New metas have always been spammed by what appeared to be the most new powerful decks
People are excited by the new stuff so they want to play it, and they rather play the decks that are the easier to be good with
Unless an expansion was a big flop it has always been like that
And there have always been powerful decks at launch that mostly got sorted out once the meta adapted. Not saying there’s not some things too powerful, but they often tend to be just because they are new and players don’t know how to play against them and are also trying new stuff
By the past we’ve seen a lot of decks being OP the first week and being toned down by decks discovered and optimised the 2nd and 3rd week
People are becoming more and more impatient and less willing to learn to counter things and instead just want them nerfed
except this expac already has shown what the powerful decks are, its not going to get sorted because its either building on previous meta or the cards are so busted they just replaced the cards they power crept and they have no counters or the counters arent good enough. how you do counter excavate, you dont; highlander, use a snake oil salesman, a terrible card thats dead draw against non highlanders or your opponent just trades it; naga dh, kill them before they draw the naga.
if you want counters to exist, they have to be cheaper than the cards theyre trying to counter on top of being busted as a baseline to even be worth using when theyre outside of their niche situations, like flare at worst is a 1 mana draw a card for a class that had terrible draw back in the day or its destroy secret mages entire gameplan for a turn. risky skipper is just 1 mana pyromancer that destroys aggro and turns on all your enrages.
I’ll chime in here…not all of us play the cookie-cutter decks with high win rates. Me for example struggle at times but I’m around the 50-ish percentile in winning. I chose a deck made up of…wait for it…cards that I find fun to play. I spend a lot of time putting decks together that keep me around nominal. However the last 2 patches have made it harder for me to play control decks (which is my style). So it seems broken in general then if you’re saying that in order to win, you need to play the same deck as the majority? As true as that may be , don’t you see the flaw in that game design?
This is not exactly true…the cards in your deck also dictate who you get matched against. If I see the same decks over and over and I’m losing, I change my cards to counter those decks, then guess what…I get different oppoents. This has happened over and over, enough for me to be convinved that the deck also plays a role in the pairing. Now the further up the ladder I assume there’s less to match so then it may not matter as much but for the middle of the road scrub like myself it’s def made a difference. If I keep getting paired with a certain class (that beats me) I’ll just change a card or two. This is how I can keep around a 50% win rate but thats not good enough to climb the ladder but I win enough to make it fun for me.
I said their list isn’t good enough if they are losing that much.
There are viable control decks in the meta. The flaw is your deck isn’t very good despite how fun you think it might be.
That’s fine. I have bad decks that I have 30% winrate on that I like to play in wild. I go and wait for the one or two games that it works because I like the way the game plays when I luck into the right opponent… but that’s not a match making issue, the issue is my decks suck.
This statement ignores the idea that there are empirically better and best options in decks… that there is, in actual fact, a right answer to deck building for whatever list you’re working on.
THis is false. Stop thinking like this and you will solve half your issues.
You’re mixing correlation and causation. The match only looks at wins and losses.
What exactly do you think that means? Did it ever occur to you that every one of those people is still wrong despite their number? People don’t understand how they are making mistakes and blame everything but themselves.
“Lots of people agree with me” is not evidence of lots of people being right.