessary to keep the most players involved.
It’s easy to sit back and say “Well, just design cards for [X class] that don’t make people mad when they lose to them!!” but in all reality - have you MET Hearthstone players??? Seriously lol.
2 Likes
And who made the hearthstone player base turn into that nightmare?
Sorry to say but it was also blizzard by not balancing the game properly from start and taking decisions based on people whining.
If they didn’t you can be sure their job at design cards that most are okay with would be really easier nowadays.
1 Like
Blizzard is indeed responsible ,when they said both Mage and Priest had different standards for nerfs they opened the door to player base pressure on both those classes .
Everytime they step out of line(get a tier 2 deck ) ,its open season because they know sooner or later they will cave to the pressure and nerfs soon follow.
This wasnt allways the case the past 2 years have been horrible for this game in terms of balance choices i wish Ben Brode would come back its been all down hill since he left…
1 Like
It would be tough, but it would be nice to see the class stats by meta. So the same deck in one meta (where all available cards are the same) is not counted 10 times.
This would show decks in tier 1 and 2 for each class based on metas. For example, Odd Paladin would just count as one for an entire meta. This would also eliminate the overstatement of a deck in a meta that produced more VS reports than another meta.
The problem with that is that metas often shift over time, even with few or no changes to decklists or cards. It’s actually pretty rare for a single array of decks to stay exactly the same across even a short series of reports.
How would you define what a single “meta” is?
One expansion? Or divided by expansions, mini-sets and balance patches? Would you include the unexpected discovery of new decks partway through an expansion as the beginning of a new meta?
Seeing the same deck repeatedly isn’t really a problem. Rather, it helps to demonstrate the strength and resilience of that particular deck across a shifting meta.
This actually doesn’t seem to be a problem, especially with the separation I’ve made (for other reasons) between before and after AoO.
I haven’t done an exact count, but the number of reports per expansion seem to be pretty even across the length of the WotOG-DoD segment and also across the length of the AoO-now segment. The number of reports per expansion from AoO until the present seems to have dropped a bit from what it was before AoO; that is likely a product of the more frequent balance patches that the designers have been putting out since the introduction of Demon Hunter.
The only point where relying on VS Reports may cause an issue is actually some of the events when decks were nerfed very quickly. But that’s because some very briefly lived decks/metas won’t show up at all via the reports. For example, day 1 DH or week 1 Galakrond Shaman don’t show up, because they were nerfed before a report was even put together. Etc.
1 Like
Firstly,
thanks for editing out the “you lied” accusation - I was pretty upset yesterday but it got really late for me.
Selwyn explained it already, but here goes:
OP’s Data shows that Mage, Priest & Warlock are behind other classes power peaks.
So you walz in on your usual pet peeve, accusing Team 5 to deliberately, of even out of spite, cripple, murder or whatnot esp. the Mage class (and by extension, Priest and Warlock). “I can’t have nice things” is what come to mind when following your often whiny laments.
Next thing you pull the “greedy capitalism” card out of - thin air?
Then comes the hyperbole of world ending because of Mage class being subdued ruthless capitalism destroying Earth ( I agree to a point, but it’s ALL of us - remember even playing HS and using this forum costs millions of kw/h.)
DH is mentioned and how he broke the game by getting all the best from other classes.
All those tangents are sprinkled with The Main Theme - Mage being the butt end of ALL Things Hearthstone.
We connect the dots and you have the gall to say “I didn’t mean it that way”. Yeah, right, semantics.
Boy, am I angry…
1 Like
You appear to be doing some narration of your own. The Capitalism remark is my personal take on every gaming company. I never made any of the claims you are accusing me of. I did not say that Mage was singled out, that would be Boreas’s insinuation. Also; you are not clairvoyant, and you would have to be to know any of what you are accusing me of, as your rebuttal hinges on your personal interpretation of what I meant being accurate. I assure you, it isn’t.
I have to speak using Mage as my reference, as it is the only class I play.
Would you prefer I spoke from the viewpoint of Warrior, which I haven’t played in six years?
And, I’m not wrong that Mage and Priest have been treated more harshly than other classes.
I wasn’t wrong four years ago, I’m not wrong now, and the numbers bear that out.
I promised the OP and others that I would not discuss anything other than the topic here anymore. Kindly do the same.