And yet despite all of that, the best three performing decks last time I checked on HSReplay were Druid, Hunter and Paladin decks.
It’s almost as if classes having a number of certain types of cards, like Heroes or legendary weapons, doesn’t matter as far as balance is concerned…
Just because something is flashy and cool, like Hero cards who replace your hero’s portrait and hero power, that doesn’t mean the card is ultra powerful enough to carry a class (unless it is legitimately too strong like any other OP card needing a nerf).
I agree with what you said but when Year of the Raven rotates Mech Paladin (in this iteration) is unplayable and Token Druid takes a big hit losing Boomsday cards. Galakrond decks are still around for next year so short term it’s fine but in the long term Good classes will only have HL support (between all classes) from Year of the Dragon cards while E.V.I.L. classes received lackeys, plagues, and Galakrond for their exclusive mechanics (which define decks more than Good exclusives i.e. twinspell, sidequests).
You do know that once the rotation hits another expansion is released at the same time, right?
Pointless to think, or even speculate, about future meta right now. But if the ‘good’ classes do end up into dumpster tier it’ll be because Blizzard failed to print strong enough cards for them. Not because the still remaining cards are too strong.
You make it sound like plagues matter or are somehow unique spells. They don’t and are not. To me they’re not any different than, say Twisting Nether or Shrink Ray; AoE spells that effect every minion on the board.
Those “best performing decks” will not exist or be weakened with the rotation (excluding Token Druid) of Year of the Raven so it seems fair to assume that these Tier 1 decks won’t be Tier 1 anymore while the Tier 2 E.V.I.L. decks could take their place since they have support cards (lackeys and Galakrond) still in standard. This of course could be invalidated if the next set changes the metagame entirely. I included plagues as an exclusive mechanic because they seemed to have an impact on decks similar to the twinspell mechanic (some are good inclusions but not deck defining).
Edit: it is unfortunate that I am too incompetent to link this post to yours
Last time I checked, paladin’s tier 1 deck is a fluke- it’s win rate is a function of its small sample size. The most recent data from VS has paladin as the worst overall class on the game with their best performing deck only 4% of the meta on both sites.
But, that squirrel has nothing to do with your original statement- that you wanted side quests and highlander cards. My counterpoint remains: Empirically those who got side quests got way less.
Honestly, 99% of the player base probably heard more cards were included in the adventure and assumed that, with galakrond as busted as it was that symmetry was coming for our heroes- and the Reno hero card also felt like a huge confirmation of this.
Now with the actual cards available- most good players feel a little let down to say the least. My question isn’t “why didn’t we get hero cards” but more “why wouldn’t you get in front of that immediately and quell the hopefulness for more hero cards.” It seems like team 5 at best failed to adequately manage player expectations and at worse they trolled a not insignificant subset of there player base. Does anyone else feel that way?
Agree 100%. When I see decks like Highlander & Gala Rogue, and what they lose on rotation, it reminds me of what Cubelock lost on rotation compared to other classes/decks, and we all how that turned out; it became a meta-tyrant. What they lose is minimal. They will survive rotation and be the decks to beat out of the gates simply due to losing nothing high impact, except Zill which everyone loses and will have to find a replacement for.
