Hearthpwn

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Apoc7 >>

 The reason it doesn't feel as frustrating losing a control mirror is because both players are usually having a back and forth game of minion/spell battle, instead of just one being the aggressor and one stalling the game for an auto-win combo. Control players also don't experience this sense of hopelessness(like their decisions don't matter as much or at all) in the control mirror. Also, not every control deck auto-wins against agro besides the ultra boring odd warriors. Control vs agro matchups depend a lot on the opening hand and the first few cards you draw in the matchup. Some agro decks are even favored against control like the pre-nerf tempo mage vs BSM/controlock. Not many control/heavy midrange decks can reliably  beat combo decks. 

 Not entirely. Most Control mirrors actually come down to who is greedier. It is not so much a back and forth, as it is a matter of who has more punch in their deck, and if the opponent is capable of creating a powerful tempo push in the case that they see they are outmatched in the greed department.

If both decide they believe they have enough greed, they both go for near fatigue game, otherwise, one is forced to try and push tempo or lose.

Either case, you will feel hopeless at some point. Be it because you went second and started with an extra card for fatigue, because the opponent rolled better RNG in their random value generators, they can even generate strong tempo pushes because of said RNG. This is frustrating, it is not under your control.

One thing you don't tend to have frustrating you in Combo decks, is the RNG element, they don't tend to have room for RNG waste in the deck, you are unlikely to lose unexpectedly.

The reason Aggro beats Control comes down to pure randomness in draw order. If the Control deck draws really poorly, they lose despite being favoured. Same thing easily happens to Combo against Control, if Combo draws poorly.

 Regardless if control mirrors come down to who is greedier, there's still more gameplay than against a combo deck that is just stalling, drawing, healing, and win with combo in the end(especially in a combo vs. combo matchup where drawing is mostly the only gameplay involved). Also, there's always a chance of rng and misplays that can give the less greedier deck an upper hand against the greedier control deck.

Control decks also can't get away with being more greedy since agro and midrange decks can easily punish. Aggro has a much easier time beating a control deck than a heavy midrange/control deck against combo since they have more time in that matchup to draw better(it also helps that combo decks are filled with card draw so it's harder to draw bad consistently throughout a match against control). 

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from TardisGreen >>

Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck?  What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?

We can both just name decks, regardless of how good, and the conversation won't go anywhere. So we'll use VS #118 as a reference point:

I'll bold the ones I consider to be the out-of-balance, non-interactive decks. [Decks that combo/otk with little to no minion interaction, or that rely on a hero power to do most/all the work.]

T1
Odd Paladin
Even Paladin
Hybrid Hunter
Midrange Hunter
Cube Hunter
Control Priest

T2
Odd Rogue
Spell Hunter
Resurrect Priest
Even Shaman
Cube Warlock
Odd-Taunt Warrior

T3
Holy-Wrath Paladin
Exodia Paladin
Odd Warrior
Zoo Warlock
Even Warlock
Big-Spell Mage
Mecha'thun Warlock

T4
Miracle Druid
Miracle Rogue
Control Warlock
Murloc Mage

In my opinion, 10/23 (43%) of the best/most played decks in the metagame are largely non-interactive combo/otk/hero power decks. If we remove the 3 Hunter decks (Deathrattle, Hybrid, Midrange) that's 10/20 (50%). Bear in mind, I'm being generous here. I could feasibly consider including Even Paly, Odd Rogue, and Even Shaman...but they are more true Midrange decks that really only rely on the hero power to carry the early game, so I don't think they totally fit as an example of something I find troubling.

Sure, very few are T1, but does that matter? 2-player games are meant to be played with someone. Playing with someone includes interacting with them. If slightly less than half of all of good/most-played decks are decks where you don't care what your opponent is doing, and vice-versa, it is not a good place to be in.

My argument isn't about things being "OP" or "Broken," it's about the experience of playing and watching Hearthstone. Once again, these types of decks have a place in competitive card games, but they probably shouldn't account for almost half of the metagame and player experience.

In a vacuum, any one of these decks are probably completely fine. The cumulative effect, however, is troublesome. Minions matter as little right now as they ever have in hearthstone.

 Spell hunter? I don't see how it fits with any of these other decks or the criteria you listed.  It doesn't rely on hero power or combo, just uses midrange stuff to push damage and some decent anti aggro tools.

Resurrect priest can have a lot of very interactive games but I do concede the point that if they draw perfect you just lose on turn 9 and that doesn't feel great.

Exodia Paladin I don't think is that bad.  There are weaknesses and counterplays to the deck and the combo takes quite a long time and it isn't even strictly a combo deck, it very often wins with just control.  

Odd Pally is interactive I just think it's a bit overtuned and a bit polarizing against some decks.  

HW Pally, Mechathun decks, and odd warrior I agree with though.  Especially Mechathun decks.  Combo decks are my favorite to play but I just think Mechathun isn't great design.  I think those decks are a bit problematic and I say this with HW Pally being my favorite deck to play right now.  Big Spell Mage would be a lot more acceptable if playing Jaina didn't just lock you out of the game so often.  

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from TardisGreen >>

Is Egg-adin a Hunter, Combo, OTK, or Hero Power deck?  What about Control Priest or Cube Lock?

We can both just name decks, regardless of how good, and the conversation won't go anywhere. So we'll use VS #118 as a reference point:

I'll bold the ones I consider to be the out-of-balance, non-interactive decks. [Decks that combo/otk with little to no minion interaction, or that rely on a hero power to do most/all the work.]

T1
Odd Paladin
Even Paladin
Hybrid Hunter
Midrange Hunter
Cube Hunter
Control Priest

T2
Odd Rogue
Spell Hunter
Resurrect Priest
Even Shaman
Cube Warlock
Odd-Taunt Warrior

T3
Holy-Wrath Paladin
Exodia Paladin
Odd Warrior
Zoo Warlock
Even Warlock
Big-Spell Mage
Mecha'thun Warlock

T4
Miracle Druid
Miracle Rogue
Control Warlock
Murloc Mage

In my opinion, 10/23 (43%) of the best/most played decks in the metagame are largely non-interactive combo/otk/hero power decks. If we remove the 3 Hunter decks (Deathrattle, Hybrid, Midrange) that's 10/20 (50%). Bear in mind, I'm being generous here. I could feasibly consider including Even Paly, Odd Rogue, and Even Shaman...but they are more true Midrange decks that really only rely on the hero power to carry the early game, so I don't think they totally fit as an example of something I find troubling.

Sure, very few are T1, but does that matter? 2-player games are meant to be played with someone. Playing with someone includes interacting with them. If slightly less than half of all of good/most-played decks are decks where you don't care what your opponent is doing, and vice-versa, it is not a good place to be in.

My argument isn't about things being "OP" or "Broken," it's about the experience of playing and watching Hearthstone. Once again, these types of decks have a place in competitive card games, but they probably shouldn't account for almost half of the metagame and player experience.

In a vacuum, any one of these decks are probably completely fine. The cumulative effect, however, is troublesome. Minions matter as little right now as they ever have in hearthstone.

 I'm gonna point out the obvious here, If we had an issue with "non-interactive" decks they wouldn't mostly be sitting around T3/4.  How can you make the argument that we have a problem with decks not being about board presence and then use a source that shows board presence to be overwhelmingly dominant on the ladder?  I'm really confused with the logic here.

I can't be the only one that is sick and tired of facing OTK decks - they are even more cancerous than old Undertaker hunter or Pirate warrior. 

As stated it depends on how interactive the gameplay ist.  It´s a game payed by two and that challenge is a key in keeping the game intresting. It´s a combination of good/creative deckbuilding and playing with someone. shure there is a strong luck factor with card draw resulting in an odd based game not chess but that´s good for a game you want to be played by a large number of players.

Quote from Aegis24 >>

 I'm gonna point out the obvious here, If we had an issue with "non-interactive" decks they wouldn't mostly be sitting around T3/4.  How can you make the argument that we have a problem with decks not being about board presence and then use a source that shows board presence to be overwhelmingly dominant on the ladder?  I'm really confused with the logic here.

Because I'm not making an argument that they are overpowered. I'm making an argument that the playstyle is overrepresented in a manner detrimental to the overall game experience.

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Quote from Aegis24 >>

 I'm gonna point out the obvious here, If we had an issue with "non-interactive" decks they wouldn't mostly be sitting around T3/4.  How can you make the argument that we have a problem with decks not being about board presence and then use a source that shows board presence to be overwhelmingly dominant on the ladder?  I'm really confused with the logic here.

Because I'm not making an argument that they are overpowered. I'm making an argument that the playstyle is overrepresented in a manner detrimental to the overall game experience.

> Over Represented
> Makes up a whopping 4 out of 24 decks
> What?  Other archtypes are much more represented

Your list is very...Odd.  Spell Hunter isn't uninteractive, neither are Big Spell Mage, Odd Paladin, or a number of others that you bolded.  Of all the decks you highlighted only 4 or so are what would commonly be considered "Uninteractive."  Apparently we use that term loosely around here because most of those decks can't handle it when you interact with their face too much.

At "relatively" high Legend the chances to meet an otk deck are probably around 60% (maybe even more). And there are certainly more than 4 otk decks out there.

I have to agree tho that Spell Hunter and Odd Paladin or BSM are interactive . But i belive ben made a point somewhere about the heropower(baku or DKs) dictating the game and having too much of an impact/taking away a huge part of the interactive aspect. And i agree in that case.

Quote from Wingdude22 >>

At "relatively" high Legend the chances to meet an otk deck are probably around 60% (maybe even more). And there are certainly more than 4 otk decks out there.

I have to agree tho that Spell Hunter and Odd Paladin or BSM are interactive . But i belive ben made a point somewhere about the heropower(baku or DKs) dictating the game and having too much of an impact/taking away a huge part of the interactive aspect. And i agree in that case.

 Yes. Regarding BSM, Odd paly, and Rexxar/Zuljin Hunter (which is all that spell hunter really is), that is what I meant. :)

Glad someone understands where I'm trying to go with this!

I agree. Playing around rank 1-5 mostly every month and there is about 50-60% chance to be matched against OTK deck currently. It is definitely a problem in my case but not sure it can be addressed. Blizzard just printed too many retarded cards that enable solitaire decks that ignore the opponent and just cycle and heal until otk turn.

So many OTK decks in the current Asia Tournament meta. And not just simple OTK with Malygos, but especially OTK with infinite damage (Mecha'thun and Uther of the Ebon Blade). Basically Exodia.

Sure, it's tournament, but I thought Exodia decks were supposed to be marginal in the game, just as much as Face decks...

This week, VS coined the phrase “AFK until I OTK”  and noted that the "playstyle that’s becoming more and more common."
This isn't something I am imagining or simply being salty about.

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from RavenSunHP >>

So many OTK decks in the current Asia Tournament meta. And not just simple OTK with Malygos, but especially OTK with infinite damage (Mecha'thun and Uther of the Ebon Blade). Basically Exodia.

Sure, it's tournament, but I thought Exodia decks were supposed to be marginal in the game, just as much as Face decks...

 You answered yourself very handily in your own post. Tournaments are exactly the kind of place you can take specialised line-ups to target strategies, which you cannot use in Ranked Mode where you cannot target anything.

 Yet the ladder meta is populated with a solid number of Exodia decks, while Face decks are out of meta.