Absolutely, interaction has a lot of different successful applications - including tempo as you mention. As long as it exists as a viable counter strategy, I find that acceptable. This is almost always highly class limited in HS though, depending on the expansion.
I play w/e classes I find most interesting in an expansion, and would ideally consider all of them interesting. If a class feels extremely limited by these oppressive strategies (like Jade or Odd Pally), then it's a less interesting meta. I generally play at Legend or near Legend rank, so at this level I have to be playing highly optimized classes/lists. In some cases, you're lucky to have 1-2 more balanced strategies.
Greedy decks rarely if ever appeal to me, because their ability to adapt to a matchup is just so limited - so any meta that feels too slanted in this way I'll just sit out. Grinding out a greedy meta has to be the most mind-numbing experience to everyone right? This is why I can't imagine how you can refute my earlier points - skill/decision-making rarely comes into play if a deck has a ton of 10/90% win matchups.
Well, sometimes yes, it is limited by class, but they can always do something, there tends to always be a slight chance no matter what class, it can be just extremely hard to identify what is that very low % line of play that gives you the win. Also, regarding how I beat the Shudderwock Shamans, I just froze their boards in the pre-Shudderwock turns which meant they either were forced to Overload themselves killing their board, or they had to risk not getting Shudderwock back because the Grumble would send Shudderwock back as the last minion. I just had to push them to the point they had to actually to Shudderwock (which is very hard as a deck like Freeze Mage).
Well, playing at Legend Rank you can easily play whatever gimmicks you want, specially if you are not grinding for HCT Points. It's the Rank I've played the most crappy gimmicks at in the entire ladder. Same cannot be said about 4 to 1 since there, you don't survive in that manner.
Well, but don't forget that OTK decks are also greedy. OTK decks tend to be the greediest of Combo decks and pay for it with little to no flexibility. Take Infinite Burn Mage and normal Freeze Mage. They are similar in game plan, but their win condition is different and that difference makes one very versatile while the other is as far as it gets from it.
Freeze Mage can adapt it's strategy more easily to it's matchup, it can go for high burn plans, it can go for exhaustion, it can even go for minion tempo in some cases and matchups, it is quite a flexible deck when you think of it, and if that doesn't seem real, trust, I've played that deck for thousands and thousands of games, while most games you win by the normal game plan, a great chunk will be won by different, adapted game plans. Infinite Burn Mage however, it is extremely rare the occasions in which you actually manage to beat the opponent without the 5 piece combo. The deck is not flexible, it's entire game plan is tailored to execute that game plan and if that plan is not possible, you will almost always lose.
Still, when you think about it, Infinite Burn is a much, MUCH stronger win condition than the normal Freeze win condition. One deals infinite damage solely limited by the turn timer, the other deals limited burn or minion damage. Infinite Burn is a much greedier plan, it is much more all in, not flexible, but it has a practically guaranteed win when executed.
Greedy Metas simply mean there is less Aggro punishing these Greedy Combo decks and when that happens, they can easily punish Control, and the more greedy the Control decks get, the easier it is to punish them. Still, we just started this expansion, and what you tend to see most at the start is very greedy stuff, and very strong aggro stuff. People either wanna play with the new fun strategies, or they want to take advantage of those playing these fun strategies.
And decision making does come into play even in 90/10 matchups. It's not just a coincidence that Control Warrior is one of my favourite Freeze Mage matchups. It is the hardest matchup, the most hard to beat, which makes it a fun challenge to try and complete, one I completed far more than one would expect. Generally, Skill/Decision making tends to help turn those 90/10 matchups in your favour. Sure, you don't make them positive, but you won't be losing 90/10, you'll get them to 80/20 or 70/30, which is already very good.
Matchup winrates come from how both strategies interact. The reason Freeze Mage is fucked by Control Warriors is because the Mage decides to mostly give up on all minion damage, all those constant damage sources, and solely uses Burn, which is a single use source. The moment Warrior has more Armour than the Burn it wins. The more compromises you make with your deck, the most likely you are to have very difficult matchups. That is not a design flaw, that is just how balance works.
If you have 90/10 matchups, you also tend to have 10/90 or close matchups in your favour. If you take the Control Warrior, the Warrior has the 90/10 against the Freeze Mage, but it also loses that badly the moment you play something like Jade Druid (pre-Geist). You had an extremely good matchup and an extremely bad matchup.
It seems sometimes people just don't think about this, yes, they are getting destroyed in 10/90 matchups, but there are also 90/10 matchups in their favour that they are destroying in. Neither of these are problem, the one real problem in the community, is that people want to have decks with 50+ winrates against everything and that is a complete balance problem.
Most of the time, decks with average winrates across the board tend to be across the board, they don't tend to have extremely good or extremely bad matchups. The decks with extreme matchups, they tend to have them for both sides, extremely good and extremely bad.
There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm just going to address the 90/10 10/90 problem.
1.) If you have 10/90 you have 90/10 matchups. Neither of these outcomes are healthy for the game. While it should technically be possible to construct a deck with these odds, the power curve should not favor them. If you have a 10% chance of winning a game, it is almost entirely out of your control to win by definition - unless you're playing an incompetent opponent (knowing you I have to clarify this point). The odds speak for themselves, this kind of matchup devolves into a 'which deck did my opponent roll?'. Changing the odds to a 70/30 and 80/20 is totally anecdotal. Try playing a control warrior against mecha'thun priest and tell me how you improved your odds. Ofc, the same principles apply in the inverse situation - 90/10.
2.) The community likes 50+ % matchups instead of 90/10. If someone actually wants this, they aren't thinking about the health of the game. If the power curve prefers decks that are more balanced (but still slightly unfavored against their respective archetype), there is a greater chance that player decisions matter. Especially when we consider the control vs OTK dynamic, where the OTK just draws their whole deck in 9/10 turns and wins.
I get the feeling I'm arguing against someone playing devil's advocate - it feels disingenuous.
People mentioning Warlock's ability to answer combo decks as some sorte of class identity when actually any Warlock deck dedicated to disrupt combo archetypes are outright bad...
There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm just going to address the 90/10 10/90 problem.
1.) If you have 10/90 you have 90/10 matchups. Neither of these outcomes are healthy for the game. While it should technically be possible to construct a deck with these odds, the power curve should not favor them. If you have a 10% chance of winning a game, it is almost entirely out of your control to win by definition - unless you're playing an incompetent opponent (knowing you I have to clarify this point). The odds speak for themselves, this kind of matchup devolves into a 'which deck did my opponent roll?'. Changing the odds to a 70/30 and 80/20 is totally anecdotal. Try playing a control warrior against mecha'thun priest and tell me how you improved your odds. Ofc, the same principles apply in the inverse situation - 90/10.
2.) The community likes 50+ % matchups instead of 90/10. If someone actually wants this, they aren't thinking about the health of the game. If the power curve prefers decks that are more balanced (but still slightly unfavored against their respective archetype), there is a greater chance that player decisions matter. Especially when we consider the control vs OTK dynamic, where the OTK just draws their whole deck in 9/10 turns and wins.
I get the feeling I'm arguing against someone playing devil's advocate - it feels disingenuous.
1.) Yes, it is mostly out of your control to win those matchups. Except for when your opponent fucks up, or when you someone find the one path that can win you the game. What 90/10 matchups tell you is that the strategy of these two decks heavily favours one of them when facing each other, but that is entirely fine. Due to the numerous possibilities when building a deck, this kind of situation will always happen and it is HEALTHY that it does happen, even if some people don't like it.
This situation only happens because the game allows both of the strategies to exist and that is excellent, a card game should allow as many strategies as possible, that is why people play card games, the numerous amounts of possible combinations and strategies you can play with the hundreds or thousands of cards that are printed.
Obviously, when players play two extreme strategies, their matchups will lead to extremely results. If you make a deck which goes full all in on a specific strategies, a specific win condition, any deck which can withstand that win condition will hard counter you, and any deck whose strategy is naturally weak to that win condition, will be hard countered by you.
You cannot build a perfect, unbeatable deck. You have to make choices while building a deck. Sometimes, like in the case of OTK decks or Fatigue decks, two very extreme win conditions, you will give up a lot of your matchups just to win against what you hard counter. It is part of balance. Decks with extreme win conditions tend to always have extreme matchups, this is healthy, regardless of whether or not you particularly enjoy that, it is healthy and balanced. It is part of having a very wide card pool and a very limited amount of slots to pick cards for.
2.) I'm not sure what you mean by the community. Hearthpwn? Hearthstone's playerbase? There's 70+ million registered accounts for this game, some of which, like you, don't enjoy hard counter matchups. But do not confuse that with balance. The existence of hard counter matchups doesn't cause problems for the game's health or balance. They exist because people have the option to play extreme win condition strategies and they enjoy doing so. Believe, if people didn't like these strategies, if they didn't want them and the hard counter matchup dynamics that come with them, people wouldn't be playing them. So it is not the community that wants 50+ matchups, it's some that want that, and some that don't particularly feel the need for it.
This is a strategy card game, ideally, the sole two factors determining games would be your strategy and your technical play. Strategy being the deck you prepared, and technical play being how well you piloted the deck and according to the dynamic of the matchup you are facing.
Obviously, you also have card draw order, which is a random element which decides games. It is part of most card games and we accept and deal with it, otherwise we wouldn't be playing a card game.
Finally we have the random effects, this is not present in all card games, but Hearthstone is HEAVILY focused on these. These determine far more games than they should be allowed to. Still if we continue to play the game despite knowing this, we accept that.
What determines how influential player decision is doesn't change because of the hard counter matchups. It limits it, but you have far greater problems in the random aspects above. And 50+ Decks are not anymore balanced than extreme win condition decks. They are both balanced regardless of whether one can have extremely good and bad matchups.
You will not find any 50+ Deck that involves a minimally specific win condition. Any deck whose win condition diverges from the basic Midrange strategy will be a deck that involves matchups with winrates going even to the 70/30s. That is because the strategy for Midrange doesn't tend to change much no matter what you are facing, and because the Midrange strategy doesn't tend to be particularly weak or strong against anything (Sure, it can be particularly weak to Aggro and strong against Control based on it's constitution, but you get the idea).
I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, I simply speak to you from a different perspective. I have personal preferences, but I also have the ability to look past those. I dislike Aggro strategies, I dislike Midrange strategies even more, but I'm not going to be posting about how unfair the Aggro vs Combo dynamic is just because I happen to not like Aggro and like Combo. I understand the importance of both, I understand the need for multiple strategies to exist, I know how important that is specially for a game like Hearthstone trying to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. I also understand that the Rock-Paper-Scissors dynamic is perfectly natural in a balanced game, regardless of how frustrating it is when playing Ladder.
A part of the community, the one you are part of, doesn't seem to understand this. I know it can be frustrating to enter a game and know from the start that you have a very slim chance of winning that matchup, no one is stating the contrary, but wanting Blizzard to remove this is completely different. If Blizzard were to remove all these extreme win conditions from the game and make the only strategies possible in the game be limited to bland Midrange decks which can attain an average winrate across the board, do you even imagine how many people would leave the game?
Believe it or not, there are a ton of people that want to play more interesting strategies than simply Midrange. Hell, if you like to play Control, which is likely considering your dislike for OTKs, you would leave the game as well. Control, as a strategy, doesn't really have an average winrate across the board, it has very strong and weak matchups even removing Combo from the picture. You can easily be on the 70/30s or 80/20s against Aggro decks and the opposite against Midrange decks. Do you also consider this an unhealthy, unbalanced problem? No, it is just what happens when your strategy diverges from the most basic standard strategy the game can have. The more you deviate from the basic strategy of the game, the more extreme matchups become.
You're a guy who prefers quantity over quality. None of your arguments are very compelling, and you aren't even able to follow your own points through. For instance, in your wall of text you attack me for using the word 'community', when that was, in fact, a paraphrase of your previous point. It's like you're asking yourself what you meant? Reflect on that - and choose your points more carefully. More isn't better and doesn't improve your stance.
It is clear based on our discussion here that you're the close minded player, and yet you assumed I was. I actually enjoy all the archetypes equally (except midrange more than aggro). I love control, I love the more nuanced OTK decks, and I love midrange. As an example, I have hated midrange for instance if the game plan is just to play on curve, and for that meta will maybe prefer one of the other two. Tons of strategies can exist in my paradigm, and they would flourish more than using your vague notion of what can exist. I think greedy strategies are certainly necessary to exist and naturally exist in pretty much every game - they are what fundamentally drive the more balanced decks to include the cards they do.
I hate losing to turn 5 aggro as much as anyone, but it needs to be fairly strong to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Certainly, the best metas in HS that I can remember are true to this.
The ideal power balance is probably something like the attached crude graph I quickly drew up.
i'm honestly at a loss when people say "control deck" and then complain about decks having a big win condition, seriously can someon update me in wtf control means for this community?
A control deck is just a deck that's mostly reactive instead of mostly proactive.
i'm honestly at a loss when people say "control deck" and then complain about decks having a big win condition, seriously can someon update me in wtf control means for this community?
A control deck is just a deck that's mostly reactive instead of mostly proactive.
Yeah, I mean in reality cards like Shudderwock have really blurred the line. After WW, this was basically a powerful OTK combo in a fairly strong control shell. There isn't much space for a control deck without a strong win condition now - which makes them more like hybrids.
You cant complain about the developers inconsistency!
back in beta they said they would never print cards that discard from opponents hand, because they thought it was unfun and frustrating not being able to interact with the opponents play! I guess someone in the dev team used to play MTG.
I play both MTG and HS, and I Can tell you that OTK decks are as much frustating and unfun to play against as discard decks of MTG!
not to mention that the dev’s despite thier initial intention did print discard cards in form of dirty rats and iits alike.
Same goes for Yu-Gi-Oh
Nothing like winning with Yata-Garasu TTK after discarding two cards from your opponent's hand with Delinquent Duo and then preventing from drawing each turn with Yata! Could even fit Yata in a Chaos Control shell and then prevent them from drawing after grinding them out.
I can guarantee that if HS got that level of discard in HS without having to set it up behind a meme Howlfiend combo that even other control decks would hate control matches. There wouldn't even need to be a complaint about OTK decks.
To add to this problem of OP's post. I just created a OTK Deck for paladin that is kinda undefeated at the moment. I just released it on paladin forums and under decks
Please update your list to include "Voraxx Effect deck" lmao
To be honest i like that OTK exist because it means unless you run very specific cards you cannot win and keeps your class in check.
'Most card games do it' doesn't mean it's a bible to follow. I listed two examples of OTK decks that have a more conditional yet were considered okay decks in their day. Interaction in a game makes it more enjoyable to intelligent players at the very least. Yes, you want lots of strategies, but not at the expense of in-game decision making. MTG was terrible about this for example.
Shudderwock and Topsy Priest are pretty good examples to talk about. Shudderwock is clearly an offender and I agree with your points. Priest has had a deck like Topsy priest for some time now (inner fire/divine spirit shenanigans). Topsy, in my opinion, is a bit too far - but is kept in check currently by its performance (to my knowledge anyway). A deck that can literally win through charging boars and clearing (theoretically) any amount of taunts from an empty board position is a dangerous design. The older priest decks have been somewhat strong and allowed more universal counter play. Skill vs luck is a fine discussion to have after you have considered all the interactions with a deck/strategy first.
You seem to show up a lot when I post... have to say, your logic isn't ever totally on point. But you have heart!
Intelligent players know that interaction is not solely the ability to directly disrupt the opponent by the use of a single card. Interaction is any action you can take to affect something, in this case that something would be the strategy of your opponent.
A year ago, we were faced with an annoying issue in the game called Jade Idol. It allowed a very strong strategy which didn't have direct means of disruption until Skulking Geist was printed. That doesn't mean there were no interactions that intelligent players could take against it, it just meant there were no interactions the less experience players could take against it.
You could still play Control and beat Jade Idols, you just had to know how to heavily out tempo the Druid with the limited tempo tools you had as a Control deck. It was hard, very hard, but that is what the experienced players could do, that non experienced ones could not.
The first day of Witchwood, I faced a bunch of Shudderwock Shamans as an adapted Freeze Mage. I didn't have any single direct disruption tool like Dirty Rat available to me and because of Healing Rains, I simply couldn't just Burn down the Shamans. Still, I didn't lose those games. Now I ask you, how did I beat them? Can you guess how I disrupted their game plan without having Dirty Rats?
Well, the Priest InnerFire decks were Combo decks but not OTK decks. They required minions from the previous turn to survive to be able to attack. Regardless, it is perfectly fine to have a deck which can do what Topsy can. It requires the player to be very proficient from a Technical Play level to be able to execute the Combo turns effectively and win the game.
The Win Condition of a deck should only be as powerful as the amount of Technical Play required to pull of the winning Combo. That is why things like Patron were slightly overpowered but still fine. These decks are actually the best kind of decks, they are decks that perform REALLY badly in the hands of bad players, yet perform extremely well on the hands of great players. This is how the game should be as a whole.
The actual design flaw in Hearthstone is not the power of Combo decks, it's the power of other decks. It is terrible to see how high the winrates of decks like Odd Paladin are when you take into consideration the amount of Errors the players are allowed to do while piloting them and still get away with the win. Obviously, in an ideal scenario the game would punish every players for their technical fails, but the fact that there exist decks out there which are in such a high power level that they still perform so strongly even while piloted incorrectly, that is where they need to look at when it comes to design flaws.
So yes, Skill and Luck is a discussion for when you take interaction into consideration, the problem is, not all players actually know how interaction works and more importantly, most players don't know the interactions past the basic direct disruption mechanics, as in, use X card to disrupt strategy Y.
Oh and about posting a lot when you post, I'm sorry, I don't tend to memorise names and such all that much, I just post based on the text written in the post itself.
Day 1 witchwood shudderwock decks were hardly refined.
Aside from Warlock (and in some cases Mage), no class has any way of disrupting these OTK strategies. The strategy against these OTK decks is almost always "kill them before they draw their entire deck", which is incredibly difficult for most Control decks to do.
This is completely different from every other strategy in Hearthstone, since they all have counters. AoE against swarm, healing against burn, silence against taunt and buffs, hard removal against big minions, etc. If you're struggling against most strategies, there are typically some cards you can include to greatly improve your matchup. Having a matchup that you literally can't improve your chances against is a terrible feeling that, at least to me, takes away a lot of the fun of both deckbuilding and gameplay.
I see a lot of people gave shit to the OP, but he's right about this, very right. There is still too much matchups which are better to concede for the losing archetype - too small a chance of winning. There should be more cards that improve weak matchups for a certain archetype.
Control players really need to get out of this incremental advantage win condition when going against combo decks or those clowns will always scratch their heads wondering why they never win.
Until Blizzard gives control decks the cards needed to do that, that's not really an option for them. They gave one to Warlock, but most other control decks don't have an option for win conditions against current combo decks.
As Control Warrior, you have exactly 0% chance to win against Mecha'thun Priest. The few games you win are basically because the opponent messes up and overdraws his Mecha'thun, but this is an unforced mistake.
Such one sided match-ups shouldn't be in the game. Whalen is an asshole. Every class needs something to have at least 30-40% chance against anything.
I'm getting tired of these 90%-10% matchups, makes the game so frustrating.
Have you tried not playing cancer?
It's kind of ironic to be complaining about cancer while playing cancer...
Combo decks are not problem. Combo decks that CAN'T BE COUNTERED are the problem. Lemme show u difference. First we have something like Worgen OTK warrior - You could easily counter it by having big amount of armor, few taunts or secret like freezing trap / vaporize.
Now let's take Shudderwock shaman / Mechathun decks - You can't counter them ( unless you're playing Warlock and Demonic Project ), they just kill you, no matter what you do.
This is how bad design looks like. And it needs to be fixed.
Control players really need to get out of this incremental advantage win condition when going against combo decks or those clowns will always scratch their heads wondering why they never win.
Until Blizzard gives control decks the cards needed to do that, that's not really an option for them. They gave one to Warlock, but most other control decks don't have an option for win conditions against current combo decks.
I think you misunderstood that part of my post. I'm not talking about tech cards as the main reason why control decks lose. It is because they expect to just play slow against an archtype is trying to stay alive to kill you.
If you have an archtype that doesn't want to die (OTK/combo) and you have an archtype that plays super greedy and doesn't try to kill you (control) then what do you think the latter archtype needs to do in order to win? You guessed it, actually play aggressively and on curve every turn to apply pressure and actually try to kill the OTK deck! Control decks lose to things like OTK decks, Jade Druid, & Kingsbane Rogue for the same reasons. They try to squeeze out value when they should be applying pressure.
Combo decks are not problem. Combo decks that CAN'T BE COUNTERED are the problem. Lemme show u difference. First we have something like Worgen OTK warrior - You could easily counter it by having big amount of armor, few taunts or secret like freezing trap / vaporize.
Now let's take Shudderwock shaman / Mechathun decks - You can't counter them ( unless you're playing Warlock and Demonic Project ), they just kill you, no matter what you do.
This is how bad design looks like. And it needs to be fixed.
Mana Wraith says hi. Play right before the turn that Mecha'Thun Priest or Mecha'Thun Druid needs to play their combo (ie when priest has 5 cards and druid has 3). Enjoy your free win. Or if you're mage and feel particularly memey save a teched in Explosive Runes when Mecha'Thun Priest has 5 cards and enjoy your free win that way.
It's getting old when people say these decks don't have counters in standard. Sure, if you refuse to play a tech against the deck then it seems like it can't be countered, but refusing to play something =/= it not being able to be countered.
Control players really need to get out of this incremental advantage win condition when going against combo decks or those clowns will always scratch their heads wondering why they never win.
Until Blizzard gives control decks the cards needed to do that, that's not really an option for them. They gave one to Warlock, but most other control decks don't have an option for win conditions against current combo decks.
I think you misunderstood that part of my post. I'm not talking about tech cards as the main reason why control decks lose. It is because they expect to just play slow against an archtype is trying to stay alive to kill you.
If you have an archtype that doesn't want to die (OTK/combo) and you have an archtype that plays super greedy and doesn't try to kill you (control) then what do you think the latter archtype needs to do in order to win? You guessed it, actually play aggressively and on curve every turn to apply pressure and actually try to kill the OTK deck! Control decks lose to things like OTK decks, Jade Druid, & Kingsbane Rogue for the same reasons. They try to squeeze out value when they should be applying pressure.
I did understand your post, it is you who didn't understand mine. I'm not talking about tech cards, I'm talking about the fact that no matter how greedy or not greedy most control decks are, they have NO OPTION to play aggressively. Playing on curve is NOT POSSIBLE even for non-greedy control decks. If you think a control deck can just "play on curve", then obviously you don't know anything about how control decks work in this game, or really any card game in general.
I think the problem with OTK decks is they have too man defensive options.
In the past these kind of uninteractive strategies were kept well in check by a bunch of aggro decks and aggro decks were countered by control decks (sometimes).
Nowadays, the anti aggro tools are way too good: the new 5 mana dude that summons 2 divine shield taunts is the worst and should be nerfed imo: that thing gives a solid wall to classes who should not have such thing normally like rogue or hunter. Also druid armor gain and stall is insane. Warlock has a lot of heal too.
This is just too much for aggro decks to handle right now, so they need to rely on absurdly overpowered early turns to even have a chance, but these only happen so often...
Personally I would nerf that 5 mana taunt dude - I think it's above azure drake in power level and pretty much in every single deck that cares about board in standard. There is just no way to counter it for an aggro deck (if you play the 6 mana guy that kills <=2 attack minions it also kills your own board so not an option).
Also druid was not supposed to be able to deal with wide boards or big minions, but now these things are very easy for them to do so maybe some change might be needed.
Honestly posts like this just make me sad. Control decks can't rely on fatigue for winning every time. I'm as big of a fan of playing control decks as the next person (heck, I pretty much strictly ladder with control decks or midrange decks), but you can't just expect to win the game the same way every game. In pretty much every other card game I've played (Faeria and MTG), control decks win from either literally locking the opponent out of the game by making sure you can't play cards (which can't be done in hearthstone with limited interaction between players) or by slowing the game down enough to be able to assemble a combo and then beat the opponent. What differentiates combo decks with control decks is that combo decks throw away all the removal tools in order to be able to speed up the combo, such as with oldschool Super Toads in Faeria or Cheerios/eggs in MTG.
This brings it back to Hearthstone. Decks like Togwaggle druid, malygos, etc are labeled combo decks despite the fact they control the board better than most control decks. You can say that this is because druid has broken cards all you want, doesn't really change the fact these decks perform better at the whole point of a control deck in addition to having a win condition. That is one of the reasons why I like Mecha'thun so much is because it gives control decks a viable way to win the game other than just "I wait for my opponent to fall asleep". Sure there is the druid and priest mecha'thun decks that are more combo decks because they play more riskily, but you can easily just throw Mecha'thun into a control warrior list with the boomship or take out some cards in an even lock to put in Mecha'thun, giving them a way to actually win games instead of just taking it to fatigue all the time. Either that or put in more disruption against the combo decks. I know this is a bit difficult in standard right now, but there is easily enough spots in wild for it. Sure combo decks kill some traditional control decks, like control warrior, but it's not hard to use some new cards and give yourself a way to play proactively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Remember back when freeze mage vs control warrior was a regular thing - half the ladder is just an extension of this now it seems.
90 - 10 matchups aren't fun. Having 1 or two decks that function this way in a meta is ok but not ideal...if its significantly more than that, as it is right now, it's a problem, especially if the decks take forever to reach their win condition - you are regularly tied into 15-20minutes games that you can have very little influence over. Relying on anti-combo warlocks to 'control' the problem isn't a good answer IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm just going to address the 90/10 10/90 problem.
1.) If you have 10/90 you have 90/10 matchups. Neither of these outcomes are healthy for the game. While it should technically be possible to construct a deck with these odds, the power curve should not favor them. If you have a 10% chance of winning a game, it is almost entirely out of your control to win by definition - unless you're playing an incompetent opponent (knowing you I have to clarify this point). The odds speak for themselves, this kind of matchup devolves into a 'which deck did my opponent roll?'. Changing the odds to a 70/30 and 80/20 is totally anecdotal. Try playing a control warrior against mecha'thun priest and tell me how you improved your odds. Ofc, the same principles apply in the inverse situation - 90/10.
2.) The community likes 50+ % matchups instead of 90/10. If someone actually wants this, they aren't thinking about the health of the game. If the power curve prefers decks that are more balanced (but still slightly unfavored against their respective archetype), there is a greater chance that player decisions matter. Especially when we consider the control vs OTK dynamic, where the OTK just draws their whole deck in 9/10 turns and wins.
I get the feeling I'm arguing against someone playing devil's advocate - it feels disingenuous.
People mentioning Warlock's ability to answer combo decks as some sorte of class identity when actually any Warlock deck dedicated to disrupt combo archetypes are outright bad...
Play Heal Zoo for once already.
You're a guy who prefers quantity over quality. None of your arguments are very compelling, and you aren't even able to follow your own points through. For instance, in your wall of text you attack me for using the word 'community', when that was, in fact, a paraphrase of your previous point. It's like you're asking yourself what you meant? Reflect on that - and choose your points more carefully. More isn't better and doesn't improve your stance.
It is clear based on our discussion here that you're the close minded player, and yet you assumed I was. I actually enjoy all the archetypes equally (except midrange more than aggro). I love control, I love the more nuanced OTK decks, and I love midrange. As an example, I have hated midrange for instance if the game plan is just to play on curve, and for that meta will maybe prefer one of the other two. Tons of strategies can exist in my paradigm, and they would flourish more than using your vague notion of what can exist. I think greedy strategies are certainly necessary to exist and naturally exist in pretty much every game - they are what fundamentally drive the more balanced decks to include the cards they do.
I hate losing to turn 5 aggro as much as anyone, but it needs to be fairly strong to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Certainly, the best metas in HS that I can remember are true to this.
The ideal power balance is probably something like the attached crude graph I quickly drew up.
A control deck is just a deck that's mostly reactive instead of mostly proactive.
Yeah, I mean in reality cards like Shudderwock have really blurred the line. After WW, this was basically a powerful OTK combo in a fairly strong control shell. There isn't much space for a control deck without a strong win condition now - which makes them more like hybrids.
Same goes for Yu-Gi-Oh
Nothing like winning with Yata-Garasu TTK after discarding two cards from your opponent's hand with Delinquent Duo and then preventing from drawing each turn with Yata! Could even fit Yata in a Chaos Control shell and then prevent them from drawing after grinding them out.
I can guarantee that if HS got that level of discard in HS without having to set it up behind a meme Howlfiend combo that even other control decks would hate control matches. There wouldn't even need to be a complaint about OTK decks.
I don't mean to go off topic
To add to this problem of OP's post. I just created a OTK Deck for paladin that is kinda undefeated at the moment. I just released it on paladin forums and under decks
Please update your list to include "Voraxx Effect deck" lmao
To be honest i like that OTK exist because it means unless you run very specific cards you cannot win and keeps your class in check.
Welp, this expansion just happens to be very combo oriented. Control will have to stick it out for once.
Why u hav to be mad? is only card gaem.
Day 1 witchwood shudderwock decks were hardly refined.
OK Great point!
I've found a way to reliably kill the hero that makes this deck seem kind of crazy can be used to win the game most of the time in High ladder.
Thanks for that.
I see a lot of people gave shit to the OP, but he's right about this, very right. There is still too much matchups which are better to concede for the losing archetype - too small a chance of winning. There should be more cards that improve weak matchups for a certain archetype.
You can't stop the signal.
Until Blizzard gives control decks the cards needed to do that, that's not really an option for them. They gave one to Warlock, but most other control decks don't have an option for win conditions against current combo decks.
Have you tried not playing cancer?
It's kind of ironic to be complaining about cancer while playing cancer...
Combo decks are not problem. Combo decks that CAN'T BE COUNTERED are the problem.
Lemme show u difference. First we have something like Worgen OTK warrior - You could easily counter it by having big amount of armor, few taunts or secret like freezing trap / vaporize.
Now let's take Shudderwock shaman / Mechathun decks - You can't counter them ( unless you're playing Warlock and Demonic Project ), they just kill you, no matter what you do.
This is how bad design looks like. And it needs to be fixed.
All I see around rank 7-8 is aggro aggro aggro aggro aggro aggro.
I think you misunderstood that part of my post. I'm not talking about tech cards as the main reason why control decks lose. It is because they expect to just play slow against an archtype is trying to stay alive to kill you.
If you have an archtype that doesn't want to die (OTK/combo) and you have an archtype that plays super greedy and doesn't try to kill you (control) then what do you think the latter archtype needs to do in order to win? You guessed it, actually play aggressively and on curve every turn to apply pressure and actually try to kill the OTK deck! Control decks lose to things like OTK decks, Jade Druid, & Kingsbane Rogue for the same reasons. They try to squeeze out value when they should be applying pressure.
Mana Wraith says hi. Play right before the turn that Mecha'Thun Priest or Mecha'Thun Druid needs to play their combo (ie when priest has 5 cards and druid has 3). Enjoy your free win. Or if you're mage and feel particularly memey save a teched in Explosive Runes when Mecha'Thun Priest has 5 cards and enjoy your free win that way.
It's getting old when people say these decks don't have counters in standard. Sure, if you refuse to play a tech against the deck then it seems like it can't be countered, but refusing to play something =/= it not being able to be countered.
I did understand your post, it is you who didn't understand mine. I'm not talking about tech cards, I'm talking about the fact that no matter how greedy or not greedy most control decks are, they have NO OPTION to play aggressively. Playing on curve is NOT POSSIBLE even for non-greedy control decks. If you think a control deck can just "play on curve", then obviously you don't know anything about how control decks work in this game, or really any card game in general.
I think the problem with OTK decks is they have too man defensive options.
In the past these kind of uninteractive strategies were kept well in check by a bunch of aggro decks and aggro decks were countered by control decks (sometimes).
Nowadays, the anti aggro tools are way too good: the new 5 mana dude that summons 2 divine shield taunts is the worst and should be nerfed imo: that thing gives a solid wall to classes who should not have such thing normally like rogue or hunter. Also druid armor gain and stall is insane. Warlock has a lot of heal too.
This is just too much for aggro decks to handle right now, so they need to rely on absurdly overpowered early turns to even have a chance, but these only happen so often...
Personally I would nerf that 5 mana taunt dude - I think it's above azure drake in power level and pretty much in every single deck that cares about board in standard. There is just no way to counter it for an aggro deck (if you play the 6 mana guy that kills <=2 attack minions it also kills your own board so not an option).
Also druid was not supposed to be able to deal with wide boards or big minions, but now these things are very easy for them to do so maybe some change might be needed.
Honestly posts like this just make me sad. Control decks can't rely on fatigue for winning every time. I'm as big of a fan of playing control decks as the next person (heck, I pretty much strictly ladder with control decks or midrange decks), but you can't just expect to win the game the same way every game. In pretty much every other card game I've played (Faeria and MTG), control decks win from either literally locking the opponent out of the game by making sure you can't play cards (which can't be done in hearthstone with limited interaction between players) or by slowing the game down enough to be able to assemble a combo and then beat the opponent. What differentiates combo decks with control decks is that combo decks throw away all the removal tools in order to be able to speed up the combo, such as with oldschool Super Toads in Faeria or Cheerios/eggs in MTG.
This brings it back to Hearthstone. Decks like Togwaggle druid, malygos, etc are labeled combo decks despite the fact they control the board better than most control decks. You can say that this is because druid has broken cards all you want, doesn't really change the fact these decks perform better at the whole point of a control deck in addition to having a win condition. That is one of the reasons why I like Mecha'thun so much is because it gives control decks a viable way to win the game other than just "I wait for my opponent to fall asleep". Sure there is the druid and priest mecha'thun decks that are more combo decks because they play more riskily, but you can easily just throw Mecha'thun into a control warrior list with the boomship or take out some cards in an even lock to put in Mecha'thun, giving them a way to actually win games instead of just taking it to fatigue all the time. Either that or put in more disruption against the combo decks. I know this is a bit difficult in standard right now, but there is easily enough spots in wild for it. Sure combo decks kill some traditional control decks, like control warrior, but it's not hard to use some new cards and give yourself a way to play proactively.
I don't have something witty about this deck, I just like it because Malygos is fun.
Remember back when freeze mage vs control warrior was a regular thing - half the ladder is just an extension of this now it seems.
90 - 10 matchups aren't fun. Having 1 or two decks that function this way in a meta is ok but not ideal...if its significantly more than that, as it is right now, it's a problem, especially if the decks take forever to reach their win condition - you are regularly tied into 15-20minutes games that you can have very little influence over. Relying on anti-combo warlocks to 'control' the problem isn't a good answer IMO.