L0rinda

hearthstone Iksar Shares Some Numbers on Reddit

9 posts in this topic

cO6sdfC.jpg

Iksar has responded to a Reddit question regarding Tier 0 decks with some stats from the past and present.

Although the original post has now been removed, it was a question regarding whether Tier 0 decks, which were defined as A deck that you have to play, or lose, had ever been seen in Hearthstone. Iksar noticed the thread and dropped in a reply.

Blizzard LogoIksar

Number sharing time! As a single archetype, Undertaker Hunter was about 25% of the meta at one point. For perspective, the most popular archetype of Shaman is currently less than half that. Class win rate wise the highest overall number I've ever seen was Druid around 57%. The highest single player in Legend win rate (min 50-70 games single deck) was around 75%, it's usually about 70. (source)

This means that Blizzard have each of Midrange Shaman and Aggro Shaman at under 12.5% of the meta, which ties in with Data Reaper stats placing all of Shaman at around 25% play rate in the higher ranks. 

I am always a bit wary of win percentage stats because the ladder system forces players to a rank where they will be at around 50% win rate, however this reply does seem to indicate that Blizzard currently have no issue with the state of the meta. I'm curious to see if that changes, as over the last 2-3 days more and more people have started to regard Shaman as overpowered, and if no decent counter deck is created soon, we could see its share of the meta rise rapidly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding this specific definition of Tier 0, Shaman does not exactly fit the criteria, because it still can lose given the nature of Hearthstone. It's not a consistent even but it is definetly possible. 

Using another prisms to look at the problem, one can definetly state that Shaman is a problem. Tapping in powers of ancient Magic : The Gathering teachings on the subject, I'll directly Michael J. Flores "Finding the Tinker Deck" here, regarding this "Enigma problem" : 

"That being said, there are some decks that are just better than their contemporaries. These decks tend to be chock full of undercosted spells, generally those that generate incredible amounts of card advantage or time advantage, or are able to end the game in a single turn. These decks are The Enigma; they do not necessarily share a core strategy beyond being the best (though edt once wrote that when someone designs a deck focused entirely on finding the most powerful cards available, they only have enough slots left in the deck to play some sort of quick kill combination).

If there is unity among The Enigma, it may be that for them to lose, generally the opponent must be aiming directly at that deck, because it is so effective against the bulk of the field."

25% metagame shares are the red signs that format's health is threatened. This number is considered a breaking point for Magic's formats to warrant a ban. Last time it was a recent event, Eldrazi Winter of 2015, where Modern, a rich format including the last 10 years of Magic cards, was reduced to Eldrazi decks and 4-5 viable options that could combat them. That problem came from a pair of lands capable of producing a lot of mana, thus "cheating" in powerful creatures in a consistent fashion. A story not unknown to Magic, fast mana was and still is a problematic mechanic there. 

For what it's worth, we can consider contemporary Shaman an Enigma deck. Powerful pressure from their openers proved to be substantial but not unbeatable in the times before One Night in Karazhan. Add a cheap, high-octane interaction that has little to no counterplay and potent midgame threats, and you'll end up staring at The Ultimate Midrange Deck that we have now. Shaman is not about mana, like Eldrazi were. It's about having a big stack of powerful cards that can beat any opposition, a problem that cannot be fixed with surgical removal. You can't nerf a card like Lightning Storm or Hex because it's so iconic and you can't nerf Karazhan cards because they are just right out of the oven and people paid for them.

And there is no real natural counter to that consistency. A kryptonite that could consistently beat Shaman would be just as busted because it would operate on the same axis, reducing the game to Rock-Paper-Sciccors state (which no one but me believes to be healthy).

Good news are that Standard rotation can save us. It saved Magic's Standard numerous times even when the 25% was broken(every time but that Caw-Blade one); It has already saved us from Patron and Secret Paladin.

Bad news are that Standard rotation is very, very far away in time. And it's not like the 6th expansion of Year of the Kraken can do a miracle.

If Blizzard does not consider this an issue, this is not going to end well. All this "learn from your mistakes" stuff has millions of players on the line, and frankly speaking, there is no room for it.

Edited by Paracel
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No miracle? I am ready for a miracle! Perhaps in the form of a board clear that costs very little mana, like Damnation from MTG. For those who are unenlightened, it clears he board for 4 mana ... Although a card on that power level could have repercussions. 

Edited by YourGod
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here about shaman is, it was probably one of the worst classes at the beginning of 2015, looking at the classic cards and what naxx and GvG could offer to shaman. Then, Blizzard decided it is not working like that, they put some 'spice' on shaman, especially starting from TGT. Some of the better early minions out there and also an amazing win-condition card which has an incredible synergy with what shaman is actually lives with, totems obviously, biggest aoe ever and also heal for all those who want to play slow. Shaman recipe became little 'hot' here actually. But Blizzard did not stop. They added the most influential 1-drop (IMO) as another early threat and then they added one of the most broken cards of all times, who terrorized the meta when not answered correctly, then a 5/5 taunt which can be played for nothing. Then, people started thinking it is getting too hot. 

Blizzard did not stop there either. As the early aoe of shaman is an overload card, shaman felt weak against zoo. Blizzard couldn't stand to it and brought a 1/3 weapon and a 2 mana aoe. 

While all these happen, rogue is still waiting for a 'miracle' from all the new expansions and priest is being a topic of fun as unicorn, whose main idea I am not still aware of. Paladin is not really competitive and I see people play warrior rarely.

BUT.....

As shaman started to rise this quickly to become arguably the best class in the meta right now, as all these expansions coming to an end as Paracel already stated. Shaman will lose its throne obviously, unless new expansions does not bring stuff like 3 mana 5/15 or something like that. 

So, shaman had a peak at 2016, I stil think as BrM, TGT and LoE rotates out of the standard, it will have its fall.

Edited by FanOfValeera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrior is more relevant in the low ranks; I progressed to see more Druid and Shaman as I got around rank 8, slightly higher ranks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YourGod said:

No miracle? I am ready for a miracle! Perhaps in the form of a board clear that costs very little mama, like Damnation from MTG. For those who are unenlightened, it clears he board for 4 mana ... Although a card on that power level could have repercussions. 

It is clear that such card would drastically alter the game, as Lightning Storm already causes much trouble, and more expensive clears as well.

I'm also not sure, are you mentioning Damnation before Wrath of God on purpose? Want some #ReprintDamnation memes with that?

1 hour ago, FanOfValeera said:

The problem here about shaman is, it was probably one of the worst classes at the beginning of 2015, looking at the classic cards and what naxx and GvG could offer to shaman. Then, Blizzard decided it is not working like that, they put some 'spice' on shaman, especially starting from TGT. Some of the better early minions out there and also an amazing win-condition card which has an incredible synergy with what shaman is actually lives with, totems obviously, biggest aoe ever and also heal for all those who want to play slow. Shaman recipe became little 'hot' here actually. But Blizzard did not stop. They added the most influential 1-drop (IMO) as another early threat and then they added one of the most broken cards of all times, who terrorized the meta when not answered correctly, then a 5/5 taunt which can be played for nothing. Then, people started thinking it is getting too hot. 

Blizzard did not stop there either. As the early aoe of shaman is an overload card, shaman felt weak against zoo. Blizzard couldn't stand to it and brought a 1/3 weapon and a 2 mana aoe. 

While all these happen, rogue is still waiting for a 'miracle' from all the new expansions and priest is being a topic of fun as unicorn, whose main idea I am not still aware of. Paladin is not really competitive and I see people play warrior rarely.

Yeah, you're totally right. Shaman was broken and they wanted to fix it. I liked their notions, how they approached that. Hero Power felt useless most of the time? Have a good totem and a good totem synergy card. Overload turned out to be an drawback investment mechanic - decent payoff card, have at thee!

They paved a good road with interesting, flavorful decisions that were fit for the class identity in a good way. The problem was they didn't stop the printing machine.

I do agree other classes are treated "unfairly" compared to Shaman, but not exactly as you are stating it. Yes, Priest is in many ways a meme class only and Rogue is ground zero for "how to not get any support in expansions yet still be kinda playable", but they did Burgle Rogue! That's a fun deck even!

I think Rogue's core problem in lack of printing support comes from the fact it is inherently a strong class. Its Hero Power, its core cards and mechanics - free spells, combo stuff that's pretty much non-interactive - all of it is really easy to mess up on a normal axis, like when you play for Tempo; and then there are ways Rogue can take Blizzard have stated they don't like, like all out Miracle comboes. They are conservative on this case because they are afraid to break it and breaking it is conceptually easy, and personally I believe it to be the right course of actions. It's totally not like I hate Rogue or something. 

Priest sucks because it's identity is about wacky stuff like healing. It just doesn't make a fair game. Design like that can make a good thematic and flavorful card, but it will probably have serious problems being actually good - because naturally resources like cards in hand and board state is better than life total. If they find a way to bring the pre-Standard, "kill all your stuff, never die myself" hardcore Control positioned Priest, that would be great. Obnoxious to play against, though.

Paladin I believe to be in a good shape. Yes, it only has two good decks, yes, those two decks are a bit stupid and yes, they share like 15 cards and behave like twin brothers, but what I genuinely like in them is that they occupy an important niche in metagame, serving as direct counters to some things and making the Control Dream come true. Also the amount of trolling by them haven't declined since The Secret Age, which is cool.

And Warrior, well, if you don't see it, you should probably climb ranks up, because all those Warriors players are probably Legend already. The class got some love in WotOG and was dominating the early Standard, but in a good way (compared to Shaman) - there were like 5 or 6 different Warrior decks, and there still are. It was delightful to see how many strategies just one class can support. Of course, then one would turn his eyes on others and cry in great pain. What made Warrior so popular and good is that at the beginning, it didn't lose a lot after rotation while we haven't yet invented goodstuffs to beat them. Right now, I think Warrior is a really important class as it can be a possible answer to the Shaman Menace.

Edited by Paracel
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned damnation because I run it, but don't own wrath of god; I haven't designed a good white deck yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face shaman sure feels like Tier 0 whenever I play it. Checking my ranked stats it's at 78.6% winrate (33W, 9L). Sure it's only at rank 8 but this still feels pretty silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Paracel said:

It is clear that such card would drastically alter the game, as Lightning Storm already causes much trouble, and more expensive clears as well.

I'm also not sure, are you mentioning Damnation before Wrath of God on purpose? Want some #ReprintDamnation memes with that?

Yeah, you're totally right. Shaman was broken and they wanted to fix it. I liked their notions, how they approached that. Hero Power felt useless most of the time? Have a good totem and a good totem synergy card. Overload turned out to be an drawback investment mechanic - decent payoff card, have at thee!

They paved a good road with interesting, flavorful decisions that were fit for the class identity in a good way. The problem was they didn't stop the printing machine.

I do agree other classes are treated "unfairly" compared to Shaman, but not exactly as you are stating it. Yes, Priest is in many ways a meme class only and Rogue is ground zero for "how to not get any support in expansions yet still be kinda playable", but they did Burgle Rogue! That's a fun deck even!

I think Rogue's core problem in lack of printing support comes from the fact it is inherently a strong class. Its Hero Power, its core cards and mechanics - free spells, combo stuff that's pretty much non-interactive - all of it is really easy to mess up on a normal axis, like when you play for Tempo; and then there are ways Rogue can take Blizzard have stated they don't like, like all out Miracle comboes. They are conservative on this case because they are afraid to break it and breaking it is conceptually easy, and personally I believe it to be the right course of actions. It's totally not like I hate Rogue or something. 

Priest sucks because it's identity is about wacky stuff like healing. It just doesn't make a fair game. Design like that can make a good thematic and flavorful card, but it will probably have serious problems being actually good - because naturally resources like cards in hand and board state is better than life total. If they find a way to bring the pre-Standard, "kill all your stuff, never die myself" hardcore Control positioned Priest, that would be great. Obnoxious to play against, though.

Paladin I believe to be in a good shape. Yes, it only has two good decks, yes, those two decks are a bit stupid and yes, they share like 15 cards and behave like twin brothers, but what I genuinely like in them is that they occupy an important niche in metagame, serving as direct counters to some things and making the Control Dream come true. Also the amount of trolling by them haven't declined since The Secret Age, which is cool.

And Warrior, well, if you don't see it, you should probably climb ranks up, because all those Warriors players are probably Legend already. The class got some love in WotOG and was dominating the early Standard, but in a good way (compared to Shaman) - there were like 5 or 6 different Warrior decks, and there still are. It was delightful to see how many strategies just one class can support. Of course, then one would turn his eyes on others and cry in great pain. What made Warrior so popular and good is that at the beginning, it didn't lose a lot after rotation while we haven't yet invented goodstuffs to beat them. Right now, I think Warrior is a really important class as it can be a possible answer to the Shaman Menace.

You're probably right abour warrior, thats the first thing. It could be the only class (except shaman) that has it all.

Rogue has a strong core, with a good hero power and excellent cheap spells, but todays rogue decks mostly based on drawing 10 cards a turn while buffing its minions, clearing opposing board and even do some damage to opposing hero. As tempo rogue is outright weak and burgle rogue is 'fun' like you said, rogue has only one way to play (as in terms of viability), whether Blizzard likes it or not.

For Paladin, it could counter some decks, however AFAIK, it is not really a counter to any of the top tier decks (maybe except dragon warrior), and yeah, those decks could be useful to create rock-paper-scissor state. Btw, I don't play paladin anyways, I am just telling this because of the opponents I see, matchup is pretty for comfortable for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Zadina
      The live Q&A with the two well-known Hearthstone devs took place yesterday and we've made a recap of the most interesting points.
      First of all, if you want to watch the whole thing, the VOD can be found here (it starts at 14:10). If you prefer a shorter version, Redditor EpicMelon has made a 10-min video of everything important said. Ultimately, if you don't feel like watching videos, we've made a summary of anything worth noting from yesterday's Q&A.
      Ben started talking about the new player experience, a topic he has discussed again this week. He repeated that most new players start off by playing versus A.I., some go to Casual and a minority goes to Ranked. The team has made it so that in Casual new players are exclusively matched against other new players and their MMR is kept to a 50% winrate.
      One of the currently most discussed hot topics in the Hearthstone community is the Ranked ladder. The team is satisfied with how clear the current system is in how it works. However, they do realise that its grindiness and the monthly reset can be a disadvantage and feel repetitive. To counter that, they are looking into short-term increasing the amount of bonus stars players can gain. This will hopefully increase the number of players in medium and higher ranks and move veterans away from Rank 20. However, they don't want everyone to be a Legend player either, since this would devalue the ranking. New breakpoints are also an idea the Hearthstone team is considering. As far as winstreaks stopping at Rank 5 are concerned, the idea behind this is that they wanted players to get to Legend "legit"; this could change as well, though.
      Moving to the topic of Arena, Dean announced that they are thinking of moving it to Standard format. Moreover, they want to try decreasing the amount of commons you get, as well as the amount of neutral Classic and Basic cards (especially minions). Some of these changes for Arena are already ready to be added to the game they are just waiting for the right time to patch them in. In early February, top 100 rankings for Arena will be published - just like the Ranked season ones. These rankings will be calculated based on highest average wins per run basis with a minimum requirement of 30 runs.
      The guys had a few things to say about the current meta, too. Pirate Warrior represented 30% of the meta game near the launch of Mean Streets of Gadgetzan, while there were also a lot of Pirate Shamans and Rogues. Thankfully, these numbers have dropped as other decks (like Jade Druid and Reno decks) started surfacing. Pirate decks are slightly more popular than Team 5 would like and decks with the pirate package feel same-y. If this persists, they might take a look at Pirates. Hunters and Paladins are having a hard time at the moment because they can't keep up with the aggro pirate decks. Overall, the internal meta report shows a stability in the meta: there is only a 3% difference between the winrates of the top deck and the 11th best deck.
      Lastly, there was mention of the Wild format. Ben admitted that they could do some things better for Wild. For example, it's possible that Blizzard will encourage more Wild tournaments in the future. The upcoming rotation will be interesting since Wild will have more card sets than Standard. Wild is far from dead: it's just half as popular as Standard, although Ben hasn't looked in the numbers recently. Earlier in the stream, Ben also said that the team is considering two options to keep Standard fresh: either nerfing cards or just move them to Wild.
      Lastly, Ben and Dean talked about various other small topics like the possibility of reprinting cards (no actual answer given), more Hunter and Paladin talk, wording inconsistencies and rewriting old cards, how a healthy meta is defined and Team 5 itself.
    • By Zadina
      Hearthstone Game Director Ben Brode and Game Designer Dean Ayala will answer all your questions on a live Q&A session on Twitch this Friday!
      The complaints about the lack of communication from the part of the Hearthstone team have been answered. This Friday the 13th (!) of January, Ben Brode and Dean Ayala will answer questions about some of the most heated topics that currently affect the playerbase. Ben has already made some posts about issues like the Classic card set and the possibility of some Classic cards rotating out of Standard.
      As always, we will try to have a recap of the Q&A as soon as it is finished.
      Blizzard Entertainment
      Pull up a chair by the hearth! Join Hearthstone Game Director Ben Brode and Game Designer Dean Ayala January 13 at 9:00am PST for a live Q&A session on Twitch. Our developers will be sharing some insight about the state of the game, the new player experience, the ranked play system, and answering your questions live.
       
      Have some questions for Ben and Dean? Here’s how you can be part of the conversation:
      - Tweet @PlayHearthstone with the hashtag #QA with your question
      - Post a question below in the blog comments
      - Join us live in Twitch chat and direct questions to us @PlayHearthstone
       
        Can’t make it? Don’t worry – we will be posting the full video on the PlayHearthstone YouTube after the Q&A has completed.
       
       
      Follow the official Hearthstone Twitch channel to be notified when the stream begins.
      We’ll see you there!
      (source)
    • By Zadina
      Ben Brode was active on the official forums and on social media these past few days and he had a lot of interesting things to say about various hot topics. Most notably, he noted that it's possible that additional Basic and Classic set cards may be nerfed or rotated out of Standard in the future.
      You probably remember that with the release of the Standard format, something less than a year ago, 12 Basic and Classic cards were nerfed. Now, Game Director Ben Brode revealed that more Basic & Classic card nerfs can happen or at least they may be rotated out of Standard. The reasoning behind this is that the team wants to keep a fresh feeling in Standard and they don't want to see the same core cards appear too frequently. That's why they are also not considering buffing underused vanilla cards, since Basic and Classic cards are already being used a lot and they want new sets to be more impactful.
      Ben Brode
      + Show- Hide The goal with Standard is to keep the meta fresh for each yearly rotation. There are some benefits to keeping Basic and Classic cards in Standard: Returning players have an entry-point to the new format, and new players experience classics like "Hogger" and "Arcane Missiles" that are iconic and great introductions to the game. People take breaks from Hearthstone, and being able to jump right back in with a few cards you already own and understand makes that experience a lot better. That upside has a real downside in working directly against the big goal for Standard. It needs to feel different each year, and if Basic and Classic cards are still appearing in large densities year after year, we will not be achieving our goals for Standard.
      We knew we weren't going to get there when the Year of the Kraken began, so we nerfed 12 basic/classic cards, to put more of the weight of the meta into the rotating sets. We always knew we'd have to watch the meta to see if any future changes would be needed when we got ready for the next year of Standard. If things are looking like they are going to be too same-y for that next year, we could see more nerfs, or we might rotate some additional classic cards to Wild, like we did with Old Murk Eye. No matter what, we're committed to making Standard fresh and exciting each new year. (source)
       
       
      Are you guys considering, besides nerfs, implementing buffs for underused vanilla cards?
      Given the goal of Standard is to keep the game fresh each year, it's important to keep a lot of the power of the cards in the expansions, and not in the basic and classic sets. It's not clear what that balance of power should look like (is it ~10 cards from the basic and classic sets on average?), but we're currently skewed so high towards basic and classic cards in decks, that we are at high risk for 'samey-ness' as the years change in Standard. Buffing Basic/Classic cards *increases* that risk. If the goal is to get more cool cards into the meta, just releasing awesome new cards in expansions should make an impact there, and still keep Standard fresh. (source)
      Obviously, this comment caused a lot of reactions and Ben took to Reddit (specifically this thread) and Twitter, where he answered various questions. A brief summary of his responses is that the Basic set is currently the most powerful in the game (source), while the team intends to keep the vanilla set unchanged (the term used was 'evergreen' - source). Ben repeated that the team's intention behind any future Basic and Classic card nerfs or changes is to keep Standard format fresh and "less same-y". A difficult question was posed to the community: would they prefer the affected vanilla cards to be nerfed, rotated out of Standard format or remain as they are, even if it results in a staler meta?
      On the same Reddit thread, Brode also talked about why the Charge nerf was necessary due to the Grimy Goons synergy and how new/F2P players are currently still able to reach Legend rank - something that he expects to keep happening in the future as well.
      Ben Brode
      + Show- Hide [...] We nerfed Charge (the spell) because we knew the upcoming Grimy Goons mechanic in combination with Enraged Worgen and Charge was not really fair or fun. There have always been F2P players at Legend, and there have continued to be since that change. (source) Ben Brode
      + Show- Hide We did this in 2016 when we nerfed 12 classic cards and it made a huge difference in how much the meta was able to change with the release of Old Gods (instead of just continuing to be Druid Combo). New players were able to reach legend without spending money after that change, and I expect that will be continue to be true if we change a few more cards in 2017. (source) On a somewhat relevant topic, with the end of the Year of the Kraken the end of Reno Jackson is also approaching. Ben excluded the possibility of this game-changing card making it into the Classic set - once again the reason being "keeping the meta fresh".
      Placeholder for tweet 817625802116214784 For consistency's sake, I've also included two Brode blue posts from last week. In the first one, he talks about the new player experience and how it still needs more work. For example. the climb from the introductory quests to actually playing the game feels steep, while getting into Ranked is also difficult. However, for their first games new players actually play in a seperate matchmaking pool designed to match new players with each other. There has also been a 15% increase in new player winrates on Casual.
      Ben Brode
      + Show- Hide Hey there! We agree that the new player experience needs more work. We've been tweaking it for years and have seen significant increases in retention among new players since launch. Most new players start playing against the AI and then take on other players in Casual. The Casual matchmaker has gone through a lot of iteration and new player winrates have increased by ~15%.
      Ranked is a different story. Ranked is becoming more difficult for new players over time. I spoke about some of the challenges we are currently facing with our ladder system before I left for paternity leave here: https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/58pxgt/ben_brode_confirms_the_2_game_win_streak_is_not/
      Something you may not realize is that new players actually play in a seperate matchmaking pool for their first several sessions. In Casual, we match them entirely against other brand new players with similarly-sized collections.
      That all said, we think the introductory missions up through Illidan feel pretty good, and after that it still feels like a bit of a cliff. It's definitely something we're aware of. Thanks for your feedback, and for the feedback of everyone else who's been chiming in on this over the last few months.
      (source) Lastly, Ben made an interesting post about another community hot topic: the ladder system.
      Ben Brode
      + Show- Hide [...] We have been discussing the ladder system a lot recently - we're not 100% happy with it.
      Here are some things we are currently discussing:
      Rank 18 players are higher ranked than 50% of HS players. That number doesn't make you feel like you are in the top 50%, and that's a missed opportunity. We try and counter this by telling you all over the place what the mapping is to the rest of the population, but it'd be better if expectations and reality matched here.
      We've received feedback that the last-minute jostling for high Legend ranks at the end of a season doesn't feel all that great.
      We've received feedback that the ladder can feel like a grind.
      We are reanalyzing the number of ranks, the number of stars per rank, the number of bonus stars given out at the start of the season, and other parts of the system.
      We are developing simulation systems that let us predict what changes to the ladder would do to the population curve. If we inflate too many stars, the whole population ends up in the Legend bucket and while that might feel great for a single month, the entire system falls apart eventually. People who played waaaay back may remember when "3-star master" was the pinnacle of achievement, and it meant nothing because so many people ended up in that bucket. With better simulation tools, we are planning on trying a lot of crazy things. Iteration is important in design, and getting the tools to iterate quickly is very important.
      Something I want to emphasize is that while I think we can improve the ladder, the metric for that improvement isn't necessarily any one player's individual rank increasing. Players want the better rewards (and prestige) associated with high ranks, or the Legend card back, so any change we make that increases the chances of those are likely to be perceived as "good", at least for the short term. But part of what makes the ranked ladder compelling is that exists to rank players. If you want to see how you stack up, ranked is the place to do it. So while some inflation might improve the experience, we need to be careful and make sure we end up with a system that makes people feel rewarded for increases in personal skill or for finding a new deck that breaks the meta.
      (source)
    • By Pogsz
      Since I talk like an ogre I can as well practice my 3D skills and play around with the hearthstone logo.  Here is a quick render I made this morning.  Maybe I will do some more, wallpaper, t-shirt print or other stuff... I don't know

      I will probably also just play some Hearthstone for myself.  If I am better I will maybe do a "silent" stream tonight! :-D Or at least keep the conversation to a minimum.

      See you around guys and have a good day!

    • By Damien
      This thread is for comments about our Budget Anyfin Paladin Gadgetzan Standard deck