Hearthstone Guess I'll take Alex then

Guess I'll take Alex then
Wuth how busted decks are right now, I believe Primordial Drake wouldn't even be played if it cost 6 mana. Thoughts? (Reminiscent of the good old days)
Just several of the many buffs I would love to see for some iconic, but unpopular cards.
Why Stealer of Souls wasn't changed, and why it will be
Hey so can we as a community do less of this. It sucks that whenever someone requests to be your friend, its more likely for them to swear at you than say good game.
By Iskar in response to Zeddy. Thoughts?
Hmm... something about this seems backwards for some reason...
Isn't it the greatest feeling?
2022, but still the same misplays as 2017
As Duels main it is very clear to me we need something like Bob's Tavern in this mode.
I finally got my last 1k win portrait! It feels good to reach a goal, but also sorta sad that I won't have much a reason to grind out games anymore!
I'm glad they nerfed warlocks
I guess I'll become what I hate
Showerthought: if future expansions introduce new Quest(line)s, it'll break the mulligan guarantee in Wild
Perfectly describes the last 2 years of Hearthstone.
Time for the toughest choice of the expansion...
This is why meme decks are superior
6 arrows to the face in 1 turn. Discovered opponent's reckless apprentice for exact lethal in arena to go 5-0 as Hunter.
Turalyon never saw much play but I felt like he could be really good in the handbuff archetype, so I crafted him even though he rotates out in a couple of months, and he immediatly gave me a big W :)
When the Wandmaker really wants to change
there are other classes than warlock ?!
I think that's 4 wishes Zephrys...
F for this Druid

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 06:46 AM PDT

submitted by /u/FrankieAvalonn
[link] [comments]

Wuth how busted decks are right now, I believe Primordial Drake wouldn't even be played if it cost 6 mana. Thoughts? (Reminiscent of the good old days)

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 01:21 AM PDT

submitted by /u/Toumouniek
[link] [comments]

Just several of the many buffs I would love to see for some iconic, but unpopular cards.

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 07:06 AM PDT

submitted by /u/MaliciousFalcon
[link] [comments]

Why Stealer of Souls wasn't changed, and why it will be

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 08:20 AM PDT

Hey all, J_Alexander_HS back again today to talk about Stealer of Souls, as a lot of discussion has centered around the card recently. Here I wanted to outline both (a) why the card did not receive any adjustments in the recent patch, and (b) why the card will receive adjustments in the future.

I want to start off with a simple question that I suspect many people haven't fully considered explicitly: Why do you think Blizzard didn't act on Stealer of Souls?

Surely they have all the data in the game, right? They can see how things are performing at various skill levels and how performance changes over time. They're pretty good at tracking decks and cards in their game. So why would they not change the card if it was clearly a problem; if it were truly "broken"? Either they were so incompetent they couldn't recognize an obvious issue (which seems profoundly unlikely) or they - like every other data aggregating website - saw the deck's performance and realized it wasn't really threatening. They didn't see the power issue because there was no issue to see.

What Blizzard saw was a deck with a play-rate that was not justified by its win rate. Alec Dawson recently tweeted as much:

Great framing of the approach to the most recent nerfs. Typically decks exhibiting the winrate of D6 warlock drop in playrate over time. Play experience is still most important though and when these sorts of decks remain high pop expect to see changes based on the play patterns.

From that tweet we can note that it's basically a guarantee that Stealer of Souls will receive a change for how it plays, I'd guess within the month (and we'll talk about why soon). However, we can also learn that when Blizzard looked at the data, they likely concluded one or both of the following things:

(1) This deck must be really fun for the players, since they're willing to sacrifice some of their win rate to play it. It's a deck that people love even though it's not powerful, which is a huge design win
(2) The deck is overhyped and once players realize this we should expect its play rate to naturally drop off, so there may not be any need for us to step in and intervene now. Let them have their fun for now

Blizzard didn't nerf Stealer upfront, then, because it didn't warrant any nerf for power level reasons. In a new meta you want new experiences and decks to exist, especially when they're relatively unique to what the game has had in the past. The deck existing, in that sense, is a good thing. They were willing to see if players were going to continue to play the deck despite its performance or if its population would change naturally before acting on it.

However, its play rate has (currently) remained high, at least in legend, where it can reflect somewhere around 15-20% or so of the games you'd see the past few days. There are also a variety of posts here and on other social media about how the deck is the best deck in the game, incredibly broken, and clearly required balance adjustments. So what's going on?

THE MYTH OF THE BROKEN DECK

We've seen this before, in the fairly-recent past

Lifesteal Demonhunter - prior to the new Quest variant this expansion - is a good analog to what's going on with D6 Warlock right now. Lifesteal DH was a deck frequently mentioned to be the best deck in the game by some very good players. There was a decent level of belief that it was simply an outstanding deck that could not stopped. For example, Tempostorm's meta report at the time had this to say when calling it the only tier 1 deck in the game:

To say OTK Demon Hunter is the best deck in the game is an understatement. Currently, we've rated OTK Demon Hunter as the one and only Tier 1 deck in the metagame. It has versatility, insane OTK potential, sustain, and draw power like no other OTK deck we've seen in the past. This deck is what combo-based and OTK-based decks dream to be. The flexibility to use combo pieces from the OTK, the ability to kill players at life totals upward of 100, and the ability to stabilize against any form of aggression and pressure is unmatched by any other class currently.

So the deck was the best. Unmatched. The only problem with this idea was that it didn't have a great win rate at lower ranks below Diamond because it was so complex to play. Or in Diamond ranks to Legend. Or in Legend ranks. Or in Top 1000 Legend. Or in Master's Tour Qualifier tournaments. Or in Master's Tours. Or in Grandmasters.

No matter where you looked at the deck, its win rate was consistently below 50%. This was the case for months. Now perhaps that's because the deck was so complex it could only be piloted by the very best players in the game; let's say only the top 10 players in the world could truly harness it. Assuming that was true, it's optimal power doesn't matter, as that would mean the deck represented a massive power threat to basically 0 players of the game (and there's not even good reason to assume it was somehow massively transformed in the hands of the best players, either). There was no reason to complain about the deck for power-level issues.

Once the Quest variant emerged, however, there was a noticeable uptick in the power level of the deck. It actually began to rise in its win rate, despite the deck being arguably at least at complicated as it was before. So what happened? Did the players suddenly make massive gains in their skill cap we hadn't seen before? Seems doubtful. What seems likely is that the actual power ceiling of the deck increased. In the first VS report, the deck actually cracked that 50% barrier in top 1000 and was trending upwards before it got changed.

Indeed, we have seen very skill-testing decks in past metas - like Discover Priest from Barrens or Enrage Warrior with Risky Skipper - that actually performed at top-tier levels. Are we to believe that the Stealer Warlock or Lifesteal DH decks were on such a different plane of existence that they couldn't be mastered by the exact same players? That seems unlikely. Nevertheless, some mythology appears to have formed around these archetypes that isn't sustained by any reliable data. No matter how many data sources say the decks aren't the best, many people simply don't listen or care. They think the numbers don't apply to it.

We see the same thing happening now. The D6 Warlock is not showing good win rates at Bronze through Diamond, or Diamond through Legend, or in Legend, or in Top 1000 Legend, or in tournaments. Despite that repeated failure to perform particularly well - much less as the best deck - there's a certain myth surrounding the deck as being broken. If you're upset about the deck because of its power level - especially if you're not at the very top level of play - you're likely getting upset about the wrong things.

So how does this myth form?

While I can't say I've studied the matter extensively, a plausible suggestion is that when decks present players with many decisions, it can make losses and wins feel very different (perhaps especially so when the deck can win in as dramatic a fashion of D6 or DH). The wins are easy to understand: like all times in the game, you won because your deck was powerful and you made really smart choices. But what about when you lose? Well, there were so many other decisions you might have made, it's possible that one of them would have led you to victory if you chose better. If you could only identify and improve those choices, then those losses might actually become wins.

This creates a situation where wins start getting attributed to the deck (conclusion: I won, the deck is powerful) but losses tend to get attributed to the player (conclusion: I lost, so I should have played better). The deck's losses weren't really the fault of the deck; they were the player. When losses aren't attributed to the deck, it's "real" power (when played perfectly) certainly feels better than the stats suggest.

The myth part here is not that these feelings are necessarily wrong all the time. Indeed, this is what it means for a deck to be high-skill cap in the first place: The performance of some decks do tend to improve with player skill/experience more than others. In fact, Stealer is one such deck. It does get better with player skill. The myth part comes in when the perceived power ceiling of the deck is believed to be higher than its real one; when the beliefs don't line up with reality and have trouble being adjusted. When people refuse to attribute losses to the deck itself, they have trouble believing the reality of its lower-than-expected win rate.

WHY STEALER WILL GET CHANGED

With all that in mind, I want to assure you all that (a) there are many reasons to complain about the card in a totally justified manner, and (b) changes are incoming.

The problem is that it becomes harder to have these conversations when the myth of the tier 1 deck is floating around. When someone is upset about a deck and calling it broken in the same breath, disagreement with the latter point (it's not broken) can look like disagreement with the former (it shouldn't be changed). I, for instance, just spent a while explaining the deck isn't actually a power level outlier. I'm sure at least someone read that as my saying the card should remain as it is and is fine for the game. This is not my position (and I've been explicit about it), though others have told me it is when they hear me call it not a power problem.

But there are many reasons to change a card beyond power level. It's all about whether it makes the game more fun. That's all. Power is one component of fun, but far from the only one

First, as many know, Stealer can create complete non-games where the deck pops off and effectively (or actually) ends the game around turns 4 or 5 in the best case scenario. When games end that quickly, it feels like neither player had time to make meaningful decisions and weren't exactly playing the game. It just happened to them. Not exactly a good play experience.

Second, the deck has the potential to impose some pretty hard resource-caps on the meta in a similar fashion to the original Quest Rogue (which was nerfed also despite not having a great win rate). If you give this deck time, it's quite likely they're going to beat you, so it can be defining of one end of gameplay. It's the type of deck that refuses to give particular strategies any room to breathe

Ironically, the perceptions of the deck's high power level can actually contribute to making these two issues worse. If someone believes the deck is the best in the game, they might play it more than they should for longer than they should, causing it to take up a larger meta share than it should for longer periods of time. This makes both of the above issues more frequent and games feel more repetitive. If you think the deck is the best and queue into it, you might put yourself in a negative state of mind regarding your probability to win from the outset. All the panic about this deck's power - even if misplaced - could have fed the fires of players having a bad time against it more often.

Putting this together, other issues start to arise. The deck's population refuses to fall off at the natural rate it should, causing more negative experiences. As the population rises, it encourages polarization in the meta where people play hard counters to deck, creating even more games where players feel like they don't have meaningful decisions to make. (Quests in general carry this polarization risk, as they reflect a start-of-game effect a deck is built around. They do similar things every game and can't deviate from their plan well. This is a perfect storm for creating unwinnable and unlosable matches, but better the subject of another post)

Finally, the D6 deck is mechanically not a great time for either player. When you're playing with it, you're often fighting against animations and the turn timer, which is something that isn't a great feature of Hearthstone. When you're playing against it, you're watching the rope burn as your opponent takes a seemingly-endless stream of actions, monopolizing game time and reducing you to a spectator.

As we can see, there are lots of discussions we could have about the deck that are totally legitimate, even as simple as "I don't enjoy playing against it". It doesn't have to be anymore complicated than that and you don't need a great reason to have a feeling about the deck. But it's hard to have that talk when there's also a discussion happening in parallel about its imagined power level that fuels its play rate and is seen as as justification for changing it.

For now, don't worry. The card has been mentioned by name by a dev in public in the same sentence as the prospect of balance changes. It is as good as changed and likely soon. It will be the same type of change that happened to it in Wild (it was not a power outlier, but too common and too unfun). I'd simply encourage a greater awareness that we can have these talks about changes to a deck without needing to tie it down to being a power level issue as well. In fact, discussing your feelings about the deck - what features you enjoy and what you don't - tend to be more useful feedback to the devs anyway.

submitted by /u/Popsychblog
[link] [comments]

Hey so can we as a community do less of this. It sucks that whenever someone requests to be your friend, its more likely for them to swear at you than say good game.

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 12:14 PM PDT

submitted by /u/BurrDidIt
[link] [comments]

By Iskar in response to Zeddy. Thoughts?

Posted: 21 Aug 2021 11:21 PM PDT

submitted by /u/Glittering_Cake9952
[link] [comments]

Hmm... something about this seems backwards for some reason...

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 08:09 AM PDT

submitted by /u/DarthEwok42
[link] [comments]

Isn't it the greatest feeling?

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 03:28 AM PDT

submitted by /u/epicperson255
[link] [comments]

2022, but still the same misplays as 2017

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 05:55 AM PDT

submitted by /u/Theoneonlybananacorn
[link] [comments]

As Duels main it is very clear to me we need something like Bob's Tavern in this mode.

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 01:31 PM PDT

So a lot of Duels is created off an earlier single player model. And in that model a couple times during a run you would end up in "Bob's Tavern." What made it different then buckets, passives, or treasures is it allowed you to alter your deck by single cards.

For those of you who never played the single mode you were given gold and that gold you spent removing cards, buffing a card, adding cards, and even adding a little bit of health. (you had finite gold so you always had to make a sacrifice on exactly what you wanted to do.)

I felt like it added a layer that Duels is missing to customization of decks.

I do not think it should be a complete rip off of "Bob's Tavern" but something similar would make the mode feel even more powerful, unique (this will help even more with every decks 'feeling the same'), complex (your decisions matter more) and fun.

submitted by /u/myflesh
[link] [comments]

I finally got my last 1k win portrait! It feels good to reach a goal, but also sorta sad that I won't have much a reason to grind out games anymore!

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 01:20 PM PDT

submitted by /u/SensualNinja
[link] [comments]

I'm glad they nerfed warlocks

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 07:20 AM PDT

submitted by /u/kujasgoldmine
[link] [comments]

I guess I'll become what I hate

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 10:38 AM PDT

submitted by /u/tornadofay
[link] [comments]

Showerthought: if future expansions introduce new Quest(line)s, it'll break the mulligan guarantee in Wild

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 10:47 AM PDT

In wild, you could theoretically then put four (or more) quest(line) cards in your deck, and when going first, not all four (or more) of them would fit in your mulligan hand.

Obviously a weird scenario, since it's absurd (but not illegal) to put four quests in your deck, but how do you think they should handle this scenario? Just pick three of the quests from the deck randomly? What about going second, would they get all four or also just three randomly for reasons of fairness?

submitted by /u/FreedumbHS
[link] [comments]

Perfectly describes the last 2 years of Hearthstone.

Posted: 22 Aug 2021 03:07 PM PDT