I look at hearthstone and i see a third of the deck devoted to the late game, more worried about fighting other control decks than aggro so of course you lose you've not teched to be anti-control but entirely designed around it.
I agree completely. It has gotten so bad that many people are calling anything that's not control aggro, including even many of the slower midrange decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
I enjoyed Hearthstone in the past, hoping and waiting for serious anti aggro tools . Never happens, so i just passed on HS and switched to Elder Scroll Legends. Very happy atm.
I enjoyed Hearthstone in the past, hoping and waiting for serious anti aggro tools . Never happens, so i just passed on HS and switched to Elder Scroll Legends. Very happy atm.
Don't worry, once the game gets popular enough, its meta will become like hearthstone. The best you can do is to never advertise the game and hope that it remains fringe. That goes for all games, really. People will always find things that will make you lose and feel angry. It's human nature and nothing can change it.
Idk if its been said already but no way they're switching the rarity on cards. Think of how much dust people could make or lose by abusing or failing to acknowledge the change. I personally wouldn't mind dusting my newly Epic'd and Golden Divine Favor but think of the people who crafted (Golden) Ice Block or Ancient of War etc.
Idk if its been said already but no way they're switching the rarity on cards. Think of how much dust people could make or lose by abusing or failing to acknowledge the change. I personally wouldn't mind dusting my newly Epic'd and Golden Divine Favor but think of the people who crafted (Golden) Ice Block or Ancient of War etc.
I think it'd be obvious that there'd be a brief period where you could disenchant a down-raritied card for its old disenchant amount; so you'd have some rares which disenchant for 100 for a while (golden 400).
After a while though, that offer would no longer be available.
I enjoyed Hearthstone in the past, hoping and waiting for serious anti aggro tools . Never happens, so i just passed on HS and switched to Elder Scroll Legends. Very happy atm.
Don't worry, once the game gets popular enough, its meta will become like hearthstone. The best you can do is to never advertise the game and hope that it remains fringe. That goes for all games, really. People will always find things that will make you lose and feel angry. It's human nature and nothing can change it.
You totally misunderstood. I lose just as in hearthstone. I just enjoyed it more because game don't finish at turn 6. It's how the game is designed. That been said, i just hope you got your fun with aggro deck in hearthstone. I keep my fun in Elder scroll legend. kisses.
Idk if its been said already but no way they're switching the rarity on cards. Think of how much dust people could make or lose by abusing or failing to acknowledge the change. I personally wouldn't mind dusting my newly Epic'd and Golden Divine Favor but think of the people who crafted (Golden) Ice Block or Ancient of War etc.
I think it'd be obvious that there'd be a brief period where you could disenchant a down-raritied card for its old disenchant amount; so you'd have some rares which disenchant for 100 for a while (golden 400).
After a while though, that offer would no longer be available.
Yes, obviously, but it would not be permanent and Blizzard has stated that they don't like to change cards anyway.
Rarity changes have less of an impact on their primary formats (constructed) than effect changes so there's no way it will happen.
You totally misunderstood. I lose just as in hearthstone. I just enjoyed it more because game don't finish at turn 6. It's how the game is designed. That been said, i just hope you got your fun with aggro deck in hearthstone. I keep my fun in Elder scroll legend. kisses.
I haven't misunderstood you at all. There will be cancer decks in Elder Scroll. If they aren't there already, they certainly will be if the game becomes popular. Then, if the community is any good at the game, those decks will be just as frustrating as they are in Hearthstone. The alternative is that the game becomes a complete control fest, which means that it won't ever become popular, validating my point. Anyways, I certainly do have my fun with aggro in Hearthstone, as much as I have fun with midrange, control, and combo.
N'zoth Pally can actually handle the aggro decks unless it draws horribly, but it gets wrecked by midrange and loses the control mirror against C'thun Warrior because Doomcaller single-handedly rendered control decks without C'thun irrelevant. So, it can be a meta choice but immediately wilts when you hit Warrior.
This gets more to the real heart of a of the issues, control decks are [b]super[/b] greedy and more worried about the control mirror than they are the early game.
I look at magic and discounting lands I see a mix of early cards(1-5 drops in hearthstone, 1-3 drops in magic) designed to fight but not win in the early game, a handful of cards designed to stabilize the mid game(6-8 in hearthstone, 4-5 in magic), and what would be one or two cards designed around winning the game at the top of the curve. (9-10 in hearthstone, 5-7 in magic).
I look at hearthstone and i see a third of the deck devoted to the late game, more worried about fighting other control decks than aggro so of course you lose you've not teched to be anti-control but entirely designed around it.
I'm not sure that I see your point as relates to mine. I was pointing out that N'zoth Pally is the only other control deck that can actually keep up with aggro now (besides C'thun Warrior) and that other control decks really lack adequate answers to stabilize the board before it's too late. Truesilver, Equality combos, and Keeper/aldor provide just enough slowing power in the early / midgame. Other standard control decks don't fail to stabilize against aggro because they're built to stop C'thun Warrior; they fail to do it because they lack the tools to do it.
My comment about the control mirror was pointing out that even a viable anti aggro deck like N'zoth Pally is suboptimal because it not only loses to its natural counter, it also is quite bad against the control deck that already locks down the board better than it does.
People building Priest or any other control class for fatigue is not what's keeping these decks from working.
I'd like to point out something due to that snapshot.
What it effectively did was push some of the cheaper decks into more expensive territory. Meanwhile, some of the more expensive decks go from "OMG pricey" to "Ugg, pricey". That is, no control decks become actually viable to be played by a new F2Per while cheaper decks just become more expensive. Aggro is still the cheapest of the decks so F2Pers will still have to gravitate to them. They just have to suffer more until they can actually build those decks.
Thus the adjustment did nothing really to make control more viable to build than aggro, but did make the game less F2P friendly as a whole.
sidenote, if you want to really judge these decks, look at their Adventure requirements. Adventures do not get counted in the dust count since they aren't crafted but are actually MUCH harder for a F2Per to obtain. Dust is gained by Arena or card packs. Both can give the F2Per a chance at getting the cards they need wholesale, thus making it much cheaper to craft the deck they wanted. Or else they'll pick up cards for one deck while working on another deck, thus once they finish off one deck they'll already be ahead in making the next one.
Adventures require a F2Per to stop all arena runs and pack openings to just grind gold. A casual F2Per will earn about 350 gold a week, thus opening one wing per 2 weeks. Thus a single card in the 2nd wing will take a full month without gaining a single new card to obtain.
Thus aggro shaman requires not only 2k dust originally, but also 1 1/2 months of pure gold grinding to complete via finley.
As far as dust itself..well, F2Pers typically stink in Arena so let's assume they just open packs. If we also assume they are super unlucky and jsut get pure dust packs, then that's, on average, 100 dust per pack on average (that's AVERAGE, not 'most common' of 40 dust).
So at 350 gold per week, that's 3.5 packs a week or 350 dust. This is a VERY rough estimate due to not every card being dusted but some cards they need being obtained strait up but..meh it's good enough for government work until a Math pro gets in here with bette rnumbers.
So 2k dust would take 10 weeks to obtain. Add in the 6 weeks for Finley and we can put in about 16 weeks of dust/gold grinding to complete Aggro shaman. Your change would add about 2 more weeks to the equation btw.
Worgon OTK, the cheapest deck in the list, would take 4 and a half weeks of dust gathering and 2 weeks of gold collecting (for Emperor). Your change would add another 2 weeks, so instead of it taking 1 1/2 months to complete it'll take 2 months.
Still faster than any of the controld ecks, so there's still no reason to not go for the deck, but 2 additional weeks of struggling. Though not so badly since commanding shout isn't REQUIRED for the deck so you can swap it out for something else before you have it.
So if the original idea is to stop making aggro as the go to deck for F2Pers, how does this actually help them?
@iandakar: I really doubt every F2Per is following that exact min-max strategy. You're right that I'm hindering that strategy. However, min-maxers aren't really the demographic I feel anyone need be concerned with. They'll probably do just fine even with a little extra hurdle.
I'm more concerned with the meta impact of the more typical experience - a new player builds not towards a specific budget netdeck, but towards whatever it is they'd actually want to play. This will probably involve a lot of failcrafting which gets dusted later. I do assume that such players will eventually become meta-aware, start looking at netdecks, etc, but I'm not assuming they begin with this knowledge right out of the gate.
However, most importantly, you're inserting an intent into my suggestion which simply isn't there. Nothing in the opening post says "improve the F2P player experience." I'm not a hateful person or anything, so I don't have any ill will towards F2Pers (technically, I've been one since Naxx, but I'm rather good at Arena) but this suggestion is about steering the meta towards better archetype balance for the general Hearthstone population... not about making things better for those with zero financial contribution to the game. Please reread my opening post with this understanding.
For what it's worth, I think a healthier meta is more important to overall player retention, which benefits F2Pers in a way.
@iandakar: I really doubt every F2Per is following that exact min-max strategy. You're right that I'm hindering that strategy. However, min-maxers aren't really the demographic I feel anyone need be concerned with. They'll probably do just fine even with a little extra hurdle.
I'm more concerned with the meta impact of the more typical experience - a new player builds not towards a specific budget netdeck, but towards whatever it is they'd actually want to play. This will probably involve a lot of failcrafting which gets dusted later. I do assume that such players will eventually become meta-aware, start looking at netdecks, etc, but I'm not assuming they begin with this knowledge right out of the gate.
However, most importantly, you're inserting an intent into my suggestion which simply isn't there. Nothing in the opening post says "improve the F2P player experience." I'm not a hateful person or anything, so I don't have any ill will towards F2Pers (technically, I've been one since Naxx, but I'm rather good at Arena) but this suggestion is about steering the meta towards better archetype balance for the general Hearthstone population... not about making things better for those with zero financial contribution to the game. Please reread my opening post with this understanding.
For what it's worth, I think a healthier meta is more important to overall player retention, which benefits F2Pers in a way.
Your title involves 'reducing aggro by adjusting dust costs'. The assumption is that your goal is to reduce the aggro in the meta. Considering that most aggro decks nowadays are made by either those 'min-maxers' or folks who just like aggro, targetting new players who are just making decks at random and swapping out certain cards with others really isn't going to do much to obtain that goal. I was one of those players. You don't make aggro decks at that level. You just make bad decks until you become meta aware.
Your suggestion would do nothing to change the meta because your target audience isn't making a dent on the meta. It's not full of folks who are just using lava burst and juggler because they are cheaper. It's full of 'min-maxers' using aggro because it's better for Ranked or else its the only decks they can make. And they already have the cards you are changing, so it's far too late to do it even if it were to make an effect.
If you actually want to change the meta from an aggro mindset to a more balanced one, then ..I'll be blunt, there's no point looking into this line of discussion. This won't offer any benefits towards the meta, just add a lot of confusion for folks who already have the cards and hurt a segment of the F2P population (all of them really, since in order to be a F2Per, you really have to either min-max or have a VERY masochistic outlook). This is a discussion that MAY have a temporary effect back in 2014, though by 'temporary effect' it would basically separate performance in ranked behind a form of paywall since the folks who pay into the game will have those effective aggro and control decks while the rest would have..well, nothing of use as they couldn't make either. But perhaps with other dramatic changes it might have a more proper effect for a while.
But it's 2016. The cat is out of the bag. We have the cards already. Making it harder for new players to make aggro decks won't do a thing to the many MANY people who already fill the meta with aggro.
However, most importantly, you're inserting an intent into my suggestion which simply isn't there. Nothing in the opening post says "improve the F2P player experience." I'm not a hateful person or anything, so I don't have any ill will towards F2Pers (technically, I've been one since Naxx, but I'm rather good at Arena) but this suggestion is about steering the meta towards better archetype balance for the general Hearthstone population... not about making things better for those with zero financial contribution to the game. Please reread my opening post with this understanding.
For what it's worth, I think a healthier meta is more important to overall player retention, which benefits F2Pers in a way.
Your title involves 'reducing aggro by adjusting dust costs'. The assumption is that your goal is to reduce the aggro in the meta. Considering that most aggro decks nowadays are made by either those 'min-maxers' or folks who just like aggro, targetting new players who are just making decks at random and swapping out certain cards with others really isn't going to do much to obtain that goal. I was one of those players. You don't make aggro decks at that level. You just make bad decks until you become meta aware.
You say most players like aggro or are min-maxing, and I disagree. I firmly believe the F2P and near-F2P section of the community is larger than you imagine, especially at lower Ranked, um, Ranks, and in Casual. I think this *majority* of the playerbase is Dust-starved and essentially denied access to several Tier 3-or-better deck archetypes, regardless of play preference.
I don't think what I'm suggesting is a magic wand which would fully fix such issues. But I do think it would partially fix them. Cutting the Dust cost of a very expensive deck by a few hundred can make a huge difference in approachability.
If you disagree with the rarity changes which would make cheap decks cost more Dust, what about the changes which would make expensive decks cheaper? I'm advocating both, to minimize opportunity cost of more expensive decks, but it seems your criticism is entirely focused on a minority of my suggestions.
I'm not sure that I see your point as relates to mine. I was pointing out that N'zoth Pally is the only other control deck that can actually keep up with aggro now (besides C'thun Warrior) and that other control decks really lack adequate answers to stabilize the board before it's too late. Truesilver, Equality combos, and Keeper/aldor provide just enough slowing power in the early / midgame. Other standard control decks don't fail to stabilize against aggro because they're built to stop C'thun Warrior; they fail to do it because they lack the tools to do it.
My comment about the control mirror was pointing out that even a viable anti aggro deck like N'zoth Pally is suboptimal because it not only loses to its natural counter, it also is quite bad against the control deck that already locks down the board better than it does.
People building Priest or any other control class for fatigue is not what's keeping these decks from working.
My point is you are super worried about the control mirror and how i look at most control lists and their curves functionally start well after turn 1. They avoid running cards that are "Bad", but here's the secret magic had to learn to stop control from being cancer and the hearthstone designers knew from the start.
If The aggro deck spends to 2 mana to play a threat, and control spends to 2 mana remove that is that an equal trade? No, Control is ahead since furthered it's own goal(extend the game) while the aggro deck accomplished nothing for 2 mana. Control's tools *need* to be "not good enough" in the early game, because control's goal is to win the long game.
You say most players like aggro or are min-maxing, and I disagree. I firmly believe the F2P and near-F2P section of the community is larger than you imagine, especially at lower Ranked, um, Ranks, and in Casual. I think this *majority* of the playerbase is Dust-starved and essentially denied access to several Tier 3-or-better deck archetypes, regardless of play preference.
I don't think what I'm suggesting is a magic wand which would fully fix such issues. But I do think it would partially fix them. Cutting the Dust cost of a very expensive deck by a few hundred can make a huge difference in approachability.
If you disagree with the rarity changes which would make cheap decks cost more Dust, what about the changes which would make expensive decks cheaper? I'm advocating both, to minimize opportunity cost of more expensive decks, but it seems your criticism is entirely focused on a minority of my suggestions.
Throughout my entire time playing this game, I've only spent $2 on it and that was just to get a promotional card during the beta. Otherwise, I've been completely F2P. I've also been heavily casual and never really bothered pushing for top tier decks. I lived the life of the exact demographic you are looking at. And I can tell you from experience, that giving them bits of access to control styled cards without the key cards needed to actually make a control deck work is not going to help them at all. Reducing a 4700 dust deck to 4000 still means waiting over a year before you can dream of developing the deck. In fact, considered ANY deck over 2k dust out of access to a typical F2Per with less than 6 months of playtime. Note that by 6 months I had no problems getting access to key legendaries and could start making more expensive decks so the hurdle had been passed and nothing really needs to be done to assist afterthat point.
Which is why I'm so against your idea as stated since it not only doesn't do anything to move slower decks into their hands but pushes ALL decks out of easy reach. I will NOT support such an option. So yes, I would rather decks be cheaper.
For one, we know that Blizzard knows some of the cards are 'bad' and developed that way. That they exist is fine. however, what we could do is swap rare/common 'bad' cards with epic/rare good ones. The Savagery/AoW swap is a perfect example of this. Savagery sucks newbieswould be better off getting AoW instead as their rare. That would greatly open up slower druid decks without hurting other decks. Tor Mage and Ice Block is another example. Any issues with Arena can be softened given that Blizzard is developing a system to control the frequency of cards in arena beyond their rarity so we don't NEED to lock AoW in Epic status jsut to keep it from overshowing in Arena anymore.
There's nothing that can be done with legendaries so full control really but at least C'thun is accessible. If blizzard keeps doing that then newbies will have some access to control decks sooner than I did during my time.
I will warn that this will still do nothing to deal with the meta since Ranked game mechanics reward aggro and punish control no matter the accessibility or even power level and that makes a BIG deal towards what the meta looks like. Fixing Casual (an issue blizzard is already aware is a problem) wouuld probably be the final solution.
Still ,as far as using your idea to make other decks more accessible, put less focus on punishing aggro users and more towards making other decks more accessible and you'll get your goals met. Though honestly, your mana examples already show that we already have a lot of headway on this matter, given that Midrange Hunter and OTK warrior are MUCH more accessible than aggro shaman, especially when you consider adventure issues.
I'm not sure that I see your point as relates to mine. I was pointing out that N'zoth Pally is the only other control deck that can actually keep up with aggro now (besides C'thun Warrior) and that other control decks really lack adequate answers to stabilize the board before it's too late. Truesilver, Equality combos, and Keeper/aldor provide just enough slowing power in the early / midgame. Other standard control decks don't fail to stabilize against aggro because they're built to stop C'thun Warrior; they fail to do it because they lack the tools to do it.
My comment about the control mirror was pointing out that even a viable anti aggro deck like N'zoth Pally is suboptimal because it not only loses to its natural counter, it also is quite bad against the control deck that already locks down the board better than it does.
People building Priest or any other control class for fatigue is not what's keeping these decks from working.
My point is you are super worried about the control mirror and how i look at most control lists and their curves functionally start well after turn 1. They avoid running cards that are "Bad", but here's the secret magic had to learn to stop control from being cancer and the hearthstone designers knew from the start.
If The aggro deck spends to 2 mana to play a threat, and control spends to 2 mana remove that is that an equal trade? No, Control is ahead since furthered it's own goal(extend the game) while the aggro deck accomplished nothing for 2 mana. Control's tools *need* to be "not good enough" in the early game, because control's goal is to win the long game.
That's not an equal trade, the aggro deck is winning because the minion had time to deal damage to the opponent's face. This is why Control must be able to remove threats for less than what was spent to summon them.
I'm not sure that I see your point as relates to mine. I was pointing out that N'zoth Pally is the only other control deck that can actually keep up with aggro now (besides C'thun Warrior) and that other control decks really lack adequate answers to stabilize the board before it's too late. Truesilver, Equality combos, and Keeper/aldor provide just enough slowing power in the early / midgame. Other standard control decks don't fail to stabilize against aggro because they're built to stop C'thun Warrior; they fail to do it because they lack the tools to do it.
My comment about the control mirror was pointing out that even a viable anti aggro deck like N'zoth Pally is suboptimal because it not only loses to its natural counter, it also is quite bad against the control deck that already locks down the board better than it does.
People building Priest or any other control class for fatigue is not what's keeping these decks from working.
My point is you are super worried about the control mirror and how i look at most control lists and their curves functionally start well after turn 1. They avoid running cards that are "Bad", but here's the secret magic had to learn to stop control from being cancer and the hearthstone designers knew from the start.
If The aggro deck spends to 2 mana to play a threat, and control spends to 2 mana remove that is that an equal trade? No, Control is ahead since furthered it's own goal(extend the game) while the aggro deck accomplished nothing for 2 mana. Control's tools *need* to be "not good enough" in the early game, because control's goal is to win the long game.
Yeah, I think you missed the point entirely. I'm not overly worried about the control mirror. In fact, there's no point in teching for the Control Mirror if you're running a deck like the one I mentioned, N'zoth Pally, because it is simply never going to win that war, no matter how you build it. My comment was solely intended to point out that C'thun Warrior has helped crowd other control decks out of the meta because it shuts down aggro as well or better than them and it is virtually guaranteed to win mirror matches.
You seem to have missed the key part of what I said, which was:
I was pointing out that N'zoth Pally is the only other control deck that can actually keep up with aggro now (besides C'thun Warrior) and that other control decks really lack adequate answers to stabilize the board before it's too late. Truesilver, Equality combos, and Keeper/aldor provide just enough slowing power in the early / midgame. Other standard control decks don't fail to stabilize against aggro because they're built to stop C'thun Warrior; they fail to do it because they lack the tools to do it.
These decks don't suck because they're stressed about other control decks. They suck because all of the cards they should be playing early in the game to stabilize the board - chow, deathlord, etc, are gone in standard. Warrior avoids this issue because it has the best early-game reactive set in HS - FWA, Slam, all of the AOE pings, etc. Other control classes lack adequate kit to actually do something on those turns.
If you have some build in mind that people are missing, I'm all ears. I just don't think you can blame people's builds for the inability of traditional control decks to compete reliably in the current meta.
As for your two mana for two mana trade argument, I don't think it's so cut and dry. An aggro deck will typically have more options in the early game, so losing one card is rarely a major impediment to its game plan. Because you can only run 2-of in HS, a control player deciding to use a specific removal spell is a real trade-off because it has one less answer later. Think about zoo getting multiple minions on the board, some of them with the ability to remain on board via deathrattles - single targer removal does virtually nothing here.
I do agree generally that extending the game provides time to draw into valuable answers; but if you look at what actually works now, one-for-one removal is inadequate. FWA works because it virtually guarantees a two for one trade. SW:P is much less effective, despite its flexibility relative to FWA, because the best it can do is revert you back to the prior board state. It is only useful if you subsequently draw into your mass removal, which is where control decks can actually win the game against aggro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
I agree with the last two comments. The game does not start on turn 5.
I enjoyed Hearthstone in the past, hoping and waiting for serious anti aggro tools . Never happens, so i just passed on HS and switched to Elder Scroll Legends. Very happy atm.
HS does have some serious anti-aggro tools.
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.
Idk if its been said already but no way they're switching the rarity on cards. Think of how much dust people could make or lose by abusing or failing to acknowledge the change. I personally wouldn't mind dusting my newly Epic'd and Golden Divine Favor but think of the people who crafted (Golden) Ice Block or Ancient of War etc.
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.
Added Meta Snapshot Dust analysis to OP.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
@iandakar: I really doubt every F2Per is following that exact min-max strategy. You're right that I'm hindering that strategy. However, min-maxers aren't really the demographic I feel anyone need be concerned with. They'll probably do just fine even with a little extra hurdle.
I'm more concerned with the meta impact of the more typical experience - a new player builds not towards a specific budget netdeck, but towards whatever it is they'd actually want to play. This will probably involve a lot of failcrafting which gets dusted later. I do assume that such players will eventually become meta-aware, start looking at netdecks, etc, but I'm not assuming they begin with this knowledge right out of the gate.
However, most importantly, you're inserting an intent into my suggestion which simply isn't there. Nothing in the opening post says "improve the F2P player experience." I'm not a hateful person or anything, so I don't have any ill will towards F2Pers (technically, I've been one since Naxx, but I'm rather good at Arena) but this suggestion is about steering the meta towards better archetype balance for the general Hearthstone population... not about making things better for those with zero financial contribution to the game. Please reread my opening post with this understanding.
For what it's worth, I think a healthier meta is more important to overall player retention, which benefits F2Pers in a way.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
If The aggro deck spends to 2 mana to play a threat, and control spends to 2 mana remove that is that an equal trade? No, Control is ahead since furthered it's own goal(extend the game) while the aggro deck accomplished nothing for 2 mana. Control's tools *need* to be "not good enough" in the early game, because control's goal is to win the long game.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.