I'll never understand why people will take a game that's over 50% RNG seriously.
I'll never understand why people will take a game that's over 50% RNG seriously.
Yeah and it's also been a couple days and the meta hasn't settled. Everyone is trying C'thun decks, which Face Shaman just crushes unmercifully. Once people start teching to counter it - as mentioned, Reno and weapon removal still basically guarantees insta-win vs Face Shaman - the popularity of it will fade and people will start teching to counter Reno decks. Then there will be counters for those.
And so on and so on. That's what meta-game is.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
Face Shaman is pretty average. Every time I watch a streamer play it they lose just as much as they win. I'm also about 50/50 against it.
Well, yes. That's why I only play Arena and now my newly made and super hilarious Renounce warlock. I refuse to play a copypaste deck and testing homebrew decks for fun is stifled by being run into the ground by annoying meta decks from hearthpawn or whatever, and even moreso by me not having a million cards to choose from to begin with. So I might as well play something that DOESN'T require me to have 3500 dust in bullshit meta cards and is actually surprising/interesting to play, even if I lose (which is to say, most of the time).
I never understand why people want to play face decks anyway.
I decided to try aggressive shaman deck based on Evolve mechanics and new 7/7 for 4 mana. Felt pretty good, I had a quick climb from rank 14 to rank 8 in about 4 hours. I lost all games to zoo (but there were only two zoo locks on my way there) but won almost all of my games vs C'thun decks (except those who managed to get Brann+Twin Emps combo, but it's hard to deal with 3x 4/6 taunts for all decks anyway), they are way too slow imo.
Sorry for the off topic but i have a small problem i can't understand
Im trying to play this deck http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/50291...thrattle-rogue on standard and i can't, it say that can't play on standard, each of the cards fit the criteria for standard play yet i can't play it, bug or wtf?
They can be pretty slow, I'm playing Warlock C'thun with lots of extra AoE to counter face shaman and zoolock and doing ok. Still lose to the random Rockbiter'd Doomhammer backed up with burn spells but it helps, clearing shaman's board every turn is a huge step towards beating them.
The Fresh Prince of Baudelaire
Banned at least 10 times. Don't give a fuck, going to keep saying what I want how I want to.
Eat meat. Drink water. Do cardio and burpees. The good life.
Does it really matter if everyone netdecks and there are very few people who come up with their own ideas? I'm an unabashed netdecker and have been for the entirety of the time I've played CCGs (about 12 years now). I suck at making decks, and I don't care. Guess what? In WoW I also look up guides on how to heal and do the same thing as 80% of the other Holy Paladins out there. Who cares anymore? The fun for me is in winning and being successful, not in coming up with new and exciting ways to do things.
Additionally, even the best decks in Hearthstone probably win only 60% of the time against other competitive decks. That's how it's always been in card games: you make a deck that is better than average against most decks out there and you try to get lucky with it. A lot of it is luck and a lot of it is figuring out the meta and countering it. Through enough grinding and attrition, eventually you make it to Legend or the Finals or whatever you're aiming for.
Last edited by IxilaFA; 2016-04-29 at 11:42 PM.
Ixila of Forgotten Aspects - US Hyjal 13/13 Mythic Hellfire Citadel
My YouTube kill vids!
Ixila - Holy Paladin - Armory | Ixtide - Resto Shaman - Armory
To me the problem isn't really aggro shammy or C'thun. Its the lack of anything else, really. Is this a complaint? Hell no. I'm running a Dragon Paladin with heavy heals that crushes both of them. Makes winning games super easy. But the lack of variety really makes the game really boring.