Hearthpwn

@xxhellfirexx3; maybe that's the thing... to me that's just normal design in card games, because variance is part of the appeal. Mana screw or Yogg randomly swinging a game from nowhere feels bad competitively, but for people playing the game for fun it's part of what keeps things different and interesting. Top decks are just universally a random element that can swing games as well, and one which most people are okay with but it definitely impacts something. Think of it this way; when you look at refining a list, what's the biggest thing you're really looking to achieve? Most likely you could sum it up in one word; consistency.

I'm not up to date on the current Magic decks and don't really have any desire to be, but I guess to me set design has never been objective enough to know if something is poor before releasing it into the wild. Affinity in Magic is fascinating for instance, because it was actually a very balanced meta in regards to winrates but horrible from the perspective of players. MSoG was similar, where we had Priest/Warlock/Mage decks that were all different and more or less viable but they were a failed design in practice because they felt too similar. Every card game in existence struggles with these, so I don't know that there's a higher bar to raise it to; unlike other genres, the card game design space tends to operate on razor thin margins between broken and unplayable.

As far as similar to Hearthstone or MTG but more balanced, you could consider something like Ascension or another LCG. There's still RNG in the sense the deck is shuffled (once again, not something that most people have an issue with), but you essentially both start on the same foot and build your deck as the game progresses which means you get plenty of varied outcomes but you're not looking at a hand full of mana or having Swashburglar get your opponent the exact answer they need. Gwent is apparently much less RNG driven, and a lot of people have enjoyed it (I think it's meh, but it's something to check out). MOBAs are obviously vastly different from card games so it might not suit people as much, but they have such a high skill cap while remaining accessible that I don't ever hesitate to suggest them. I also play a lot of board games and they provide a lot of variance/strategy, with the caveat that you're literally rolling dice to drive the game forward; something like Catan is insanely fun to strategize in, but sometimes the dice just decide that you shouldn't win. Chess and Go are certainly oldies, but if you want turn based balance and strategy I don't think it gets better.

Quote from Tze >>

Gwent is apparently much less RNG driven, and a lot of people have enjoyed it (I think it's meh, but it's something to check out).

Most people who say the meta sucks has a specific version/vision of what the meta should look like... so what is your version of a good or perfect meta?

Please don't include nonsense about all classes being equal because that's how all card games go- ebb and flow of power- 13-15 months ago, people complained about secret pally every day... Now buff paladin is around but it's not nearly as powerful as anything from the secret pally days (just an example). Same could be said from shaman being weak and useless to being tier 1 for almost 18 months straight.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from Tze >>

Gwent is apparently much less RNG driven, and a lot of people have enjoyed it (I think it's meh, but it's something to check out).

 Indeed, I find Gwent boring af, so it's my go-to recommendation for people who complain about RNG in Hearthstone. Gwent has a die-hard following, and I figure it's made up of the people who would rather play Calculatorstone than see actual fun things happen in a game.

Quote from Tze >>

@xxhellfirexx3; maybe that's the thing... to me that's just normal design in card games, because variance is part of the appeal. Mana screw or Yogg randomly swinging a game from nowhere feels bad competitively, but for people playing the game for fun it's part of what keeps things different and interesting. Top decks are just universally a random element that can swing games as well, and one which most people are okay with but it definitely impacts something. Think of it this way; when you look at refining a list, what's the biggest thing you're really looking to achieve? Most likely you could sum it up in one word; consistency.

I'm not up to date on the current Magic decks and don't really have any desire to be, but I guess to me set design has never been objective enough to know if something is poor before releasing it into the wild. Affinity in Magic is fascinating for instance, because it was actually a very balanced meta in regards to winrates but horrible from the perspective of players. MSoG was similar, where we had Priest/Warlock/Mage decks that were all different and more or less viable but they were a failed design in practice because they felt too similar. Every card game in existence struggles with these, so I don't know that there's a higher bar to raise it to; unlike other genres, the card game design space tends to operate on razor thin margins between broken and unplayable.

As far as similar to Hearthstone or MTG but more balanced, you could consider something like Ascension or another LCG. There's still RNG in the sense the deck is shuffled (once again, not something that most people have an issue with), but you essentially both start on the same foot and build your deck as the game progresses which means you get plenty of varied outcomes but you're not looking at a hand full of mana or having Swashburglar get your opponent the exact answer they need. Gwent is apparently much less RNG driven, and a lot of people have enjoyed it (I think it's meh, but it's something to check out). MOBAs are obviously vastly different from card games so it might not suit people as much, but they have such a high skill cap while remaining accessible that I don't ever hesitate to suggest them. I also play a lot of board games and they provide a lot of variance/strategy, with the caveat that you're literally rolling dice to drive the game forward; something like Catan is insanely fun to strategize in, but sometimes the dice just decide that you shouldn't win. Chess and Go are certainly oldies, but if you want turn based balance and strategy I don't think it gets better.

@xxhellfirexx3; I can definitely understand if people move on because they want something more skill driven, card games absolutely have an element of skill but they're still high variance games. Kind of like poker, it's still got a solid portion of the gameplay defined by luck. Like, the best thing you can do to adopt a competitive mindset in a card game is come to terms with the fact a lot of stuff simply isn't in your control.

I'm pretty casual-core when it comes to games; I like competing, analyzing, and improving, but I also just want to unwind and have a little bit of fun. Hearthstone is pretty perfect for me in that regard. I don't expect that to be perfect for everyone.

If SC2 and Civilization are games you get more enjoyment out of, I hope they continue to bring you enjoyment! Life is too short to be frustrated with your hobbies, and I wish more people would adopt the mindset you have. If something isn't fun it's never a bad thing to take a break, or even move on from it altogether, in favor of doing something that brings you happiness. Of course I want Hearthstone to continue to thrive and remain relevant for another 20 years, but I want it to be because people enjoy playing it and not because they feel like they're stuck with the game due to the money they've put into it.

Edit : woups, nothing to see here.

Quote from gagandugan >>

Quote from Shadeblight >>

That's why I never hit legend, because I refuse to play the freaking 'no brain' top tier deck which everyone plays, and I'd like other players to think that kind of way, but yeah ... 

 See, I respect this. But then you need to get better at constructing decks. And if you do, you will end up playing one of tier 1 or 2 decks anyway.

So I talked about a Paladin deck i was creating, here it is : http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/813343-metas-holy-chemotherapy
I'd be happy if you could give me your review, and even more if you'd test it ! 

@Dovahtiim Yeah, we had a hard time with that bullsh*t :D

Quote from Adernain >>

If you keep getting the same matchups then tech against them

What more players need to do is segregate the concept of variance from win rate. Your win rate is what keeps you climbing ranks, but variance is what makes it possible for you to lose 5 in a row despite your best effort. So no matter how bad variance gets, the better players still win more games. You just have to play for longer and longer to get the same results.

mc tech...  sigh.

@Justice1337; I think even with that mindset it's fair for someone to dislike that there's still a reasonable chance for the worse player to win in something like a Bo5. That's one reason why Top 8/16 finishes being done consistently is more what people look at with respect to professional card slingers than just their number of 1st place finishes.

If I'm playing League and get destroyed I can look at actions I made or my teammates made and be able to know something that definitely needs work or definitely cost us the game. In card games you can be making objectively optimal plays in every turn and still have something out of your control cost you the game. It's not necessarily a good/bad thing, but it's definitely a factor in how enjoyable you'll find the competitive (or even casual) scene for the game you're playing. For the people who don't want variance to dictate winrate, I think the competitive scene of Hearthstone is always going to be bad news for them.

As others have mentioned, it's great to see representation from all classes at the moment, although there's way more Rogue and Warrior, and increasingly more Hunter.

The reason why the meta is always frustrating to me has less to do with class diversity, and more to do with deck diversity. I come across very few decks that aren't running the exact same list as the popular ones on here. If there were some changes here and there, tech choices, it would be refreshing. Every game against Hunter is the exact same play. Turn 1 beast (jeweled macaw, alley cat, fiery bat, raptor), turn 2 hyena, dire wolf, knife juggler, crackling razormaw, turn 3 is animal companion or rat pack, turn 4 infested wolf or houndmaster, 5 is nearly always tundra rhino, and 6 is highmane, rinse and repeat. What makes it worse is when I play something like Spellbreaker, The Black Knight, or even eater of secrets, I often get BM for it. The meta is so fast these days that a bad mulligan means game over, you can't have a hand full of 4+ mana cards and expect to catch up from the snowballing board your opponent is building with such little neutral healing and lack of decent board clears for some classes.

The meta has literally made me quit this game.  I just scroll through the forums because it seems everyone shares my pain (besides those that think they'll get good karma but defending blizz or something).  

I cannot explain my hatred for seeing Warrior every god damn game.  It's awful.  Never in this game has there been a more brain-dead deck than Taunt Warrior.  Only thing more boring than playing it? Playing against it.

Taunt warrior is a large percentage of matchups - very hard to beat if they get to the end game with dirty rat brawl and fireball spam - don't think the decklists are fully refined yet, once everyone is playing the same list, facing it will be boredom incarnate, did someone get a lucky dirty rat or not?

Pirate warrior is still fucking disgusting to play against. Another high percentage of matchups.

Even though it's flaky, Quest Rogue is clearly a broken deck - if it draws well it will overrun nearly anything. Yes I've got a deck that is probably better than 50% winrate against that shit. Buts it's basically a couple of coin  flips - did I draw disrupters, did he draw bounces? 

If those 3 decks were slightly nerfed the meta might actually end up being good. At the moment I'm hating the meta - to me a good meta is one where *I* can get into the 10-5 bracket without grinding the common netdecks or needing to craft or buy "must play" cards. Last few seasons I haven't really felt that has been possible. Blizzard will get no money from me ever again until they abandon their cycle of releasing broken, meta defining decks and leaving them to ruin seasons while they sell packs to people jumping on the cancer wagon: huntertaker, secret paladin, Aggro Shaman, Pirate Warrior... this is no different in my eyes.

It's getting dull; either pirate/quest warrior or cave rogue. It took less than a week to see where this shit is going. 

@Tze I think recognising the optimal play, in retrospective  or in game, is very difficult even in a fairly simple game as hearthstone, as we only observe one possible reality. Depends on the deck of course, some are linear enough to clearly identify misplay, but I think in general its not possible to take into account all the (relevant) possible continuations of a game which would be necessary to evaluate a play. This is when intuition comes into plays and let experienced players decide by gut feeling which play feel correct or not, which is based on the 1000s of times they have been in similar situations and observed possible continuations (probably biased though).

Bit of a technical argument, but variance doesn't dictate the winrate, but only the number of games that need to be played to converge to the true winrate, but probably what you meant anyways. Would be interesting to estimate the variance empirically, for example by letting two players play against each other until it converges to some winrate, and see if the number of games necessary changed over the expansions.

I would suspect that yes. Reasons are the heavy RNG cards as it was in unstable portal that itself can just win you a game or be waste of a turn, or Yogg and nowadays the glyph or adapt effects.However I think a more subtle reason is the ever increasing strength of synergy effects, like the one in described in RiftValleysHS post. If you get a certain order of cards the gain from that enormously increased. Back in Beta a good turn 2 was playing a Ferry Dragon, which seems laughable when looking how much you get out of being able to drop razormaw on a beast on turn 2. Same is true for rogue (both kinds) and all tempo based decks. And in return, as the gain of getting a good curve increased so immensely, when playing a control deck you'll just lose the game if you do not draw the right AoE early enough and your enemy curves out nicely. Also in the past you could lose a game by not drawing answers, but you had more time to do so, even if your enemy curves out good, making the game result more dependent on how you build your deck and how you tried to deal with early pressure in a suboptimal manner (which now loses the game by default). I  think first time this changed was undertaker hunter and since then probably every expansion had a deck like this and the overall power level increased steadily. By decks being so dependent on a certain order of cards to be drawn (the curve) the game implicitly becomes much more RNG dependent

I would really love to see hearthstone taking a step back from the power creeping and opop synergies and goe back to the card power level of before Naxx, where there also was synergy but not automatically game winning if you draw it. I don't think its possible as then the cards in next 6 expansions would suck compared to the current expansions, but still I think that would be the path to go in order to reduce the inherent variance of the game. For me that would be more enjoyable. 

If people keeps on complaining why not play Wild. Oh well I'm sure they have a lot to compromise.

You people are butthurting cause your deckbuilding skill is prolly very low which leads to

1. You can only play broken boring decks made by some1 else.

2. You cant make something of your own with good results so you think that meta decks must be broken.

I havent net decked a single deck in this expansion but each deck i built allows me for climbing above rank 4. Start using your own brain and play what you like not whats currently the best.

Git gud :)