To preface, I've been playing this game for close to 2 years. I'm not bad at it. I usually finish a season around level 12, and managed to push a deck to 8 once (go me). I'm pretty good at putting together decks that synergize, and decent at adapting them after some playtesting (such as needing more card draw, etc) and I know most of the archetypes within a given season. But I've started wondering more about the theory behind HS to try to improve. So. Small series of questions.
1a-is there a rock paper scissors element to HS? I.e. should control generally beat aggro which should generally beat midrange which should generally beat control?
1b-is it kinda like that, but RNG really f*cks the balance of it when a control deck doesn't get a good draw and the aggro deck does?
2a-is it kinda like that, but it's more like rock paper scissors lizard spock lasers chuck norris?
2b-if it is like that, would you categorize say quest rogue as aggro, jade shaman as midrange, jade druid as control, etc?
I have my own answers/theories to those, but I'd like to hear the community's. Much <3
When the game is in a good state there is definitely a rock paper scissors situation, you can never make a deck that beats both hyper aggro and hyper control. For this state to exist there obviously has to be some relative balance between decks, one deck can't be on a higher power level than the rest.
It's not quite as simple as a three-way archetype situation though. I identify 3 elements that combine into different archetypes: Proactive or Reactive, Value or Face, Fast or Slow. Every deck captures at least one attribute from each pair, although typically it's a combination of both. The first pair decides if you play proactively (take the board) or reactively (answer the board). The second pair decides if your win condition is value (Zoolock/Taunt Warrior) or face damage (Pirate Warrior/Freeze Mage). The third pair decides your mana curve or how early your strategy is put into action. Freeze Mage and Quest Mage for example both have the same strategy, but Quest Mage trades deck speed for significantly more (potentially infinite) face damage.
You can't really point to a rock-paper-scissors relationship between these since it depends a lot on what the exact cards are. Forbidden Healing and Shield Block are both very similar pure control cards, but only the latter will protect you against a deck attempting to hit you with 30 damage in one turn.
The lower curve and proactive your deck is, the more reliable it is, so RNG is definitely favoring aggro. However, that is not really due to aggro decks being damage-centric, but rather because aggro decks are typically built for consistency with a low mana curve because they can't afford to not curve out perfectly. It's worth noting that in an aggro vs control matchup, the control deck wins almost every time if it gets a perfect draw (Reno Jackson on turn 6), but that advantage is offset by the draw RNG.
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
Renolock did not beat aggro..
Reno decks typically had a 50/50 chance against aggro. That '50/50' was literally based on Reno itself. Reno had a 50% chance of being picked up by turn 6. If he did, the deck won against aggro. If not, they lost.
That's assuming properly running the deck. Note that a lot of folks don't run their decks as well as they think they do. :P
As far as the OP, the RPS mentalty came from MTG which this game is based on. In that Control actually was meant to lose against aggro while Combo would beat aggro and lose to Control. Midrange was never part of the original trilogy.
This is why Control really does have a hard time getting just the right cards for aggro while aggro doesn't have the issue: because Aggro was, originally, meant to stop greedy control decks.
In contrast, Combo decks, TRUE ones like Patron and old syled Miracle Rogue, tore down any deck that wasn't heavy control. Patron, once mastered, had only two decks it feared: Control warrior and Handlock. Miracle Rogue, meanwhile, fell apart to control warrior.
So yes, 1a: there is a RPS nature to HS but many people get the combination wrong. Also we've been seeing a lot of versions of decks with different archetypes. For example, Murloc Paladin have aggro and control versions that look almost the same. It really muddles things up.
1b: Again control originally was never meant to stop aggro, which is why they have such a hard time.
2a: in MTG, the original trilogy eventually expanded to well, rock/paper/scissors/shotgun/papertiger/spock/icecream/WTF/LOL.
In HS it's a little more defined. Control suffers against Aggro and Midrange. Aggro suffers against Tempo and Combo. Tempo loses to Midrange and Control. Combo loses to Control and very slightly Tempo. Midrange suffers against Combo and Aggro.
What's messy is that decks have gotten harder to define.
2b: I always believe that terms are useless unless the community as a group defines it. It doesn't matter what i WANt the terms to mean since the whole point of using terms is to communicate with others.
Given that I've been trying to note when the community uses one term or another. Well, the part of the community that doesn't deem anything outside of fatigue as Aggro. In that it seems we deem the deck's playstyle and goals as the determining factor of their archetype. As such, I think it goes:
Aggro: The deck focuses on completing their win condition as fast as possible. That goal doesn't have to directly be "HIT DA FACE". Zoo focuses on creating an unbeatable board asap. But the idea is that it abuses early tempo to quickly get into a winning situation before you could respond properly. It can trade but knows that the longer the game goes the wose things get.
Face/Burn: An aspect of Aggro who's only goal IS "HIT dA FACE". It only trades when it can prove that it'll do face damage faster for doing so.
Tempo: The deck relies on establishing and maintaining Tempo to create a constant threat against you. It can and will kill you fast, like aggro, but if it doesn't its fine as it has longevity as well. it's as dangerous at turn 1 as it is at turn 10. What it doesn't have is a way to recover the board if Tempo is truly lost and the opponent gains initiative/aggression.
Slow Tempo: Ok my term but you tend to see people say "slower tempo deck". It's the same as Tempo but the 'threat' is less about killing your face and more of being impossible to overcome their tempo. Think Dragon Priest with a full set of cards and 4 high health dragons. It won't kill you any time soon but you aren't going to stop them until they slowly strangle you. The point is just to show that 'Tempo' isn't always about threatening to kill you as the goal.
Midrange: The deck abandons the early game as far as threatening you, opting to delay/slow th game or hold Tempo. Instead, the deck focuses on a burst kill that can happen at around turn 5 or so. The deck has card draw tyically but isn' HUNTING for cards so much, but typically will aim for big threats and kill you fast once it starts aiming for you.
Combo: The 'fun and interactive' deck archeype. Cares only about three things: Hunting for cards, staying alive to hunt, kill you with the cards they hunted for. Just picture 2014 Miracle Rogue if you are confused between it and Midrange.
Control: Focuses on holding and winning the value war against your opponent until late game when it can win. Interestingly typical Control looks a lot like Midrange but just slower.
Fatigue: A subset of Control. The deck is Control sent to its extreme. The deck has no win condition instead opting to just eliminate all of your resources. It wins by either being the only one left with a threat (even if that threat is a 2/3) or having fatigue literally kill you off after both sides have nothing else.
Given thta, the current incarnation of Quest Rogue is aggro given that it's not really hunting for cards but instead relying on quickly finishing it's goal then finishing you off before you could recover. However, I've noticed it start to slow down more making me think that people are trying to morph it into a true combo deck with more longevity.
Jade Shaman has multiple versions at the moment ranging from a Tempo style to a more Midrange style. The key is how much it relies on Bloodlust to win with Midrange being reliant.
Jade Druid is Control from a deck that doesn't have good control cards. Or a Tempo deck that never really ends. It's a little odd. So was Handlock for that matter.
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
Renolock did not beat aggro..
Generally yes, yes it did
For example: It has a negative winrate vs Pirate Warrior. Its a myth that it is good vs aggro. Proof: Lifecoach's statistics after 2 month bootcamp 100h/week. Around 43% WR vs Pirate Warrior back in MSoG meta.
Hmm, thought it was closer to 50%. Though I guess that makes sense. It CAN'T win without Reno so that's half the games gone. Then if it occasionally loses even with Reno (if you reno while they hold the board it's still a bad situation) then that's the extra 7% loss.
But that fits into the old MTG mentality of Control < Aggro.
The question, why is it that people have this mentality that Control > Aggro? I had it too for a long time. But why?
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
Renolock did not beat aggro..
Reno decks typically had a 50/50 chance against aggro. That '50/50' was literally based on Reno itself. Reno had a 50% chance of being picked up by turn 6. If he did, the deck won against aggro. If not, they lost.
That's assuming properly running the deck. Note that a lot of folks don't run their decks as well as they think they do. :P
As far as the OP, the RPS mentalty came from MTG which this game is based on. In that Control actually was meant to lose against aggro while Combo would beat aggro and lose to Control. Midrange was never part of the original trilogy.
This is why Control really does have a hard time getting just the right cards for aggro while aggro doesn't have the issue: because Aggro was, originally, meant to stop greedy control decks.
In contrast, Combo decks, TRUE ones like Patron and old syled Miracle Rogue, tore down any deck that wasn't heavy control. Patron, once mastered, had only two decks it feared: Control warrior and Handlock. Miracle Rogue, meanwhile, fell apart to control warrior.
So yes, 1a: there is a RPS nature to HS but many people get the combination wrong. Also we've been seeing a lot of versions of decks with different archetypes. For example, Murloc Paladin have aggro and control versions that look almost the same. It really muddles things up.
1b: Again control originally was never meant to stop aggro, which is why they have such a hard time.
2a: in MTG, the original trilogy eventually expanded to well, rock/paper/scissors/shotgun/papertiger/spock/icecream/WTF/LOL.
In HS it's a little more defined. Control suffers against Aggro and Midrange. Aggro suffers against Tempo and Combo. Tempo loses to Midrange and Control. Combo loses to Control and very slightly Tempo. Midrange suffers against Combo and Aggro.
What's messy is that decks have gotten harder to define.
2b: I always believe that terms are useless unless the community as a group defines it. It doesn't matter what i WANt the terms to mean since the whole point of using terms is to communicate with others.
Given that I've been trying to note when the community uses one term or another. Well, the part of the community that doesn't deem anything outside of fatigue as Aggro. In that it seems we deem the deck's playstyle and goals as the determining factor of their archetype. As such, I think it goes:
Aggro: The deck focuses on completing their win condition as fast as possible. That goal doesn't have to directly be "HIT DA FACE". Zoo focuses on creating an unbeatable board asap. But the idea is that it abuses early tempo to quickly get into a winning situation before you could respond properly. It can trade but knows that the longer the game goes the wose things get.
Face/Burn: An aspect of Aggro who's only goal IS "HIT dA FACE". It only trades when it can prove that it'll do face damage faster for doing so.
Tempo: The deck relies on establishing and maintaining Tempo to create a constant threat against you. It can and will kill you fast, like aggro, but if it doesn't its fine as it has longevity as well. it's as dangerous at turn 1 as it is at turn 10. What it doesn't have is a way to recover the board if Tempo is truly lost and the opponent gains initiative/aggression.
Slow Tempo: Ok my term but you tend to see people say "slower tempo deck". It's the same as Tempo but the 'threat' is less about killing your face and more of being impossible to overcome their tempo. Think Dragon Priest with a full set of cards and 4 high health dragons. It won't kill you any time soon but you aren't going to stop them until they slowly strangle you. The point is just to show that 'Tempo' isn't always about threatening to kill you as the goal.
Midrange: The deck abandons the early game as far as threatening you, opting to delay/slow th game or hold Tempo. Instead, the deck focuses on a burst kill that can happen at around turn 5 or so. The deck has card draw tyically but isn' HUNTING for cards so much, but typically will aim for big threats and kill you fast once it starts aiming for you.
Combo: The 'fun and interactive' deck archeype. Cares only about three things: Hunting for cards, staying alive to hunt, kill you with the cards they hunted for. Just picture 2014 Miracle Rogue if you are confused between it and Midrange.
Control: Focuses on holding and winning the value war against your opponent until late game when it can win. Interestingly typical Control looks a lot like Midrange but just slower.
Fatigue: A subset of Control. The deck is Control sent to its extreme. The deck has no win condition instead opting to just eliminate all of your resources. It wins by either being the only one left with a threat (even if that threat is a 2/3) or having fatigue literally kill you off after both sides have nothing else.
Given thta, the current incarnation of Quest Rogue is aggro given that it's not really hunting for cards but instead relying on quickly finishing it's goal then finishing you off before you could recover. However, I've noticed it start to slow down more making me think that people are trying to morph it into a true combo deck with more longevity.
Jade Shaman has multiple versions at the moment ranging from a Tempo style to a more Midrange style. The key is how much it relies on Bloodlust to win with Midrange being reliant.
Jade Druid is Control from a deck that doesn't have good control cards. Or a Tempo deck that never really ends. It's a little odd. So was Handlock for that matter.
It's not quite as simple as a three-way archetype situation though. I identify 3 elements that combine into different archetypes: Proactive or Reactive, Value or Face, Fast or Slow. Every deck captures at least one attribute from each pair, although typically it's a combination of both. The first pair decides if you play proactively (take the board) or reactively (answer the board). The second pair decides if your win condition is value (Zoolock/Taunt Warrior) or face damage (Pirate Warrior/Freeze Mage). The third pair decides your mana curve or how early your strategy is put into action. Freeze Mage and Quest Mage for example both have the same strategy, but Quest Mage trades deck speed for significantly more (potentially infinite) face damage.
Thank you. Useful theory (to me at least) here. I feel like I was mostly always constructing decks to those tenets, especially proactive vs reactive, value or face.
Clarify if you can-I'm trying to think if there's a Fast, Reactive, Value deck out there I know of and I'm coming up blank. Is there one? MAYBE Zoolock?? Or is it more, the faster your deck, the more proactive it tends to be, and the slower it is the more reactive it is? I feel like I can insert value/face into the other two better than I can fit proactive with slow or reactive with fast.
As far as the OP, the RPS mentalty came from MTG which this game is based on. In that Control actually was meant to lose against aggro while Combo would beat aggro and lose to Control. Midrange was never part of the original trilogy.
This is why Control really does have a hard time getting just the right cards for aggro while aggro doesn't have the issue: because Aggro was, originally, meant to stop greedy control decks.
In contrast, Combo decks, TRUE ones like Patron and old syled Miracle Rogue, tore down any deck that wasn't heavy control. Patron, once mastered, had only two decks it feared: Control warrior and Handlock. Miracle Rogue, meanwhile, fell apart to control warrior.
So yes, 1a: there is a RPS nature to HS but many people get the combination wrong. Also we've been seeing a lot of versions of decks with different archetypes. For example, Murloc Paladin have aggro and control versions that look almost the same. It really muddles things up.
1b: Again control originally was never meant to stop aggro, which is why they have such a hard time.
2a: in MTG, the original trilogy eventually expanded to well, rock/paper/scissors/shotgun/papertiger/spock/icecream/WTF/LOL.
In HS it's a little more defined. Control suffers against Aggro and Midrange. Aggro suffers against Tempo and Combo. Tempo loses to Midrange and Control. Combo loses to Control and very slightly Tempo. Midrange suffers against Combo and Aggro.
What's messy is that decks have gotten harder to define.
Thank you! Your definitions helped clarify some things I already knew at/below surface level of consciousness, and added some knowledge to boot. Just a really good kinda snapshot of archetypes and their interactions that I was looking for.
What I'd be interested in is, would a few more people care to weigh in with what they think of your analysis there of control suffers against aggro and midrange, etc etc. Does the community generally agree? Most of that makes sense to me. And I do want to know what people think about all those, but I'll ask two specific follow up about control and aggro here.
3a-What is it about Tempo and Combo that give them an advantage over Aggro? I would think Aggro would outpace Tempo and screw up Tempo's board control, and I would think that Aggro could potentially (because I feel like there's a wide variety of what could be a Combo) defeat Combo before Combo can set up their combo.
3b-What is it about Control, which kinda by definition focuses more on removal and winning a value war, that sets it up to be vulnerable against Aggro? Is it mainly just that there's not enough early board clearing stuff?
I admit a tiny bit of bias in my questions, in that I favor building Control decks and I DO tend to suffer against Aggro decks, but it's more that this is the part I have a little more trouble getting from a theory standpoint. The rest, like Tempo suffering against Midrange and Control, make sense to the point I don't feel like I need a lot more elaborating.
But if someone would like to elaborate on why those are the case, it wouldn't hurt, and would help to foster my and others understanding of HS. Much <3
The combination fast/reactive/value just doesn't work out in practice unless the meta is very specific, since by being fast (lower cost cards) you implicitly reduce the amount of value you can have and the power of your reactive cards against big minions, and you are playing a reactive game plan so you can't rely on your high tempo to close out the game. That means any slower deck with a value gameplan will beat you. One example of such a deck I'd say is Patron Warrior (without the charge stuff), which is almost 100% designed to beat aggro and nothing else.
A fully slow and proactive deck obviously doesn't exist since proactive cards are bad when behind, so there is definitely a correlation between fast and proactive, slow and reactive. There are exceptions to that though :) For example if you'd build a Quest Rogue without the charging minions you would get a mostly slow and proactive deck, which wouldn't be good at all, but still...
To preface, I've been playing this game for close to 2 years. I'm not bad at it. I usually finish a season around level 12, and managed to push a deck to 8 once (go me). I'm pretty good at putting together decks that synergize, and decent at adapting them after some playtesting (such as needing more card draw, etc) and I know most of the archetypes within a given season. But I've started wondering more about the theory behind HS to try to improve. So. Small series of questions.
1a-is there a rock paper scissors element to HS? I.e. should control generally beat aggro which should generally beat midrange which should generally beat control?
1b-is it kinda like that, but RNG really f*cks the balance of it when a control deck doesn't get a good draw and the aggro deck does?
2a-is it kinda like that, but it's more like rock paper scissors lizard spock lasers chuck norris?
2b-if it is like that, would you categorize say quest rogue as aggro, jade shaman as midrange, jade druid as control, etc?
I have my own answers/theories to those, but I'd like to hear the community's. Much <3
Slay evil immediately...
When the game is in a good state there is definitely a rock paper scissors situation, you can never make a deck that beats both hyper aggro and hyper control. For this state to exist there obviously has to be some relative balance between decks, one deck can't be on a higher power level than the rest.
It's not quite as simple as a three-way archetype situation though. I identify 3 elements that combine into different archetypes: Proactive or Reactive, Value or Face, Fast or Slow. Every deck captures at least one attribute from each pair, although typically it's a combination of both. The first pair decides if you play proactively (take the board) or reactively (answer the board). The second pair decides if your win condition is value (Zoolock/Taunt Warrior) or face damage (Pirate Warrior/Freeze Mage). The third pair decides your mana curve or how early your strategy is put into action. Freeze Mage and Quest Mage for example both have the same strategy, but Quest Mage trades deck speed for significantly more (potentially infinite) face damage.
You can't really point to a rock-paper-scissors relationship between these since it depends a lot on what the exact cards are. Forbidden Healing and Shield Block are both very similar pure control cards, but only the latter will protect you against a deck attempting to hit you with 30 damage in one turn.
The lower curve and proactive your deck is, the more reliable it is, so RNG is definitely favoring aggro. However, that is not really due to aggro decks being damage-centric, but rather because aggro decks are typically built for consistency with a low mana curve because they can't afford to not curve out perfectly. It's worth noting that in an aggro vs control matchup, the control deck wins almost every time if it gets a perfect draw (Reno Jackson on turn 6), but that advantage is offset by the draw RNG.
It's less visible now, but there's definetely a rock paper scissors system. In MSOG it was really visible: pirate warrior( aggro)> jade druid/shaman( midrange) > Reno priest/mage/warlock( control) > Pirate warrior( aggro).
S39 Legend - Quest Rogue, S38 Legend - Murloc Paladin, S37 Legend - Miracle Rogue, S36 Top 200 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S35 - Finished Rank 51 Legend - Aggro Shaman, S34 Legend - Aggro Shaman
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
Ofcourse there's a certain degree of ''rock, paper, scissors'' within Hearthstone. I don't think anyone can deny that.
Queue into someone thinking ''Aww this is a bad matchup''? That's rock, paper, scissros for ya.
Fuck cubelock
Slay evil immediately...
Slay evil immediately...
The combination fast/reactive/value just doesn't work out in practice unless the meta is very specific, since by being fast (lower cost cards) you implicitly reduce the amount of value you can have and the power of your reactive cards against big minions, and you are playing a reactive game plan so you can't rely on your high tempo to close out the game. That means any slower deck with a value gameplan will beat you. One example of such a deck I'd say is Patron Warrior (without the charge stuff), which is almost 100% designed to beat aggro and nothing else.
A fully slow and proactive deck obviously doesn't exist since proactive cards are bad when behind, so there is definitely a correlation between fast and proactive, slow and reactive. There are exceptions to that though :) For example if you'd build a Quest Rogue without the charging minions you would get a mostly slow and proactive deck, which wouldn't be good at all, but still...