Meta: Team Hunter vs Team Priest vs Team Paladin

Play Mode Discussion
01/14/2019 07:45 AMPosted by First123
01/14/2019 06:58 AMPosted by damagedone
The Warrior numbers look very similar to Hunter to me. VS lists 7 different Warrior archetypes.


In WoG, dragon and c'thun warrior took up that 24% (15.something % and 7.something %, rounded up to 24), with the remaining 5-6% split between 4 other decks

Hunters today, from vs 117, have spell (9.88) and midrange (6.47) take up only 15% together, and the remaining 13% split between 3 other decks.

Even the previous one 116, spell and midrange was 12 and 8, with 10% split between 2 other decks (hybrid wasn't named in the last report)

Diving deeper, I notice that warriors have one or two decks that, while played at high ranks, still ends up in tier 3. Hunters today, all the 5 listed deck types are at least tier 2.

You do bring up a point, perhaps unintentionally, about the meta: whoever is at the top usually has more deck variety (a corollary of the common notion that "all these other classes only have 1 viable deck"). Druids had their turn not so long ago. Locks and priests had them before that. Pallies were the OG in having multiple viable decks before standard hit...


I wouldn't trust those deck divisions %s on Hunter too much.

A lot of the tracking has a harder time telling the difference between Secret Hunter, Spell Hunter, and Hybrid Hunter (as they all use Spellstones, Secrets, Rexxar, and Zuljin) than Dragon War, Pirate War, and C'thun War.

(And even Hybrid Hunter gets categorized as Midrange quite a bit).

Having more variety doesn't usually mean anything in terms of power. The only corollary really with massive variety of a single class is that Warrior era. (And maybe Beta decks).

Even though there was like 6 or 7 Druid archetypes pre-nerf, you can't really call them different. They were the same 24+ cards (Massive Ramp and Card Draw) with a different choice of end game finisher. They play out virtually identical.

P.S. Hybrid isn't named because it shows up as Midrange, Secret, and Spell. But it's most definitely part of the most recent data. I've been seeing it on ladder for awhile. And if you watch EU HCT, it was the most represented Hunter deck.
01/14/2019 07:58 AMPosted by damagedone
I wouldn't trust those deck divisions %s on Hunter too much.


/shrug
I trust them as much as I trust the warrior numbers.

01/14/2019 07:58 AMPosted by damagedone
Having more variety doesn't usually mean anything in terms of power.


It does say something about representation. I was trying to explain that hunter representation numbers are higher now because they have more viable decks. Warriors had some variety back in WoG, but as I said not all of them were as equally viable as hunter decks today.

01/14/2019 07:58 AMPosted by damagedone
Even though there was like 6 or 7 Druid archetypes pre-nerf, you can't really call them different. They were the same 24+ cards (Massive Ramp and Card Draw) with a different choice of end game finisher. They play out virtually identical.


That's an overexaggeration.

2x Spellstone
2x Growth
2x Paths
2x Swipe
2x Nourish
DK

That's 11, not 24. Spreading plague wasn't always run in big or taunt druid as it might screw up witching hour. UI may not be run either as when you're playing big minions, you aren't playing enough cards and might burn yourself if you use UI. And if you aren't running those, you probably won't run arcane tyrant.

Those cards are not unlike spellstone+secret package for hunters, or animal companion, or kill command. Popular, but not run in literally every deck. And le'ts not forget spell hunter kinda has to run 100% class cards, but we don't hold it against them.

Now, it's usually hard to tell what a druid is doing when they've only used those 11 cards, but again you can say the same for hunter

2x candle
2x mark
2xflanking
2xtracking
DK

9 instead of 11. Not too far off. 3 of the 4 popular hunter decks run spellstone+secret package. 3 of the 4 run animal companion and kill command. My point here is that the current meta (and the state of hunters) isn't some super OP ridiculous thing, but at the same time, druids back then (or warriors back in wog) were equally not that ridiculous. The meme of "this is the worst meta EVER" is just that, a meme.
Evolve Kragwa here, just because I don't mind being on rank 4, and oddly enough I PLAY HS FOR FUN.

I believe RNG is awesome, sometimes you win sometimes you lose- but with the current decks I might as well play against bots
Funny how Old Gods warrior is brought up when the period was known as 'warriorstone' and despite having multiple decks, the class was nerfed shortly after.

Apparently, doesn't matter now if a single class dominates the meta because "diversity". (all the "diversity" in 1 class, in a game with 9 classes. People that paid time and money for packs that contained 9 class cards.)
01/14/2019 09:52 AMPosted by sinkie
Funny how Old Gods warrior is brought up when the period was known as 'warriorstone' and despite having multiple decks, the class was nerfed shortly after.


If by shortly you mean two months into the next expansion (WoG was Apr - Jul 2016, the nerf to execute and charge was in Oct 2016, 2 months into Kara), sure

Also note that the two nerfs didn't really do anything to stop the versatility of warriors. Warriors throughout Kara still had a variety of decks, they just dropped in tier/representation because SHAMANS were on the rise. It wasn't until Patches came out the following expansion that pirate warrior became the dominant warrior deck.

If we go by that pattern, you won't see a hunter nerf until Jun... if they would even do that as by then, we wouldn't have spellstones or DKs.
Oh yeah? Well. ... I'm going to make a Mage just to spite those statistics, so I can watch all of you burn and die a horribly fiery death!
01/14/2019 06:50 AMPosted by damagedone
Sorry. But it's been YEARS since Hunter was viable. It'll be a completely different meta in April, as virtually all of its cards rotate.

Just let Hunter shine for a couple months.


I see many people bringing the "years argument" and love how they just conveniently forget that Spell Hunter with Barnes + Ya'sharaj was a T1 deck for a long time and brought to almost every tournament line up like 8 months ago. And even after that rotation Spell Hunter was at minimum a solid Tier 2 deck for most of the year.

And anyway, as if being poor for a long time protected Shaman from being nerfed despite being in dumpster tier for over a year or should be an excuse for some class to have representation equal to 5 entire class with multiple Tier 1 decks while having a "balance" patch that nerfed most of its counters while leaving it untouched.
Sounds like a meta full of variety and suprices
01/16/2019 03:04 AMPosted by TheChemist
Sounds like a meta full of variety and suprices

but isnt this what people wanted ? boomday meta was one with 6 classes having one of the 6 tier 1 decks ....and people here hated it
01/16/2019 04:56 AMPosted by Boreas
01/16/2019 03:04 AMPosted by TheChemist
Sounds like a meta full of variety and suprices

but isnt this what people wanted ? boomday meta was one with 6 classes having one of the 6 tier 1 decks ....and people here hated it

I think the Boomsday complaint was more about polarization and only one new deck (Baku Warrior) impacting the meta. In truth Boomsday just felt like the Witchwood meta + Control Warrior
01/14/2019 03:49 AMPosted by Mikey
Great - 3 classes and thats it. Awesome. Huntard is particularly awful since its moron-enhanced and you cant mess it up.


Guess i am the worst player in the HISTORY of this game cause i am only around 50/50 with my mid-range Hunter deck. Then again i dont have all the legendaries etc that are needed to be perfect.....

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum