Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sottle

hearthstone Sottle's Weekly Hearthstone Meta Analysis for Week of 03/12/2015 - 10/12/2015

1 post in this topic

9139-sottles-weekly-hearthstone-meta-ana


Hearthstone Meta Analysis: 07/12/2014 - 14/12/2014

 

Hello again friends! Now that the GvG meta has had a little time to settle and normalise, I can return to these weekly articles where I discuss what's hot, what's not and how you should be building decks to fight back against the meta.

 

Common Decks and Cards.

 

Firstly, let's discuss the elephant in the room. Dr. Boom is almost ever present in the current meta, being played as a win condition in Aggro decks, as well as a Control tool, or potential finisher in late-game decks. The card is incredible versatile, functioning as a catch up or AoE tool for when you are behind on the board, a swing in your favour for boards that are even, and as a way to further dominate a board that is in your favour. Essentially, if you have 7 Mana, and Dr. Boom in your hand, it is pretty rare for Boom not to be a good play, this is pretty unique as far as Hearthstone cards go, and goes some way to explaining its power. If you don't have this card available to you, you should make it a very high crafting priority.

 

Secondly, let's address the effect that Boom's presence has had on the rest of the meta. Big Game Hunter is included in many decks currently, since even against Aggro decks it is unlikely to be a dead card due to the presence of Boom. Many of the greedier decks such as Handlock and Control Warrior are including two BGH in their builds due to the current power of the card.

 

Mind Control Tech is also making a comeback due to Dr. Boom. Since Boom immediately places 3 minions onto the board, the chances for Mind Control Tech to hit are dramatically increased. If you are able to combine Mind Control Tech and Big Game Hunter against an opponent's Boom, that is perhaps one of the only truly efficient methods of dealing with the problem Boom creates.

 

Another card having a big impact in the game currently is Zombie Chow. Since Goblins vs Gnomes has not resulted in the death of Undertaker decks, and has in fact introduced a whole new type of disgusting start through Mechwarper, Zombie Chow is pretty much essential in many decks to fight back against these aggressive starts.

 

Outside of these specific common cards, the meta is in a healthy place in terms of variety. The old ladder mainstays of Zoo and various breeds of Hunter are still common, but every class is represented to some extent, with most receiving new powerful options to improve their versatility.

 

Card and Deck Choices

 

As outlined above, cards like Big Game Hunter and Zombie Chow are almost essential to include in your deck right now. However, there is a way to respond to this and get ahead of the game a little. For example, when building a Control deck, you can choose to build it in a way that omits all BGH targets entirely. Filling your late-game instead with cards like Kel'Thuzad and Ysera, will leave your opponent with a BGH sitting dead in the their hand as they wait for your inevitable Dr. Boom that is never coming. 

 

Outside of specifics like this, when building a deck for ladder right now, you need to have a fine balance of early game stability and late-game power. Decks like Hunter and Zoo are still around to punish people for getting too greedy with their builds, but there is also a significant amount of late-game Control decks, that will simply outlast and dominate you in the late-game if you are not set to compete with them.

 

Class Power Rankings

 

Since the meta is still fairly new, and the classes are fairly balanced against each other, instead of the usual numerical rankings, I will simply discuss the classes in alphabetical order and talk about the common ways to play them right now. Remember, the classes are all fairly close in terms of power right now, so even a class I describe as weak is perfectly viable for ladder purposes if you build it correctly.

 

Druid

 

250px-Malfurion_Stormrage-f.png?version=

 

Druid is in a strong place right now. The common Fast Druid decks that were popular before GvG are still very strong, especially with the addition of new hard to remove cards like Piloted Sky Golem and Piloted Shredder. Ramp Druid has also come back with a vengeance in recent days as it is an excellent deck for fighting back against Aggro if built correctly, while also being a fantastic deck to build without including a Big Game Hunter target. The Black Knight is still fairly uncommon in ladder decks right now, meaning that high value Druid Taunt minions like Druid of the Claw and Ancient of War are more likely than ever to get full value. Mill Druid has also made a splash recently. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of Mill, it aims to overdraw the opponent, burning cards that they are unable to hold in their hand and then eventually finishing the opponent with fatigue. Although this deck is a lot of fun, and is competitive on ladder up to a certain point, it's still a little way off being a top level deck. 

 

 

Hunter

 

250px-Rexxar-f.png?version=3f80009401aa5

 

Hunters are still around, terrorising the ladder as always. The two main variations you will see right now are the outright Facerush Hunter, which has not changed much, if at all, since the release of GvG, and the less all-in, but still aggressive Deathrattle Hunter. The latter has a few variations, following a curve all the way up to Dr. Boom in some cases. New Deathrattle cards like Piloted Shredder have extended the value of Undertaker beyond the opening turns and allowed Hunter to get value out of it in the mid-game. Some people, myself included have experimented with Control Hunter decks which look to use Feign Death to get huge value out of late-game Deathrattle minions, but for now, the class seems to be inferior to others as a Control choice. 

 

Mage

 

250px-Jaina_Proudmoore-f.png?version=8f6

 

Mage has emerged as a very versatile class since the release of GvG. It is now able to effectively play either an Aggro or Control game and compete against other decks effectively. Prior to the GvG release, Mage was in a difficult spot where any way you could build it was simply done better by another class. This is no longer the case, Mage is one of the best homes for the aggro Mech deck, due to the outstanding power of Goblin Blastmage, while Echo of Medivh has opened up even more possibilities for deck building by being able to refill your hand in an Aggro deck, or create extra copies of high value cards in a Control Deck.

 

Paladin

 

250px-Uther_Lightbringer-f.png?version=a

 

Paladin has also seen a vast improvement thanks to Goblins vs Gnomes. With cards like Shielded Minibot and Muster for Battle providing Paladin with one of the most oppressive early games of all the classes, Paladins can build their decks in a variety in ways, safe in the knowledge that they will secure the early game turns. Midrange Paladin is still being built in a vast variety of ways, from buff focused decks with cards like Dark Iron Dwarf and Blessing of Kings, to decks featuring cards like Bomb Lobber and Captain Greenskin to dominate the mid-game. Many Paladin players have even cut Equality from their deck completely, since their board presence is often so strong, they don't need access to the emergency board clears. Control Paladin has fallen away recently, with most people favouring the more midrange focused lists.

 

Priest

 

250px-Anduin_Wrynn-f.png?version=dcf2a67

 

 

Priest is one of the weaker classes currently, although it is extremely well equipped to deal with Aggro, it does suffer still when faced with other Control decks. Although Vol'jin has gone some way to increase the decks power against other late game decks, it is still left lagging behind, since so many of its cards are reactive and require specific situations to be good. Both Deathrattle and Control Priest decks are very viable options, and despite my assertion that Priest is one of the weaker classes currently, a friend of mine who goes by Pesty achieved Rank 1 Legend with Control Priest earlier this week. This goes to show that even the decks that are on the weaker side right now are still extremely competitive.

 

Rogue

 

250px-Valeera_Sanguinar-f.png?version=1f

 

Rogue is still in the process of finding its feet in the GvG Meta. Early experiments with Tempo based Mech Rogue didn't lead to too many spectacular results, although the deck is still strong enough to achieve Legend rank, while Miracle Rogue players have been trying to adjust to the Gadgetzan Auctioneer nerf. The primary solution that has been found to this is outright Control Rogue, which replaces Gadgetzan with Sprint, and plays more standard finishers like Ragnaros and Dr. Boom to seal the game. These decks have been effective so far, but are perhaps still missing one or two key ingredients that will push them over the edge to a top level deck.

 

Shaman

 

250px-Thrall-f.png?version=55cd557d01b07

 

Shaman is another of the weaker classes currently. Experiments from players have so far failed to create another particularly viable archetype other than the standard Midrange Shaman builds. Aggressive Mech based decks have been tried, but seem to fit better in Mage or Rogue for now, and extreme late-game grindy Shaman decks are outclassed my Mages, Druids, or Warriors doing the same thing. Neptulon was at first viewed as a very powerful card for Shaman, since it gave you the ability to refill your hand in the late-game, even if it was just with relatively low power Murlocs. However, due to how common Big Game Hunter is, Neptulon is a 10 Mana investment, Overload included, that simply dies to BGH.

 

Warlock

 

250px-Guldan-f.png?version=4bc860759dd1a

 

Warlock is strong as ever. Due to the strength of the Warlock Hero Power, the class will probably remain powerful no matter how many new cards get added. The reason for this is that any powerful neutral cards you add to the game, Warlock has access to them more often than any other class, because they draw more cards per game. With that said, the two classic Warlock decks are still out in force, namely Zoo and Handlock. Both have reacted to the nerf of Soulfire, with Handlock substituting in Darkbomb, and Zoo favouring Imp-losion. Handlocks have also benefited greatly from the addition of Antique Healbot, with the increased life gain potential leaving them favoured against even the dreaded Hunter matchup. Due to the ever presence of Big Game Hunter in the meta however, Handlock can struggle to dominate the board with their early giants. In terms of new developments, Demonlock decks, and Warlock decks that aim to stall the game with large amounts of removal into a one turn kill finish using Arcane Golem combos have both been making an appearance, but are yet to establish themselves as a dominant force.

 

Warrior

 

250px-Garrosh_Hellscream-f.png?version=a

 

Not much to say on Warrior. The class is still powerful, but still very one dimensional. The go-to way to play the class remains Control Warrior, with any experiments with Aggro decks, or Mech based Tempo decks proving unsuccessful.

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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By TheBeninator
      So the latest expansion, Mean Streets of Gadgetzan, has been out for more than a month now, and I was curious what everyone´s opinion on it was. Personally, I love the set. It adds more synergy with types of cards that weren´t as popular beforehand. For example, sets like secret mage, demon warlock, taunt warrior, and beast druid/hunter, have all gotten big buffs and can be viable in the meta. I got rank 13 with secret mage and taunt warrior alone, and hope to get to legend with them. What about you?
    • 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!