Average time to read and comprehend post: 15 minutes.
The recent blue post kind of hints that the HS team has partially hit the wall. Let's help them then! Let's make HS fun again!
Defining FUN
A player vs player game which is fun involves the losing player restart the game right after he lost. Why so? Because it is fun and no matter that you lost you want to play another game.
What makes HS fun?
For the different type of players it's different things - some enjoy specific deck archtypes, other specific match-ups, other particular class, or card or whatever.
How we end up with making HS fun for everyone then?
We succeed by removing what is considered NOT FUN.
What is NOT fun?
Let's start with a simple example. You are first to play on turn one and you have in hand a 1 mana cost spell: "Destroy your opponent". You play it and win the game. Is this fun for your opponent? No. Is this fun for you? It might be if you want fast wins, but otherwise it is not.
Why it is not fun for your opponent:
He has no way to counter the play
There is no interaction between the players
There is no skill involved/required
Why it is not fun for you - again point 2. and 3. from above.
The above 3 points create the definition for what is FUN:
1. Match-ups that involve many ways for counter plays
2. Match-ups that involve board interaction between the players
3. Mechanics which require high skill from the players
FUN in WILD
Following the fun definition, we may draw conclusions:
Decks that steamroll other t1/t2 decks when they draw the perfect curve should be adjusted, because these violate 1.
Strong passive cards/decks (those that wait until a specific OP card is played) should be adjusted, because these violate 2.
Decks with lots of board clears should be adjusted, because these violate 2.
New mechanics which strengthen the board value (besides deathrattle) against board clears should be developed - example - in order to improve point 1. and 2.
New mechanics which require higher skill from the players should be developed in order to improve 3.
Decks creating match-ups rich on 1., 2. and 3. which are no longer strong due to power creep should be improved with new cards.
For those who still want to flip a coin and see who gets the turn 1 win card - there should be brawls which deliver such experience. For the wild format and those who want to have a meaningful fun in the game - try to follow the above rules! Thank you.
Blizzard doesnt read the Hearthpwns. (Even though it has more accounts than HS subreddit). If you want to adress something. Try on their official Reddit as I did:
1. this thread is good if you aren't sure what to decide on or want to discuss outside of Blizzard's eye.
2. This is less a discussion on balance and more of a discussion of the idea of what Wild actually is as a format, with three possible options:
a. A place to play your decks as you played them in the past, thus wanting few changes to old decks and just enough balance to allow those decks to be played, even if the meta ends up messed up from them.
b. A place to conjure up unlimited power from high power combinations. Basically if you started Boomsday in Wild hoping to combine GvG mechs with Boomsday mechs to create an OP deck. Or if you like Juicy/Kun combinations and just want it with more decks than just druid.
c. If "standard with more cards" is appealing, thus making you want more balance and the exposure to have a competitive Wild meta and perhaps a competitive scene.
Blizzard doesn't know what to do and never really have from the getgo. So they ask us for what we want so they can balance accordingly. For example, #1 means killing Juicy and to avoid doing Raza style changes in the future. #2 would mean Juicy stays but Raza was a mistake and more broken combinations for other classes are needed. #3 would mean Juicy needs a change, Raza was a smart move, and Wild needs as much attention as Standard.
So.. discuss on here if you aren't sure. If you ARE sure, determine what you want and why and head to Reddit to voice it to Blizzard.
Crucially NOT gamekiller nerfs, but nerfs that increase the weaknesses of those decks that are consistently too good at anything.
Eg: Druid is a Combo that is as good as Control and as fast as Midrange, Big Priest is a Control that can consistently highroll and play as a Midrange, Even Shaman is a Midrange that can snowball as strong as Aggro, and Odd Rogue and Paladin are Aggro that can push for as long as a Midrange, etc.
Your point of view is pretty narrow, and many of the problems you present have been around since the release of hearthstone, and are not specific to the Wild format.
But yes, the format has pretty much dissolved into extreme snowballing vs huge stats far ahead of the curve vs quick consistant gamebreaking combos.
I mostly agree on what generally creates a fun game between two players as outlined above, but I don't think that the format should be adjusted to completely rule out decks that don't strictly follow those rules. For example: you say that decks with lots of board clears should be adjusted, but decks with lots of board clears play a role in game balance and are also really fun for some people to play. The overall experience needs to stay fun, but every single matchup doesn't have to be fun for both sides to achieve that goal.
Btw, the whole thing is also about the "different mode" as mentioned in the recent Blizz announcement.
I strongly disagree with the concept of different mode itself (different from Standard).
Even moreso if the only way to implement "different" is making it *broken*.
I play Wild because of the wider pool of cards (more options for deckbuilding), and i am sure most Wild players think the same. If the key feature is to be broken-ness, i might as well leave it.
Obviously more options means higher powerlevel, but there must be a limit, and eventual adjustments.
Finally, do we really want all those Wild cards to be obliterated in an outburst of broken and unfun synergies?
I think the Juicy Melon should be nerfed to the ground because it encourages non-interactive deck like Star Druid and Tog Druid. Spreading Plague was the biggest mistake, followed by the Melon. Why creating a card that fix the weakness of a class when it is crystal clear that the weakness should exist?
I agree with the Melon 100%, but I've never really understood all the rage against Spreading Plague. There's basically nothing you can do to the Melon "skillfully" drawing your opponent's entire combo every time, but there's a ton of things that can be done against Plague, both in terms of play style and in terms of changing cards in the deck if for some reason Plagues are a problem in a specific matchup.
Calls for nerfs on Plague just make me remember how when I started playing Hearthstone, I played this secret Mage deck, when mage was the 9th most played class in the game (apparently freeze mage had been nerfed to the ground right before I started, so everybody had just dusted Mage) and people would do stupid crap like play Mountain Giant on 4 into Mirror Entity and just lose because they didn't use their brain to figure out what the other guy might do or have. (the major difference here being that Druid most certainly isn't the 9th most played class right now, and so there's even less excuse for playing into it and saying "I forgot Spreading Plague existed")
That IS the point Slyde. We start from a small definition most players agree on and go from there on expanding how the FUN should be incorporated into the game.
not all players want to use strategies that depend on board development. The moment you design the game to force players to have to use board development as part of their strategies, you lose the players that want to play the other strategies.
Let's make one thing clear here - if the design team want to have "NO BOARD" style of game play, simply remove the board and offer another mode for those people.
Also, let's look from an observer perspective and analyze a bit:
1) Game with 2 aggro players and a heavy board interaction
2) Game with 1 player full of board clears and other aggro/midrange
3) Game with 2 players full of board clears
3. is the case in which the observer starts to think whether this is a MEME game or not. That is the reason why HS viewers on Twitch dropped so much - BORING gameplay to observers in 80% of the matches and PREDICTABLE winner based on the match-up.
Instead of HS team strengthening the board interaction with cool mechanics allowing you to manipulate specific position of the board for example, they go the other way and create decks which draw like mad until a specific card/combo and skip/delay the board play or tank up into oblivion with armor then at turn 10 start to play offensive.
This type of game play will NEVER BE FUN, because there is NO BOARD INTERACTION until turn 10. If they want such gameplay simply create a new mode in which the players start with 200 health, 10 cards in hand and have 10 mana with cards burning mana crystals so if you play a strong 10 mana combo next turn you have 1 mana and you are in danger from a removal an opponent might have.
Right now the game design BREAKS on major aspects. The whole game in WILD is a TOTAL MESS from a design pov and the developers should start making changes if they don't want the WILD population ceasing to exist.
I don't think the game should be systematically centered around the board, options should be given.
All they have to do is make it so that any playstyle has a downside:
- too large board? You incur in clears
- too many clears? You incur in combo
- combo? You incur into early punishment.
And this is not a pamphlet of rock paper shissors: if the paradigm is as above, players will simply adjust, and mix up their decks to an extent that gives them still favored and unfavored matchups, but always with decent options to overcome.
The problem is when decks can excel at two strategies altogether. Like now at top tier Wild.
But no need to narrow down the game, as long as downsides are there regularly.
The problem is when decks can excel at two strategies altogether.
No, that is not a problem per se related to fun. You can have decks exceling at all strategies and have fun games with these when they don't violate any of the 3 golden rules in OP - it all depends on the game mechanics and design.
And yes, the BOARD should be KING and the game should be centered around the board in order to be fun. The board in HS should be like the mineral fields in SC - dictating the battles and the dynamics of the game. That is why I said we need more board mechanics in order to kind of split the board in even more pieces.
That IS the point Slyde. We start from a small definition most players agree on and go from there on expanding how the FUN should be incorporated into the game
I think you misunderstood me. You are assuming your own POV is the same as it is for other players even though it might not be at all! I like:
-Winning
-Ranking up
-End season rewards
For example. All good reasons to play tier 1 decks in Wild.
There have been metas with heavy minion and tempo focus before, but I strongly disagree that those are the definition of a fun meta.
Certainly board should be the center, i am all for it, but you can't outright rule out what is not board-centered.
And you can afford that, if downsides for non-board moves are solid and consistent enough.
Saying there should be nothing out of board is unrealistic (other than boring).
And if a deck excels at any strategy, it simply is TS, no unfavoured matchup. It will never be fun to play (against) and it will ultimately warp the meta because nothing can deal with it, in average.
The discussion is sterile if it is narrowed down into strict points...
If you enjoy HS only for the rewards and ranking up there is no point in even having a discussion with you.
HS should be a fun social game with a pro/competitive scene and rewards/ranking should be a byproduct of the player's desire to play the game, not a reason to have fun in itself.
If you enjoy HS only for the rewards and ranking up there is no point in even having a discussion with you.
HS should be a fun social game with a pro/competitive scene and rewards/ranking should be a byproduct of the player's desire to play the game, not a reason to have fun in itself.
How said "only"? Nobody has a monopoly on defining what is "fun" about a game or format. I was just pointing out some thing I like about the format that are completely missing from you definition.
And yes, the fun of ranking up is very important for a lot of players! Like most others, I prefer to do it with a deck I like and "connect" with, but simply crushing others with something strong does bring satisfaction, at least for a while!
There are other problems with your definition too!
-A grindy control deck can contain nothing but "counter plays" and have attrition as a win condition. Seeing how your opponent throws his whole deck at you but you overcome it all by pacing your removal and AOE can be both fun and rewarding, but you don't like that for some reason (no board interaction.)
-I don't think specific counterplays for every matchup is necessary. Counter TECH and DECKS is a totally different matter.
1.) A player vs player game which is fun involves the losing player restart the game right after he lost. Why so? Because it is fun and no matter that you lost you want to play another game.
What makes HS fun?
For the different type of players it's different things - some enjoy specific deck archtypes, other specific match-ups, other particular class, or card or whatever.
How we end up with making HS fun for everyone then?
2.) We succeed by removing what is considered NOT FUN.
What is NOT fun?
Let's start with a simple example. You are first to play on turn one and you have in hand a 1 mana cost spell: "Destroy your opponent". You play it and win the game. Is this fun for your opponent? No. Is this fun for you? It might be if you want fast wins, but otherwise it is not.
3.) Why it is not fun for your opponent:
He has no way to counter the play
There is no interaction between the players
There is no skill involved/required
Why it is not fun for you - again point 2. and 3. from above.
The above 3 points create the definition for what is FUN:
1. Match-ups that involve many ways for counter plays
2. Match-ups that involve board interaction between the players
3. Mechanics which require high skill from the players
4.) FUN in WILD
Following the fun definition, we may draw conclusions:
Decks that steamroll other t1/t2 decks when they draw the perfect curve should be adjusted, because these violate 1.
Strong passive cards/decks (those that wait until a specific OP card is played) should be adjusted, because these violate 2.
Decks with lots of board clears should be adjusted, because these violate 2.
New mechanics which strengthen the board value (besides deathrattle) against board clears should be developed - example - in order to improve point 1. and 2.
New mechanics which require higher skill from the players should be developed in order to improve 3.
Decks creating match-ups rich on 1., 2. and 3. which are no longer strong due to power creep should be improved with new cards.
For those who still want to flip a coin and see who gets the turn 1 win card - there should be brawls which deliver such experience. For the wild format and those who want to have a meaningful fun in the game - try to follow the above rules! Thank you.
1.) That is not true. A game doesn't need to have its players want to continue playing after the previous game to be fun. I've played thousands and thousands of games of Hearthstone. Some of the most fun, most satisfying games I've ever played, were long Control or Combo matches that involved very long thought out turns and required me to think about so many aspects of the game that I was exhausted at the end, and not wanting to play again.
But they were still fun, actually, far more fun that the vast majority of the games I played. They were just extremely fulfilling, which is another condition which contributes to fun.
2.) There is no factual, true means to state what is considered as fun. The larger the playerbase, the more likely you are to have a large variety of players and perspectives, and each of those will bring a different definition of fun. Removing what you consider to not be fun, could be removing what someone else considers fun.
Also, I should point out, nothing like what you described exists in Hearthstone, there is no Coin Flip to decide the game on turn 1. I'm stating this because that is just factually the case. I've played a decade of Yu-Gi-Oh from its launch. That game had this. I played a lot of decks which did exactly that, they performed FTKs, First Turn Kills. They were decks which if you were decided to go first, you instantly won the game as the opponent didn't have any possible interaction, they hadn't taken a turn yet.
And believe me, for me, or anyone who I've known that played them, they were still extremely fun to play. They were absurdly unfair, they were constantly adjusted because of this fact, their unfairness, but they were extremely fun, both to play, and to a good amount of players, including me, extremely fun to play against. (That was just because they were so ridiculous and needed to be played to perfection to perform, or else the opponent would just make a bunch of mistakes and gloriously lose the games outright).
3.) Hearthstone doesn't lack any of the 3 aspects you stated. You always have ways to interact with the opponent in any deck they are playing. But it is important to remember, interaction is not limited to having cards which directly disrupt the opponent's strategy. Any action you take that affects the opponent's game plan is an interaction you have with the opponent and his deck.
People often cry about decks like Freeze Mage, but they don't ever stop to think that nearly everything the Freeze Mage is doing is because of your actions. If you don't play minions or provide a board to scare them, they will never be required to use Freeze effects. It is your action that is forcing them to take action, you are affecting their game plan and as such, you are interacting with them.
The second point about board interaction between players is the point where your post completely falls apart. You have to understand that not all players want to use strategies that depend on board development. The moment you design the game to force players to have to use board development as part of their strategies, you lose the players that want to play the other strategies. Blizzard cannot afford to do this, specially not this late in the game lifespan. They have established that these strategies are welcomed, much like any other possible strategy, and they gained players interested in this aspect of the game, if they remove it, they lose players. Hearthstone is clearly made to appeal to the widest audience possible, which includes those that enjoy these non board focused strategies, not just those that want board ones like you.
Finally, mechanisms that require "Skill" from the players exist, the biggest deterrent from "Skill" in this game is all the Random Mechanisms that they included in the game. And this is also clearly established as something they want to keep around in the game, as it also appeals to a large audience. So removing it will also lose players.
4.) Following the actual definition of fun, the one thing they need to worry about is providing a minimally stable environment in Wild, but one which involves as many strategies as possible so everyone can play as they want, and as much randomness as possible. By stable, I simply mean an environment where there are no strategies which are completely absurd at their point in the game.
As it stands, the closest thing to a problem with this particular point is Big Priest, more specifically Barnes. The entire effect this card has as soon as turn 3 is creates a problem for there's really only two classes in the game capable of dealing with it. We used to have Naga Sea Witch, which created the same issue starting turn 4, but has been fixed. There were only a few classes capable of dealing with it.
Aside from this, we do have an issue in Wild with a very specific card, Juicy Psychmelon. Tutoring is one of the most powerful mechanics in Card Games, and it is extremely dangerous when it can be used in Combo decks. Combo decks are perfectly acceptable in any card game, of any variety, including One Turn Kill ones. They all suffer from the normal issue of requiring to draw the vast majority of their decks to execute their game plan.
Usually tutoring effects are not incredibly useful for Combo decks because they tend to be designed with this fact in mind, how dangerous it is to give useful tutoring effects to Combo decks.
We seem to have an oversight, a tutoring effect has been printed, which is in fact absurdly useful for a Combo deck, drawing almost entirely the full Combo of a deck on it's own, and even for quite a cheap price. This is not something that affects Standard because there are not options in Standard that can abuse this effect, but in Wild, they exist, and they are obviously being used, making this Combo deck extremely consistent. This is something that eventually has to be addressed, Juicy Psychmelon eventually had to be changed so it doesn't tutor out all the Combo pieces of the deck. The deck, without it, will be far less consistent, far slower, and will be required to deal with the usual problem of OTK decks, hand management, since not drawing specifically the Combo pieces from card effects forced these decks to manage their hand, a very important aspect that is completely missing from the Druid deck which only draws he Combo pieces. There is no risk of overdrawing the Combo pieces.
This was likely a long post, but it is hopefully easy to understand. The issue is that anytime someone wants to provide suggestions, they rarely account for the reality that there exist people with different perspectives from their own, and that their suggestions need to be to improve the game for everyone, not just to improve it only for them and worse the experience of others.
Trust me theres a reason why barnes wasnt nerf. Theres proof that running a Barneless big priest is as strong if not stronger. Starting to snowball at turn 5 aint that different plus not having barnes to screw with ur pulls and ressurects is a huge compensation. U can beat a big priest with barnes if they either shadow essence him or start to have him appear in ur rez pool. Without him the deck is A LOT stronger tho it has a slower start.
A grindy control deck can contain nothing but "counter plays" and have attrition as a win condition. Seeing how your opponent throws his whole deck at you but you overcome it all by pacing your removal and AOE can be both fun and rewarding, but you don't like that for some reason (no board interaction.)
Yes, I don't like it since it lowers the fun factor and makes the game retarded in the eyes of the observer since players don't switch the roles of aggressor/defender until the very end. It's like watching a game of football, in which one team defends the whole game while the other one attacks - boring stuff. Or in the case of two decks with counter plays cards only - two teams which pass the ball the whole time in their own fields and wait for the match to finish.
There is nothing wrong to have control decks with counter play cards and AOE. The problem is when these are the majority of the cards and the other player ONLY counter to the board clear is not flooding the board with minions in order to preserve resources. This kind of gameplay is less fun for the players and observers than a game which goes with ups and downs for the both players making the viewer UNABLE to predict the outcome.
The reason you found previous heavy minion metas boring is that there are still very few mechanics in HS which deliver constraints to the board (taunt for example). That is why I hope the developers will finally realize in which direction to push the game - it's not that hard after all - find the top 10 MOST FUN games played on the competitive HS scene and try to integrate new mechanics strengthening this type of match-up style.
That IS the point Slyde. We start from a small definition most players agree on and go from there on expanding how the FUN should be incorporated into the game
I think you misunderstood me. You are assuming your own POV is the same as it is for other players even though it might not be at all! I like:
-Winning
-Ranking up
-End season rewards
For example. All good reasons to play tier 1 decks in Wild.
There have been metas with heavy minion and tempo focus before, but I strongly disagree that those are the definition of a fun meta.
I think this is as boiled down as possible. For almost all players, winning is fun. Ranking up is also fun, because it gives you the impression you won a lot, even if you have a negative winrate. And rewards .... yeah of course, opening packs and getting cards/gold/dust is of course fun.
There are a few people who claim that playing whacky decks is fun as well, but the salt thread is full of them when they do not win with their homebrews. Basically, the salt thread is a good support for the presumption that losing is not fun.
Of course, there are is more to "having fun" than just winning, like deck preference, nice opponents, game performance (no bugs, no disconnects), game mode preference, etc., but the most important part of having fun is winning enough games to think you can play the game well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Average time to read and comprehend post: 15 minutes.
The recent blue post kind of hints that the HS team has partially hit the wall. Let's help them then! Let's make HS fun again!
Defining FUN
A player vs player game which is fun involves the losing player restart the game right after he lost. Why so? Because it is fun and no matter that you lost you want to play another game.
What makes HS fun?
For the different type of players it's different things - some enjoy specific deck archtypes, other specific match-ups, other particular class, or card or whatever.
How we end up with making HS fun for everyone then?
We succeed by removing what is considered NOT FUN.
What is NOT fun?
Let's start with a simple example. You are first to play on turn one and you have in hand a 1 mana cost spell: "Destroy your opponent". You play it and win the game. Is this fun for your opponent? No. Is this fun for you? It might be if you want fast wins, but otherwise it is not.
Why it is not fun for your opponent:
Why it is not fun for you - again point 2. and 3. from above.
The above 3 points create the definition for what is FUN:
1. Match-ups that involve many ways for counter plays
2. Match-ups that involve board interaction between the players
3. Mechanics which require high skill from the players
FUN in WILD
Following the fun definition, we may draw conclusions:
For those who still want to flip a coin and see who gets the turn 1 win card - there should be brawls which deliver such experience. For the wild format and those who want to have a meaningful fun in the game - try to follow the above rules! Thank you.
Blizzard doesnt read the Hearthpwns. (Even though it has more accounts than HS subreddit). If you want to adress something. Try on their official Reddit as I did:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/9h6kf0/wild_balance/
Moving into https://outof.cards/members/firepaladinhs/decks
1. this thread is good if you aren't sure what to decide on or want to discuss outside of Blizzard's eye.
2. This is less a discussion on balance and more of a discussion of the idea of what Wild actually is as a format, with three possible options:
a. A place to play your decks as you played them in the past, thus wanting few changes to old decks and just enough balance to allow those decks to be played, even if the meta ends up messed up from them.
b. A place to conjure up unlimited power from high power combinations. Basically if you started Boomsday in Wild hoping to combine GvG mechs with Boomsday mechs to create an OP deck. Or if you like Juicy/Kun combinations and just want it with more decks than just druid.
c. If "standard with more cards" is appealing, thus making you want more balance and the exposure to have a competitive Wild meta and perhaps a competitive scene.
Blizzard doesn't know what to do and never really have from the getgo. So they ask us for what we want so they can balance accordingly. For example, #1 means killing Juicy and to avoid doing Raza style changes in the future. #2 would mean Juicy stays but Raza was a mistake and more broken combinations for other classes are needed. #3 would mean Juicy needs a change, Raza was a smart move, and Wild needs as much attention as Standard.
So.. discuss on here if you aren't sure. If you ARE sure, determine what you want and why and head to Reddit to voice it to Blizzard.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I mostly agree.
I think Wild needs periodic overhaul.
Crucially NOT gamekiller nerfs, but nerfs that increase the weaknesses of those decks that are consistently too good at anything.
Eg: Druid is a Combo that is as good as Control and as fast as Midrange, Big Priest is a Control that can consistently highroll and play as a Midrange, Even Shaman is a Midrange that can snowball as strong as Aggro, and Odd Rogue and Paladin are Aggro that can push for as long as a Midrange, etc.
Your point of view is pretty narrow, and many of the problems you present have been around since the release of hearthstone, and are not specific to the Wild format.
But yes, the format has pretty much dissolved into extreme snowballing vs huge stats far ahead of the curve vs quick consistant gamebreaking combos.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I mostly agree on what generally creates a fun game between two players as outlined above, but I don't think that the format should be adjusted to completely rule out decks that don't strictly follow those rules. For example: you say that decks with lots of board clears should be adjusted, but decks with lots of board clears play a role in game balance and are also really fun for some people to play. The overall experience needs to stay fun, but every single matchup doesn't have to be fun for both sides to achieve that goal.
Btw, the whole thing is also about the "different mode" as mentioned in the recent Blizz announcement.
I strongly disagree with the concept of different mode itself (different from Standard).
Even moreso if the only way to implement "different" is making it *broken*.
I play Wild because of the wider pool of cards (more options for deckbuilding), and i am sure most Wild players think the same. If the key feature is to be broken-ness, i might as well leave it.
Obviously more options means higher powerlevel, but there must be a limit, and eventual adjustments.
Finally, do we really want all those Wild cards to be obliterated in an outburst of broken and unfun synergies?
I think the Juicy Melon should be nerfed to the ground because it encourages non-interactive deck like Star Druid and Tog Druid.
Spreading Plague was the biggest mistake, followed by the Melon. Why creating a card that fix the weakness of a class when it is crystal clear that the weakness should exist?
I agree with the Melon 100%, but I've never really understood all the rage against Spreading Plague. There's basically nothing you can do to the Melon "skillfully" drawing your opponent's entire combo every time, but there's a ton of things that can be done against Plague, both in terms of play style and in terms of changing cards in the deck if for some reason Plagues are a problem in a specific matchup.
Calls for nerfs on Plague just make me remember how when I started playing Hearthstone, I played this secret Mage deck, when mage was the 9th most played class in the game (apparently freeze mage had been nerfed to the ground right before I started, so everybody had just dusted Mage) and people would do stupid crap like play Mountain Giant on 4 into Mirror Entity and just lose because they didn't use their brain to figure out what the other guy might do or have. (the major difference here being that Druid most certainly isn't the 9th most played class right now, and so there's even less excuse for playing into it and saying "I forgot Spreading Plague existed")
That IS the point Slyde. We start from a small definition most players agree on and go from there on expanding how the FUN should be incorporated into the game.
Let's make one thing clear here - if the design team want to have "NO BOARD" style of game play, simply remove the board and offer another mode for those people.
Also, let's look from an observer perspective and analyze a bit:
1) Game with 2 aggro players and a heavy board interaction
2) Game with 1 player full of board clears and other aggro/midrange
3) Game with 2 players full of board clears
3. is the case in which the observer starts to think whether this is a MEME game or not. That is the reason why HS viewers on Twitch dropped so much - BORING gameplay to observers in 80% of the matches and PREDICTABLE winner based on the match-up.
Instead of HS team strengthening the board interaction with cool mechanics allowing you to manipulate specific position of the board for example, they go the other way and create decks which draw like mad until a specific card/combo and skip/delay the board play or tank up into oblivion with armor then at turn 10 start to play offensive.
This type of game play will NEVER BE FUN, because there is NO BOARD INTERACTION until turn 10. If they want such gameplay simply create a new mode in which the players start with 200 health, 10 cards in hand and have 10 mana with cards burning mana crystals so if you play a strong 10 mana combo next turn you have 1 mana and you are in danger from a removal an opponent might have.
Right now the game design BREAKS on major aspects. The whole game in WILD is a TOTAL MESS from a design pov and the developers should start making changes if they don't want the WILD population ceasing to exist.
I don't think the game should be systematically centered around the board, options should be given.
All they have to do is make it so that any playstyle has a downside:
- too large board? You incur in clears
- too many clears? You incur in combo
- combo? You incur into early punishment.
And this is not a pamphlet of rock paper shissors: if the paradigm is as above, players will simply adjust, and mix up their decks to an extent that gives them still favored and unfavored matchups, but always with decent options to overcome.
The problem is when decks can excel at two strategies altogether. Like now at top tier Wild.
But no need to narrow down the game, as long as downsides are there regularly.
No, that is not a problem per se related to fun. You can have decks exceling at all strategies and have fun games with these when they don't violate any of the 3 golden rules in OP - it all depends on the game mechanics and design.
And yes, the BOARD should be KING and the game should be centered around the board in order to be fun. The board in HS should be like the mineral fields in SC - dictating the battles and the dynamics of the game. That is why I said we need more board mechanics in order to kind of split the board in even more pieces.
I think you misunderstood me. You are assuming your own POV is the same as it is for other players even though it might not be at all! I like:
-Winning
-Ranking up
-End season rewards
For example. All good reasons to play tier 1 decks in Wild.
There have been metas with heavy minion and tempo focus before, but I strongly disagree that those are the definition of a fun meta.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
Certainly board should be the center, i am all for it, but you can't outright rule out what is not board-centered.
And you can afford that, if downsides for non-board moves are solid and consistent enough.
Saying there should be nothing out of board is unrealistic (other than boring).
And if a deck excels at any strategy, it simply is TS, no unfavoured matchup. It will never be fun to play (against) and it will ultimately warp the meta because nothing can deal with it, in average.
The discussion is sterile if it is narrowed down into strict points...
If you enjoy HS only for the rewards and ranking up there is no point in even having a discussion with you.
HS should be a fun social game with a pro/competitive scene and rewards/ranking should be a byproduct of the player's desire to play the game, not a reason to have fun in itself.
How said "only"? Nobody has a monopoly on defining what is "fun" about a game or format. I was just pointing out some thing I like about the format that are completely missing from you definition.
And yes, the fun of ranking up is very important for a lot of players! Like most others, I prefer to do it with a deck I like and "connect" with, but simply crushing others with something strong does bring satisfaction, at least for a while!
There are other problems with your definition too!
-A grindy control deck can contain nothing but "counter plays" and have attrition as a win condition. Seeing how your opponent throws his whole deck at you but you overcome it all by pacing your removal and AOE can be both fun and rewarding, but you don't like that for some reason (no board interaction.)
-I don't think specific counterplays for every matchup is necessary. Counter TECH and DECKS is a totally different matter.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I think what OP wants is to play Arena cause thats what happens there. No combo decks no quests or op DK cards. Just trading each others board.
Go play Arena. In ladder u should run a deck ready to face the t1t2 decks
Trust me theres a reason why barnes wasnt nerf. Theres proof that running a Barneless big priest is as strong if not stronger. Starting to snowball at turn 5 aint that different plus not having barnes to screw with ur pulls and ressurects is a huge compensation. U can beat a big priest with barnes if they either shadow essence him or start to have him appear in ur rez pool. Without him the deck is A LOT stronger tho it has a slower start.
Yes, I don't like it since it lowers the fun factor and makes the game retarded in the eyes of the observer since players don't switch the roles of aggressor/defender until the very end. It's like watching a game of football, in which one team defends the whole game while the other one attacks - boring stuff. Or in the case of two decks with counter plays cards only - two teams which pass the ball the whole time in their own fields and wait for the match to finish.
There is nothing wrong to have control decks with counter play cards and AOE. The problem is when these are the majority of the cards and the other player ONLY counter to the board clear is not flooding the board with minions in order to preserve resources. This kind of gameplay is less fun for the players and observers than a game which goes with ups and downs for the both players making the viewer UNABLE to predict the outcome.
The reason you found previous heavy minion metas boring is that there are still very few mechanics in HS which deliver constraints to the board (taunt for example). That is why I hope the developers will finally realize in which direction to push the game - it's not that hard after all - find the top 10 MOST FUN games played on the competitive HS scene and try to integrate new mechanics strengthening this type of match-up style.
I think this is as boiled down as possible. For almost all players, winning is fun. Ranking up is also fun, because it gives you the impression you won a lot, even if you have a negative winrate. And rewards .... yeah of course, opening packs and getting cards/gold/dust is of course fun.
There are a few people who claim that playing whacky decks is fun as well, but the salt thread is full of them when they do not win with their homebrews. Basically, the salt thread is a good support for the presumption that losing is not fun.
Of course, there are is more to "having fun" than just winning, like deck preference, nice opponents, game performance (no bugs, no disconnects), game mode preference, etc., but the most important part of having fun is winning enough games to think you can play the game well.