Exactly. I find it impossible to believe that you could make any change which wouldn't have a bigger effect that the current tiny advantage to going first. Any change is probably going to move the needle from 52/48 to 45/55 or worse.
Did you watch the Kripp video? For Paladin and Warlock in Arena it's ALREADY worse than 45/55. For Shaman it's exactly there. The overall average is barely better than that: 45.6/54.4.
It's too late to worry about the needle moving. It already has.
Here's a thought. Since all sets are used in arena, the amount of synergy that you can draft lowers over time. This means that independently good cards are more valued over time, and the chance of drawing board clears lowers over time. Perhaps arena also needs to rotate out old sets as they do in constructed?
I go back to my original statement: the issue is more about the lack of recovery and tempo regaining tools in general. This is less of an issue, relatively, in constructed since we can just choose the few that we have and call it a day. But not only are we not given that option, but also that many of those tools are in the earlier sets, such as classic, and, thus, don't show up as often since the newest set is the most common. Rarity also matters since most tools are rare/epic and don't get seen as often as common cards, which are more curve beneficial.
I'd put THIS as the issue to fix rather than the coin, especially since the coin would also affect constructed. I also note that those first/second numbers were in a good place back in beta and we had the coin then, showing that the problem wasn't the coin. If we tweak the coin to benefit second more, then end up tweaking whta caused the initial issue, we'd be double buffing second.
Thus I wouldn't touch the coin, or the mulligan, or anything else that was already in place back when the game was released and get more into what's changed since 2014 and today.
And get some blasted constructed numbers. Arena is already being overhauled by blizzard with a band-aid change going up VERY soon and a more comprehensive change coming in later.
Frankly, the inability to Coin out (1)s before the opponent is inconsistent with every other mana cost. You can Coin out a (2) first, or a (3) first, etc. Only at (1) does the non-Coin player get uncontested first dibs.
I'm not saying tempo recovery tools aren't important, and perhaps they are more important... but that doesn't mean the Coin is perfect, even if they are. And keep in mind, minion-based decks are the ones most effected by Coin imbalance, so you need to take that into consideration regarding the tempo tools made available.
Frankly, the inability to Coin out (1)s before the opponent is inconsistent with every other mana cost. You can Coin out a (2) first, or a (3) first, etc. Only at (1) does the non-Coin player get uncontested first dibs.
I'm not saying tempo recovery tools aren't important, and perhaps they are more important... but that doesn't mean the Coin is perfect, even if they are. And keep in mind, minion-based decks are the ones most effected by Coin imbalance, so you need to take that into consideration regarding the tempo tools made available.
Firstly apologies, I didn't notice the link the first time so I didn't see the stats.
However, the stats don't seem to show the situation as dire as initially shown. To quote:
Going first gives a significant advantage when two tempo based decks face each other. This outcome is pretty much expected, and the only deck that behaves differently from that pattern is Pirate Warrior.
In any other case, the behavior of “coin differential” can significantly vary and is not necessarily intuitive. For example, in Zoo vs. Miracle Rogue the side with the coin benefits, but in Miracle Rogue vs. C’Thun Warrior, going first is more beneficial. Yogg Druid displays a pattern of favoring the coin relative to the field, but in the mirror matchup, going first is advantageous.
Then when you put in the stats on Vicious, you notice that other than the Tempo decks, you basically have a win rate of around -3 to +5 across the board for win rates.
As far as how things used to be, a few things to note:
1. We didn't HAVE tempo decks back in 2014.. not top tier ones. Aggro was MUCH faster, even trading decks like zoo (which could create an unbeatable board state by turn 4 and really had no way to win past turn 7, even with their tapping), Control was all in on Big Boys, and Midrange was focused on anti-control. Thus we didn't have any deck that was near 8% advantaged going first.
2. In 2014, there was only one deck that had a positive win rate going second: Rogue at 1%, and some suspect that included data from before some of their Combo-ability cards were nerfed which REALLY loved the coin. Otherwise, it was all going first was better by a few percentage. That we now have a number of decks that win more going second is impressive.
Though that means messing with the coin is even MORE a bad idea. If you make going second more powerful, you aren't going to balance the first and second places. Instead you just push those 3% second winners int..well, we don't know. It could be 7%. It could break the balance and create a massive advantage going second.
In any case, Tempo decks by design are supposed to prefer going first since they want that tempo. That's why they carry 1 drops so often. All that moving who gets to actually drop a minion first does is move which side Tempo benefits. Basically, do you want a 7% advantage going first or 7% advantage going second? No amount of card giving or stat altering will change that since Tempo is Tempo and that's what Tempo is supposed to do.
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
Fair enough; 3.3% isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. But I feel I did analyze things at least somewhat carefully. My suggestion specifically targets the situations most negatively effected. The ability to Coin on Turn 1 doesn't mean it always happens, and in the game where it doesn't my suggestion has zero impact. I'm not really trying to solve a global 3.3% problem here, that's just a nice side benefit; I'm trying to solve a narrow 5.77-7.26% problem.
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
Fair enough; 3.3% isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. But I feel I did analyze things at least somewhat carefully. My suggestion specifically targets the situations most negatively effected. The ability to Coin on Turn 1 doesn't mean it always happens, and in the game where it doesn't my suggestion has zero impact. I'm not really trying to solve a global 3.3% problem here, that's just a nice side benefit; I'm trying to solve a narrow 5.77-7.26% problem.
Then you'll want to look at the decks involved. Those are aggro/tempo decks. I'm assuming the idea is to make it so that they win closer to equally going first and second.
The thing is if I'm getting it right, the rhythm goes:
First player would get the coin but be at 0 mana and would not get their first card.
Second would NOT get the coin and be at 1 mana, but would get their card along with the extra mulligan card.
Thus turn 1 player 1 would have 3 cards, 0 mana, and the option to coin a 1 drop.
Player 2 would have 5 cards, 1 mana.
That's Actually a VERY big set of changes. For example, Player 2 would only have 1 mana to use to deal with a 1 drop. you suggested using Blood to Ickor to stop Tunnel Trog. That's NOT a valid option as it doesn't kill the Trogg and gives the opponent the ability to use a spell to kill the slime and keep the Trogg alive. Most players use Shadow Word: pain, or War Axe, or Frost bolt, or wrath, or backstab+dagger, or the like: the typical 2 drop removal.
Your suggestion would mean player 1 could coin a Trogg and effectively go unanswered by most players except Tempo. But if Tempo is using a spell to kill their opponent on turn1 , they are failing anyway since they aren't playing a minion. The extra card and mana means nothing in this case for Tempo because Tempo can't recover. Yes, next turn P1 gets one mana and P2 gets 2 mana. but Tempo holds a lot of 1 drops and are willing to drop those anyway so long as Tempo is preserved so they'll have drops to put down. The situation is the same: P1 gets to drop something first and P2 has to spend all day answering it, which is a death sentence to tempo decks.
So Tempo vs Tempo doesn't change, but Aggro/Tempo vs control becomes a nightmare for control if Aggro manages to coin out their 1 drop. Control gets more cards, of course, but control cares less about being ahead on mana vs aggro and cares more about reaching their recovery tools, like Brawl. THAT doesn't improve. So basically it's a difference between not having access to the coin and having access to another card. That HIGHLY depends on the deck. Warriors would hate it. Paladins wouldn't care. But in no case does warrior gain anything additional going second.
Though honestly, that's a moot point since Control vs Aggro isn't where the 7% win rate issue comes from. I bring it up though because the change has the potential to REALLY screw up Control vs Aggro (which has the interesting bent that Control wants to go second while aggro wants to go first right now) and thus, without fixing the first/second situation creates a VERY nasty situation in archetype balance.
And that's the point. You can't chnage the first/second situation to try to change how one matchup works without messing with the other matchups. And it still doesn't change the situation in the end since Tempo's entire point is to "drop first, never let go of Tempo." If you want to make Tempo not careif they are P2 or P1 then the question is "how do you make a deckwho's entire lifeblood is to get on the board first not care if they aren't able to drop a card first?
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
Fair enough; 3.3% isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. But I feel I did analyze things at least somewhat carefully. My suggestion specifically targets the situations most negatively effected. The ability to Coin on Turn 1 doesn't mean it always happens, and in the game where it doesn't my suggestion has zero impact. I'm not really trying to solve a global 3.3% problem here, that's just a nice side benefit; I'm trying to solve a narrow 5.77-7.26% problem.
Then you'll want to look at the decks involved. Those are aggro/tempo decks. I'm assuming the idea is to make it so that they win closer to equally going first and second.
The thing is if I'm getting it right, the rhythm goes:
First player would get the coin but be at 0 mana and would not get their first card.
Second would NOT get the coin and be at 1 mana, but would get their card along with the extra mulligan card.
Thus turn 1 player 1 would have 3 cards, 0 mana, and the option to coin a 1 drop.
Player 2 would have 5 cards, 1 mana.
That's Actually a VERY big set of changes.
It would be, but that's not what I'm suggesting. The Coin would still mean a card lead and a Mana Crystal lag. I meant: Coin player still mulligans 4 cards, non-Coin 3 cards. Player with Coin goes first - doesn't get a card or a Mana Crystal, so 4 cards and 0 mana. Then player without Coin - from this point onwards it's exactly like turns are now. If Coin player passes first turn, my suggestion changes nothing.
Edit: Regarding the rest of your reply, it seems like you're making a huge deal over what's likely 1 extra face damage. If aggro would coin a (1) turn 0 under my suggestion, they'd likely be coining two (1)s on turn 1 now.
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
Fair enough; 3.3% isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. But I feel I did analyze things at least somewhat carefully. My suggestion specifically targets the situations most negatively effected. The ability to Coin on Turn 1 doesn't mean it always happens, and in the game where it doesn't my suggestion has zero impact. I'm not really trying to solve a global 3.3% problem here, that's just a nice side benefit; I'm trying to solve a narrow 5.77-7.26% problem.
Then you'll want to look at the decks involved. Those are aggro/tempo decks. I'm assuming the idea is to make it so that they win closer to equally going first and second.
The thing is if I'm getting it right, the rhythm goes:
First player would get the coin but be at 0 mana and would not get their first card.
Second would NOT get the coin and be at 1 mana, but would get their card along with the extra mulligan card.
Thus turn 1 player 1 would have 3 cards, 0 mana, and the option to coin a 1 drop.
Player 2 would have 5 cards, 1 mana.
That's Actually a VERY big set of changes.
It would be, but that's not what I'm suggesting. The Coin would still mean a card lead and a Mana Crystal lag. I meant: Coin player still mulligans 4 cards, non-Coin 3 cards. Player with Coin goes first - doesn't get a card or a Mana Crystal, so 4 cards and 0 mana. Then player without Coin - from this point onwards it's exactly like turns are now. If Coin player passes first turn, my suggestion changes nothing.
Edit: Regarding the rest of your reply, it seems like you're making a huge deal over what's likely 1 extra face damage. If aggro would coin a (1) turn 0 under my suggestion, they'd likely be coining two (1)s on turn 1 now.
You're thinking burn decks that just go face. We don't currently have a burn deck in the meta. All of those decks are traditional aggro or Tempo. Thus their play style is more:
Turn 1: 1 drop
Turn 2: 2 drop or use a spell to kill opponent's drop
Turn 3: 3 drop, so on.
The point isn't to go face. The point is that the opponent has to keep using their mana to kill the opponent's drop. If the opponent tries to drop their minion in response, the first player uses a spell to knock out the second player's minion and keeps their board. This is keeping Tempo and the basis of how Tempo decks win their games. The opponent has to keep removing minions and playing defensive while the aggressor stays on the offensive. This entire strategy is based on Tempo getting that initial board. That's WHY they hate going second. The extra card and coin means little to them compared to not being able to get that inital drop.
Your suggestion doesn't change that situation. First still goes first: they just have a slower curve. But our 1 drops are strong enough to hold that curve anyway and now second can' pull a tempo play like, say, wrath+ 1 drop at turn 2 to TRY to get ahead.
People fuss about aggro being able to drop 2 1-drops with the coin. Yet look at the blasted stats. They still end up with a losing win rate going second even while doing this. Dropping a 1 drop first is MUCH better for aggro/tempo than dropping 2 1-drops afterwards. The best you can do is do a spell + 1 drop, but for tempo/aggro that's not that common a setup, especially since most of the good removal tools cost 2 mana anyway. As such the decks would much rather coin a 1 drop going first than coin 2 1-drops going second.
Cards, mana costs, those are the worries of other archetypes: midrange, combo, control, ramp. And it shows given that they are close to equal in going first/going second. They benefit from the mana gain and tempo advantage going first but also gain from the coin and extra card going second. Both are viable depending on the deck, opponent, and the situation.
Aggro, it depends on what cards they rely on for their aggression. That's why you see dragon warrior preferring second: they rely more on their 2 drops and and make heavy use on charge and weapons, which make great ways ot take Tempo even if you don't drop first. Most other aggro decks, though, are slower and have taken a more Tempo mindset than a burn based one.
And Tempo (and do NOT mix the two together. I'm not using the terms just to be cute) cares about one thing.. dropping first to establish Tempo. If Tempo could go 1 mana less and have only 1 card but can guarantee first drop they'd take it in a heartbeat. It has nothing to do with face damage (#*$(#* Tempo decks will trade VERY often and can wait till late game to start hitting you, so long as Tempo is maintained). Tempo cares about tempo. That's it.
If you want Tempo to want to go first or second equally, then you'll need to figure out a way for both sides to have an equal chance of fully establishing Tempo over the other, even if both sides have the perfect hand. Right now if both are perfect, P1 drops first, so Tempo prefers P1. Your suggestion doesn't change that so Tempo will still love P1.
You're right that Tempo decks care about being first on the board. If they didn't, I wouldn't have made such a suggestion.
But I think you're underestimating how much Tempo cares about Mana Crystals. Kinda need them to do Ye Olde Hand Dump. Those are the two things which aren't currently in perfect balance - going first, and having more Mana.
You're right that Tempo decks care about being first on the board. If they didn't, I wouldn't have made such a suggestion.
But I think you're underestimating how much Tempo cares about Mana Crystals. Kinda need them to do Ye Olde Hand Dump. Those are the two things which aren't currently in perfect balance - going first, and having more Mana.
People keep thinknig that Tempo handdumps. They don't rely n that really . They handdump because they carry a lot of cheap minions since they MUST have one on curve. So when turn 5-6 comes along they are free to drop more than usual. However, the key is to just play on curve and keep the pressure up. Remember, the second a Tempo deck loses the board they are about to die without some insane RNG. Having more mana won't help a tempo deck if they couldn't grab the board early. They are content to wait longer for the Hand Drop so long as they can keep Tempo up. Remember, aggro has the time limit and must kill you early. Tempo does NOT run on time limits. They'll fight you to Fatigue if they can keep Tempo up that long (not feasable in practice but you get my point :P)
And messing with the mana crystals messes with the other setups. If 'second' gets access to more mana, for example, then Control will go completely off balance as they care far more about mana and cards than dropping first. Thus you'd have Tempo still at close to 7% going first but Control would be 7% or far worse going second. Combo decks (that aren't rogue) would be insane going second as well as they don't care about tempo, just massing up cards and mana.
Your idea isn't too abusive though so control won't go crazy desperate going second. But you made their matchup against aggro into a nightmare (and one turn of Smorc DOES count for aggro, even if it's 1 damgae.. and Trogg isn't necessarily going to hit for one) and Tempo will still prefer going first under your setup.
At this point I just think iandakar is trolling. As I've said numerous times before, my suggestion is adding one low-impact turn to the start of the game, which if passed results in EXACTLY the situation we have now. I mean exactly in the most literal way.
Let me break it down again.
Mulligan: Player with Coin mulligans 4, without 3. Exactly the same as now.
First turn (Coin player): still 4 cards, zero mana
Second turn (non-Coin player): draws 4th card, gains first Mana Crystal (identical to current non-Coin first turn)
Third turn (Coin player): draws 5th card, gains first Mana Crystal (identical to Coin player's first turn currently)
So please, stop trying to add all kinds of depth to my suggestion which simply isn't there. Under my suggestion, if nothing is played on the Coin player's first turn, NOTHING changes.
And seriously, what's the Shaman going to do, Lightning Bolt the turn after coining the Trogg?
The Coin is not really the issue or the solution. Going second is usually worse in most card games or turn based games. Even in board games, going first is an advantage and many games offer ways for the player going second a way to catch up.
1. MTG - plays the best of 3 games where initiative changes (if the player chooses, which most do) AND you do not get to trade into minions of your choice. The attacking player with his creatures is at a disadvantage as you do not get to attack minions in Magic. The defending player chooses whether or not trade minions or life.
2. Hearthstone plays the best of 1 game, unless in a tournament setting. Do tournament settings allow the loser of the previous game get the initiative for the following game? If not, that is not a very good tournament structure or idea, which is a different issue, but should be fixed. Also, the attacking player gets to trade minions unless forced by taunt minions. That gives the player going first a HUGE advantage. In Magic you can build up a defense and keep mana up to play a spell to swing the combat into your favor. You cannot do that in Hearthstone.
So the issue is how Hearthstone combat is conducted. How do you balance the tempo when going first is a huge advantage to win rates? Even giving the second player a coin and an extra card does not do it enough. It's because taunt minions tend to be weaker for the same mana cost as the the non-taunt minions. For example, 3 mana, 3/3 taunt and compare that to most other 3 drops. They are 3/4 or have an ability in which you can take advantage of.
Hearthstone works in this very basic manner (assume turn 2 and forward)
a. First player plays a minion. Second player plays a minion or removal spell.
b. If second player plays a minion, First player responds by another minion or removal. Then they trade their original minion into the opponents.
c. This happens back and forth until the mid game in which multiple spells and minions can be played in one turn. The biggest issue is board control and minion removal. In the late game, the player with the most resources, minions or cards typically wins because of the trading.
How to fix this or change this? Make taunt minions stronger or easier to obtain. Change how Hearthstone combat works. Put in more board clears or minion removal. Allow players to play the best of 3 games instead of only 1 game.
Basically Hearthstone is a different type of game than MTG. The attacker has the advantage by choosing to trade minions in a favorable manner. Low cost minions have tons of stats or abilities for the mana cost. The lack of good board clears means that snowballing an advantage happens very often in aggressive or tempo based decks.
So let's assume that Hearthstone combat is not changing. Let's assume that the coin is not changing anytime soon. How do you fix the first player advantage for 1 game? Well honestly, that is very difficult. The obvious answer is to introduce cards that allow board clears without requiring 2 or 3 card combos. For example, Wild Pyromancer and Equality is a great board clear, but requires 2 cards and drawing them on the turn you need it. That means its a 2 drop that you can't play on turn 2. That is poor design as a board clear.
Neutral spells should be introduced. Neutral spells or minions could punish players who play too many minions and trade favorably, but without relying on DAMAGE. DAMAGE-based removal is not good enough. Power Word - Horror is the in the right direction, but is often too slow and not enough to affect the board.
Here is a sample Neutral spell and minion that could help swing the tempo to the second player and punish overally aggressive players because of the lack of board clears.
0 cost minion, Charming Diplomat, 0/1
Cannot play this minion if you attacked with a minion or weapon this turn.
Battlecry: Players cannot attack with minions or weapons until the start of your next turn.
0 cost spell, Not the Face!
Can only cast this spell if you did not attack or cast spells this turn. Minions cannot attack heroes until the next turn.
And seriously, what's the Shaman going to do, Lightning Bolt the turn after coining the Trogg?
Abusive sergeant. Argent Squire. Another Trogg. Lightning bolt if the opponent drops a minion. When you know your turn is going to be 1 mana 1 mana then you plop plenty of 1 drops in.
But you aren't interested in addressing my point. You just ignore a large number of them and call me a troll. And just want to keep pushing your changes.
So nm.
Hearthstone plays the best of 1 game, unless in a tournament setting. Do tournament settings allow the loser of the previous game get the initiative for the following game? If not, that is not a very good tournament structure or idea, which is a different issue, but should be fixed. Also, the attacking player gets to trade minions unless forced by tauntminions.
In Tournament settings, they don't swap initiative. However, as you can see from Vicious, which side is advantaged is not as strait forward in Hearthstone. Due to the current mulligan/coin system, different decks actually get an advantage going second. Rogue decks, for example, traditionally prefer going second due to their 'combo' mechanic. Control, meanwhile, prefers the card advantage along with the fact that, at turn 10, the mana advantage goes away. Note that while you have a 25% advantage going first in Magic, even the most first-advantaged deck, Tempo, can only net at 7% one, and that's only really accented in Tempo vs Tempo matchups. Overall, it's actually very close to an even bet who wants to go first or second.
So in tournaments, going first or second isn't so much of a big deal.
In constructed, it's messier since Ranked, by design, prefers aggro and faster tempo decks. Those decks prefer to go first. However, that's more of an issue of Ranked preferring certain archetypes. If going Control was as rewarding as going aggro then it wouldn't be an instant choice as to whether going first or second is best.
And again, Arena is utterly messed up as a system in general. Note that the posted numbers on the OP are from Arena. So is the video. In fact, so is the whole push about the first advantage these days. Before then, the typical post we'd see are people screaming that going SECOND is better and the coin needing nerfs.
My suggestion to fix some (not all) of the imbalance
Players mulligan exactly as they do now, according to whether they have the Coin or not. Then the player with the Coin goes first, but does not draw a card and does not gain a Mana Crystal as they normally would on this first turn.
Not drawing a card is a huge penalty. Whoever had the coin would likely have a win rate of <50%. You have fixed the problem only to create one of comparable magnitude.
Here's a thought. Since all sets are used in arena, the amount of synergy that you can draft lowers over time. This means that independently good cards are more valued over time, and the chance of drawing board clears lowers over time. Perhaps arena also needs to rotate out old sets as they do in constructed?
People who refuses to play aggro out of principle are even worse than people who play exclusively aggro.
One should seek to become a complete player and play all archetypes, including ones that he despises for whatever irrational reasons.
Instead of making a new thread, refined opening post and bumping.
I go back to my original statement: the issue is more about the lack of recovery and tempo regaining tools in general. This is less of an issue, relatively, in constructed since we can just choose the few that we have and call it a day. But not only are we not given that option, but also that many of those tools are in the earlier sets, such as classic, and, thus, don't show up as often since the newest set is the most common. Rarity also matters since most tools are rare/epic and don't get seen as often as common cards, which are more curve beneficial.
I'd put THIS as the issue to fix rather than the coin, especially since the coin would also affect constructed. I also note that those first/second numbers were in a good place back in beta and we had the coin then, showing that the problem wasn't the coin. If we tweak the coin to benefit second more, then end up tweaking whta caused the initial issue, we'd be double buffing second.
Thus I wouldn't touch the coin, or the mulligan, or anything else that was already in place back when the game was released and get more into what's changed since 2014 and today.
And get some blasted constructed numbers. Arena is already being overhauled by blizzard with a band-aid change going up VERY soon and a more comprehensive change coming in later.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
But I did get Ranked numbers. *Confused*
Frankly, the inability to Coin out (1)s before the opponent is inconsistent with every other mana cost. You can Coin out a (2) first, or a (3) first, etc. Only at (1) does the non-Coin player get uncontested first dibs.
I'm not saying tempo recovery tools aren't important, and perhaps they are more important... but that doesn't mean the Coin is perfect, even if they are. And keep in mind, minion-based decks are the ones most effected by Coin imbalance, so you need to take that into consideration regarding the tempo tools made available.
Player 1 effectively skips turn 1.
Player 2 gets turn 1 with 1 mana
Player 1 gets his effective turn 1 with 2 mana
Player 2 gets turn 2 with 2 mana
...
Then when you put in the stats on Vicious, you notice that other than the Tempo decks, you basically have a win rate of around -3 to +5 across the board for win rates.
As far as how things used to be, a few things to note:
1. We didn't HAVE tempo decks back in 2014.. not top tier ones. Aggro was MUCH faster, even trading decks like zoo (which could create an unbeatable board state by turn 4 and really had no way to win past turn 7, even with their tapping), Control was all in on Big Boys, and Midrange was focused on anti-control. Thus we didn't have any deck that was near 8% advantaged going first.
2. In 2014, there was only one deck that had a positive win rate going second: Rogue at 1%, and some suspect that included data from before some of their Combo-ability cards were nerfed which REALLY loved the coin. Otherwise, it was all going first was better by a few percentage. That we now have a number of decks that win more going second is impressive.
Though that means messing with the coin is even MORE a bad idea. If you make going second more powerful, you aren't going to balance the first and second places. Instead you just push those 3% second winners int..well, we don't know. It could be 7%. It could break the balance and create a massive advantage going second.
In any case, Tempo decks by design are supposed to prefer going first since they want that tempo. That's why they carry 1 drops so often. All that moving who gets to actually drop a minion first does is move which side Tempo benefits. Basically, do you want a 7% advantage going first or 7% advantage going second? No amount of card giving or stat altering will change that since Tempo is Tempo and that's what Tempo is supposed to do.
Remember that a 3% global differential on the whole first/second thing is VERY impressive. In most games going first gives you a 25% advantage on average. Thus if you want to make changes you're going to have ot do more than just theorycraft because you are doing VERY small fine tuning here with a massive amount of variables. We'll need some analysis of how those changes will actually somehow break that last 3% without pushing the game fully into "going second is better" territory, which is a lot of time utterly wasted.
It also shows that Arena's problem is that ALL of the decks are Tempo driven. But again, Arena as a whole is FUBAR and in need of an overhaul for many reasons so ..yeah.
But point is, Vicious' data shows that the overall win rates are more spread out than in 2014 but, as a whole, are about the same as 2014 and still doing much better than other games and what the Arena stats (which started this whole topic) show. Given how easily one small change can completely alter the landscape, I'm REALLY not wanting to rock the boat on any change not carefully analyzed just because it 'feels' better.
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.
IMO if we're only talking about a few percent difference then it's already balanced good enough. If you change it you might just make it worse
first of all coin shouldnt be a spell that gives an advantage to tempo mage and arcane golem rogue and druid
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
You're right that Tempo decks care about being first on the board. If they didn't, I wouldn't have made such a suggestion.
But I think you're underestimating how much Tempo cares about Mana Crystals. Kinda need them to do Ye Olde Hand Dump. Those are the two things which aren't currently in perfect balance - going first, and having more Mana.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
At this point I just think iandakar is trolling. As I've said numerous times before, my suggestion is adding one low-impact turn to the start of the game, which if passed results in EXACTLY the situation we have now. I mean exactly in the most literal way.
Let me break it down again.
Mulligan: Player with Coin mulligans 4, without 3. Exactly the same as now.
First turn (Coin player): still 4 cards, zero mana
Second turn (non-Coin player): draws 4th card, gains first Mana Crystal (identical to current non-Coin first turn)
Third turn (Coin player): draws 5th card, gains first Mana Crystal (identical to Coin player's first turn currently)
So please, stop trying to add all kinds of depth to my suggestion which simply isn't there. Under my suggestion, if nothing is played on the Coin player's first turn, NOTHING changes.
And seriously, what's the Shaman going to do, Lightning Bolt the turn after coining the Trogg?
The Coin is not really the issue or the solution. Going second is usually worse in most card games or turn based games. Even in board games, going first is an advantage and many games offer ways for the player going second a way to catch up.
1. MTG - plays the best of 3 games where initiative changes (if the player chooses, which most do) AND you do not get to trade into minions of your choice. The attacking player with his creatures is at a disadvantage as you do not get to attack minions in Magic. The defending player chooses whether or not trade minions or life.
2. Hearthstone plays the best of 1 game, unless in a tournament setting. Do tournament settings allow the loser of the previous game get the initiative for the following game? If not, that is not a very good tournament structure or idea, which is a different issue, but should be fixed. Also, the attacking player gets to trade minions unless forced by taunt minions. That gives the player going first a HUGE advantage. In Magic you can build up a defense and keep mana up to play a spell to swing the combat into your favor. You cannot do that in Hearthstone.
So the issue is how Hearthstone combat is conducted. How do you balance the tempo when going first is a huge advantage to win rates? Even giving the second player a coin and an extra card does not do it enough. It's because taunt minions tend to be weaker for the same mana cost as the the non-taunt minions. For example, 3 mana, 3/3 taunt and compare that to most other 3 drops. They are 3/4 or have an ability in which you can take advantage of.
Hearthstone works in this very basic manner (assume turn 2 and forward)
a. First player plays a minion. Second player plays a minion or removal spell.
b. If second player plays a minion, First player responds by another minion or removal. Then they trade their original minion into the opponents.
c. This happens back and forth until the mid game in which multiple spells and minions can be played in one turn. The biggest issue is board control and minion removal. In the late game, the player with the most resources, minions or cards typically wins because of the trading.
How to fix this or change this? Make taunt minions stronger or easier to obtain. Change how Hearthstone combat works. Put in more board clears or minion removal. Allow players to play the best of 3 games instead of only 1 game.
Basically Hearthstone is a different type of game than MTG. The attacker has the advantage by choosing to trade minions in a favorable manner. Low cost minions have tons of stats or abilities for the mana cost. The lack of good board clears means that snowballing an advantage happens very often in aggressive or tempo based decks.
So let's assume that Hearthstone combat is not changing. Let's assume that the coin is not changing anytime soon. How do you fix the first player advantage for 1 game? Well honestly, that is very difficult. The obvious answer is to introduce cards that allow board clears without requiring 2 or 3 card combos. For example, Wild Pyromancer and Equality is a great board clear, but requires 2 cards and drawing them on the turn you need it. That means its a 2 drop that you can't play on turn 2. That is poor design as a board clear.
Neutral spells should be introduced. Neutral spells or minions could punish players who play too many minions and trade favorably, but without relying on DAMAGE. DAMAGE-based removal is not good enough. Power Word - Horror is the in the right direction, but is often too slow and not enough to affect the board.
Here is a sample Neutral spell and minion that could help swing the tempo to the second player and punish overally aggressive players because of the lack of board clears.
0 cost minion, Charming Diplomat, 0/1
Cannot play this minion if you attacked with a minion or weapon this turn.
Battlecry: Players cannot attack with minions or weapons until the start of your next turn.
0 cost spell, Not the Face!
Can only cast this spell if you did not attack or cast spells this turn. Minions cannot attack heroes until the next turn.
Abusive sergeant. Argent Squire. Another Trogg. Lightning bolt if the opponent drops a minion. When you know your turn is going to be 1 mana 1 mana then you plop plenty of 1 drops in.
But you aren't interested in addressing my point. You just ignore a large number of them and call me a troll. And just want to keep pushing your changes.
So nm.
In Tournament settings, they don't swap initiative. However, as you can see from Vicious, which side is advantaged is not as strait forward in Hearthstone. Due to the current mulligan/coin system, different decks actually get an advantage going second. Rogue decks, for example, traditionally prefer going second due to their 'combo' mechanic. Control, meanwhile, prefers the card advantage along with the fact that, at turn 10, the mana advantage goes away. Note that while you have a 25% advantage going first in Magic, even the most first-advantaged deck, Tempo, can only net at 7% one, and that's only really accented in Tempo vs Tempo matchups. Overall, it's actually very close to an even bet who wants to go first or second.
So in tournaments, going first or second isn't so much of a big deal.
In constructed, it's messier since Ranked, by design, prefers aggro and faster tempo decks. Those decks prefer to go first. However, that's more of an issue of Ranked preferring certain archetypes. If going Control was as rewarding as going aggro then it wouldn't be an instant choice as to whether going first or second is best.
And again, Arena is utterly messed up as a system in general. Note that the posted numbers on the OP are from Arena. So is the video. In fact, so is the whole push about the first advantage these days. Before then, the typical post we'd see are people screaming that going SECOND is better and the coin needing nerfs.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.