I've been giving some thought lately to the argument of "OTK combo decks are uninteractive" and the counter argument "they clear your board, that is interaction." Curiously this led me to remember a quote that I'm sure a lot of parents who have children of schooling age will have heard from their children's teachers at parents evening - "your child is easily distracted" - and the true meaning behind that statement - "your child is distracting others." this also applies to the "uninteractive deck" argument.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
Imo, the best productive definition for "interactive", as applied to HS, should be something like:
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
Charge to face, weapon to face, spell to face all bypass the board, without going through it: they cannot be interactive. Since they ignore the board, they are uninteractive actions.
Removals and board clears are neither interactive nor uninteractive actions, they are neutral actions, because they stop on the board, without reaching the face.
Uninteractive deck: a deck should be defined more or less uninteractive based on the amount/degree of uninteractive actions required to build their main wincondition.
Mecha'thun decks are extremely uninteractive decks (so far), because they don't even need to touch the opponent's face to win.
Pirate Warrior is heavily uninteractive, because it is heavily (but not exclusively) based on charge, weapons and spells to face, ignoring the board as much as possible.
Odd Warrior and other classic Control decks are mildly uninteractive, because they are mostly focused upon neutralizing the opponent's board.
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
Imo, the best productive definition for "interactive", as applied to HS, should be something like: 'reaching the opponent's face going through the board'*.
*Charge to face, weapon to face, spell to face all bypass the board, without going through.
Removals and board clears are neither interactive nor uninteractive actions, they are neutral actions, because they stop on the board.
Hence a deck should be defined uninteractive based on the amount/degree of uninteractive actions required to build the wincondition**.
**Mecha'thun decks are entirely uninteractive decks. Pirate Warrior and Odd Warrior also heavily uninteractive (for opposite reasons), but to a much lesser extent than Mecha'thun.
Totally agree with this. I also want to point out, uninteractivity becomes a problem, when there are too many matchups that are unwinnable, when it just doesn't matter what you as a player do, but the 2 decks just kinda play vs themselves. When your decisions don't matter, because whatever you do will just turn out the same. That is what is so problematic about non interactive gameplay.
I would much rather play a deck that has 45% winrate vs all classes but can be strong when played correctly than a deck with 55% winrate but that just wins 11/20 matchups and loses 9/20 matchups automatically.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
You just described control decks.
Depending on the control deck. If the win condition is fatigue (the example of Odd Warrior has been used), then yes I did (and these decks are simlarly awful to play against). But look at Control Priest as an example of what a control deck should be. Proactive win condition, has to fight you for the board using minions to deal chip damage before going for their finisher, which can be played around with defensive play and/or life gain. The point is this deck creates scenarios where you get to play against it other than playing guys, hoping they stick and smashing face.
I am not an advocate of "OTKs are bad, and everyone should play control" - that is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to discuss why any "uninteractive" deck is a shite to play against and what makes it so. So if you want to include Odd Warrior, Big Spell Mage and Peanut Shaman in this then it also applies to them.
The only games that I find "uninteractive" is when one player kills the other within a very limited number of turns and the losing player doesn't have any option in hand to prevent the loss.
Some OTK druids reached that point before some nerfs, but I don't see "uninteractive" decks in the current meta besides some few prefect curve pirate rogue or even shaman games. Especially the Mecha'Thun decks demand s lot of strategic choices how to use your ressources which is an interaction imho.
But well, some people see "killing things" as the only real interaction I guess.
Most ladder decks lean towards being uninteractive in hearthstone because most of them take advantage of some really unfair hearthstone mechanic manipulation. This is why they are powerful, this is why they are all over ladder, as people like to win.
The easiest way to win in hearthstone is by taking your opponent out the equation. If you kill him on turn 4 before he realistically could answer your board rush that is uninteractive. If you never play anything on the board but just have a deck with answer after answer that is uninteractive. Taking advantage of freeze effects, or cards like timeout - uniteractive. OTKs - obviously uninteractive, especially when you spend 9 or the 10mins of game time just stalling.....it goes on and on.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
Lastly - if you really want true interactivity in hearthstone there is only one mode in the game that provides it consistantly, ARENA. The better player wins far more often in arena. Mid-range decks taking it in turns to trade minions, slow gameplay, calculated, superior in every way and always will be, till you get bored of mid-range battles. Constructed will aways be full of unineractive decks, fair cards and combos do not see play there, at all.
The only games that I find "uninteractive" is when one player kills the other within a very limited number of turns and the losing player doesn't have any option in hand to prevent the loss.
The issue I have is best of 1 formats and decks not being able to put in answers in your deck against OTK decks.
Aggro doesn't care about answers to OTK. They either win or lose by turn 5 and therefore their answers, if any, is pointless. The real answer is more aggression and face damage.
Control cares about answers because it cannot win against an OTK deck. It cannot give time to OTK decks because they will then assemble their combo. Control decks normally cannot put pressure on the OTK decks. So Control decks need some sort of answer in the deck. Otherwise a control vs OTK is completely a waste of time for the control player.
I don't see the issue with OTK or uninteractive decks, I see the problem that Hearthstone's flaws are best of 1, no sideboard, no tech cards that allow you to adjust or change your strategy.
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
"Going through the board" is the important notion here. The board is the only place in Hearthstone we meet our opponent's cards (aside from a very few fringe cases of hand/deck interaction). This is the issue with facing decks that win entirely from the hand. There is no strategy for controlling such a win condition and they degrade the game into a race of damage vs cycle.
Most ladder decks lean towards being uninteractive in hearthstone because most of them take advantage of some really unfair hearthstone mechanic manipulation. This is why they are powerful, this is why they are all over ladder, as people like to win.
The easiest way to win in hearthstone is by taking your opponent out the equation. If you kill him on turn 4 before he realistically could answer your board rush that is uninteractive. If you never play anything on the board but just have a deck with answer after answer that is uninteractive. Taking advantage of freeze effects, or cards like timeout - uniteractive. OTKs - obviously uninteractive, especially when you spend 9 or the 10mins of game time just stalling.....it goes on and on.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
Lastly - if you really want true interactivity in hearthstone there is only one mode in the game that provides it consistantly, ARENA. The better player wins far more often in arena. Mid-range decks taking it in turns to trade minions, slow gameplay, calculated, superior in every way and always will be, till you get bored of mid-range battles. Constructed will aways be full of unineractive decks, fair cards and combos do not see play there, at all.
But smashing Boulderfist Ogre's into Chillwind Yeti's is boring as hell. Scan hand for most powerful minion that is green, and play it. Pure Curvestone.
Most ladder decks lean towards being uninteractive in hearthstone because most of them take advantage of some really unfair hearthstone mechanic manipulation. This is why they are powerful, this is why they are all over ladder, as people like to win.
The easiest way to win in hearthstone is by taking your opponent out the equation. If you kill him on turn 4 before he realistically could answer your board rush that is uninteractive. If you never play anything on the board but just have a deck with answer after answer that is uninteractive. Taking advantage of freeze effects, or cards like timeout - uniteractive. OTKs - obviously uninteractive, especially when you spend 9 or the 10mins of game time just stalling.....it goes on and on.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
Lastly - if you really want true interactivity in hearthstone there is only one mode in the game that provides it consistantly, ARENA. The better player wins far more often in arena. Mid-range decks taking it in turns to trade minions, slow gameplay, calculated, superior in every way and always will be, till you get bored of mid-range battles. Constructed will aways be full of unineractive decks, fair cards and combos do not see play there, at all.
But smashing Boulderfist Ogre's into Chillwind Yeti's is boring as hell. Scan hand for most powerful minion that is green, and play it. Pure Curvestone.
So says the 3 win average arena player. Good luck out there, you are going to need it.
Joking aside, I did say mid-range trade battles can get kinda boring. But with regard to the OP, it's either one or the other due to the way Hearthstone is designed.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Sure they do, but I think I pretty well explained why the complaining is pointless. The change you are after would require Hearthstonme to become vastly more complex than it is - larger decks, more complex and crucially lower power level cards, more charcter health, more complex mechanics. If the game was slower, had more depth to its that better players in constructed won more often, then you would have a more interactive game. But Blizzard would also have a less profitable, less casual friendly game. That is kind of like....yup, ARENA.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Sure they do, but I think I pretty well explained why the complaining is pointless. The change you are after would require Hearthstonme to become vastly more complex than it is - larger decks, more complex and crucially lower power level cards, more charcter health, more complex mechanics. If the game was slower, had more depth to its that better players in constructed won more often, then you would have a more interactive game. But Blizzard would also have a less profitable, less casual friendly game. That is kind of like....yup, ARENA.
Again, I am not looking for change or complaining. I am creating a discussion around some issues with the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been giving some thought lately to the argument of "OTK combo decks are uninteractive" and the counter argument "they clear your board, that is interaction." Curiously this led me to remember a quote that I'm sure a lot of parents who have children of schooling age will have heard from their children's teachers at parents evening - "your child is easily distracted" - and the true meaning behind that statement - "your child is distracting others." this also applies to the "uninteractive deck" argument.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
Same argument can be made about Control decks. Odd Warrior doesn’t play threats. Just kills all your stuff.
Correct.
Odd warrior isn't really that interactive, you are right.
Control Warrior is a NoTK.
Lol'd
You just described control decks.
Actually, "uninteractive" can also mean "whatever i dislike" for some... Since i've read people using the term as an argument against Odd/Even...
Imo, the best productive definition for "interactive", as applied to HS, should be something like:
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
Uninteractive deck: a deck should be defined more or less uninteractive based on the amount/degree of uninteractive actions required to build their main wincondition.
______
EDITED FOR CLARITY
Totally agree with this. I also want to point out, uninteractivity becomes a problem, when there are too many matchups that are unwinnable, when it just doesn't matter what you as a player do, but the 2 decks just kinda play vs themselves. When your decisions don't matter, because whatever you do will just turn out the same. That is what is so problematic about non interactive gameplay.
I would much rather play a deck that has 45% winrate vs all classes but can be strong when played correctly than a deck with 55% winrate but that just wins 11/20 matchups and loses 9/20 matchups automatically.
Depending on the control deck. If the win condition is fatigue (the example of Odd Warrior has been used), then yes I did (and these decks are simlarly awful to play against). But look at Control Priest as an example of what a control deck should be. Proactive win condition, has to fight you for the board using minions to deal chip damage before going for their finisher, which can be played around with defensive play and/or life gain. The point is this deck creates scenarios where you get to play against it other than playing guys, hoping they stick and smashing face.
I am not an advocate of "OTKs are bad, and everyone should play control" - that is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to discuss why any "uninteractive" deck is a shite to play against and what makes it so. So if you want to include Odd Warrior, Big Spell Mage and Peanut Shaman in this then it also applies to them.
The only games that I find "uninteractive" is when one player kills the other within a very limited number of turns and the losing player doesn't have any option in hand to prevent the loss.
Some OTK druids reached that point before some nerfs, but I don't see "uninteractive" decks in the current meta besides some few prefect curve pirate rogue or even shaman games. Especially the Mecha'Thun decks demand s lot of strategic choices how to use your ressources which is an interaction imho.
But well, some people see "killing things" as the only real interaction I guess.
Most ladder decks lean towards being uninteractive in hearthstone because most of them take advantage of some really unfair hearthstone mechanic manipulation. This is why they are powerful, this is why they are all over ladder, as people like to win.
The easiest way to win in hearthstone is by taking your opponent out the equation. If you kill him on turn 4 before he realistically could answer your board rush that is uninteractive. If you never play anything on the board but just have a deck with answer after answer that is uninteractive. Taking advantage of freeze effects, or cards like timeout - uniteractive. OTKs - obviously uninteractive, especially when you spend 9 or the 10mins of game time just stalling.....it goes on and on.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
Lastly - if you really want true interactivity in hearthstone there is only one mode in the game that provides it consistantly, ARENA. The better player wins far more often in arena. Mid-range decks taking it in turns to trade minions, slow gameplay, calculated, superior in every way and always will be, till you get bored of mid-range battles. Constructed will aways be full of unineractive decks, fair cards and combos do not see play there, at all.
Thats the real uniteractive gameplay :-).
The issue I have is best of 1 formats and decks not being able to put in answers in your deck against OTK decks.
Aggro doesn't care about answers to OTK. They either win or lose by turn 5 and therefore their answers, if any, is pointless. The real answer is more aggression and face damage.
Control cares about answers because it cannot win against an OTK deck. It cannot give time to OTK decks because they will then assemble their combo. Control decks normally cannot put pressure on the OTK decks. So Control decks need some sort of answer in the deck. Otherwise a control vs OTK is completely a waste of time for the control player.
I don't see the issue with OTK or uninteractive decks, I see the problem that Hearthstone's flaws are best of 1, no sideboard, no tech cards that allow you to adjust or change your strategy.
"Going through the board" is the important notion here. The board is the only place in Hearthstone we meet our opponent's cards (aside from a very few fringe cases of hand/deck interaction). This is the issue with facing decks that win entirely from the hand. There is no strategy for controlling such a win condition and they degrade the game into a race of damage vs cycle.
But smashing Boulderfist Ogre's into Chillwind Yeti's is boring as hell. Scan hand for most powerful minion that is green, and play it. Pure Curvestone.
So says the 3 win average arena player. Good luck out there, you are going to need it.
Joking aside, I did say mid-range trade battles can get kinda boring. But with regard to the OP, it's either one or the other due to the way Hearthstone is designed.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Sure they do, but I think I pretty well explained why the complaining is pointless. The change you are after would require Hearthstonme to become vastly more complex than it is - larger decks, more complex and crucially lower power level cards, more charcter health, more complex mechanics. If the game was slower, had more depth to its that better players in constructed won more often, then you would have a more interactive game. But Blizzard would also have a less profitable, less casual friendly game. That is kind of like....yup, ARENA.
Again, I am not looking for change or complaining. I am creating a discussion around some issues with the game.