Talk:Meta

Should [1] create a link to class instead of to the non-existent choice? -- Karol007 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha yes, I've fixed it ;) -- Taohinton (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

History of meta

I'd like a section here on the history of meta, or maybe an article of its own. Does anyone else agree on this? Would someone be willing to offer their help on this project? Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That actually sounds really nice, I can probably help out somewhat. Aegonostic (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How much detail should history give?

Is it possible to document the meta in every balance patch instead of expansion? And what about wild metas?

Cactusisawesome (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Not in the amount of detail the current meta is described, but yes, I think that'd be a good idea. I'm thinking of maybe 5-10 most popular decks from each meta to give the reader a quick overview, and maybe some short write-out of characteristics and details of each meta. Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

For every balance patch, that could be tricky, but there usually is just one or two major balance patch for every expansion/adventure that changes the meta, so it can be doable. Short write-ups for every expansion/adventure can also work. For the wild meta, I guess that would be tricky as well, but the wild meta was literally the standard meta before wild was created, so there's fewer things to write about, and also the wild meta shouldn't really change that much since it contains so many cards (notwithstanding card changes). A short write-up for the wild meta can be included with every recent expansion (such as saying things about "Barnes Priest", "Odd Paladin", "Secret Aggro Mage", "Renolock", "Mill Rogue", "Quest Rogue", and such).

Writing about an all-inclusive history of Hearthstone's meta would be hard without the help of some external sources though to actually remember what the meta had been like. Past Hearthstone tournament videos from the Hearthstone Championship Tour might be a good source of information. Aegonostic (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should only list decks under the expansion they originally came to existence/ underwent major change in, e.g., only list odd warrior in the witchwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactusisawesome (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 March 2019‎

But that wouldn't be indicative of the actual meta during that time period. I would list decks under expansions even if those decks appeared in other expansion time periods. For example, if Odd Warrior becomes the meta for the next expansion, we should list that as such. Aegonostic (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point, but we should still find a way to differentiate the decks which first appeared in the expansion vs the decks which remain popular from a previous expansion, maybe we split them up? for example, Witchwood would look like this:

new decks: 

odd paladin odd rogue odd warrior

popular decks from a previous expansion:

spell hunter cubelock

That seems like a good idea to me. Aegonostic (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)