We now know that, later this month, Blizzard will be releasing some balance changes. There have also been countless threads here about the need to nerf this deck/ card. But, what never seems to be addressed is what we mean by a "balanced" meta? In most cases, the poster calling for a nerf completely fails to address what will happen AFTER that nerf takes effect. What will that change do to other decks? What deck will then be the new top dog? (For example, many are calling for nerfs to Miracle Rogue and Quest DH. Will that, as seems likely, make Spitter Hunter the dominant deck?)
So, let me ask you all, is a balanced meta:
a) one in which every class has a viable deck to ladder? If so, how high? Legend? Diamond? Platinum?; OR
b) one in which every type of deck (aggro, midrange, control, combo) has a viable deck?; OR
c) one in which both minion-based and spell-based decks are viable?; OR
d) some other condition I can't think of.
I, speaking for myself, lean towards b), but could be convinced otherwise. Would love to hear some real thoughts and analysis, vice bile. (May be asking too much!)
This turd of a game was never built to be balanced. It has a laser-focused design on getting dipshits to spend money on it; everything else is superfluous.
Public Mod Note
(xskarma):
Post was Warned for Flaming.
My only problem with a) is that, by that definition, we've never had a balanced meta. There have always been top-tier decks and crappy ones. I can recall a time when every class was "the one to beat." I'd say some have had more time at the top than others, but all have had their day.
As for going to legend, my question there is does that make sense if the vast majority of players don't want to hit legend? Also, (and many may not want to hear this) there's also a skill question at some point on the ladder, and certainly by the time you hit Legend. Certain decks have a much higher skill cap than others. A player who cannot get above Silver is simply not as good as someone who can get to D5. So, would we have to "dumb down" decks to make it possible for every class to reach Legend? Not sure.
Does anyone know the breakdown of how many players hit the various levels by the end of the month? That might help us figure out what level we should be aiming for.
In an ideal world (not realistic unfortunately), every class and every deck types (control, aggro, combo, midrange) should be present on the ladder so that the meta is never highly skewed towards specific classes or specific deck types.
This game isn't meant to be balanced. Couple of weeks ago there was a interview with Ben Brode on Marvel Snap where he said he was always inspired by games like Clash Royale , where you can play a quick game while waiting at the doctor , on the toilet , in the bus because he was to busy to get into deep games because he and his friends have children. The same person that made Hearthstone. It has always been obvious that it is favored towards quick games with overpowered stuff so we can all have a great laugh altough there are also people who like to use there brain and win by choices they make
I myself got back after 2 years just for DK but it's an even bigger cluster fuck than it ever was , even with perfect draws and the best possible card every turn you get easily screwed over and lose. This game is meant to take 5 minutes and have a low skill level. Always has been and always will be.
As for your question Blood DK is fairly balanced and how the game used to be on its release for many classes.
Overall I think the most important is "B" just like OP stated. At least some semblance of that and in a fashion were there traditional archetypes place in the meta helps punish certain archetypes and thus making way to counters of their own.
To some degree I think we always have a bit of "A" if you go low enough in the rank, as I have taken crappy "fun" decks from some of the most unpopular classes to platinum and diamond in most if not all metas. I do however feel that in the more recent years the powerlevel of the "good" decks have increased so much more making subpar decks that much worse in comparison than earlier metas. However I feel this is natural power creep that is hard to combat without making expansions where a lot of the cards end up being unplayable due to being too low a powerlevel.
The most important aspect to look at to hope to achieve what I feel is a more balanced meta is to make sure most decks have some sort of weakness. Like reducing the resource generation in more tempo oriented decks, try to lower the mana cheat possible for some decks, lower consistency by reducing drawing capabilities. I especially feel like the last year has given some absolutely bonkers drawing capabilities to most of the "top classes".
I think team 5 approaches it from the perspective of option B but that inherently leaves certain classes in the dust. For as long as i can remember 1 to 2 classes usually seem to have the spotlight where they're just the most dominant class with a couple of top tier deck options. Then they get nerfed into oblivion sometimes or a rotation occurs and the meta decks are gutted.
As far as I can remember, the most balanced meta in HS history was Journey to Ungoro.
In that meta, everyone had at least one competitive deck except Warlock, and most importantly, no deck had above 52% winrate, meaning no class was tier 1 (I dont recall this ever happening again). One of the best and most memorable metas ever for sure.
So yeah, the peak of HS balancing can only be reached when all classes have below 52% winrate, i think thats mandatory. When there are no tier 1 decks opressing and warping the meta around them, all strategies have a reasonable chance to succeed.
As far as I can remember, the most balanced meta in HS history was Journey to Ungoro.
In that meta, everyone had at least one competitive deck except Warlock, and most importantly, no deck had above 52% winrate, meaning no class was tier 1 (I dont recall this ever happening again). One of the best and most memorable metas ever for sure.
So yeah, the peak of HS balancing can only be reached when all classes have below 52% winrate, i think thats mandatory. When there are no tier 1 decks opressing and warping the meta around them, all strategies have a reasonable chance to succeed.
I agree. I think the biggest difference between the game design back then and now is not powercreep but the fact that every single top meta deck used to be a pure archetype which had meaningful strengths and weaknesses. And pure archetypes are just not viable anymore (with the exception of some extreme poweroutliers here and there). People call modern top meta decks aggro, midrange, control, combo but almost none of them can be classified as archetype x. They're sub archetypes.
This isn't bad by itself but if you allow them to be more than just the jack of all trades, master of none, it completely destroys the archetype balancing system which is the backbone of any card game like this. It's the counterweight to all the other RNG elements like mulligan, draws, discovered cards, pure RNG cards like Yogg, Rune of the Archmage etc. The moment you take that counterweight away, all these RNG elements will have MUCH more influence on the outcome of the game. And it's not like the "rock, paper, scissors" feeling goes away as soon as you allow players to build decks which can (in theory) beat almost everything. You can't get rid of the RNG in a game like this. You can shift parts of the RNG to somewhere else but it's not going away.
I wish the devs would've told the playerbase what the consequences to their demands would be back then and declined their wish for less matchup RNG. Many people think that the devs don't listen enough but they do. In fact they do way too much to please the playerbase when it comes to game balancing. The most unhealthy changes i've seen in this game were all made to please an angry mob on social media.
I don't really care if each class has a competitive deck. I don't care that much about the skin on my hero. I would like to have each archetype have at least one 'good' representative though.
Card games never had and never will have any form of true balance. There will just be times where it gets better or worse.
Since you asked, it's a mixture of a) and b). It would be great if each class had a 47%-55% win rate deck and if each archtype was represented by 2-4 classes.
"As far as I can remember, the most balanced meta in HS history was Journey to Ungoro."
Ungoro was a great set, no doubt, but I remember a certain quest that got pretty out of hand at some point. I think it wasn't during Ungoro, but soon after though.
The worst meta imo was Druidstone right after Frozen Throne release, but I haven't played in every timeline.
I think that b) is most important for balanced game, because everyone can play their favourite gameplans, and also they will face a variety of types of decks, so even if they don't like playing against some types of decks (say, control, because it feels like waste of time when they play so long games), they will also face decks which they like fighting more, and knowing that, unfavoured opponents will be less frustrating.
However, because of how Hearthstone is structured and divided into classes, what leads many people to focus rather on playing certain classes rather than deck types, a) is also important, so people can play classes they want.
c) is imo not very important, because important differences between spell and minion focused decks are already conveyed by a).
Personally I think a balanced meta is one where all types of decks are viable (aggro, tempo, control etc). Ideally this would be represented accross all hero's (though in practice not all hero's can generally succeed with all types of deck). It's important that all types are represented, because each type should keep another from becoming too dominant (that's the theory anyway). Within this, none of the match-ups should be auto-win or loss, and the in-game decisions should still matter, even if you're playing aggro vs. control.
What is unhealthy (imo) is where a single deck (or deck type) deletes one type of deck from the meta entirely. Right now control decks aren't viable primarliy because burst from hand is quick, consistant and high damage (often OTK) and control decks can't be pro-active enough to have a chance at winning. This does not create a balanced meta.
Bear in mind "balanced" and "fun" aren't always the same thing though. If all deck types were represented equally and each always won against it's favoured opposing deck type (and had a 50% chance to win against the mirror match-up) the meta would be balanced (with each type winning 50% of the games). It would be very un-fun though.
Option A is extremely unrealistic. It has never happened, and it never will.
Option C is utterly false. Minion combat should always be the primary focus of the game, and spell-heavy decks should be the exception, not something development should intentionally strive for.
Option B is good, but only part of the bigger picture.
The most important aspect of balance is that no deck has a win rate above 55% or so. Another piece of the puzzle is popularity -- you don't want to play against the same archetype over and over. However, there's only so much the developers can do about that. Blood DK is insanely popular even though it's not all that strong. There's no reason to nerf it, but people just won't give up on playing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Thanks for your comments. For the record, I don't like C either, but these decks are very definitely out there and some people really like them. And, remember, spell-based is not the same as burn. Spell Hunter (from back in the day) did make heavy use of spell-created minions.
The reason I put A forward is because there are a lot of players who play one class exclusively/ heavily. It's the "I'm a Paladin main" sort of thing. How much should Blizzard factor class preference into balancing decisions? Personally, while I do have favored classes, I'm pretty willing to play any class (except DH: I just frickin hate everything about it). So, for me, this is a non-issue. If Mage is in the crapper, I'll play a Rogue deck for the next few months, as long as it's a fun deck. But you constantly hear, "Blizzard hate [insert class here]."
Good point regarding win rate, though I would say that aiming for that gets very complicated very quickly. Nerfing any deck reduces the number of people willing to play it. If Blizzard doesn't know how many people will quit playing Miracle Rogue when it gets nerfed this month (as seems likely) or what decks they'll migrate to, it's very hard for the company to know what that nerf will do to winrates across the board. Some other deck's winrate may increase more than expected. I have often wondered if that's why balance changes so often fail: Blizzard fails to realize how players will react to a give nerf or buff. That's why I wonder if it's just easier to aggregate them into aggro, midrange, control, and combo. It makes the analysis somewhat easier. Maybe aiming for a winrate no higher than 55% for each type of deck is more feasible.
OP, i think it's all of your options. What i see as balanced:
- every class has at least 2 viable archetypes, with at least 1 deck from each.
- the same player (i.e. same skill) should be able to reach the same rank (e.g. diamond 5) in the same amount of time played or games, + or - a deviation of at most 10%. Maybe 15% for some fringe decks.
- games should very rarely last less than 10-12 turns
- every spell should cost at least 1 mana, except those designed to cost 0.
- the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank (i.e. they should win more, within that standard deviation of 10-15%).
- losing should never feel bad. You should always have something to try, which provides enough satisfaction that you actually PLAYED a game, even if lost.
- swing turns should never be binary, except a few which each class should have access to and with great (and similar) costs. This means that most board clears should only allow you to regain tempo (even in future turns) instead of either making you win right there, or the opponent having OP cards that your board clear is useless anyway.
- this implies that the health of heroes should be (much) larger than 30. Or that each player can choose a card to play from his deck for free, at certain turns, or whatever. Basically allowing a swing turn to happen for the one behind, full knowing that the opponent can do it too afterwards.
- games are way way too binary, instead of actual battles which leave you gasping for air. This needs to change badly.
- the cards' cost should be more or less fixed, and computed automatically. E.g. taunt is valued at 0.5 mana, divine shield at 1 mana, etc. It's much easier to balance something knowing that every other card is in line with the cost. For uneven costs, either start using double of everything (mana cost and available mana crystals) so you always get an integer, or simply make the cost the low/high value depending on projected/tested impact of the card.
- stop making stupid filler cards every expansion. I'd rather have 30 cards with real impact (in standard, wild, arena) than 100 more useless cards. If you want filler for arena, then release separate sets for exactly this!
- start testing your cards before release, in real games. Make a limited access test realm for HS and invite certain players to play and give feedback.
- stop making this game targeted at teenagers. Have some dignity. People want to use their brain. You want to make it accessible? Sure. There's casual mode for you. Or wild. Or any other mode you can think of that would lower the IQ requirements, game duration, strategy, and amount of fun. But please, stop fucking up constructed. Not everyone has to play it! Or i don't know, make an "elite mode". Stop putting all people in the same boat. It's annoying as hell.
- remove or change the game modes that you don't give a shit about or barely do anything to balance them properly.
This is balanced for me. Also the reason i'm not gonna play HS again. Not for stupid hype stuff like the DK. At least i can admit that it's not overpowered and that they did a much better job than with DH. A small step in the right direction. Too bad the impact for arena was missed completely.
The reason I put A forward is because there are a lot of players who play one class exclusively/ heavily. It's the "I'm a Paladin main" sort of thing. How much should Blizzard factor class preference into balancing decisions? Personally, while I do have favored classes, I'm pretty willing to play any class (except DH: I just frickin hate everything about it). So, for me, this is a non-issue. If Mage is in the crapper, I'll play a Rogue deck for the next few months, as long as it's a fun deck. But you constantly hear, "Blizzard hate [insert class here]."
Blizzard has no reason to cater to the players who stick to a single class. It's far too easy to stay f2p forever if you only collect cards for one class.
So yes, people will complain when their one and only class is bad, and you might even argue that they have a point, but Blizzard is never going to care about that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
OP, i think it's all of your options. What i see as balanced:
- every class has at least 2 viable archetypes, with at least 1 deck from each.
- the same player (i.e. same skill) should be able to reach the same rank (e.g. diamond 5) in the same amount of time played or games, + or - a deviation of at most 10%. Maybe 15% for some fringe decks.
- games should very rarely last less than 10-12 turns
- every spell should cost at least 1 mana, except those designed to cost 0.
- the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank (i.e. they should win more, within that standard deviation of 10-15%).
- losing should never feel bad. You should always have something to try, which provides enough satisfaction that you actually PLAYED a game, even if lost.
- swing turns should never be binary, except a few which each class should have access to and with great (and similar) costs. This means that most board clears should only allow you to regain tempo (even in future turns) instead of either making you win right there, or the opponent having OP cards that your board clear is useless anyway.
- this implies that the health of heroes should be (much) larger than 30. Or that each player can choose a card to play from his deck for free, at certain turns, or whatever. Basically allowing a swing turn to happen for the one behind, full knowing that the opponent can do it too afterwards.
- games are way way too binary, instead of actual battles which leave you gasping for air. This needs to change badly.
- the cards' cost should be more or less fixed, and computed automatically. E.g. taunt is valued at 0.5 mana, divine shield at 1 mana, etc. It's much easier to balance something knowing that every other card is in line with the cost. For uneven costs, either start using double of everything (mana cost and available mana crystals) so you always get an integer, or simply make the cost the low/high value depending on projected/tested impact of the card.
- stop making stupid filler cards every expansion. I'd rather have 30 cards with real impact (in standard, wild, arena) than 100 more useless cards. If you want filler for arena, then release separate sets for exactly this!
- start testing your cards before release, in real games. Make a limited access test realm for HS and invite certain players to play and give feedback.
- stop making this game targeted at teenagers. Have some dignity. People want to use their brain. You want to make it accessible? Sure. There's casual mode for you. Or wild. Or any other mode you can think of that would lower the IQ requirements, game duration, strategy, and amount of fun. But please, stop fucking up constructed. Not everyone has to play it! Or i don't know, make an "elite mode". Stop putting all people in the same boat. It's annoying as hell.
- remove or change the game modes that you don't give a shit about or barely do anything to balance them properly.
This is balanced for me. Also the reason i'm not gonna play HS again. Not for stupid hype stuff like the DK. At least i can admit that it's not overpowered and that they did a much better job than with DH. A small step in the right direction. Too bad the impact for arena was missed completely.
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
-your mana pricing rule leads to a game like classic hearthstone. A game I wouldn’t play
-you state that’s why you won’t play hearthstone anymore. Why then bother writing about the game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We now know that, later this month, Blizzard will be releasing some balance changes. There have also been countless threads here about the need to nerf this deck/ card. But, what never seems to be addressed is what we mean by a "balanced" meta? In most cases, the poster calling for a nerf completely fails to address what will happen AFTER that nerf takes effect. What will that change do to other decks? What deck will then be the new top dog? (For example, many are calling for nerfs to Miracle Rogue and Quest DH. Will that, as seems likely, make Spitter Hunter the dominant deck?)
So, let me ask you all, is a balanced meta:
a) one in which every class has a viable deck to ladder? If so, how high? Legend? Diamond? Platinum?; OR
b) one in which every type of deck (aggro, midrange, control, combo) has a viable deck?; OR
c) one in which both minion-based and spell-based decks are viable?; OR
d) some other condition I can't think of.
I, speaking for myself, lean towards b), but could be convinced otherwise. Would love to hear some real thoughts and analysis, vice bile. (May be asking too much!)
I think it should be A, every class should have a viable Deck for the climb to legend. At legend it's a different Story.
If this would be done right, B could possibly apply by default. Sadly blizz abandoned class identity.
None of the above.
This turd of a game was never built to be balanced. It has a laser-focused design on getting dipshits to spend money on it; everything else is superfluous.
Interesting. Thanks for responding.
My only problem with a) is that, by that definition, we've never had a balanced meta. There have always been top-tier decks and crappy ones. I can recall a time when every class was "the one to beat." I'd say some have had more time at the top than others, but all have had their day.
As for going to legend, my question there is does that make sense if the vast majority of players don't want to hit legend? Also, (and many may not want to hear this) there's also a skill question at some point on the ladder, and certainly by the time you hit Legend. Certain decks have a much higher skill cap than others. A player who cannot get above Silver is simply not as good as someone who can get to D5. So, would we have to "dumb down" decks to make it possible for every class to reach Legend? Not sure.
Does anyone know the breakdown of how many players hit the various levels by the end of the month? That might help us figure out what level we should be aiming for.
In an ideal world (not realistic unfortunately), every class and every deck types (control, aggro, combo, midrange) should be present on the ladder so that the meta is never highly skewed towards specific classes or specific deck types.
This game isn't meant to be balanced. Couple of weeks ago there was a interview with Ben Brode on Marvel Snap where he said he was always inspired by games like Clash Royale , where you can play a quick game while waiting at the doctor , on the toilet , in the bus because he was to busy to get into deep games because he and his friends have children. The same person that made Hearthstone. It has always been obvious that it is favored towards quick games with overpowered stuff so we can all have a great laugh altough there are also people who like to use there brain and win by choices they make
I myself got back after 2 years just for DK but it's an even bigger cluster fuck than it ever was , even with perfect draws and the best possible card every turn you get easily screwed over and lose. This game is meant to take 5 minutes and have a low skill level. Always has been and always will be.
As for your question Blood DK is fairly balanced and how the game used to be on its release for many classes.
Since you are asking, I see a balanced meta as one where with the most diversity of decks from different classes are being played
There is nothing more of a turnoff than seeing the same decks/class every match. It polarizes what others will craft.
And metas that leans towards combo and/or control just felt uninteractive for the other players
DJ
Overall I think the most important is "B" just like OP stated. At least some semblance of that and in a fashion were there traditional archetypes place in the meta helps punish certain archetypes and thus making way to counters of their own.
To some degree I think we always have a bit of "A" if you go low enough in the rank, as I have taken crappy "fun" decks from some of the most unpopular classes to platinum and diamond in most if not all metas. I do however feel that in the more recent years the powerlevel of the "good" decks have increased so much more making subpar decks that much worse in comparison than earlier metas. However I feel this is natural power creep that is hard to combat without making expansions where a lot of the cards end up being unplayable due to being too low a powerlevel.
The most important aspect to look at to hope to achieve what I feel is a more balanced meta is to make sure most decks have some sort of weakness. Like reducing the resource generation in more tempo oriented decks, try to lower the mana cheat possible for some decks, lower consistency by reducing drawing capabilities. I especially feel like the last year has given some absolutely bonkers drawing capabilities to most of the "top classes".
I think team 5 approaches it from the perspective of option B but that inherently leaves certain classes in the dust. For as long as i can remember 1 to 2 classes usually seem to have the spotlight where they're just the most dominant class with a couple of top tier deck options. Then they get nerfed into oblivion sometimes or a rotation occurs and the meta decks are gutted.
Google search: Is Hearthstone free to play?
As far as I can remember, the most balanced meta in HS history was Journey to Ungoro.
In that meta, everyone had at least one competitive deck except Warlock, and most importantly, no deck had above 52% winrate, meaning no class was tier 1 (I dont recall this ever happening again). One of the best and most memorable metas ever for sure.
So yeah, the peak of HS balancing can only be reached when all classes have below 52% winrate, i think thats mandatory. When there are no tier 1 decks opressing and warping the meta around them, all strategies have a reasonable chance to succeed.
I agree.
I think the biggest difference between the game design back then and now is not powercreep but the fact that every single top meta deck used to be a pure archetype which had meaningful strengths and weaknesses.
And pure archetypes are just not viable anymore (with the exception of some extreme poweroutliers here and there).
People call modern top meta decks aggro, midrange, control, combo but almost none of them can be classified as archetype x.
They're sub archetypes.
This isn't bad by itself but if you allow them to be more than just the jack of all trades, master of none, it completely destroys the archetype balancing system which is the backbone of any card game like this.
It's the counterweight to all the other RNG elements like mulligan, draws, discovered cards, pure RNG cards like Yogg, Rune of the Archmage etc.
The moment you take that counterweight away, all these RNG elements will have MUCH more influence on the outcome of the game.
And it's not like the "rock, paper, scissors" feeling goes away as soon as you allow players to build decks which can (in theory) beat almost everything.
You can't get rid of the RNG in a game like this.
You can shift parts of the RNG to somewhere else but it's not going away.
I wish the devs would've told the playerbase what the consequences to their demands would be back then and declined their wish for less matchup RNG.
Many people think that the devs don't listen enough but they do. In fact they do way too much to please the playerbase when it comes to game balancing.
The most unhealthy changes i've seen in this game were all made to please an angry mob on social media.
I don't really care if each class has a competitive deck. I don't care that much about the skin on my hero. I would like to have each archetype have at least one 'good' representative though.
Card games never had and never will have any form of true balance. There will just be times where it gets better or worse.
Since you asked, it's a mixture of a) and b). It would be great if each class had a 47%-55% win rate deck and if each archtype was represented by 2-4 classes.
"As far as I can remember, the most balanced meta in HS history was Journey to Ungoro."
Ungoro was a great set, no doubt, but I remember a certain quest that got pretty out of hand at some point. I think it wasn't during Ungoro, but soon after though.
The worst meta imo was Druidstone right after Frozen Throne release, but I haven't played in every timeline.
I think that b) is most important for balanced game, because everyone can play their favourite gameplans, and also they will face a variety of types of decks, so even if they don't like playing against some types of decks (say, control, because it feels like waste of time when they play so long games), they will also face decks which they like fighting more, and knowing that, unfavoured opponents will be less frustrating.
However, because of how Hearthstone is structured and divided into classes, what leads many people to focus rather on playing certain classes rather than deck types, a) is also important, so people can play classes they want.
c) is imo not very important, because important differences between spell and minion focused decks are already conveyed by a).
Personally I think a balanced meta is one where all types of decks are viable (aggro, tempo, control etc). Ideally this would be represented accross all hero's (though in practice not all hero's can generally succeed with all types of deck). It's important that all types are represented, because each type should keep another from becoming too dominant (that's the theory anyway). Within this, none of the match-ups should be auto-win or loss, and the in-game decisions should still matter, even if you're playing aggro vs. control.
What is unhealthy (imo) is where a single deck (or deck type) deletes one type of deck from the meta entirely. Right now control decks aren't viable primarliy because burst from hand is quick, consistant and high damage (often OTK) and control decks can't be pro-active enough to have a chance at winning. This does not create a balanced meta.
Bear in mind "balanced" and "fun" aren't always the same thing though. If all deck types were represented equally and each always won against it's favoured opposing deck type (and had a 50% chance to win against the mirror match-up) the meta would be balanced (with each type winning 50% of the games). It would be very un-fun though.
Option A is extremely unrealistic. It has never happened, and it never will.
Option C is utterly false. Minion combat should always be the primary focus of the game, and spell-heavy decks should be the exception, not something development should intentionally strive for.
Option B is good, but only part of the bigger picture.
The most important aspect of balance is that no deck has a win rate above 55% or so. Another piece of the puzzle is popularity -- you don't want to play against the same archetype over and over. However, there's only so much the developers can do about that. Blood DK is insanely popular even though it's not all that strong. There's no reason to nerf it, but people just won't give up on playing it.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
Thanks for your comments. For the record, I don't like C either, but these decks are very definitely out there and some people really like them. And, remember, spell-based is not the same as burn. Spell Hunter (from back in the day) did make heavy use of spell-created minions.
The reason I put A forward is because there are a lot of players who play one class exclusively/ heavily. It's the "I'm a Paladin main" sort of thing. How much should Blizzard factor class preference into balancing decisions? Personally, while I do have favored classes, I'm pretty willing to play any class (except DH: I just frickin hate everything about it). So, for me, this is a non-issue. If Mage is in the crapper, I'll play a Rogue deck for the next few months, as long as it's a fun deck. But you constantly hear, "Blizzard hate [insert class here]."
Good point regarding win rate, though I would say that aiming for that gets very complicated very quickly. Nerfing any deck reduces the number of people willing to play it. If Blizzard doesn't know how many people will quit playing Miracle Rogue when it gets nerfed this month (as seems likely) or what decks they'll migrate to, it's very hard for the company to know what that nerf will do to winrates across the board. Some other deck's winrate may increase more than expected. I have often wondered if that's why balance changes so often fail: Blizzard fails to realize how players will react to a give nerf or buff. That's why I wonder if it's just easier to aggregate them into aggro, midrange, control, and combo. It makes the analysis somewhat easier. Maybe aiming for a winrate no higher than 55% for each type of deck is more feasible.
OP, i think it's all of your options. What i see as balanced:
- every class has at least 2 viable archetypes, with at least 1 deck from each.
- the same player (i.e. same skill) should be able to reach the same rank (e.g. diamond 5) in the same amount of time played or games, + or - a deviation of at most 10%. Maybe 15% for some fringe decks.
- games should very rarely last less than 10-12 turns
- every spell should cost at least 1 mana, except those designed to cost 0.
- the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank (i.e. they should win more, within that standard deviation of 10-15%).
- losing should never feel bad. You should always have something to try, which provides enough satisfaction that you actually PLAYED a game, even if lost.
- swing turns should never be binary, except a few which each class should have access to and with great (and similar) costs. This means that most board clears should only allow you to regain tempo (even in future turns) instead of either making you win right there, or the opponent having OP cards that your board clear is useless anyway.
- this implies that the health of heroes should be (much) larger than 30. Or that each player can choose a card to play from his deck for free, at certain turns, or whatever. Basically allowing a swing turn to happen for the one behind, full knowing that the opponent can do it too afterwards.
- games are way way too binary, instead of actual battles which leave you gasping for air. This needs to change badly.
- the cards' cost should be more or less fixed, and computed automatically. E.g. taunt is valued at 0.5 mana, divine shield at 1 mana, etc. It's much easier to balance something knowing that every other card is in line with the cost. For uneven costs, either start using double of everything (mana cost and available mana crystals) so you always get an integer, or simply make the cost the low/high value depending on projected/tested impact of the card.
- stop making stupid filler cards every expansion. I'd rather have 30 cards with real impact (in standard, wild, arena) than 100 more useless cards. If you want filler for arena, then release separate sets for exactly this!
- start testing your cards before release, in real games. Make a limited access test realm for HS and invite certain players to play and give feedback.
- stop making this game targeted at teenagers. Have some dignity. People want to use their brain. You want to make it accessible? Sure. There's casual mode for you. Or wild. Or any other mode you can think of that would lower the IQ requirements, game duration, strategy, and amount of fun. But please, stop fucking up constructed. Not everyone has to play it! Or i don't know, make an "elite mode". Stop putting all people in the same boat. It's annoying as hell.
- remove or change the game modes that you don't give a shit about or barely do anything to balance them properly.
This is balanced for me. Also the reason i'm not gonna play HS again. Not for stupid hype stuff like the DK. At least i can admit that it's not overpowered and that they did a much better job than with DH. A small step in the right direction. Too bad the impact for arena was missed completely.
Blizzard has no reason to cater to the players who stick to a single class. It's far too easy to stay f2p forever if you only collect cards for one class.
So yes, people will complain when their one and only class is bad, and you might even argue that they have a point, but Blizzard is never going to care about that.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
-your mana pricing rule leads to a game like classic hearthstone. A game I wouldn’t play
-you state that’s why you won’t play hearthstone anymore. Why then bother writing about the game?