So while it has clearly been shown that, based on the statistics, the problem remains that often times through bad luck or whatever else, a certain player will end up playing against the same deck many times in a row. That isn't much fun. So how to solve this? It might be a good idea to see Blizzard implement some sort of matchmaking system that made it so that players were more likely to be matched up against classes they haven't played against recently.
Potentially this might also make it harder for the most common classes (rogue, warrior, hunter) to be less played as it could lead to them having much longer wait times to find games. In order to have games more frequently, one would be encouraged to play less common classes, therefore creating even more diversity in the meta. I'm not so sure though if Blizzard trying to influence the meta through something other than card design is really a good idea, but at the very least they could set up a system to prevent any individual player from facing whatever FOTM deck is running rampant at the time 9/10 games.
I don't think there has to be that big of a load time between games if this is set up. The favoritizing can be made very casual, somewhat like how finding someone of a similar ranked is setup. If you just played a warrior and there's a mage and warrior in the queu,e, you get put with the mage. If all that are there are warriors then you get another warrior. It's not going to force you to sit around doing nothing while it tries to push you into 'the perfect matchup'.
And yes, any influencing through something other than card design IS a nasty situation since it can be easily gamed. Gaming the card design to our advantage is not only appropriate but a vital part of card game mechanics. You are SUPPOSED to hunt for imbalnace and broken mechanics in cards. Hunting for it in matchmaking, though, is a Bad Idea.
I would also say that ranked in general is a big problem helping to facilitate the negative feelings everyone has, but I'm not 100% sure what would be a good alternative. I tend to feel that if you fuss about something you should have an idea of what you want instead.
@iandakar; the other thing about adjusting matchmaking that I had mentioned was a concern from my perspective was simply that the people building their deck to "counter the meta" or target certain decks are going to get hit with the feel bads if you make it so that they only see their good matchup every X games. It's not impossible to keep that intact, but that's definitely one of the positive benefits of the ladder having the potential to just chain-queue you into games you're prepping to win.
I think awhile ago one of the devs had actually mentioned this is something on their radar and floated the idea of having the system automatically ban out the last class you lost to as kind of a way to break up those streaks of bad matchups but maintain that kind of lucky streak you can get where you chain queue into good matchups. I imagine there are a ton of problems with manipulating it like that, but it was interesting to think about at least.
Personally I think it's a part of matchmaking that's not the end of the world, and I've been using those "bad streaks" as an exercise to work on tilt in bad matchups or test different approaches/mulligans to see if I could make it less painful. Like it sucks to be countered and I wouldn't mind a system that breaks up long streaks of bad matchups, but I don't think have a high density of one deck in a play session is necessarily bad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
@iandakar; the other thing about adjusting matchmaking that I had mentioned was a concern from my perspective was simply that the people building their deck to "counter the meta" or target certain decks are going to get hit with the feel bads if you make it so that they only see their good matchup every X games. It's not impossible to keep that intact, but that's definitely one of the positive benefits of the ladder having the potential to just chain-queue you into games you're prepping to win.
I think awhile ago one of the devs had actually mentioned this is something on their radar and floated the idea of having the system automatically ban out the last class you lost to as kind of a way to break up those streaks of bad matchups but maintain that kind of lucky streak you can get where you chain queue into good matchups. I imagine there are a ton of problems with manipulating it like that, but it was interesting to think about at least.
Personally I think it's a part of matchmaking that's not the end of the world, and I've been using those "bad streaks" as an exercise to work on tilt in bad matchups or test different approaches/mulligans to see if I could make it less painful. Like it sucks to be countered and I wouldn't mind a system that breaks up long streaks of bad matchups, but I don't think have a high density of one deck in a play session is necessarily bad.
Well no matter what you do, including doing nothing, someone will benefit and someone with be punished. The trick, as a company, is to find what does the least amount of damage to the least amount of people and the most amount of benefit to the most amount of people, all while considering that you may have to override it for the sake of your vision.
(on that last par, you might find that more people would benefit from the game becoming real time: instead of turns you drop your cards as fast as you can alongside your opponent, this may not fit your vision of the gae as a turn based card game. Thus you reject the idae anyway)
As for the idea bliz stated, that sounds better than the original idea. If you break the meta with your deck you are rewarded for it, but if you go i nwith a deck that's utterly devistated by a prime deck in the meta you only see it half the time. Note that it's not enough to reach legend since wininng alternatively leaves you at 50%, which means you are stuck at rank 5 1 star. To reach legend you can't fully lean on the 'streak killing pity matcher' especially since your wins will mean you get the full brunt of the meta.
So while it has clearly been shown that, based on the statistics, the problem remains that often times through bad luck or whatever else, a certain player will end up playing against the same deck many times in a row. That isn't much fun. So how to solve this? It might be a good idea to see Blizzard implement some sort of matchmaking system that made it so that players were more likely to be matched up against classes they haven't played against recently.
Potentially this might also make it harder for the most common classes (rogue, warrior, hunter) to be less played as it could lead to them having much longer wait times to find games. In order to have games more frequently, one would be encouraged to play less common classes, therefore creating even more diversity in the meta. I'm not so sure though if Blizzard trying to influence the meta through something other than card design is really a good idea, but at the very least they could set up a system to prevent any individual player from facing whatever FOTM deck is running rampant at the time 9/10 games.
I don't think there has to be that big of a load time between games if this is set up. The favoritizing can be made very casual, somewhat like how finding someone of a similar ranked is setup. If you just played a warrior and there's a mage and warrior in the queu,e, you get put with the mage. If all that are there are warriors then you get another warrior. It's not going to force you to sit around doing nothing while it tries to push you into 'the perfect matchup'.
And yes, any influencing through something other than card design IS a nasty situation since it can be easily gamed. Gaming the card design to our advantage is not only appropriate but a vital part of card game mechanics. You are SUPPOSED to hunt for imbalnace and broken mechanics in cards. Hunting for it in matchmaking, though, is a Bad Idea.
I would also say that ranked in general is a big problem helping to facilitate the negative feelings everyone has, but I'm not 100% sure what would be a good alternative. I tend to feel that if you fuss about something you should have an idea of what you want instead.
I definitely agree, there doesn't have to be a big load time between games with a system such as this, what I was suggesting though is they could set it up so that decks that are very commonly played have large load times to encourage people playing less played but still viable classes. If everyone plays warrior and rogue, they have much longer wait times, while those playing warlocks get pretty much instantly queued. They could design it this way so that players are encouraged to diversify the meta, I just think that encouraging Blizzard to impact the meta through something other than card design might be a poor precedent to set.
I see way more diversity in ladder now then I did pre Ungoro. There was basically three viable archetypes before this expansion and now there are at least 10
I see more midrange Hunters and Murloc Paladins than anything else, anecdotally. I can't recall playing a single Exodia Mage recently and Quest Rogues/Silence Priests are very thin on the ground. Taunt Warrior is fairly common though, certainly much more common than Pirate.
@Hooghout; so in your post I've pieced together that you're still stuck on the idea that Tier 1 and Tier 2 have some kind of crazy divide, when they really don't. In fact depending on the Tier list, most Tier 3 decks are perfectly competitive but generally have a flaw that's keeping them down (in many cases, simply how the meta is laid out at that point in time). Every single list in Tier 1 and 2 of any meta snapshot are the lists considered the ones defining the meta.
Viability is also not a term that hinges on an arbitrary rating on a list (vS divides the tiers by numbers, but they're still arbitrarily assigned); are you going to argue Midrange Hunter is non-viable simply because it's Tier 2? Luck certainly factors in to the climb (even with Tier 1 decks *gasp*), but it's not like all of a sudden I'm running a meme deck because I'm jamming Hunter and it's going to consistently hit Legend. Even the Tier 3 lists are ones that are competitively viable, as in ones you could bring to a tournament and not feel embarrassed about. Your definition of what defines viability is one that's indicative of someone who reads the Tier lists but doesn't really try and turn process that knowledge past what you're fed. I heard this in the past meta as well when Control Shaman was actually a completely legitimate list to run; "but Tier 3 on vS", "but no one plays it", etc. were said regardless of the fact it was winning tournaments and hitting top Legend. Take your own advice and try to think outside the box instead of just regurgitating (incorrectly) what you're fed.
Asymmetry is not a problem, but it is problematic. It is however a given, because asymmetrical design is one of the things that continues to make something like collectible card games interesting; if we wanted symmetry we'd play Chess or Go, or poker, or any number of games where every person can do the same thing and your strategies are confined solely to the box you're placed in. RTSes, MOBAs, CCGs, have an innate appeal because of their lack of symmetry; and in every one of those cases they have an innate lack of balance. You're better off moving on to something with a symmetrical design if you want symmetrical balance. LCGs are pretty fun if you want to keep it in the card game genre.
The main issue with your criticism of existing designs is you have little to no idea how to even achieve what you want. You want perfectly symmetrical balance, well so do all of us; it doesn't mean all of a sudden if we demand enough that kind of design becomes any more feasible. It's "intellectually lazy" to whine about something obsessively without proposing something with substance, because you're either a) unable to decide what game you'd actually rather be playing or b) incapable of designing something better. You can say we've crossed swords about this, but that's giving you too much credit. Even when I've pushed for basic answers from you to explain your own position you seem incapable of even providing something as simple as that.
Climate change deniers for instance aren't "boldly going where no one has gone before", they're just a minority with weak explanations for their position. They're trying to debate something that isn't even up for debate among 98% of scientists.
I still like this meta better than the last but come on with this diversity crap. It's still the "every class has that one deck" with a few rare exceptions sprinkled in between. However, I'm hoping this expansion is just the beginning of better things to come. With 3 a year, I'm thinking we really will see a very diverse meta in the future.
You played 25 games without running into freeze mage, midrange hunter, pirate warrior or any of the overplayed paladin decks?
Well okay then
OP is very probably lying.
I have zero reason to lie.
Very probably? Where did you get your sentence structure education from, a fucking Cracker Jack box?
Meta is more diverse this time compared to last time which was just 15 pirate warriors and 10 face hunters. :( *obvious sarcasm*
But on a more serious note, the meta takes time to form, and I don't think this expansion has been out long enough. People are just testing with the cards they got from packs, and personally, I haven't found a favorite yet.
However, my hopes of reaching golden Paladin are just crushed harder with each expansion. Blizzard pls. Meta paladin soon?
Meta is more diverse this time compared to last time which was just 15 pirate warriors and 10 face hunters. :( *obvious sarcasm*
But on a more serious note, the meta takes time to form, and I don't think this expansion has been out long enough. People are just testing with the cards they got from packs, and personally, I haven't found a favorite yet.
However, my hopes of reaching golden Paladin are just crushed harder with each expansion. Blizzard pls. Meta paladin soon?
This Meta has WAY more variety than MSoG. Since the launch of Un'Goro I've been playing daily and I've seen absolutely loads of decks! To name a few:
Quest Decks (all classes), Elemental Mage, Elemental Shaman, Token Druid, Garden Rogue, Murloc Paladin, Mid-Range Hunter, Miracle Priest, Silence Priest, Zoo, Freeze Mage, Secret Mage, Explore Warrior...that's just off the top of my head and these are all decks I face pretty regularly. Some are more popular than others but, with the exception of maybe Quest Rogue, it's a pretty varied selection of opponents.
Compare that to last expansion where you had Jade Druid, Renolock, Pirate Warrior and Jade Shaman. I don't see how anyone could argue this expansion is less varied.
Nobody is arguing it's less varied. Jesus Christ, this is why I'm a bitch on the forums now. Between those who don't fucking read and the fanboy mob that foam at the mouth waiting for anyone to criticize the game, I've given up.
@Iandakar. When I talk viable I analyse the term in relation to the current meta, more specific to the asymmetry of the histogram presented by Vicious Syndicate. I don't speak of viability in a general sense which is a vague concept. All decks are playable. Even with a meme deck you can reach legend, although the chances are very slim. Reaching legend is not a sign of viability. If you have the luck that every opponent plays bad or concedes you might reach legend with the most inconsistent deck. Don't confuse viability with playability. Some are more playable like quest mage but it isn't a deck that defines the meta. Tier 2 are highly playable but viablity in this meta means consistent reaching legend by means of being a tier 1. As such there are only a few decks in this meta being Tier 1 and responsible for asymmetry. Time and again we see this asymmetry caters into low skill, railroaded, autopilot or predominately aggressive decks.
When I talk viability I look specifically to those decks that define the meta aka decks causing asymmetry. And those decks among others are most often Tier 1's: quest/miracle rogue, taunt warrior, murloc paladin, pirate warrior, mid-range paladin in current meta. All other decks are more or less playable and exibit more or less chance to legend. When I talk diversity, I'm looking for diversity in decks that define the meta and ideally decks that are derived from all classes. This comes down to every class a Tier 1 deck. I state here that people generally use the word viable in a different way. I use it to pinpoint only those decks that define the meta.
This is why it's VERY important for everyone to be sure they are using the same terms. Right now just about everyone here is using 'viable' to define, as you would call it 'playable', though note that not all decks ARE playable. For a long while, priest was flat out unable to get to legend in ANY deck, which is why the '8 classes in hearthstone' meme appeared. As far as why people refer to viable as 'legend capable' it's based on the fact that for 99% of the population Legend is the end goal that most don't reach. That's not a cute exaggeration. As such having a deck that can reach legend is enough for most of the playerbase. Thus 'viable'.
The term we used for meta defining? Tier 1.
The point to the above: It's always good to know when you are using terms that differ from others and to make sure you make it very clear when you decide to not use the language of the public. Otherwise, you're going to face arguments from people not really arguing with you. There's very few folks who would argue that there's only a few Tier 1 decks. You don't seem to be arguing against the idea that there's a ton of legend-capable decks.
But we're arguing over what decks are viable.. which translated turns to:
You: "There's a lot of legend capable decks, but there's only 3 tier 1 decks"
The rest: "You're wrong. There's a ton decks that can reach legend. There's just only a few tier 1 decks"
Thus several pages of people wasting their time.
To get to your actual point: Yes there's only a few meta defining decks in the game. However, then I would argue this, when has this ever not been the case.. ANYWHERE? MTG has a ton more cards and much better balance, but they still only have a barely a few meta defining decks. Starcraft is lucky when it has 2 of its 2 races as meta defining, many times it's really only 1 with the others, at best, trying to work around it.
You're asking for 9 decks from 9 different playstyles that are the top of the heap and equally strong. I'd argue that's not possible. Something is going to come out on top, with the others revolving to counter or sidestep it. In fact, that's HOW a meta is created: a few top dogs show up and everyone plays it, counters it, counters the counter, or goes hipster.
It's more pronounced in card games because, unlike most other games, we can min-max our deck, eliminating weaknesses and strengthening and exaggerating advantages. When a fighting game dev finds out a character is very good at ranged combat, they can give them just 1 ranged move that can't be spammed so that they have to rely more on melee, which they are weak to. When rogue found out that bouncing 1 drops worked well they grabbed every 1 drop they could, including 1 drops made before the quest even existed in design, resulting in a HIGHLY efficient build. This ability to swap out individual elements among over 1000 choices very hard to balance from an 'equal powers' standpoint. Thus we instead op for a 'counter deck' standpoint: I play this deck to counter this deck. But that still means an original deck that everyone else counters: The Tier 1 that creates the Tier 2 counter options.
Never encountered anyone here looking at asymmery in the meta and presenting cures to fix it. Most don't even see it as a problem but as a given. Seeing it as a problem totally alters the way you look at design politics and the need for a thicker conception of balance.
Part of it is the issue of communication. Most people right now are thinking you are saying there's very few playable decks since, to the community 'viable=playability'. This is, again, why it's VERY important to be careful of the terms you use. it's about making sure your audience know what you are saying, not finding the words that you feel are correct.
Part is what I wrote above: that asking for a field of 9 tier 1 decks is a pipe dream and actually not required, given how everygame has failed to provide this yet many have proven to be a fun experience.
Aggro decks in HS are notorious for how inexpensive they are compared to control decks. They run, at best, 2 legendaries, and not only is that unusual for aggro but both legendaries are old, one beingthe One Thing To Craft in MSG and the other being an old Classic card everyone outside of newbies already have. In most cases it's 1 legendary or 0, 2 epics and MOST, and the rest rares and commons.
Volume X cheap = a lot of money. Low skill decks with easy winfix causes asymmetry and a lot of revenues. The core reason why the meta is that aggressive.
Volume X cheap= a lot of money works when you are dealing with a highly replacable product. Fast Food sells a lot of food in volume to a lot of people multiple times a day.
When I can build a deck for 1000 dust then that's 10 decks. $10 that i have to spend if I'm 100% unlucky and have to dust every card I collect and can't wait 2 weeks to collect the gold for it. Then I'm done buying packs and just smorcing all day.
When that same deck lasts two expansions with no changes, that's $10 in 6 months of playtime and over a year of work developing cards (how long it takes them to make an expansion) completely wasted.
Then we get into F2P dynamics, which dispells the whole "well a lot of people are playing it" deal. In F2P systems, the vast majority of players are never expected to pay a dime. You don't even bother to try to get them to pay. They are there to fill up space, build up hype, and market the game via word of mouth. Having the game sit in the top 10 twitch games is a lot of marketing you don't have to worry about.
Your money comes from whales, the folks who buy 1000 packs just to open them in front of an audience. The folks who go to tournaments with 5 fully gold decks. The folks who run the channels that cause hearthstone to do well on twitch. You want THEM spending masses of money more than trying to leech a few bucks off of the masses. That's WHY F2P overwhelmed monthly services.
You don't want whales realizing that they can beat the meta with only 10 packs worth of dust. You want them to...say... try to get all 9 quest cards, in gold, dumping a ton of other legendaries in, and saying to everyone else "THIS is the deck you want."
Money, in a game who's cards drop off only after 2 years, comes from hunting for hyper rare cards and convincing others to do the same. Not from decks you can make off of a free account in 2-3 weeks of play. Not from the community saying that you only really need 2 quest cards and 0 of the class legendaries. Not from only needing to make ONE Tier 1 deck to tear apart the meta.
So no, aggro= money. Blizzard does a LOT of horrible practices when it comes to profit maximization. Though this game shows you don't have to profit maximize to make enough money to keep your investors happy and last I heard they are very happy with Blizzard.
And asking for Tier 1 of every class, that no card game has done.. (#)$# no ANY GAME has done even though most have a much easier time balancing their pre-made classes/characters, isn't really honest. It's akin to folks who demand that games should be 'bug free' and that the only reason bugs exist is due to crappy programmers.
One day there must be a first. Try to think out of the box and see what that would accomplish: a more balanced, skillful meta. That no CCG has done this before means to break with the existing intellectually lazy design culture. Step out of your predesigned opinion and boltly go where no one has gone before.
You're assuming it's not even being attempted. Of COURSE the company is trying to make tier 1 decks for everyone. It's why Shaman went from crap to overpowered. It's why they dropped rogue's conceal but gave them a highly powerful quest. It's why priest has been given pretty insane cards the last few expansions. It's why I'm pretty (#)$#) sure that warlock is going to get a lot of love before the end of the year.
You strive for viable classes, as many as possible. The more the merrier and the more money since everyone MUST have every viable deck for some reason. (whatever definition you use).
They would love to have 9 top tier decks. They won't get it. But they can try. Saying "They could do it, if they actually try!" is monday morning quarterbacking. It's easy to critique and demand without answers. But that's getting into my own personal mentality: Be careful of critique when you can't offer good suggestions, since it's bad to assume someone else has the answers when you certainly don't have it.
@Legend_Entomb. To much asymmetry is proof the meta isn't diverse. You may have a lot of different decks, but that doesn't denote diversity in ranked meta.
@Nevr3000. You confuse playability with viability. Viable decks define the meta. Playable decks don't (that doesn't mean you can't reach legend on ladder).
@Tze. Same as with Nevr3000. I know you don't see asymmetry as a problem in the meta, but as a given. We've crossed sworts in that respect may times before.
To all. Try to refresh your perspective on things. It might help to better balance the game.
A lot of those replies wouldn't be needed if you started with the definition of 'viability'. Unless you want to spend more time arguing over the dictionary instead of the game itself.
Though honestly we probably just need a thread ABOUT the concept of Tier 1 decks and asymmetry in HS and whether it's something to be acceptable or if there's a better alternative.
@iandakar; I actually agree with most of your post, and maybe the difference in use of terminology is kind of the pothole in the road here. But my point wasn't even so much that you could play a pile of jank to Legend (because you could get to Legend with Control Priest in the MSoG meta, and I don't feel like that list was exactly stellar outside of Reno), just that the "tier system" leads to a lot of people putting far more weight on Tier 1 than really should be done.
So for example; vS has Tier 1 for Legend ranks being composed of Pirate Warrior, Murloc Paladin, Midrange Paladin, and Token Druid. All of those decks, with the exception of Token Druid, are what I'd consider Tier 1 builds just because they seem to fare well against just about everything. Tier 2 however is composed of Secret Mage, Midrange Hunter, Taunt Warrior, Freeze Mage, Dragon Priest, and Burn Mage. Tier 3 actually contains lists like Miracle Rogue, Quest Rogue, and Elemental Shaman which I believe are at least tournament viable. We're not even talking about simply hitting Legend, we're talking potential picks for tournaments in the competitive scene and capable of high Legend placement.
I'd argue it wasn't a case of misunderstood terminology, or even just having differing terminology, it was simply that Hooghout's definition was needlessly narrow because it doesn't suit his argument as well to include even Tier 2. That's mainly what people take issue with I imagine, and at least was the case for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
@iandakar; the other thing about adjusting matchmaking that I had mentioned was a concern from my perspective was simply that the people building their deck to "counter the meta" or target certain decks are going to get hit with the feel bads if you make it so that they only see their good matchup every X games. It's not impossible to keep that intact, but that's definitely one of the positive benefits of the ladder having the potential to just chain-queue you into games you're prepping to win.
I think awhile ago one of the devs had actually mentioned this is something on their radar and floated the idea of having the system automatically ban out the last class you lost to as kind of a way to break up those streaks of bad matchups but maintain that kind of lucky streak you can get where you chain queue into good matchups. I imagine there are a ton of problems with manipulating it like that, but it was interesting to think about at least.
Personally I think it's a part of matchmaking that's not the end of the world, and I've been using those "bad streaks" as an exercise to work on tilt in bad matchups or test different approaches/mulligans to see if I could make it less painful. Like it sucks to be countered and I wouldn't mind a system that breaks up long streaks of bad matchups, but I don't think have a high density of one deck in a play session is necessarily bad.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
alll i see lately is murloc pa.lly lmao
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
nothing change.
RNG fest.. MOST RNG Heavy class, mage +Rogue . most cancer class.
sub optimal deck can beat u easy when RNG Swing.
ie: control rogue beat everyone when steal all the good card, flame strike, poly, fireball etc. stupid RNG feast.
or cancer exodia mage beat u using RNG Feast. wtf
20 min games just decide by RNG. i rather loses round 6 vs pirates warrior.
Remember, if you hate something and you do it every day, then it's either your job or you don't hate it.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
I see way more diversity in ladder now then I did pre Ungoro. There was basically three viable archetypes before this expansion and now there are at least 10
I see more midrange Hunters and Murloc Paladins than anything else, anecdotally. I can't recall playing a single Exodia Mage recently and Quest Rogues/Silence Priests are very thin on the ground. Taunt Warrior is fairly common though, certainly much more common than Pirate.
@Hooghout; so in your post I've pieced together that you're still stuck on the idea that Tier 1 and Tier 2 have some kind of crazy divide, when they really don't. In fact depending on the Tier list, most Tier 3 decks are perfectly competitive but generally have a flaw that's keeping them down (in many cases, simply how the meta is laid out at that point in time). Every single list in Tier 1 and 2 of any meta snapshot are the lists considered the ones defining the meta.
Viability is also not a term that hinges on an arbitrary rating on a list (vS divides the tiers by numbers, but they're still arbitrarily assigned); are you going to argue Midrange Hunter is non-viable simply because it's Tier 2? Luck certainly factors in to the climb (even with Tier 1 decks *gasp*), but it's not like all of a sudden I'm running a meme deck because I'm jamming Hunter and it's going to consistently hit Legend. Even the Tier 3 lists are ones that are competitively viable, as in ones you could bring to a tournament and not feel embarrassed about. Your definition of what defines viability is one that's indicative of someone who reads the Tier lists but doesn't really try and turn process that knowledge past what you're fed. I heard this in the past meta as well when Control Shaman was actually a completely legitimate list to run; "but Tier 3 on vS", "but no one plays it", etc. were said regardless of the fact it was winning tournaments and hitting top Legend. Take your own advice and try to think outside the box instead of just regurgitating (incorrectly) what you're fed.
Asymmetry is not a problem, but it is problematic. It is however a given, because asymmetrical design is one of the things that continues to make something like collectible card games interesting; if we wanted symmetry we'd play Chess or Go, or poker, or any number of games where every person can do the same thing and your strategies are confined solely to the box you're placed in. RTSes, MOBAs, CCGs, have an innate appeal because of their lack of symmetry; and in every one of those cases they have an innate lack of balance. You're better off moving on to something with a symmetrical design if you want symmetrical balance. LCGs are pretty fun if you want to keep it in the card game genre.
The main issue with your criticism of existing designs is you have little to no idea how to even achieve what you want. You want perfectly symmetrical balance, well so do all of us; it doesn't mean all of a sudden if we demand enough that kind of design becomes any more feasible. It's "intellectually lazy" to whine about something obsessively without proposing something with substance, because you're either a) unable to decide what game you'd actually rather be playing or b) incapable of designing something better. You can say we've crossed swords about this, but that's giving you too much credit. Even when I've pushed for basic answers from you to explain your own position you seem incapable of even providing something as simple as that.
Climate change deniers for instance aren't "boldly going where no one has gone before", they're just a minority with weak explanations for their position. They're trying to debate something that isn't even up for debate among 98% of scientists.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
Meta is very diverse... but people always whine...
AJAX AMSTERDAM
Google "sample size".
Meta is more diverse this time compared to last time which was just 15 pirate warriors and 10 face hunters. :( *obvious sarcasm*
But on a more serious note, the meta takes time to form, and I don't think this expansion has been out long enough. People are just testing with the cards they got from packs, and personally, I haven't found a favorite yet.
However, my hopes of reaching golden Paladin are just crushed harder with each expansion. Blizzard pls. Meta paladin soon?
@Wingdude22; shhhhh Paladin is weak and needs buffs! *hides the current Midrange builds from everyone*
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
This is why it's VERY important for everyone to be sure they are using the same terms. Right now just about everyone here is using 'viable' to define, as you would call it 'playable', though note that not all decks ARE playable. For a long while, priest was flat out unable to get to legend in ANY deck, which is why the '8 classes in hearthstone' meme appeared. As far as why people refer to viable as 'legend capable' it's based on the fact that for 99% of the population Legend is the end goal that most don't reach. That's not a cute exaggeration. As such having a deck that can reach legend is enough for most of the playerbase. Thus 'viable'.
The term we used for meta defining? Tier 1.
The point to the above: It's always good to know when you are using terms that differ from others and to make sure you make it very clear when you decide to not use the language of the public. Otherwise, you're going to face arguments from people not really arguing with you. There's very few folks who would argue that there's only a few Tier 1 decks. You don't seem to be arguing against the idea that there's a ton of legend-capable decks.
But we're arguing over what decks are viable.. which translated turns to:
You: "There's a lot of legend capable decks, but there's only 3 tier 1 decks"
The rest: "You're wrong. There's a ton decks that can reach legend. There's just only a few tier 1 decks"
Thus several pages of people wasting their time.
To get to your actual point: Yes there's only a few meta defining decks in the game. However, then I would argue this, when has this ever not been the case.. ANYWHERE? MTG has a ton more cards and much better balance, but they still only have a barely a few meta defining decks. Starcraft is lucky when it has 2 of its 2 races as meta defining, many times it's really only 1 with the others, at best, trying to work around it.
You're asking for 9 decks from 9 different playstyles that are the top of the heap and equally strong. I'd argue that's not possible. Something is going to come out on top, with the others revolving to counter or sidestep it. In fact, that's HOW a meta is created: a few top dogs show up and everyone plays it, counters it, counters the counter, or goes hipster.
It's more pronounced in card games because, unlike most other games, we can min-max our deck, eliminating weaknesses and strengthening and exaggerating advantages. When a fighting game dev finds out a character is very good at ranged combat, they can give them just 1 ranged move that can't be spammed so that they have to rely more on melee, which they are weak to. When rogue found out that bouncing 1 drops worked well they grabbed every 1 drop they could, including 1 drops made before the quest even existed in design, resulting in a HIGHLY efficient build. This ability to swap out individual elements among over 1000 choices very hard to balance from an 'equal powers' standpoint. Thus we instead op for a 'counter deck' standpoint: I play this deck to counter this deck. But that still means an original deck that everyone else counters: The Tier 1 that creates the Tier 2 counter options.
Part of it is the issue of communication. Most people right now are thinking you are saying there's very few playable decks since, to the community 'viable=playability'. This is, again, why it's VERY important to be careful of the terms you use. it's about making sure your audience know what you are saying, not finding the words that you feel are correct.
Part is what I wrote above: that asking for a field of 9 tier 1 decks is a pipe dream and actually not required, given how everygame has failed to provide this yet many have proven to be a fun experience.
Volume X cheap= a lot of money works when you are dealing with a highly replacable product. Fast Food sells a lot of food in volume to a lot of people multiple times a day.
When I can build a deck for 1000 dust then that's 10 decks. $10 that i have to spend if I'm 100% unlucky and have to dust every card I collect and can't wait 2 weeks to collect the gold for it. Then I'm done buying packs and just smorcing all day.
When that same deck lasts two expansions with no changes, that's $10 in 6 months of playtime and over a year of work developing cards (how long it takes them to make an expansion) completely wasted.
Then we get into F2P dynamics, which dispells the whole "well a lot of people are playing it" deal. In F2P systems, the vast majority of players are never expected to pay a dime. You don't even bother to try to get them to pay. They are there to fill up space, build up hype, and market the game via word of mouth. Having the game sit in the top 10 twitch games is a lot of marketing you don't have to worry about.
Your money comes from whales, the folks who buy 1000 packs just to open them in front of an audience. The folks who go to tournaments with 5 fully gold decks. The folks who run the channels that cause hearthstone to do well on twitch. You want THEM spending masses of money more than trying to leech a few bucks off of the masses. That's WHY F2P overwhelmed monthly services.
You don't want whales realizing that they can beat the meta with only 10 packs worth of dust. You want them to...say... try to get all 9 quest cards, in gold, dumping a ton of other legendaries in, and saying to everyone else "THIS is the deck you want."
Money, in a game who's cards drop off only after 2 years, comes from hunting for hyper rare cards and convincing others to do the same. Not from decks you can make off of a free account in 2-3 weeks of play. Not from the community saying that you only really need 2 quest cards and 0 of the class legendaries. Not from only needing to make ONE Tier 1 deck to tear apart the meta.
So no, aggro= money. Blizzard does a LOT of horrible practices when it comes to profit maximization. Though this game shows you don't have to profit maximize to make enough money to keep your investors happy and last I heard they are very happy with Blizzard.
You're assuming it's not even being attempted. Of COURSE the company is trying to make tier 1 decks for everyone. It's why Shaman went from crap to overpowered. It's why they dropped rogue's conceal but gave them a highly powerful quest. It's why priest has been given pretty insane cards the last few expansions. It's why I'm pretty (#)$#) sure that warlock is going to get a lot of love before the end of the year.
You strive for viable classes, as many as possible. The more the merrier and the more money since everyone MUST have every viable deck for some reason. (whatever definition you use).
They would love to have 9 top tier decks. They won't get it. But they can try. Saying "They could do it, if they actually try!" is monday morning quarterbacking. It's easy to critique and demand without answers. But that's getting into my own personal mentality: Be careful of critique when you can't offer good suggestions, since it's bad to assume someone else has the answers when you certainly don't have it.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
@iandakar; I actually agree with most of your post, and maybe the difference in use of terminology is kind of the pothole in the road here. But my point wasn't even so much that you could play a pile of jank to Legend (because you could get to Legend with Control Priest in the MSoG meta, and I don't feel like that list was exactly stellar outside of Reno), just that the "tier system" leads to a lot of people putting far more weight on Tier 1 than really should be done.
So for example; vS has Tier 1 for Legend ranks being composed of Pirate Warrior, Murloc Paladin, Midrange Paladin, and Token Druid. All of those decks, with the exception of Token Druid, are what I'd consider Tier 1 builds just because they seem to fare well against just about everything. Tier 2 however is composed of Secret Mage, Midrange Hunter, Taunt Warrior, Freeze Mage, Dragon Priest, and Burn Mage. Tier 3 actually contains lists like Miracle Rogue, Quest Rogue, and Elemental Shaman which I believe are at least tournament viable. We're not even talking about simply hitting Legend, we're talking potential picks for tournaments in the competitive scene and capable of high Legend placement.
I'd argue it wasn't a case of misunderstood terminology, or even just having differing terminology, it was simply that Hooghout's definition was needlessly narrow because it doesn't suit his argument as well to include even Tier 2. That's mainly what people take issue with I imagine, and at least was the case for me.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?