Hearthstone

[Gaspar]

To be honest, I disagree with this a lot: If anything, I would argue Zoolock (as the premiere aggro deck I will use it) is MORE consistant than most of the high level control decks. People have said they see less Control Warrior (from what I've read) at higher levels and one of those reasons is how risky their MU is vs. Zoolock. Zoolock has one of the better MUs against Miracle Rogue because they are one of the best at exhausting Miracle Rogue's supplies before Gadgetzan drops or killing them before the OTK. Ramp Druid has declined in popularity to Token Druid because of the fact that Ramp Druid is bad vs. Zoolock. And indeed, Zoolock is one of the more consistant Decks for getting good opening hands: Most of their cards combine well to start. In addition, like Handlock, liberal use of the Warlock hero power means they'll draw a lot and thus be a lot more consistant by seeing more cards. I can't say for certain how well this holds up at the highest level, but looking at Trump play some Legendary he runs into a lot more Zoolock-esque decks than other kinds. In my opinion the reason you see control Decks so much in tournaments and such is that it almost has a sub-metagame involved: People play largely control Decks in them and decks like Control Warrior shine vs. other Control Decks, becoming more consistant. However aggro usually beats control and is beaten by midrange, IIRC. In addition, pretty much every other card game of notoriety sees aggro decks worthwhile in their tournaments, and I see no real reason Hearthstone would be different. But yeah, I would argue Zoolock is more consistant than most control decks out there given low mana costs (Most of their cards will work the first few important turns: They're less likely to get a dead hand than most stuff aside from Handlock), the Warlock hero power and such. Handlock/Miracle Rogue might be stronger, I think Handlock might be the strongest deck out there ATM, but I would say Zoolock is more consistant winning-wise than a Deck like Control Warrior, from what I have seen.

Zoo isn't really an aggro deck, which is why I quite purposefully omitted it from my comments about aggro decks. Its a low-cost deck. Generally speaking, you're more interested in board control than constantly hitting face if you play it well - that's why it doesn't run stuff like Leper Gnome and Bluegill Warrior. Its certainly harder to play than Face Rush Hunter/Paladin in that there are choices made that those decks don't make, but its also much easier to play than say midrange control decks. Like I said, the big advantage Zoo has is that other than a crappy deck made specifically to hard-counter it that won't beat anything else, it really can "hang" in any matchup. It doesn't have any 80-20 matchups in its favor, but it also doesn't have any 20-80s with Hunter dead. And if you can play something that never has less than a 40% winrate well, then you're going to be able to climb rank by attrition very well.

And Trump just isn't really all that good, he's legendary by attrition after the really good players hit legend already, as per usual.

[Kuro]

To be honest, I disagree with this a lot: If anything, I would argue Zoolock (as the premiere aggro deck I will use it) is MORE consistant than most of the high level control decks. People have said they see less Control Warrior (from what I've read) at higher levels and one of those reasons is how risky their MU is vs. Zoolock. Zoolock has one of the better MUs against Miracle Rogue because they are one of the best at exhausting Miracle Rogue's supplies before Gadgetzan drops or killing them before the OTK. Ramp Druid has declined in popularity to Token Druid because of the fact that Ramp Druid is bad vs. Zoolock. And indeed, Zoolock is one of the more consistant Decks for getting good opening hands: Most of their cards combine well to start. In addition, like Handlock, liberal use of the Warlock hero power means they'll draw a lot and thus be a lot more consistant by seeing more cards. I can't say for certain how well this holds up at the highest level, but looking at Trump play some Legendary he runs into a lot more Zoolock-esque decks than other kinds. In my opinion the reason you see control Decks so much in tournaments and such is that it almost has a sub-metagame involved: People play largely control Decks in them and decks like Control Warrior shine vs. other Control Decks, becoming more consistant. However aggro usually beats control and is beaten by midrange, IIRC. In addition, pretty much every other card game of notoriety sees aggro decks worthwhile in their tournaments, and I see no real reason Hearthstone would be different. But yeah, I would argue Zoolock is more consistant than most control decks out there given low mana costs (Most of their cards will work the first few important turns: They're less likely to get a dead hand than most stuff aside from Handlock), the Warlock hero power and such. Handlock/Miracle Rogue might be stronger, I think Handlock might be the strongest deck out there ATM, but I would say Zoolock is more consistant winning-wise than a Deck like Control Warrior, from what I have seen.

Zoo isn't really an aggro deck, which is why I quite purposefully omitted it from my comments about aggro decks. Its a low-cost deck. Generally speaking, you're more interested in board control than constantly hitting face if you play it well - that's why it doesn't run stuff like Leper Gnome and Bluegill Warrior. Its certainly harder to play than Face Rush Hunter/Paladin in that there are choices made that those decks don't make, but its also much easier to play than say midrange control decks. Like I said, the big advantage Zoo has is that other than a crappy deck made specifically to hard-counter it that won't beat anything else, it really can "hang" in any matchup. It doesn't have any 80-20 matchups in its favor, but it also doesn't have any 20-80s with Hunter dead. And if you can play something that never has less than a 40% winrate well, then you're going to be able to climb rank by attrition very well.

And Trump just isn't really all that good, he's legendary by attrition after the really good players hit legend already, as per usual.

Trump is around Legendary 60 right now, I can't imagine you hit Legendary 60 and "aren't really that good". More to the point, Trump being good or not is irrelevant because I was talking about what his opponents were using and not him. I would say that Zoo counts as aggro because while it does like board control, you tend to control the board aggressively, with less removal, more minions and buffs and getting in face damage as you make favorable trades + hero power to end up with a nice minion flood. It's not pure rush the face every time, but I don't think that is a requirement for being an aggro deck: It primarily wins by hitting the face with board control, not controlling with spells or planning to go very late in the game like a control deck (nor is it really "midrange-y" because it starts small and doesn't transition as much into late control), aggressively pushing the foe and using the Warlock's strong hero power to keep up advantage + keep the minion flood up. It's not pure TO THE FACE aggro, but it's still aggro I'd say.

[Sir Bruce]

Zoo isn't really an aggro deck, which is why I quite purposefully omitted it from my comments about aggro decks. Its a low-cost deck. Generally speaking, you're more interested in board control than constantly hitting face if you play it well - that's why it doesn't run stuff like Leper Gnome and Bluegill Warrior. Its certainly harder to play than Face Rush Hunter/Paladin in that there are choices made that those decks don't make, but its also much easier to play than say midrange control decks. Like I said, the big advantage Zoo has is that other than a crappy deck made specifically to hard-counter it that won't beat anything else, it really can "hang" in any matchup. It doesn't have any 80-20 matchups in its favor, but it also doesn't have any 20-80s with Hunter dead. And if you can play something that never has less than a 40% winrate well, then you're going to be able to climb rank by attrition very well.

And Trump just isn't really all that good, he's legendary by attrition after the really good players hit legend already, as per usual.

I mostly agree (Zoo is a tempo/board control, Zoo is harder to play than face-rush, Trump is solid but a step down from the top tier) but Handlock absolutely destroys Zoolock. I'd guess right around 20-80. Zoo cannot handle hellfire or taunted giants/drakes.

On a different subject: If you want mindless face rush decks warrior weapon aggro is a great bet right now. It counters Miracle Rogue really hard: they can't board clear without face damage or wasting spells early, they can't remove your weapons, they don't run taunts, and you can almost always kill them by turn 6 or 7. And it has decent match-ups against most other decks although Handlock is pretty rough.

[Gaspar]

Yeah, I guess Sir Bruce said what I was thinking better than I did. I suppose really what we're arguing right now is a matter of semantics - I read Aggro as a Face Rush deck i.e. Chargers/Leper Gnomes/Nightblades. Zoo I think of as a tempo deck. All tempo decks are aggressive, that's the idea - if you're clearing the board and playing minions, the opponent is always reacting to you and you will win. And of course Bruce is right that I forgot the Handlock-Zoo matchup is heavily favored for the Handlock.

Re: Trump - I suppose not that good is relative. Of course he's better than, say, me and is in fact a very good player compared to the population of Hearthstone players as a whole. But the top tier players are demonstrably better than him. Trumps appeal, and why I think his stream is very good for the HS community is that he plays and explains things in a way that is very easy for a novice player to understand, which hopefully raises the overall level of play of the community - which obviously is good for the game. Legendary Rank is quite meaningful to average players because I most certainly could not attain L60 at my current level of skill. But for the top players they're basically just trying to hit top 16 once to get the Blizzcon tourney invite. So guys who did it last season aren't playing seriously this season, guys who didn't last season played early to get a strong MMR and won't play again unless they're in danger of falling out before the season is over.

Re: Aggro Warrior - yeah I actually rolled it out for a couple games yesterday to see how it would do because I had the same thought. Of course, the deck I still see most often at my rank other than just truly tragic creations is that Priest deck from ages ago that uses mostly basic cards and is focused on draw. That deck kills aggro decks dead, so my Aggro Warrior experiment ended quickly. I did get paired with 2 miracle rogues today on ladder and won both matchups with my druid. Of course neither one drew Gadgetzan and I had pretty good draw myself and was able to get enough early damage on their face that they were always playing catchup. I actually ran into a golden rogue today as well - how the hell you get 500 ranked wins and are rank 15 is beyond me. He was playing tempo rogue though.

[Sir Bruce]

Re: Aggro Warrior - yeah I actually rolled it out for a couple games yesterday to see how it would do because I had the same thought. Of course, the deck I still see most often at my rank other than just truly tragic creations is that Priest deck from ages ago that uses mostly basic cards and is focused on draw. That deck kills aggro decks dead, so my Aggro Warrior experiment ended quickly. I did get paired with 2 miracle rogues today on ladder and won both matchups with my druid. Of course neither one drew Gadgetzan and I had pretty good draw myself and was able to get enough early damage on their face that they were always playing catchup. I actually ran into a golden rogue today as well - how the hell you get 500 ranked wins and are rank 15 is beyond me. He was playing tempo rogue though.

Interesting about the Priest. I've only had one matchup against it and I smashed it (which is what I was expecting). My version isn't particularly scared of Pyromancer or Blademaster so I'm not sure how they stabilize. Auchenai+Circle was my only real worry going into the matchup. Of course these aren't basic cards anyway so maybe it's just bad draws?

The deck is interesting (hilarious?) because it goes so much for the face that it doesn't even care about card draw. You either win or lose by turn 7 with 1 or 2 cards in hand and having 5-6 cards wouldn't even save you then if you haven't already won. The deck is kind of boring though.

[Gaspar]

Interesting about the Priest. I've only had one matchup against it and I smashed it (which is what I was expecting). My version isn't particularly scared of Pyromancer or Blademaster so I'm not sure how they stabilize. Auchenai+Circle was my only real worry going into the matchup. Of course these aren't basic cards anyway so maybe it's just bad draws?

The deck is interesting (hilarious?) because it goes so much for the face that it doesn't even care about card draw. You either win or lose by turn 7 with 1 or 2 cards in hand and having 5-6 cards wouldn't even save you then if you haven't already won. The deck is kind of boring though.

I think I have a mental block with priest. I'm probably about 50/50 against it but it *feels* like I'm about 10/90 against it. I do generally speaking like when they have Auchenai out - so much of their deck requires them to heal themselves that if you don't kill it they often wait too long to suicide it.

Anyway, yeah - aggro warrior is fun as a change of pace but I don't think I could ever play a pure face deck regularly. The beating myself up over bad decisions is half the fun and there aren't a ton of decisions in those decks.

[uberfish]

Priests aren't overpowered but I find them the most annoying class to play against because all that healing stalls the game so much, and they also have a bunch of irritating cards (thoughtsteal, both shadow words, mind control). Play your own deck, stop messing with mine!

[WilliamLP]

Re: Trump - I suppose not that good is relative. Of course he's better than, say, me and is in fact a very good player compared to the population of Hearthstone players as a whole. But the top tier players are demonstrably better than him.

I say give him some time first. He hasn't played much constructed yet compared to the others. He's said his focus this season is to finish top 16 legend, and what you can't deny him is patience, consistency and tenacity.

I think he had a lot of doubters as to whether his "free" mage and shaman decks could get to legend before showing it was possible, and these decks were fairly different than anything in the regular metagame, and did shift the overall game quite noticeably. So he has that sign of a really good player, the ability to come up with ideas that change the whole metagame of the server.

Can he find the next innovative #1 deck, the way guys like Lifecoach and Kolento have done more than once? Maybe, maybe not, but time could tell.

Also, honestly, I don't think he's even one of the strongest arena players right now. I actually think Hafu gets better arena results statistically.

[Gaspar]

Re: Trump - I suppose not that good is relative. Of course he's better than, say, me and is in fact a very good player compared to the population of Hearthstone players as a whole. But the top tier players are demonstrably better than him.

I say give him some time first. He hasn't played much constructed yet compared to the others. He's said his focus this season is to finish top 16 legend, and what you can't deny him is patience, consistency and tenacity.

I think he had a lot of doubters as to whether his "free" mage and shaman decks could get to legend before showing it was possible, and these decks were fairly different than anything in the regular metagame, and did shift the overall game quite noticeably. So he has that sign of a really good player, the ability to come up with ideas that change the whole metagame of the server.

Can he find the next innovative #1 deck, the way guys like Lifecoach and Kolento have done more than once? Maybe, maybe not, but time could tell.

Also, honestly, I don't think he's even one of the strongest arena players right now. I actually think Hafu gets better arena results statistically.

To me, coming up with the new big thing in a deck really isn't the sign of a great player - all the current most popular decks have been around for a while and just flavored by the players playing them. Miracle took off when it got streamlined and stopped trying to do too much, but the original deck concept has been around for ages. I think execution is a lot more the sign of a great player - those guys who only misplay once or twice a game and see answers to problems most people don't see. I think if you watch Lifecoach or Tides or even some slightly less fashionable players like Massan or ThatsAdmirable in their streams you see the difference.

Anyway, I don't want to make this a referendum on Trump. I personally find him interminably dull and I'm sure that colors my perception and I really haven't watched in him in a while so its entirely possible he's improved greatly since the last time I watched.

Hafu's a good player and her stream is well-modded, but she's another one of those players who doesn't talk about what they're doing enough.

And uberfish pretty much said everything I think about priest more succinctly than me, unsurprisingly.

[Sir Bruce]

To me, coming up with the new big thing in a deck really isn't the sign of a great player - all the current most popular decks have been around for a while and just flavored by the players playing them. Miracle took off when it got streamlined and stopped trying to do too much, but the original deck concept has been around for ages. I think execution is a lot more the sign of a great player - those guys who only misplay once or twice a game and see answers to problems most people don't see. I think if you watch Lifecoach or Tides or even some slightly less fashionable players like Massan or ThatsAdmirable in their streams you see the difference.

Anyway, I don't want to make this a referendum on Trump. I personally find him interminably dull and I'm sure that colors my perception and I really haven't watched in him in a while so its entirely possible he's improved greatly since the last time I watched.

Hafu's a good player and her stream is well-modded, but she's another one of those players who doesn't talk about what they're doing enough.

And uberfish pretty much said everything I think about priest more succinctly than me, unsurprisingly.

I like watching Trump and typically learn something every time I watch but he's definitely a slight step below top tier. Hafu (and Ek0p but I never see him stream anymore) consistently post higher Arena win rates and obviously Trump's constructed skill is lower than Strifecro/Tides/Kolento/etc. His big problem imo is being way too conservative. Sometimes you need to say screw it and take an inefficient gamble (in terms of cards or especially tempo) because you're already in a hole. Trump does this way less than top tier players. In fact the only constructed deck I've seen Trump play and was very impressed with was Zoo which is consistent with his extreme board control play-style and the fact that Zoo doesn't typically require taking large gambles from a state of weakness. Or, if they do require a big gamble, it's obviously the only line of play anyway.

Agreed with Gaspar that if you watch someone like Lifecoach versus Trump you can see a significant difference in their calculations.

And a lot of the best players right now have both created top tier decks and can play many other decks effectively. Strifecro, Kolento, Savjz have all made multiple decks that carried to top legendary but have no problem switching to others when required.