Hearthstone

[Anubis]

There is nothing cheesy about decks that win the way they are built. Wallet Warrior for example requires a lot more dust to build (or money) to accomplish the same in a longer time period, especially at the start of a ladder you want to go quickly through the "less skilled" people to compete with the real meta that starts around rank 10. But even then, aggro decks are more popular because they are quick. You either win or lose usually between turn 5-8, if your win% is around 55% you will climb much faster than for example a slow Handlock or Control Warrior, even if your win chance is higher since your games take twice or even more time to finish.

People also need to understand that ladder rank meta is different than legend rank meta. If you play control warrior on rank 20, I am sorry you are doing it wrong IF you want to rank up. If you just play for fun, obviously it doesn't matter but might as well just play unranked. So, don't complain about people playing the correct deck for the present meta.

Usually my way of ranking up was go retard zoo/hunter until around rank 5, watch the meta and switch accordingly.

Btw, the only reason these decks are looked down upon, is simply the fact they are cheap to make and work. So, everyone can play them = even retards can win with it, that's the logic behind the reasoning. (lol) If everyone could afford to create control warrior (around 10k dust I believe) people would say: "oh man, I run into so many of them, and they actually win that means even retards can play them". You still need to play correctly to win vs. mirror matches or bad match ups. Obviously vs. decks that your deck is designed to counter you don't need a brain to play it. But that goes for relatively all decks. Shaman > Handlock for example, don't need to play that "good" to win that match-up.

Deck knowledge based on pre-GvG but these are really the basics that count in any HS environment.

[lacoste]

I have played all kind of decks and 1 thing i am sure of - decks like face/midrange hunter only dumb you down. There is no glory nor pleasure in winning with such decks. Whole hunter design as a class is broken; warlock and his card draw every turn is perfect for sticky minion spam that in addition buff themselves + the chance of a crucial topdeck is higher; now similar thing is happening to mech mage except that only card synergy gets out of control. All these decks rely on your opponent not having an early answer so game is pretty much done by turn 4-6 or in case of a mirror matchup, who gets better start. The amount of trcky decisions you have to make with these is very limited. If both of you play slower decks the game is uncomparably different. Its as simple as the amount of cards that went through your hand and turns /interaction between them that makes the game interesting, not how fast you can rush someone down. Botters played mainly these decks for a reason, computer couldnt handle deeper decision making and more complicated interactions, and as far as i know only Zoo and Shaman (the simple one with Sea Giants) were the only bots that were reliable in the long run.

And the fact they are cheap to make is indeed what annoys some people, but its how they win is that matters.

Is it fast and effective? Totally.

[Aerox]

Last time i checked you were complaining about hysteria scheme being dumb

and so are you apparently

what's the connection here?

[Anubis]

Winning with hunter felt the same as when I won with my Handlock, don't know what you are talking about. I got 1 step closer to the next rank. I don't play the deck that "feels" good. I play the deck that will rank me up the fastest. So for me there is no such thing as glory when I beat my opponent, I beat my opponent. In the end I think having cheap decks for people that don't pay real money is essentially what keeps competitiveness alive in the long run. You don't want a scenario where the cheapest entry level of ranking up is out of reach for the majority of players.

I guess since you value style over effectiveness in BnG as well it makes sense that you feel the same in other games. For me it's just about min/max or effectiveness so it's an easy call.

[lacoste]

Winning with hunter felt the same as when I won with my Handlock, don't know what you are talking about. I got 1 step closer to the next rank. I don't play the deck that "feels" good. I play the deck that will rank me up the fastest. So for me there is no such thing as glory when I beat my opponent, I beat my opponent. In the end I think having cheap decks for people that don't pay real money is essentially what keeps competitiveness alive in the long run. You don't want a scenario where the cheapest entry level of ranking up is out of reach for the majority of players.

I guess since you value style over effectiveness in BnG as well it makes sense that you feel the same in other games. For me it's just about min/max or effectiveness so it's an easy call.

Ok, i understand that you value the effectiveness and time. But what bothers me is why would you rank up for so many games with straight forward decks when theres literally no reward for it other than first time legend card back or a spot in tourneys if you were consistently reaching top legend ranks, which still sounds "low" to me to say the least. Im not going to judge your taste when it comes to hearthstone, but really.

Btw, reaching legend is not even considered special anymore, mainly because of what it takes to reach it with for example hunter.

[SPW]

Undertaker got nerfed and so zoo and huntard. Blizzard is doing that very well imo (also earlier with bustard etc.).

I have to agree to anubis, good analyse. Lacoste is just a different player type (similar to myself). I dont respect face huntards or zoolock players but I understand them. Lacoste is different, he really plays any hero and I have a lot of respect because he knows this game very very well. So both are right, we are just different. Peace up and have fun by gaming 

[lacoste]

The problem with Hunter is not the 1 or 2 cards, its a whole design begining on hero power, through secrets, weapons, powerfull spells, Webspinners to Highmane. I can assure you that no matter how i build a Hunter deck, it will maintain a decent winrate, not great but decent. Recently tried a deck with 0 minions and it worked out quite well.

And to be clear, i dont dislike the idea of aggro/quick strategies, i just think that it shouldnt be the ultimate dominant strategy both winrate and least time spent wise. Design is hard, but i dont believe its impossible to make it better.

[KoreanRedDragon]

From a player's point of view, I don't get why someone would play a deck that results in quick games, win or lose. If you're so bored with a game that you just want it to be over quickly, why play at all? To compete within the real meta at rank 5 and higher? But the majority of those people got there playing the the same cancer decks you do, and why would they stop now?

Especially early on in a season, I actually find it very hard to justify spending time in ranked play, those decks just seem to exist with the purpose of ruining the fun of the people who would actually enjoy playing the game (preferably with decks of their own design), had it been balanced better. I mean I get the thrill of ranking up quickly, especially if it's your first time, but surely the enjoyment and pride that you get from it have to be lesser if you know you're essentially exploiting arguably broken hero/deck combinations that you didn't even discover on your own...

[Aerox]

From a player's point of view, I don't get why someone would play a deck that results in quick games, win or lose.

5 wins 3 loses in an hour is better than 4 wins and 0 loses in an hour for anyone not planning on spending real money.

[SPW]

As I said, we are just different. I do understand both sides.

Zoo players etc are like hysteria wormers.
Non zoo players etc. like b2b perfectionists or Elitists.

All makes sense. 

[Aerox]

As I said, we are just different. I do understand both sides.

Zoo players etc are like hysteria wormers.
Non zoo players etc. like b2b perfectionists or Elitists.

All makes sense. 

that comparison sucks and makes 0 sense try again.

also, tell us how much time it took you to get all those legendaries.

[SPW]

It was more for fun. I just want the fight out of this topic and talking about hearthstone in a good way or at least in a fun way.

Thats all, Mr negative.

[lacoste]

For a F2P player it takes about 4 to 10 months (depending on your luck of getting reliable legendaries and epics) of doing daily quests alone to be able to construct some playable decks that arent cancerous. After sometime you are at the point of having a lot of duplicates, which results in about 100 dust per pack on average, which results in you being able to craft cards pretty quickly. If you enjoy arena and you are really good at it, 10 months is enough to get a whole classic collection by just grinding "infinite" arena - by infinite i mean that you get 150 gold worth of reward on average so you can start a new run infinitely.

With the addition of GvG things get more complicated. Catching up is a lot harded than pre expansion, but its possible. Also arena gives GvG packs as a bonus, which cant be changed, which sucks.

[Aerox]

For a F2P player it takes about 4 to 10 months (...) 10 months is enough to get a whole classic collection by just grinding "infinite" arena

infinite arena takes quite a bit of skill and experience

but you do then understand why some people see fast decks as an optimal way of reaching a goal that otherwise takes "ages"?

it's farming vs competing. effective wins vs wins.

and usually money players hating on farmers because their hundred buck decks losing to free aggros

[lacoste]

Its obvious why they play it, but as i said it shouldnt be the ultimate and most effective way of playing HS and telling people to be "smart" and play it because "results" just makes the tumour grow bigger. At most it should be very risky to choose this way of playstyle, but it isnt. Its the most optimal in every way.