I'm a fan of midrange decks and I believe a midrange meta is the most balanced meta there can be.
A healthy midrange meta rewards skill rather than who draws what or the polarity bullshit that we've experiencing this year.
There used to be 40/60% odds against an unfavored matchup but now in some matchups you have a 70-80% chance to lose the game right at the mulligan because you've facing a tough matchup. Many games I feel like it doesn't matter what I draw or how I play because I'm going to lose anyways. Winning doesn't feel that much better either.
We've never had a mid-range meta. The entire point to Mid-range decks is to counter control decks, but the second mid-range becomes powerful aggro blows up as aggro tears apart mid-range. Killing aggro, meanwhile, results in metas like this one where hyper-slow decks dominate. If you somehow find a way to avoid both of that, Combo decks (which are just the more extreme cousin to mid-range), which also tear apart mid-range, dominates.
Mid-range is just unstable as an archetype, best used as a reaction to control. It's weak to too many other archetypes as it's not fast enough to deal with aggro, a slower, weaker version of combo, and typically can't take on very greedy decks.
I believe Midrange has traditionally with things like GvG Midrange Paladin and Midrange Shaman from Karazhan, with the way they play against different archetypes. Against slower decks, they work to act as a proactive deck, while against Aggro they work as a reactive deck.
If i remember correctly, then Midrange decks usually have a lot of "average" matchups, because they're extremely good at adapting to the situation, while not having something they just demolish. As an example, Midrange Shaman back in the days had around a 45-60% winrate against more or less the entire metagame. Midrange Paladin had some more biased winrates, but still with a ton of Fifty-Fifties.
I think this is in general Healthy for Hearthstone. Because these matches are more often determined by who is the better player, than who happened to face up with the favorable deck. Midrange Shaman, however, was problematic, because it was just TOO good, as it was usually slightly favored against more or less the entire meta.
Karazhan was however definitely a Midrange Meta, mostly because both Midrange Hunter and ESPECIALLY Midrange Shaman filled most of the meta, alongside Zoolock, which at the time actually was a Midrange deck, as it had a lot more midrangy sort of minions.
But you do raise some good points that i will further into! Also, thank you to everyone who've commented so far!
Midrange works like that in MTG. In Hearthstone Midrange specifically falls flat to aggro. Aggro is a full on direct counter to midrange decks. Midrnage decks COULD be tooled to be anti-aggro but then they lose their ability to fight control properly. In the end, it never really worked out that way.
That's not entirely true. Aggro doesn't directly counter mid-range. Mid-range by definition has moderate matchups in every matchup, like Tox said. It has options to live and out value aggro, while able to create enough value to beat control. Think current even shaman for example. It has Murkspark Eel and Dire Wolf Alpha for aggressive matchups, while still having value generators such as The Lich King and Hagatha for control matchups. The catch is that it doesn't win every matchup (obviously). There will be games where you don't draw your generators against control or your strong minions against aggro. Mid-range simply is that deck in the middle, controls aggro and is the aggressor against control.
Midrange works like that in MTG. In Hearthstone Midrange specifically falls flat to aggro. Aggro is a full on direct counter to midrange decks. Midrnage decks COULD be tooled to be anti-aggro but then they lose their ability to fight control properly. In the end, it never really worked out that way.
That's not entirely true. Aggro doesn't directly counter mid-range. Mid-range by definition has moderate matchups in every matchup, like Tox said. It has options to live and out value aggro, while able to create enough value to beat control. Think current even shaman for example. It has Murkspark Eel and Dire Wolf Alpha for aggressive matchups, while still having value generators such as The Lich King and Hagatha for control matchups. The catch is that it doesn't win every matchup (obviously). There will be games where you don't draw your generators against control or your strong minions against aggro. Mid-range simply is that deck in the middle, controls aggro and is the aggressor against control.
We've been calling decks like Even shaman 'Tempo decks' since Tempo/Casino Mage during Blackrock Mountain. Such decks had the ability to keep the pressure on your opponent and wear them down while still holding cards like Arch-mage for a big finisher. They tended to be weak in their inability to rebuild the board well and being VERY dependent on having a good curve. Thus they did well against aggro and slightly slower decks, but value styled control decks tore into them easily.
"Mid-range", since 2014, has been decks like old Midrange Hunter, which relied on a slow start followed by big bruisers like Highmane combined with a massive burst from hand to kill decks like Freeze Mage. Such decked died hard to aggro, but they regularly outraced control.
These are the terms I'm using. If they've changed and now those first decks are 'Midrange' then so be it: I'm not up for a semantics argument. But whatever we call it, i'd label Even Shaman as part of the first group of decks. You say that they stand up to control. However, what they really do is get their board wiped regularly then start praying to both Find Hagetha and hope that she gives them a hail mary styled recovery. That's a LOT less reliable than hunters regularly pulling poison/heal beasts endlessly and it's why pro players rely a lot more on Shudderwock builds which are more Combo based. And even then Shaman isn't exactly the top of the heap.
If what you are after are decks like even shaman, then you'll have a long wait as we raged at Blizzard when they tried to make that back in Old Gods. It's the mentality behind the Curvestone claim. I wouldn't mind it since I tend to prefer such decks. But they aren't exactly deep in skil level compared to combo or zoo-ish styled aggro decks.
The part about 2 of the same card is intriguing, and tbh, i sort of agree with it.
Being able to know that when you've dealt with a card x amount of times, that it's not longer a thing, is probaly something that the game should be looking at, to get the sort of feeling of overcoming certain obstacles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I want a new title, but Flux won't let me have one,
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a fan of midrange decks and I believe a midrange meta is the most balanced meta there can be.
A healthy midrange meta rewards skill rather than who draws what or the polarity bullshit that we've experiencing this year.
There used to be 40/60% odds against an unfavored matchup but now in some matchups you have a 70-80% chance to lose the game right at the mulligan because you've facing a tough matchup. Many games I feel like it doesn't matter what I draw or how I play because I'm going to lose anyways. Winning doesn't feel that much better either.
That's not entirely true. Aggro doesn't directly counter mid-range. Mid-range by definition has moderate matchups in every matchup, like Tox said. It has options to live and out value aggro, while able to create enough value to beat control. Think current even shaman for example. It has Murkspark Eel and Dire Wolf Alpha for aggressive matchups, while still having value generators such as The Lich King and Hagatha for control matchups. The catch is that it doesn't win every matchup (obviously). There will be games where you don't draw your generators against control or your strong minions against aggro. Mid-range simply is that deck in the middle, controls aggro and is the aggressor against control.
We've been calling decks like Even shaman 'Tempo decks' since Tempo/Casino Mage during Blackrock Mountain. Such decks had the ability to keep the pressure on your opponent and wear them down while still holding cards like Arch-mage for a big finisher. They tended to be weak in their inability to rebuild the board well and being VERY dependent on having a good curve. Thus they did well against aggro and slightly slower decks, but value styled control decks tore into them easily.
"Mid-range", since 2014, has been decks like old Midrange Hunter, which relied on a slow start followed by big bruisers like Highmane combined with a massive burst from hand to kill decks like Freeze Mage. Such decked died hard to aggro, but they regularly outraced control.
These are the terms I'm using. If they've changed and now those first decks are 'Midrange' then so be it: I'm not up for a semantics argument. But whatever we call it, i'd label Even Shaman as part of the first group of decks. You say that they stand up to control. However, what they really do is get their board wiped regularly then start praying to both Find Hagetha and hope that she gives them a hail mary styled recovery. That's a LOT less reliable than hunters regularly pulling poison/heal beasts endlessly and it's why pro players rely a lot more on Shudderwock builds which are more Combo based. And even then Shaman isn't exactly the top of the heap.
If what you are after are decks like even shaman, then you'll have a long wait as we raged at Blizzard when they tried to make that back in Old Gods. It's the mentality behind the Curvestone claim. I wouldn't mind it since I tend to prefer such decks. But they aren't exactly deep in skil level compared to combo or zoo-ish styled aggro decks.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
LOE Times, just started and had a lot of fun with renolock
Skidaddle skidoodle your Milhouse manastorm is now a noodle
Such a big topic!
So i'll start with mechanics to avoid: Recruit, Cloning and Resurrect.
The above are mechanics that severly exceed the usual deck limitations: max 2 copies per deck (1 if legendary), usage bound to card draw and mana.
Exceeding those limitations means easily threatening a deck stability for balance purposes (ie any kind of Big deck, but also Kingsbane Rogue).
PS: tutored card draw is also dangerous, but at least it is bound to mana rules.
The part about 2 of the same card is intriguing, and tbh, i sort of agree with it.
Being able to know that when you've dealt with a card x amount of times, that it's not longer a thing, is probaly something that the game should be looking at, to get the sort of feeling of overcoming certain obstacles.
I want a new title, but Flux won't let me have one,