I personally don't see a problem with OTK decks however I do understand your complaint some games can become boring but I think it's a necessary evil to prevent control decks from dominating the meta. Most otk’s can be played around in some way or another.
Mech’tun and hakkar
Hakkar and a full hand
Paladin... Next please
Can people STOP saying combo decks need to exist to keep control decks in check. How is the control archetype even remotely popular right now, unlike combo, which is everywhere. Odd warrior, BSM, Controlock are the semi played control decks and they aren't even remotely popular unlike combo decks. Look at back in the days, control decks were everywhere but you didn't see the game collapsing to it's doom. As a matter of fact, it's arguable that most people found the old days a much better experience than now.
If you didn't have OTKs I can guarantee you that warlock, priest, warrior, & mage would all take the place of the annoying (have an answer to everything) Tank-Up Control Warriors today.
The issue I have with control is that not every class has a control deck that is even remotely at the same power level as some of the above classes. Consequently, the lusted over control meta only favors some classes. Even in wild you almost cannot reach the same greed levels as warlock/warrior/priest when you play a non-Kingsbane control rogue or a non-otk control paladin. For example, in wild I have a deathrattle N'Zoth rogue. When playing against a control lock/priest/mage/warrior I ALWAYS have to wait to play N'Zoth until I have Shadowstep (unless for some reason I'm going to lose anyway) simply because the greed of the other player will almost always ensure they can mostly or completely answer my board. I have to make the greediest of plays to even have a chance against the classes that T5 blesses with the constant powerhouse control cards.
Without OTKs the game will seem to allow many people to be able to competitively play control much more, you just will only have 3-4 classes that can actual competitively survive attempting control. Imo, control limits its own archtype by making just a few classes too diverse in its toolkit.
If you play control too you should understand a lot of the complaints and frustration that control players have (which is not the fault of combo players or the game) is the inherent playstyle of the control vs. combo matchups. It feels terrible for control players because the matches take fairly long just for them to end up losing most of the time since its a bad matchup. The same applies for heavy midrange decks, they are also unfavored versus combo decks and the matchups take awhile just to end up losing. The easy solution is to just auto concede to not waste time, but that just feels awful since most players are competitive people.
Aggro, low curved midrange/tempo, combo players have the luxury of games ending fast regardless if they are unfavored or not, so they don't feel like they wasted a lot of time when it is unfavored for them. And even if matchups do end up taking a long time for combo players, they are usually favored(i.e. against control), so it's not a complete waste of time for them.
Like I said, no one is of fault here, its just the inherent playstyle of control and heavy midrange decks (they always have the hardest time). I just want to point out to y'all that this is most likely where all the frustration stems from. Coincidentally, these are the 2 archetypes that are dying in Hearthstone atm, meanwhile back then, these 2 archetypes were one of the most popular ones while combo were almost non-existent, besides freeze mage and combo druid.
It is because I play both, Control and Combo, that I have the perspective I have. The frustration comes from the loss. It is simply amplified by the duration of the loss.
This is the whole issue why there tends to be more complaints about Combo than Aggro. They are both effective against their favoured prey, the difference comes in the duration of the matchup. Truth is, players are less likely to be sustain their frustration against Aggro because the loss of time was lower. Combo losses take longer, you lose less time. You can easily lose 5 games against an Aggro deck in the time that takes you to lose 1 or 2 games against Combo, and many people will still feel more frustrated by the single Combo loss compared to the 5 Aggro losses.
Which lets be honest, is not very logical. You should feel more frustrated by losing 5 games compared to losing 1 or 2 games, you just felt like the loss was "more painful", because it took longer to realise it. (I don't mean realise as in understand it was happening, but in terms of taking place.)
This is funny because it completely excludes what I would consider the most frustrating of them all, the Control mirror. This is by far the longest loss people will experience, it is likely to create the most frustration out of anything, you lose the most time possible here. The only reason this is not even discussed, is because these happen only once in a blue moon. I only recall a single true Control Mirror I had since the start of December, they are extremely rare. I didn't lose, but I can imagine the frustration of my opponent, as he did express some afterwards to me.
Your second paragraph seems to overlook one very obvious problem.
When you play Combo, and against Control, you do are favoured, and you are aware of it, you navigate your matchup as best as possible to guarantee you don't lose the game, since the game is yours to lose. If both players play perfectly, the Combo player will basically always win, and that is how it should be.
With this is mind, it is on the Combo player to make mistakes for the Control player to take advantage of. The Control player has to always player perfectly or close to it to be able to win, which is how it should be (and is the flaw most Control players fail to realise in their own gameplay). Sure, the Control player can create situations for the Combo player to induce them in error, which is how most mistakes happen.
If you introduce a variable like Dirty Rat, or any other Instant Win card in the matchup, the frustration you create for the Combo player is the peak of frustration you can create. The Combo player is meant to win the matchup, regardless of whether you like that fact or not, he is meant to win the game. This variable effectively nullifies any work the Combo player did for the entire game to ensure their victory, which is what they have to be doing, and suddenly removes the ability for the Combo player to win.
This is beyond frustrating. You spent your entire, long game, producing the perfect game plan to ensure your deserved victory, and suddenly, the opponent plays a single card, and wins the game. You lose that game, and you lose all that time you spent producing the perfect game plan.
I'm not going to deny that it can be frustrating to lose a long game to a Combo deck as Control, but you know from the start you are meant to lose, you should lose, even if you don't like that fact. It is fair even if you don't like it, because you opted for a strategy that is weak to the opponent, perfectly fair for them to win the game.
When a single card is played and a Combo player loses to a Control player after a long game, specially when everything was player correctly, this is unfair. You chose to play a strategy that is favoured against the opponent, for the opponent to simply play a card and instantly win, regardless of whether or not they played the game correctly, and you as well, is unfair. You shouldn't lose the game, specially like that. If you make mistakes and the Control player takes advantage of that, it is perfectly fair, you didn't do your job correctly. But losing to an Instant Win card is not fair, and that is what creates the most frustration.
If you want to take this on the side of the Control player, just think of any Aggro Hunter deck. You are meant to win the game, now imagine the Hunter player decides to add Rexxar DK to the deck and draws it early enough in the game. Suddenly, you lose, because of a single card. It is unfair. It is extremely frustrating, because even if you played the game perfectly, you just lost to a single card.
I think this is what people seem to miss. They really want Instant Win cards, but they completely fail to realise just how frustrating they are. Far more frustrating than any normal consequence of the Rock - Paper - Scissors model inherent to Strategy Card Games.
It's best that your frustration comes from something fair, than from something unfair.
Very well said post. For me it is always interesting when people talk about how an instant win card against OTK decks is fair, but a more or less instant win card for aggro against control is not fair. It just reveals the inherent bias that parts of this community has, and as a result, discredits many of their arguments against OTK decks.
A deck doesn't have to have a purely OTK based finisher to be a control buster. Miracle Rogue has been taking a dump on slow decks for years. Handlock, Quest Rogue, Cube Warlock and Deathrattle Hunter, to name a few, have all been fantastic anti-control strategies that didn't rely on alternative win conditions or infinite damage combos to win.
Now personally I don't have an issue with OTK decks (they often take a lot of insight and lateral thinking to play well, and mirrors are wacky as hell), but I can say when I have queued control decks I've had far more enjoyable games against the above mentioned decks than any Mecha'thun/Hakkar/Uther OTKs. This is because as the control deck your strategy against Miracle Rogue, Cube decks etc would be to take such extreme control of the game while they set up, that you could have a fair fight with them in the mid and late game. The frustration playing against current anti control strategies is that your game plan becomes "try to rush my opponent's face because they are guaranteed to win otherwise." Basically against previous anti control strategies, you had to play the control game extremely well (and get lucky of course) in order to win. Against the modern control busters you have to completely abandon your entire strategy and desperately try to smash their face in before they reach their win condition. It is what it is but I imagine a lot of people build control decks because they want to play a control style of game, and having to assume an aggro role (and probably lose anyway) pisses them off.
In conclusion, OTKs are kind of fun and wacky but maybe should be restricted to meme tier, while serious anti control strategies should be more focused on generating problems that are difficult for the control deck to solve (multi-layered deathrattle boards, threatening lethal with saps and vanishes, etc) or generating more threats than they have answers for (like old school Handlock or Spiteful Druid) and are a little more.. I guess the key word (one that I hate to see) is "interactive." This way the win %s are a little less retarded than 80/20 (and presents an opportunity for a vastly more skilled control player to actually close that gap a little) and the games actually feel like you're playing against someone and trying to outsmart them.
In terms of game balance I don't see OTKs as a massive problem, however in terms of enjoyment I feel they create a somewhat negative impact (yes I know some people enjoy playing them, so do I, BUT the game should be enjoyable for BOTH players and these types of decks are typically not very fun to play against even if you win since they just sit there and take a beating and didn't draw their removals).
If you play control too you should understand a lot of the complaints and frustration that control players have (which is not the fault of combo players or the game) is the inherent playstyle of the control vs. combo matchups. It feels terrible for control players because the matches take fairly long just for them to end up losing most of the time since its a bad matchup. The same applies for heavy midrange decks, they are also unfavored versus combo decks and the matchups take awhile just to end up losing. The easy solution is to just auto concede to not waste time, but that just feels awful since most players are competitive people.
Aggro, low curved midrange/tempo, combo players have the luxury of games ending fast regardless if they are unfavored or not, so they don't feel like they wasted a lot of time when it is unfavored for them. And even if matchups do end up taking a long time for combo players, they are usually favored(i.e. against control), so it's not a complete waste of time for them.
Like I said, no one is of fault here, its just the inherent playstyle of control and heavy midrange decks (they always have the hardest time). I just want to point out to y'all that this is most likely where all the frustration stems from. Coincidentally, these are the 2 archetypes that are dying in Hearthstone atm, meanwhile back then, these 2 archetypes were one of the most popular ones while combo were almost non-existent, besides freeze mage and combo druid.
It is because I play both, Control and Combo, that I have the perspective I have. The frustration comes from the loss. It is simply amplified by the duration of the loss.
This is the whole issue why there tends to be more complaints about Combo than Aggro. They are both effective against their favoured prey, the difference comes in the duration of the matchup. Truth is, players are less likely to be sustain their frustration against Aggro because the loss of time was lower. Combo losses take longer, you lose less time. You can easily lose 5 games against an Aggro deck in the time that takes you to lose 1 or 2 games against Combo, and many people will still feel more frustrated by the single Combo loss compared to the 5 Aggro losses.
Which lets be honest, is not very logical. You should feel more frustrated by losing 5 games compared to losing 1 or 2 games, you just felt like the loss was "more painful", because it took longer to realise it. (I don't mean realise as in understand it was happening, but in terms of taking place.)
This is funny because it completely excludes what I would consider the most frustrating of them all, the Control mirror. This is by far the longest loss people will experience, it is likely to create the most frustration out of anything, you lose the most time possible here. The only reason this is not even discussed, is because these happen only once in a blue moon. I only recall a single true Control Mirror I had since the start of December, they are extremely rare. I didn't lose, but I can imagine the frustration of my opponent, as he did express some afterwards to me.
Your second paragraph seems to overlook one very obvious problem.
When you play Combo, and against Control, you do are favoured, and you are aware of it, you navigate your matchup as best as possible to guarantee you don't lose the game, since the game is yours to lose. If both players play perfectly, the Combo player will basically always win, and that is how it should be.
With this is mind, it is on the Combo player to make mistakes for the Control player to take advantage of. The Control player has to always player perfectly or close to it to be able to win, which is how it should be (and is the flaw most Control players fail to realise in their own gameplay). Sure, the Control player can create situations for the Combo player to induce them in error, which is how most mistakes happen.
If you introduce a variable like Dirty Rat, or any other Instant Win card in the matchup, the frustration you create for the Combo player is the peak of frustration you can create. The Combo player is meant to win the matchup, regardless of whether you like that fact or not, he is meant to win the game. This variable effectively nullifies any work the Combo player did for the entire game to ensure their victory, which is what they have to be doing, and suddenly removes the ability for the Combo player to win.
This is beyond frustrating. You spent your entire, long game, producing the perfect game plan to ensure your deserved victory, and suddenly, the opponent plays a single card, and wins the game. You lose that game, and you lose all that time you spent producing the perfect game plan.
I'm not going to deny that it can be frustrating to lose a long game to a Combo deck as Control, but you know from the start you are meant to lose, you should lose, even if you don't like that fact. It is fair even if you don't like it, because you opted for a strategy that is weak to the opponent, perfectly fair for them to win the game.
When a single card is played and a Combo player loses to a Control player after a long game, specially when everything was player correctly, this is unfair. You chose to play a strategy that is favoured against the opponent, for the opponent to simply play a card and instantly win, regardless of whether or not they played the game correctly, and you as well, is unfair. You shouldn't lose the game, specially like that. If you make mistakes and the Control player takes advantage of that, it is perfectly fair, you didn't do your job correctly. But losing to an Instant Win card is not fair, and that is what creates the most frustration.
If you want to take this on the side of the Control player, just think of any Aggro Hunter deck. You are meant to win the game, now imagine the Hunter player decides to add Rexxar DK to the deck and draws it early enough in the game. Suddenly, you lose, because of a single card. It is unfair. It is extremely frustrating, because even if you played the game perfectly, you just lost to a single card.
I think this is what people seem to miss. They really want Instant Win cards, but they completely fail to realise just how frustrating they are. Far more frustrating than any normal consequence of the Rock - Paper - Scissors model inherent to Strategy Card Games.
It's best that your frustration comes from something fair, than from something unfair.
The reason it doesn't feel as frustrating losing a control mirror is because both players are usually having a back and forth game of minion/spell battle, instead of just one being the aggressor and one stalling the game for an auto-win combo. Control players also don't experience this sense of hopelessness(like their decisions don't matter as much or at all) in the control mirror. Also, not every control deck auto-wins against agro besides the ultra boring odd warriors. Control vs agro matchups depend a lot on the opening hand and the first few cards you draw in the matchup. Some agro decks are even favored against control like the pre-nerf tempo mage vs BSM/controlock. Not many control/heavy midrange decks can reliably beat combo decks.
I personally don't see a problem with OTK decks however I do understand your complaint some games can become boring but I think it's a necessary evil to prevent control decks from dominating the meta. Most otk’s can be played around in some way or another.
Mech’tun and hakkar
Hakkar and a full hand
Paladin... Next please
Can people STOP saying combo decks need to exist to keep control decks in check. How is the control archetype even remotely popular right now, unlike combo, which is everywhere. Odd warrior, BSM, Controlock are the semi played control decks and they aren't even remotely popular unlike combo decks. Look at back in the days, control decks were everywhere but you didn't see the game collapsing to it's doom. As a matter of fact, it's arguable that most people found the old days a much better experience than now.
If you didn't have OTKs I can guarantee you that warlock, priest, warrior, & mage would all take the place of the annoying (have an answer to everything) Tank-Up Control Warriors today.
The issue I have with control is that not every class has a control deck that is even remotely at the same power level as some of the above classes. Consequently, the lusted over control meta only favors some classes. Even in wild you almost cannot reach the same greed levels as warlock/warrior/priest when you play a non-Kingsbane control rogue or a non-otk control paladin. For example, in wild I have a deathrattle N'Zoth rogue. When playing against a control lock/priest/mage/warrior I ALWAYS have to wait to play N'Zoth until I have Shadowstep (unless for some reason I'm going to lose anyway) simply because the greed of the other player will almost always ensure they can mostly or completely answer my board. I have to make the greediest of plays to even have a chance against the classes that T5 blesses with the constant powerhouse control cards.
Without OTKs the game will seem to allow many people to be able to competitively play control much more, you just will only have 3-4 classes that can actual competitively survive attempting control. Imo, control limits its own archtype by making just a few classes too diverse in its toolkit.
If you are playing any type of slow rogue decks, you should almost always be favored against control(rogue has many very disgusting end games). N'zoth +shadowstep+gangup shenanigans is very hard to deal with for many slow decks. My many homebrewed lists of Renohunter and Aca. Esp. Rogue is favored against many control and agro lists for example. You might think that these 2 classes can't beat control and agro because of the limited board clearing toolkit that they have. But both of them DO have board clearing cards(especially in wild), it's just that no one ever thought about using them, except me lol. A control style Jade shaman in wild should also have an upper hand against control and agro too.
If you play control too you should understand a lot of the complaints and frustration that control players have (which is not the fault of combo players or the game) is the inherent playstyle of the control vs. combo matchups. It feels terrible for control players because the matches take fairly long just for them to end up losing most of the time since its a bad matchup. The same applies for heavy midrange decks, they are also unfavored versus combo decks and the matchups take awhile just to end up losing. The easy solution is to just auto concede to not waste time, but that just feels awful since most players are competitive people.
Aggro, low curved midrange/tempo, combo players have the luxury of games ending fast regardless if they are unfavored or not, so they don't feel like they wasted a lot of time when it is unfavored for them. And even if matchups do end up taking a long time for combo players, they are usually favored(i.e. against control), so it's not a complete waste of time for them.
Like I said, no one is of fault here, its just the inherent playstyle of control and heavy midrange decks (they always have the hardest time). I just want to point out to y'all that this is most likely where all the frustration stems from. Coincidentally, these are the 2 archetypes that are dying in Hearthstone atm, meanwhile back then, these 2 archetypes were one of the most popular ones while combo were almost non-existent, besides freeze mage and combo druid.
It is because I play both, Control and Combo, that I have the perspective I have. The frustration comes from the loss. It is simply amplified by the duration of the loss.
This is the whole issue why there tends to be more complaints about Combo than Aggro. They are both effective against their favoured prey, the difference comes in the duration of the matchup. Truth is, players are less likely to be sustain their frustration against Aggro because the loss of time was lower. Combo losses take longer, you lose less time. You can easily lose 5 games against an Aggro deck in the time that takes you to lose 1 or 2 games against Combo, and many people will still feel more frustrated by the single Combo loss compared to the 5 Aggro losses.
Which lets be honest, is not very logical. You should feel more frustrated by losing 5 games compared to losing 1 or 2 games, you just felt like the loss was "more painful", because it took longer to realise it. (I don't mean realise as in understand it was happening, but in terms of taking place.)
This is funny because it completely excludes what I would consider the most frustrating of them all, the Control mirror. This is by far the longest loss people will experience, it is likely to create the most frustration out of anything, you lose the most time possible here. The only reason this is not even discussed, is because these happen only once in a blue moon. I only recall a single true Control Mirror I had since the start of December, they are extremely rare. I didn't lose, but I can imagine the frustration of my opponent, as he did express some afterwards to me.
Your second paragraph seems to overlook one very obvious problem.
When you play Combo, and against Control, you do are favoured, and you are aware of it, you navigate your matchup as best as possible to guarantee you don't lose the game, since the game is yours to lose. If both players play perfectly, the Combo player will basically always win, and that is how it should be.
With this is mind, it is on the Combo player to make mistakes for the Control player to take advantage of. The Control player has to always player perfectly or close to it to be able to win, which is how it should be (and is the flaw most Control players fail to realise in their own gameplay). Sure, the Control player can create situations for the Combo player to induce them in error, which is how most mistakes happen.
If you introduce a variable like Dirty Rat, or any other Instant Win card in the matchup, the frustration you create for the Combo player is the peak of frustration you can create. The Combo player is meant to win the matchup, regardless of whether you like that fact or not, he is meant to win the game. This variable effectively nullifies any work the Combo player did for the entire game to ensure their victory, which is what they have to be doing, and suddenly removes the ability for the Combo player to win.
This is beyond frustrating. You spent your entire, long game, producing the perfect game plan to ensure your deserved victory, and suddenly, the opponent plays a single card, and wins the game. You lose that game, and you lose all that time you spent producing the perfect game plan.
I'm not going to deny that it can be frustrating to lose a long game to a Combo deck as Control, but you know from the start you are meant to lose, you should lose, even if you don't like that fact. It is fair even if you don't like it, because you opted for a strategy that is weak to the opponent, perfectly fair for them to win the game.
When a single card is played and a Combo player loses to a Control player after a long game, specially when everything was player correctly, this is unfair. You chose to play a strategy that is favoured against the opponent, for the opponent to simply play a card and instantly win, regardless of whether or not they played the game correctly, and you as well, is unfair. You shouldn't lose the game, specially like that. If you make mistakes and the Control player takes advantage of that, it is perfectly fair, you didn't do your job correctly. But losing to an Instant Win card is not fair, and that is what creates the most frustration.
If you want to take this on the side of the Control player, just think of any Aggro Hunter deck. You are meant to win the game, now imagine the Hunter player decides to add Rexxar DK to the deck and draws it early enough in the game. Suddenly, you lose, because of a single card. It is unfair. It is extremely frustrating, because even if you played the game perfectly, you just lost to a single card.
I think this is what people seem to miss. They really want Instant Win cards, but they completely fail to realise just how frustrating they are. Far more frustrating than any normal consequence of the Rock - Paper - Scissors model inherent to Strategy Card Games.
It's best that your frustration comes from something fair, than from something unfair.
The reason it doesn't feel as frustrating losing a control mirror is because both players are usually having a back and forth game of minion/spell battle, instead of just one being the aggressor and one stalling the game for an auto-win combo. Control players also don't experience this sense of hopelessness(like their decisions don't matter as much or at all) in the control mirror. Also, not every control deck auto-wins against agro besides the ultra boring odd warriors. Control vs agro matchups depend a lot on the opening hand and the first few cards you draw in the matchup. Some agro decks are even favored against control like the pre-nerf tempo mage vs BSM/controlock. Not many control/heavy midrange decks can reliably beat combo decks.
Control mirrors lack dynamic decisions. I once saw a CW (Justicar) mirror between Dog and Muzzy. 30 minutes of boredom for a game that was practically unwinnable for Dog, who had Yogg in his deck (virtually unplayable in the mirror) instead of Alex. That’s 15 life right off the get go. And Dog went second, meaning he fatigues first. Just to add icing to the cake, Muzzy drew Trieheart over a dozen turns before Dog did. Very skillful. Neither player though the entire game. Just hit the button and dump your useless spells like Revenge when you hand fills up.
I personally don't see a problem with OTK decks however I do understand your complaint some games can become boring but I think it's a necessary evil to prevent control decks from dominating the meta. Most otk’s can be played around in some way or another.
Mech’tun and hakkar
Hakkar and a full hand
Paladin... Next please
Can people STOP saying combo decks need to exist to keep control decks in check. How is the control archetype even remotely popular right now, unlike combo, which is everywhere. Odd warrior, BSM, Controlock are the semi played control decks and they aren't even remotely popular unlike combo decks. Look at back in the days, control decks were everywhere but you didn't see the game collapsing to it's doom. As a matter of fact, it's arguable that most people found the old days a much better experience than now.
What Tier list are you looking at? There's a lot of viable control/control style decks on the ladder right now specifically because Hunter is so popular. On the flip side there's only really 2 consistent OTK decks. 2 more if you consider Thun priest and Thun Lock consistent.
Yesterday I saw on Vipers stream BunnyHoppor mentioning the term " OtkStone" ... wich just shows how good otk decks are on high Legend.
Probably because the more popular ones, Priest and Paladin, have very good matchups against aggro decks aswell.
This even leads to the rise of Malygos Rouge, the fastest deck that can ( on average) otk an opponent. But it’s also extremely bad against aggro....
To summarize it up, at the moment there’s actually almost no I ntention to play a Control deck. ( on high Legend) Since it loses to OTK decks , and doesn’t do so much better against aggro. That’s why Viper even concidered playing OddHunter. ( But that’s just not good enough )
Everyone knows what's up. If you watched any of the America's Winter Playoffs, it was pretty clear (and the casters made no secrets about it) that the majority of the game right now is a solitaire variant. Whether it's drawing your deck indifferent to your opponent's strategy, or hitting the hero power button ever term, the cards in the game are about as un-interactive as they have ever been. The state of the board has become the least relevant part of gameplay.
If I'm Blizzard, when the HOF and rotation arrive, I think I'm looking at every neutral draw card pretty heavily.
Combo decks and OTKs are good for games, generally speaking. But right now, they are out of balance.
Everyone knows what's up. If you watched any of the America's Winter Playoffs, it was pretty clear (and the casters made no secrets about it) that the majority of the game right now is a solitaire variant. Whether it's drawing your deck indifferent to your opponent's strategy, or hitting the hero power button ever term, the cards in the game are about as un-interactive as they have ever been. The state of the board has become the least relevant part of gameplay.
If I'm Blizzard, when the HOF and rotation arrive, I think I'm looking at every neutral draw card pretty heavily.
Combo decks and OTKs are good for games, generally speaking. But right now, they are out of balance.
And yet the "bad guy" in this Meta is Hunter who plays no Combo decks. Your perception of this meta is not shared by many.
And yet the "bad guy" in this Meta is Hunter who plays no Combo decks. Your perception of this meta is not shared by many.
Argumentum ad populum.
And besides, just because there are a few examples of non-combo/OTK decks that are strong doesn't change any of what I said. It can be both: Hunter is strong and combo/otk/hero power decks are out of balance.
Everyone knows what's up. If you watched any of the America's Winter Playoffs, it was pretty clear (and the casters made no secrets about it) that the majority of the game right now is a solitaire variant. Whether it's drawing your deck indifferent to your opponent's strategy, or hitting the hero power button ever term, the cards in the game are about as un-interactive as they have ever been. The state of the board has become the least relevant part of gameplay.
If I'm Blizzard, when the HOF and rotation arrive, I think I'm looking at every neutral draw card pretty heavily.
Combo decks and OTKs are good for games, generally speaking. But right now, they are out of balance.
And yet the "bad guy" in this Meta is Hunter who plays no Combo decks. Your perception of this meta is not shared by many.
I will just be happy if Odd Warrior doesn't exist, no matter what I queue into it I know it will be a borefest.
And yet the "bad guy" in this Meta is Hunter who plays no Combo decks. Your perception of this meta is not shared by many.
Argumentum ad populum.
And besides, just because there are a few examples of non-combo/OTK decks that are strong doesn't change any of what I said. It can be both: Hunter is strong and combo/otk/hero power decks are out of balance.
Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck? What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?
Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck? What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?
We can both just name decks, regardless of how good, and the conversation won't go anywhere. So we'll use VS #118 as a reference point:
I'll bold the ones I consider to be the out-of-balance, non-interactive decks. [Decks that combo/otk with little to no minion interaction, or that rely on a hero power to do most/all the work.]
T1 Odd Paladin Even Paladin Hybrid Hunter Midrange Hunter Cube Hunter Control Priest
T3 Holy-Wrath Paladin Exodia Paladin Odd Warrior Zoo Warlock Even Warlock Big-Spell Mage Mecha'thun Warlock
T4 Miracle Druid Miracle Rogue Control Warlock Murloc Mage
In my opinion, 10/23 (43%) of the best/most played decks in the metagame are largely non-interactive combo/otk/hero power decks. If we remove the 3 Hunter decks (Deathrattle, Hybrid, Midrange) that's 10/20 (50%). Bear in mind, I'm being generous here. I could feasibly consider including Even Paly, Odd Rogue, and Even Shaman...but they are more true Midrange decks that really only rely on the hero power to carry the early game, so I don't think they totally fit as an example of something I find troubling.
Sure, very few are T1, but does that matter? 2-player games are meant to be played with someone. Playing with someone includes interacting with them. If slightly less than half of all of good/most-played decks are decks where you don't care what your opponent is doing, and vice-versa, it is not a good place to be in.
My argument isn't about things being "OP" or "Broken," it's about the experience of playing and watching Hearthstone. Once again, these types of decks have a place in competitive card games, but they probably shouldn't account for almost half of the metagame and player experience.
In a vacuum, any one of these decks are probably completely fine. The cumulative effect, however, is troublesome. Minions matter as little right now as they ever have in hearthstone.
Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck? What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?
We can both just name decks, regardless of how good, and the conversation won't go anywhere. So we'll use VS #118 as a reference point:
I'll bold the ones I consider to be the out-of-balance, non-interactive decks. [Decks that combo/otk with little to no minion interaction, or that rely on a hero power to do most/all the work.]
T1 Odd Paladin Even Paladin Hybrid Hunter Midrange Hunter Cube Hunter Control Priest
T3 Holy-Wrath Paladin Exodia Paladin Odd Warrior Zoo Warlock Even Warlock Big-Spell Mage Mecha'thun Warlock
T4 Miracle Druid Miracle Rogue Control Warlock Murloc Mage
In my opinion, 10/23 (43%) of the best/most played decks in the metagame are largely non-interactive combo/otk/hero power decks. If we remove the 3 Hunter decks (Deathrattle, Hybrid, Midrange) that's 10/20 (50%). Bear in mind, I'm being generous here. I could feasibly consider including Even Paly, Odd Rogue, and Even Shaman...but they are more true Midrange decks that really only rely on the hero power to carry the early game, so I don't think they totally fit as an example of something I find troubling.
Sure, very few are T1, but does that matter? 2-player games are meant to be played with someone. Playing with someone includes interacting with them. If slightly less than half of all of good/most-played decks are decks where you don't care what your opponent is doing, and vice-versa, it is not a good place to be in.
My argument isn't about things being "OP" or "Broken," it's about the experience of playing and watching Hearthstone. Once again, these types of decks have a place in competitive card games, but they probably shouldn't account for almost half of the metagame and player experience.
In a vacuum, any one of these decks are probably completely fine. The cumulative effect, however, is troublesome. Minions matter as little right now as they ever have in hearthstone.
Minions don't matter to Big Spell Mage? Odd-Taunt Warrior? Exodia Paladin? IDK. My BSM runs Mountain Giants and my OTW runs Oondasta. These minions are there for a purpose. It's not just remove everything and use a hero power. As I pointed out earlier, the OTK aspect of Exodia Paladin is non-existent against an Aggro deck like Odd Rogue. It's about fighting for the board, and using the Tiger a couple of times to heal. It's a pure Control deck in that matchup.
I think you just have formed your opinion on this, and have no intention of listening to reason. Good luck with your suffering.
I'm no sure what you mean with the cumulative effect being troublesome. Decks don't become troublesome by the amount of similar strategies to it. Either they are too powerful and causing a balance issue, or they are not (which is the case, they are currently not).
I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I am not trying to conflate issues of balance or cards/decks being over-powered with the argument I'm making. It's the cumulative number of decks that don't provide much meaningful interaction is problematic from a design, galaxy-brain perspective.
It doesn't matter if Hearthstone at the moment is in a state where most strategies opt for playstyles that involve less board interactions and minions, there is nothing troublesome about that from a balance perspective.
Actually...yeah. It is an issue when the game is designed for two players to play against one another. Again, this isn't a power balance type of issue. Indeed, very few of the decks I find problematic are T1 decks.
This illustration is an over-simplification, but I think it makes my point on this issue. Hearthstone is Poker. Too many games (in my opinion) right now are two players sitting at the table playing solitaire instead. Or one person trying to play poker while the other person is just playing solitaire.
I'm not being salty or crying for nerfs. (Given the nature of most posts on this forum, I can see why that assumption would be made.)
I'm just making an observation. A thing we (and hopefully Blizzard) should keep an eye on. Again, it's why I initially cited the neutral draw cards as attractive HOF candidates. I think that some variant of this issue will continue to arise at the end of a rotation because the amount of removal and draw will be at its peak. Fewer evergreen cantrips could curb the issue.
And FWIW, over my very long CCG life, a lot of games reach this point. Hell, it's basically all that YGO is anymore. But it's recoverable, especially when sets rotate. I'd like to see HS recover from it.
I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I am not trying to conflate issues of balance or cards/decks being over-powered with the argument I'm making. It's the cumulative number of decks that don't provide much meaningful interaction is problematic from a design, galaxy-brain perspective.
Actually...yeah. It is an issue when the game is designed for two players to play against one another. Again, this isn't a power balance type of issue. Indeed, very few of the decks I find problematic are T1 decks.
This illustration is an over-simplification, but I think it makes my point on this issue. Hearthstone is Poker. Too many games (in my opinion) right now are two players sitting at the table playing solitaire instead. Or one person trying to play poker while the other person is just playing solitaire.
I'm not being salty or crying for nerfs. (Given the nature of most posts on this forum, I can see why that assumption would be made.)
I'm just making an observation. A thing we (and hopefully Blizzard) should keep an eye on. Again, it's why I initially cited the neutral draw cards as attractive HOF candidates. I think that some variant of this issue will continue to arise at the end of a rotation because the amount of removal and draw will be at its peak. Fewer evergreen cantrips could curb the issue.
And FWIW, over my very long CCG life, a lot of games reach this point. Hell, it's basically all that YGO is anymore. But it's recoverable, especially when sets rotate. I'd like to see HS recover from it.
No, it is not a problem from a design perspective. It is a problem from your personal preference, which is fine, but not a design problem.
There is nothing wrong with a Strategy Card Game providing a vary wide variety of strategies and many of those revolve around different aspects of the game outside of the basic board focused minion combat playstyle. This is actually extremely important, even if you might think otherwise. The more strategies, the better.
I wish people would stop using the Solitaire comparison. It makes it hard for me to take the person seriously. For a game to be solitaire, it would require one or both players to be using a strategy that could play entirely independent from what the opponent is doing, which is nearly impossible in Hearthstone.
As a basic example, the long complained Freeze Mage example. For Freeze Mage to operate like solitaire, the Mage deck would be Combo pieces and Card draw, nothing else. This is how it would operate if Solitaire could actually exist in Hearthstone. No Stall tools, no Removal.
It is the fact that both players, specially the opponent, can interact with the game, that requires the Mage to include cards like Freezes in the deck. The mere fact that you pose a threat on board or in the game state against the Mage are actions you are taking to influence the Mage's gameplan, which is what interaction is, you taking actions to affect the opponent. A solitaire Mage would never need to Freeze your board, would never need to rely on Secrets like Ice Block to protect itself because their game plan would play regardless of what the opponent did.
For any strategy to operate Solitaire Mode, Blizzard needs to print an Invincible Hero card. A Card which enables the player to not take damage or be destroyed while it is in effect, and that effect needs to last the entire game. This way, the player can actually play Solitaire, they don't need to worry about the opponent at all and solely focus on their Solitaire game plan. You can just include Card Draw and your Combo pieces.
I don't see them doing anything against the Neutral Card Draw. All I see them doing, at most, is sending Malygos to the Hall of Fame. It is important to have the Card Draw available to that Combo decks can be minimally possible for all classes. Malygos however, can be moved there as it is a Neutral Combo option always available for all classes all the time. If they wish to control better what Combos prevail in Standard, this card needs to go, and that would leave only Combo options coming from Expansions, which would rotate in and out according to what they wish.
Except you forgot that most nerfed decks from Blizzard were combo related decks. And the reason they nerfed them (which was always stated clearly for everyone to see prior to the nerfs) was because of the "interactivity" aspect and they always say it's "not fun for players to lose in one turn".
Also, back then, it never had as many combo/burn decks being played compared to the last few expansions. The only semi popular ones back then were freeze mage, fon+sr druids(this is more of a midrange deck, so it's possible for counterplay), miracle rogue, etc. The popular combo decks back then always get nerfed for the reasons I mentioned above. So for many years, HS was mainly comprised of agro, tempo, midrange, control, and only a bit of combo. So this is the reason there's so many complaints about HS from regular players and streamers atm.
P.S. To all the combo only players, I'm curious, what decks did you guys play back then since there weren't many combo decks (with the popular ones being nerfed) back then. I assume you guys didn't really enjoy HS as much back then because of this reason?
If you didn't have OTKs I can guarantee you that warlock, priest, warrior, & mage would all take the place of the annoying (have an answer to everything) Tank-Up Control Warriors today.
The issue I have with control is that not every class has a control deck that is even remotely at the same power level as some of the above classes. Consequently, the lusted over control meta only favors some classes. Even in wild you almost cannot reach the same greed levels as warlock/warrior/priest when you play a non-Kingsbane control rogue or a non-otk control paladin. For example, in wild I have a deathrattle N'Zoth rogue. When playing against a control lock/priest/mage/warrior I ALWAYS have to wait to play N'Zoth until I have Shadowstep (unless for some reason I'm going to lose anyway) simply because the greed of the other player will almost always ensure they can mostly or completely answer my board. I have to make the greediest of plays to even have a chance against the classes that T5 blesses with the constant powerhouse control cards.
Without OTKs the game will seem to allow many people to be able to competitively play control much more, you just will only have 3-4 classes that can actual competitively survive attempting control. Imo, control limits its own archtype by making just a few classes too diverse in its toolkit.
Very well said post. For me it is always interesting when people talk about how an instant win card against OTK decks is fair, but a more or less instant win card for aggro against control is not fair. It just reveals the inherent bias that parts of this community has, and as a result, discredits many of their arguments against OTK decks.
A deck doesn't have to have a purely OTK based finisher to be a control buster. Miracle Rogue has been taking a dump on slow decks for years. Handlock, Quest Rogue, Cube Warlock and Deathrattle Hunter, to name a few, have all been fantastic anti-control strategies that didn't rely on alternative win conditions or infinite damage combos to win.
Now personally I don't have an issue with OTK decks (they often take a lot of insight and lateral thinking to play well, and mirrors are wacky as hell), but I can say when I have queued control decks I've had far more enjoyable games against the above mentioned decks than any Mecha'thun/Hakkar/Uther OTKs. This is because as the control deck your strategy against Miracle Rogue, Cube decks etc would be to take such extreme control of the game while they set up, that you could have a fair fight with them in the mid and late game. The frustration playing against current anti control strategies is that your game plan becomes "try to rush my opponent's face because they are guaranteed to win otherwise." Basically against previous anti control strategies, you had to play the control game extremely well (and get lucky of course) in order to win. Against the modern control busters you have to completely abandon your entire strategy and desperately try to smash their face in before they reach their win condition. It is what it is but I imagine a lot of people build control decks because they want to play a control style of game, and having to assume an aggro role (and probably lose anyway) pisses them off.
In conclusion, OTKs are kind of fun and wacky but maybe should be restricted to meme tier, while serious anti control strategies should be more focused on generating problems that are difficult for the control deck to solve (multi-layered deathrattle boards, threatening lethal with saps and vanishes, etc) or generating more threats than they have answers for (like old school Handlock or Spiteful Druid) and are a little more.. I guess the key word (one that I hate to see) is "interactive." This way the win %s are a little less retarded than 80/20 (and presents an opportunity for a vastly more skilled control player to actually close that gap a little) and the games actually feel like you're playing against someone and trying to outsmart them.
In terms of game balance I don't see OTKs as a massive problem, however in terms of enjoyment I feel they create a somewhat negative impact (yes I know some people enjoy playing them, so do I, BUT the game should be enjoyable for BOTH players and these types of decks are typically not very fun to play against even if you win since they just sit there and take a beating and didn't draw their removals).
The reason it doesn't feel as frustrating losing a control mirror is because both players are usually having a back and forth game of minion/spell battle, instead of just one being the aggressor and one stalling the game for an auto-win combo. Control players also don't experience this sense of hopelessness(like their decisions don't matter as much or at all) in the control mirror. Also, not every control deck auto-wins against agro besides the ultra boring odd warriors. Control vs agro matchups depend a lot on the opening hand and the first few cards you draw in the matchup. Some agro decks are even favored against control like the pre-nerf tempo mage vs BSM/controlock. Not many control/heavy midrange decks can reliably beat combo decks.
If you are playing any type of slow rogue decks, you should almost always be favored against control(rogue has many very disgusting end games). N'zoth +shadowstep+gangup shenanigans is very hard to deal with for many slow decks. My many homebrewed lists of Renohunter and Aca. Esp. Rogue is favored against many control and agro lists for example. You might think that these 2 classes can't beat control and agro because of the limited board clearing toolkit that they have. But both of them DO have board clearing cards(especially in wild), it's just that no one ever thought about using them, except me lol. A control style Jade shaman in wild should also have an upper hand against control and agro too.
Control mirrors lack dynamic decisions. I once saw a CW (Justicar) mirror between Dog and Muzzy. 30 minutes of boredom for a game that was practically unwinnable for Dog, who had Yogg in his deck (virtually unplayable in the mirror) instead of Alex. That’s 15 life right off the get go. And Dog went second, meaning he fatigues first. Just to add icing to the cake, Muzzy drew Trieheart over a dozen turns before Dog did. Very skillful. Neither player though the entire game. Just hit the button and dump your useless spells like Revenge when you hand fills up.
What Tier list are you looking at? There's a lot of viable control/control style decks on the ladder right now specifically because Hunter is so popular. On the flip side there's only really 2 consistent OTK decks. 2 more if you consider Thun priest and Thun Lock consistent.
Yesterday I saw on Vipers stream BunnyHoppor mentioning the term " OtkStone" ... wich just shows how good otk decks are on high Legend.
Probably because the more popular ones, Priest and Paladin, have very good matchups against aggro decks aswell.
This even leads to the rise of Malygos Rouge, the fastest deck that can ( on average) otk an opponent. But it’s also extremely bad against aggro....
To summarize it up, at the moment there’s actually almost no I ntention to play a Control deck. ( on high Legend) Since it loses to OTK decks , and doesn’t do so much better against aggro. That’s why Viper even concidered playing OddHunter. ( But that’s just not good enough )
Everyone knows what's up. If you watched any of the America's Winter Playoffs, it was pretty clear (and the casters made no secrets about it) that the majority of the game right now is a solitaire variant. Whether it's drawing your deck indifferent to your opponent's strategy, or hitting the hero power button ever term, the cards in the game are about as un-interactive as they have ever been. The state of the board has become the least relevant part of gameplay.
If I'm Blizzard, when the HOF and rotation arrive, I think I'm looking at every neutral draw card pretty heavily.
Combo decks and OTKs are good for games, generally speaking. But right now, they are out of balance.
And yet the "bad guy" in this Meta is Hunter who plays no Combo decks. Your perception of this meta is not shared by many.
Argumentum ad populum.
And besides, just because there are a few examples of non-combo/OTK decks that are strong doesn't change any of what I said. It can be both: Hunter is strong and combo/otk/hero power decks are out of balance.
I will just be happy if Odd Warrior doesn't exist, no matter what I queue into it I know it will be a borefest.
This is actually a good example of my point. Warrior, in large part, doesn't play the game with your opponent. It just hero powers.
Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck? What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?
We can both just name decks, regardless of how good, and the conversation won't go anywhere. So we'll use VS #118 as a reference point:
I'll bold the ones I consider to be the out-of-balance, non-interactive decks. [Decks that combo/otk with little to no minion interaction, or that rely on a hero power to do most/all the work.]
T1
Odd Paladin
Even Paladin
Hybrid Hunter
Midrange Hunter
Cube Hunter
Control Priest
T2
Odd Rogue
Spell Hunter
Resurrect Priest
Even Shaman
Cube Warlock
Odd-Taunt Warrior
T3
Holy-Wrath Paladin
Exodia Paladin
Odd Warrior
Zoo Warlock
Even Warlock
Big-Spell Mage
Mecha'thun Warlock
T4
Miracle Druid
Miracle Rogue
Control Warlock
Murloc Mage
In my opinion, 10/23 (43%) of the best/most played decks in the metagame are largely non-interactive combo/otk/hero power decks. If we remove the 3 Hunter decks (Deathrattle, Hybrid, Midrange) that's 10/20 (50%). Bear in mind, I'm being generous here. I could feasibly consider including Even Paly, Odd Rogue, and Even Shaman...but they are more true Midrange decks that really only rely on the hero power to carry the early game, so I don't think they totally fit as an example of something I find troubling.
Sure, very few are T1, but does that matter? 2-player games are meant to be played with someone. Playing with someone includes interacting with them. If slightly less than half of all of good/most-played decks are decks where you don't care what your opponent is doing, and vice-versa, it is not a good place to be in.
My argument isn't about things being "OP" or "Broken," it's about the experience of playing and watching Hearthstone. Once again, these types of decks have a place in competitive card games, but they probably shouldn't account for almost half of the metagame and player experience.
In a vacuum, any one of these decks are probably completely fine. The cumulative effect, however, is troublesome. Minions matter as little right now as they ever have in hearthstone.
Minions don't matter to Big Spell Mage? Odd-Taunt Warrior? Exodia Paladin? IDK. My BSM runs Mountain Giants and my OTW runs Oondasta. These minions are there for a purpose. It's not just remove everything and use a hero power. As I pointed out earlier, the OTK aspect of Exodia Paladin is non-existent against an Aggro deck like Odd Rogue. It's about fighting for the board, and using the Tiger a couple of times to heal. It's a pure Control deck in that matchup.
I think you just have formed your opinion on this, and have no intention of listening to reason. Good luck with your suffering.
What matters more in your Big-Spell Mage? Your mountain giant? Or Jaina's hero power and your suite of removal spells?
We can agree to disagree.
But sitting there watching ur opponent draw his deck out in first couple turns is fun right. What are u on.
I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I am not trying to conflate issues of balance or cards/decks being over-powered with the argument I'm making. It's the cumulative number of decks that don't provide much meaningful interaction is problematic from a design, galaxy-brain perspective.
Actually...yeah. It is an issue when the game is designed for two players to play against one another. Again, this isn't a power balance type of issue. Indeed, very few of the decks I find problematic are T1 decks.
This illustration is an over-simplification, but I think it makes my point on this issue. Hearthstone is Poker. Too many games (in my opinion) right now are two players sitting at the table playing solitaire instead. Or one person trying to play poker while the other person is just playing solitaire.
I'm not being salty or crying for nerfs. (Given the nature of most posts on this forum, I can see why that assumption would be made.)
I'm just making an observation. A thing we (and hopefully Blizzard) should keep an eye on. Again, it's why I initially cited the neutral draw cards as attractive HOF candidates. I think that some variant of this issue will continue to arise at the end of a rotation because the amount of removal and draw will be at its peak. Fewer evergreen cantrips could curb the issue.
And FWIW, over my very long CCG life, a lot of games reach this point. Hell, it's basically all that YGO is anymore. But it's recoverable, especially when sets rotate. I'd like to see HS recover from it.
Except you forgot that most nerfed decks from Blizzard were combo related decks. And the reason they nerfed them (which was always stated clearly for everyone to see prior to the nerfs) was because of the "interactivity" aspect and they always say it's "not fun for players to lose in one turn".
Also, back then, it never had as many combo/burn decks being played compared to the last few expansions. The only semi popular ones back then were freeze mage, fon+sr druids(this is more of a midrange deck, so it's possible for counterplay), miracle rogue, etc. The popular combo decks back then always get nerfed for the reasons I mentioned above. So for many years, HS was mainly comprised of agro, tempo, midrange, control, and only a bit of combo. So this is the reason there's so many complaints about HS from regular players and streamers atm.
P.S. To all the combo only players, I'm curious, what decks did you guys play back then since there weren't many combo decks (with the popular ones being nerfed) back then. I assume you guys didn't really enjoy HS as much back then because of this reason?