I've been considering this idea for a while. Mana curves are pretty important in Hearthstone as they can often define decks; their strengths and weaknesses, their levels of aggression, and the average length of a match that deck must win within or survive until to be particularly powerful. Below are three compilations of the mana curves of various decks from nonspecific classes for three of the common deck types: Aggro, Midrange, and Control. Their average mana curves seem to really define a fairly specific shape, and though the decks independently have a lot of variation, it's quite clear that overall the deck types have unique mana curves that make sense for their playstyles and card selections.
Keep in mind that these show only 10 of the top decks on Hearthpwn for each type. I chose not to do this for the other deck types as they're often more specific and unique and these.
So, onto my question, do you tend to build your decks around these curves? Is it something you keep in mind while deck building, or is it something you only look at afterwards? Do you build a deck and then define it based on its curve?
I'm very curious about this as often filling a deck with just the best and most high value cards usually leaves it to being weak, and I'm convinced it's a huge importance for a deck to be built with a fairly consistent mana curve.
Some decks you don't really care much about it. Like Handlock or even renolock to some extent. It's pretty important on decks that want to always play on curve tho, like Secret Paladin, Zoo and Combo Druid.
I don't know how people do it, but when building a deck where curve matters, I tend to fill in the core cards first, regardless of cost, and then when its 1/2 or even 2/3 done I start looking to improve the mana curve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been considering this idea for a while. Mana curves are pretty important in Hearthstone as they can often define decks; their strengths and weaknesses, their levels of aggression, and the average length of a match that deck must win within or survive until to be particularly powerful. Below are three compilations of the mana curves of various decks from nonspecific classes for three of the common deck types: Aggro, Midrange, and Control. Their average mana curves seem to really define a fairly specific shape, and though the decks independently have a lot of variation, it's quite clear that overall the deck types have unique mana curves that make sense for their playstyles and card selections.
Keep in mind that these show only 10 of the top decks on Hearthpwn for each type. I chose not to do this for the other deck types as they're often more specific and unique and these.
So, onto my question, do you tend to build your decks around these curves? Is it something you keep in mind while deck building, or is it something you only look at afterwards? Do you build a deck and then define it based on its curve?
I'm very curious about this as often filling a deck with just the best and most high value cards usually leaves it to being weak, and I'm convinced it's a huge importance for a deck to be built with a fairly consistent mana curve.
Some decks you don't really care much about it. Like Handlock or even renolock to some extent. It's pretty important on decks that want to always play on curve tho, like Secret Paladin, Zoo and Combo Druid.
I don't know how people do it, but when building a deck where curve matters, I tend to fill in the core cards first, regardless of cost, and then when its 1/2 or even 2/3 done I start looking to improve the mana curve.