This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
Basically this. Players want to win because they outsmarted their opponents and played around their strategy, not because they queued a deck that the opponent's deck sucks against. I'd like to see more tools that aid in the following; combo decks to survive against aggro, aggro decks to maintain pressure for longer against control and control decks to have meaningful plays to make against combo, The less extreme the traingle of Aggro > Combo > Control the better. Giving any archetype a reasonable shot against another by introducing different ways to interact with the opponent's cycle, mana or cards off of the board (not anything as extreme as Dirty Rat, however) is a step in the right direction.
My man, by that logic, hero powering is also interacting with your oponent, as for example you need to do 2 dmg more to kill a warrior, if he hero powers once. By your logic this game is interactive af, right now. But that is just arguing about the term "interactive", I don't think we need to argue about how the word describes a certain condition, but if you find that the game needs to get more interactive.
so my question, do you think the game should change in a direction? Because to me it seems like you are just covering your ears saying everything is perfect as it is. I personally can say i am not having much fun in hearthstone at the moment.
You mean by the logic of looking at words by their definition?
And yes, Hero Powering is Interacting with the Opponent, if that Hero Power affects the opponent.
You can argue whether decks are more or less interactive, because that is perfectly reasonable. Stating that decks are uninteractive, however, is just illogical. They are not Uninteractive, they simply allow provide less avenues for interaction, which is true. That is how Combo decks work in every single card game. By their definition and game plan, they will always provide less interaction options than normal decks. Their game plan depends on the player being able to combine certain cards and if your combination can easily be disrupted, your deck is completely unplayable.
Now do I think the game should change direction. Not exactly. It seems obvious to me that Blizzard has clearly been favouring Combo playstyle in this Year of expansions, where as last year it was more focused on Control, and Old Gods saw an Aggro focus. I don't mind this. I am certain that this 2019 year will see focus on something else, and that is fine. While I personally enjoy Combo the most, I understand their idea, rotating their focus each year. 2018 was good for people like me, and I am expecting Aggro to be the next focus, which will be very annoying for me, but I think that is fair, they shouldn't focus on the same playstyle all the time, rotating is good so players can take breaks and return if they don't enjoy the focus.
If "interactivity" is equal to "performing any action against your opponent", then the concept is useless for discussion purposes.
Sheer relativity into nihilism.
We want a meaningful definition of "interactivity", or another analogous keyword that contributes to the understanding of the 'uneasiness' we feel when facing some decks.
You should search for words that properly represent your concept, rather than try to force a different meaning to already existing words and concepts.
Do Combo decks allow for less interactions and avenues for them? Yes. Are they uninteractive? No.
This is specially important because the uneasiness felt varies with the person. Each person feels uneasy about different decks because they themselves play different decks. Combo players also feel uneasy about Aggro decks, you lose a lot of games because you draw your deck in a bad order and find yourself unable to perform any action to affect the opponent, but that is not because Aggro decks lack existence of those actions, it's just because the circumstances create that position for the Combo deck, and the same applies for any playstyle you play. Your predator strategy will always leave you with that uneasy feeling. Reality is, you are their prey, and you do feel extremely vulnerable, uneasy.
This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
It is an argument in line of: there's skill in the game, look every month the same people reach legend, so there must be skill in the game....... well playing a mindless deck better than your opponent is hardly a sign of skill, does it? The skill floor decides wether a deck is requires skill, not its ceiling.
The problem is of course the steepness of RPS: If you have an unfavorable matchup there is no point in playing on, conceding is the only right thing to do. That ladies and gentleman is the real problem. Lack of interaction is just a spin-off effect.
Finally a lack and sense of playing a game of skill is fundamental to any game. As it seems hearthstone is a 'honorable' exception. Glory for the target audience.
I' I agree with some of their decisions, and heavily disagree with others.
No. In fact, you are trying to give Interaction some meaning that you want it to be. Interaction is not supposed to be disruption. Disruption is a possibility of an interaction, but reality is interaction is not limited to disruption, it involves any action that affects the opponent.
There is no problem with RPS. That model represents how a Strategy Card Game works if you remove RNG aspects and perfect players Technical Play. The real problem is players feel entitled to wins they don't actually deserve or earn. It is far easier to blame the model as opposed to understanding that the opponent was favoured and he played as well or even better than you. Many, very many players are incapable of realising that the opponent is playing well or even better.
(I'm not saying there are no undeserved or unearned wins from the opponents, there are, but the majority are not the case)
I'm not pro or against Team 5. I simply understand their design philosophy.
I simply also inderstand their design phylosophy too and unfortunately it is not how you understand it.
Their design phylosophy is caring for a target audience who.
Don't like a higher skill floor
Want simple win conditions (leading up to polarisation, therefore a steep RPS)
Demand aggression or otherwise OTK
Therefore card design is marketing defined. That's about it. All others not part of the target audience may join the party, but are not the main focus of attention. The succes of HS is therefore not something to do with balance, diversity or any other ingame requierment. Its succes is serving the mindless masses.
The same way president Trump is serving and talking to his base, the same way Ayala and consort are looking after their base. The politics of card design.
There is no problem with RPS. That model represents how a Strategy Card Game works if you remove RNG aspects and perfect players Technical Play. The real problem is players feel entitled to wins they don't actually deserve or earn. It is far easier to blame the model as opposed to understanding that the opponent was favoured and he played as well or even better than you. Many, very many players are incapable of realising that the opponent is playing well or even better.
This is not so much difference in opinion. This goes much deeper. It's difference in raison d' etre. An existential difference in where you say this is how card games work, where I say: this is the chosen politics of card design to serve the target audience.
I don't argue against the existence of RPS, I argue against the steepness to serve the target audience. Steepness leads to polarisation and that is not what you want in a card game. You want diversity in win conditions, You want a higher skill floor to ensure the better player wins.
That steepness renders useless any attempt to play better and win. I don't feel entittled to win. That is a BS-argument. It is not even an argument at all. Winning not based on being the better player is cheating. To justify that with RPS is windowdressing true intentions that you design cards only to serve that target audience.
You seem to accept that people who are not entitled to win, win games just because they play the right mindless deck. Well that is repulsive, abhorrant. It's called unethical card design.
The mindless masses don't seem to understand that Ayala and consort just have major contempt for hem. Defaming people by giving them an easy winfix, not based on skill, is taking away the very notion of being human. The result is a dehumanisation, reducing people to their mammalistic brains of only looking for pleasure, which debases you to animals. My selfrespect lies in cognition of constructing the world around me based on insight and skill, not the given rush of feeling good when I in case of HS win playing a mindnumbing deck.
Remember how slaveowners did regard their slaves? Not as humans, but as animals. That same principle happens when card design is not based on skill based winning, but just on a RPS-rush.
You talk about Strategy Card Games. Well there is not much of a strategy if you can concede turn 1 because you know there is no way in the world, you gonna win this one.
Your way of reasoning is typical for those who think residing with decisionmakers will rub off on you putting you in a spot where you think your opinion is more entitled to be right. Well those who speak truth to power will always regard fellow travellers on the bandwagon of Ayala and consort as intellectually compromised.
I think we agree on most things (in particular about abusing words).
The unsettled point is whether "uninteractive" should or should not be used to indicate grade ~3. You attribute "uninteractive" to mean exclusively grade 0. But we both agree grade 0 does not exist in the game (or in reality).
My point is that since grade ~3 is towards the lower pole, and a lazy approximation of "almost entirely uninteractive" (grade 3) into "uninteractive" (ideally grade 0) is still useful for discussion purposes, without falling into the abuse of words. Crucially, as long as people do not abuse it to indicate grade 5+ (which happens more often than what'd be good, but trying to balance it using "interactive" to indicate grade 3 does not help the confusion).
A different point would be using another keyword. Why not. But "interactive" seems quite established so far.
What I think is pointless is having a keyword meaning something closely related to what we need to express our issue, but being unable to use it because with no adjectives it would not indicate its grade 0.
"It's cold". Now cold means various things, not necessarily 0°K. It could also mean 0°C, and it would be useful to roughly understand temperature in a place, while being an approximation. What's wrong, because it is misleading, is if people use "it's cold" when it is 15°C. That's an exaggeration, (a selfish one, since one could just say "I'm cold" and be still understood). But we can't deny the usefulness of "cold" or "hot".
______
As for the real issue, I think "uninteractive" decks or grade 3 are perfectly fine in the game, but crucially, at the condition that they are consistently relegated to a small population in the meta, implying they have a wide spectrum of bad matchups. They are ok as "tech deck" in case the meta goes incredibly greedy. But that should be it, otherwise it's just frustrating for the average player (at least, with current game mechanics).
I am not sure of current numbers of Mecha'thun or Miracle Druid and similar decks, but I think they need to be kept under investigation, especially when they will fall into Wild-only: any more broken survival tool in their arsenal may lead into entirely broken meta.
It's not me that attributes Uninteractive to Grade 0, that is what it means. Uninteractive means there are no possible interactions, which means a Grade 0 Interaction. Zero Interactions, Zero. Hence why I bring this up. If people would use other terminology, I wouldn't say anything if it were correct. Since Uninteractive is by definition incorrectly being applied, I do point it out.
Basically, Uninteractive means No interaction, which is Zero on the scale. Anything above that is Interactive, it's just more or less. A deck with Grade 3 Interactiveness is still an interactive deck, it has a positive value, above Zero. It simply happens to be on the lower side of the scale. It has less options of interaction.
And you say "as long as people don't' abuse it", this is the issue. Right now, they are abusing it to reach up until Grade 3, what guarantees you that they won't abuse it to reach Grade 5? Nothing, that is why I think we should correct them right now, rather than let them pushing on the opposite direction. It is a far better option.
You're Temperature example is not perfect but I will change it to make it a better one. There is a freezing temperature for water, 0ºC. If we have a temperature of 5ºC, can I say we have freezing temperature? No, because what will only freeze at 0ºC. The water will be cold, it will be harder to drink because of that temperature, but it will still not freeze. That is the same thing I'm trying to express. Grade 3 Interactive decks have low levels of interaction, they are much harder to interact with than higher grade decks, but they are still not uninteractive. The only point in which you can call them uninteractive is when they are actually uninteractive. Close to is not the same and using the wrong terminology already creates a wrong representation of the argument.
I highly disagree with the second part. I don't think Combo decks should be only accessible to a small population. I think they should be for all players, because reality is they naturally exile themselves to better technical players. You might want to disagree with that, but as I've stated many times, this is easily proven, Combo decks are more demanding from the player, they require more accurate technical play to function well (I mean, you really think decks like Quest Rogue would be nerfed it they didn't have stupidly high winrates in the hands of pro players, while the average winrates recorded for the population were really low? The deck was broken, but it still required proper Technical play or it was useless)
I simply also inderstand their design phylosophy too and unfortunately it is not how you understand it.
Their design phylosophy is caring for a target audience who.
Don't like a higher skill floor
Want simple win conditions (leading up to polarisation, therefore a steep RPS)
Demand aggression or otherwise OTK
Therfore card design is marketing defined. That's about it. All others not part of the target audience may join the party, but are not the main focus of attention. The succes of HS is therefore not something to do with balance, diversity or any other ingame requierment. Its succes is serving the mindless masses.
The same way president Trump is serving and talking to his base, the same way Ayala and consort are looking after their base. The politics of card design.
This is not so much difference in opinion. This goes much deeper. It's difference in raison d' etre. An existential difference in where you say this is how card games work, where I say: this is the chosen politics of card design to serve the target audience.
I don't argue against the existence of RPS, I argue against the steepness to serve the target audience. Steepness leads to polarisation and that is not what you want in a card game. You want diversity in win conditions, You want a higher skill floor to ensure the better player wins.
That steepness renders useless any attempt to play better and win. I don't feel entittled to win. That is a BS-argument. It is not even an argument at all. Winning not based on being the better player is cheating. To justify that with RPS is windowdressing true intentions that you design cards only to serve that target audience.
You seem to accept that people who are not entitled to win, win games just because they play the right mindless deck. Well that is repulsive, abhorrant. It's called unethical card design.
The mindless masses don't seem to understand that Ayala and consort just have major contempt for hem. Defaming people by giving that an easy winfix, not based on skill, is taking away the very notion of being human. The result is a dehumanisation, reducing people to their mammalistic brains of only looking for pleasure, which debases you to animals. My selfrespect lies in cognition of constructing the world around me based on insight and skill, not the given rush of feeling good when I in case of HS win playing a mindnumbing deck.
Remember how slaveowners did regard their slaves? Not as humans, but as animals. That same principle happens when card design is not based on skill based winning, but just on a RPS-rush.
You talk about Strategy Card Games. Well there is not much of a strategy if you can concede turn 1 because you know there is no way in the world, you gonna win this one.
Your way of reasoning is typical for those who think residing with decisionmakers will rub off on you putting you in a spot where you think your opinion is more entitled to be right. Well those who speak truth to power will always regard fellow travellers on the bandwagon of Ayala and consort intellectually compromised.
You start by an already flawed premise. You assume Combo decks don't require a high skill floor, when this can easily be proven otherwise. Combo decks by default as the most technical play demanding decks.
Their philosophy has nothing to do with those point. Their philosophy is fragmented into two irreconcilable focuses.
1. They want an extremely wide audience, which requires them to focus on what bring in the most common denominator. That means having a large variety of crazy interactions possible in the game, a large variety of random elements that can lead to (supposedly, in my opinion) fun scenarios. This means they will focus heavily on providing multiple ways to play the game, which is good, but also provide a large window for Randomness to operate in the game, and for a large portion of decisions to be influenced by said Randomness.
We all know this is a game where even a brand new player can accidentally get lucky and overcome a professional, that is how the game is designed, and while I personally do not like that, it is part of the game. There is enough Randomness that allows such stupid scenario to materialise.
2. They also want to have a very engaged and competitive audience, which clashes with the first part. You cannot have both working well, trying to go down the middle just makes the experience worse for both sides. Very engaged and competitive people want less Randomness, they want to have far more control over the outcomes of games than they have in this game. They want more frequent and larger content updates and changes to keep the game fresh, which collides with the interests of the Casual wide audience that want the game to be more random, have less constant changes so they can return at any point and still have things work the same way.
You cannot please both sides, this is their flaw, they don't pick one side and make the game the best possible for that side, they try to please both sides and it ends up being a very average experience for both.
The steepness is not really a problem. If you have people at low levels of technical play, RPS will still have a high impact on the outcome, but what will make a lot of difference is the high level of mistakes they will make that will constantly shift the winner. If you have people at extremely high levels of technical play, RPS will almost entirely decide the outcome of the game. Players will play at near perfect level, and when they play at perfect level, it is the strategies they decided to play, and their natural dynamic in the matchup that decides the outcome.
Freeze Mage vs Control Warrior was always an extremely polarised matchup. I'm a Freeze Mage maniac, and I have absolutely no problem with this polarisation, that is how both strategies clash. I can tell you I won very many of these matchups against low technique Warriors only because I'm very experienced with the Mage. I can also tell you that I didn't win many of these matchups against highly skilled Warriors because they didn't make many mistakes for me to abuse. There is nothing wrong with this, I never expected to win, nor SHOULD I EXPECT TO. I should only expect to win if I'm playing perfectly or close to it, and my opponent is making mistakes, or if I can force them to make them.
Otherwise, if I managed to regularly destroy highly skilled Warriors, specially when they played at a level as good or higher than mine, that would be absurdly unfair. My desire to win every game doesn't give me the right to win matchups I shouldn't win, specially when I don't deserve those wins. (Me playing perfectly doesn't mean I deserve the win, I also need my opponent to make mistakes for me to deserve the win, and I think this is ignored by many players, they think they should win just because they played well and don't consider the opponent also did)
If you don't feel entitled to win, I want you to answer this question:
Assume you and I are playing one another. You are playing a favoured deck, Control Warrior for example. I'm playing Freeze Mage, meaning I'm heavily unfavoured.
We both play the matchup perfectly, neither of us make mistakes. And also, assume RNG was minimal, it was fair to both players. Tell me ANY reason why I should ever be allowed to win against you? Give me one reason. Again, we both played the game perfectly.
It is not unethical. You are the unethical one, deciding your opponent is unworthy of winning because you dislike what they are using, because you believe they didn't play well, or any other reason that one would file under bad loser.
This is a Strategy Card Game, the concept that the strategy you yourself decided to create and play cannot have an big impact on the outcome of the matchup seems absurd to me.
The rest of the post is funny, but since we cannot really discuss politics here in the forums, it's against the rules, I'll won't say much, just say that your entire post tells me you can be filed under a Socialist/Democrat, and your own views contradict your stance. You want people that make good decisions to be rewarded, but if people do make good decisions and get rewarded for them, you justify it as abusing the system, one that actually allows you to make good decisions and get rewards, which is in principle what you should be in favour of. If you want to discuss politics, you can send me a message, we can discuss so we don't break the forum rules.
If you don't feel entitled to win, I want you to answer this question: Assume you and I are playing one another. You are playing a favoured deck, Control Warrior for example. I'm playing Freeze Mage, meaning I'm heavily unfavoured. We both play the matchup perfectly, neither of us make mistakes. And also, assume RNG was minimal, it was fair to both players. Tell me ANY reason why I should ever be allowed to win against you? Give me one reason. Again, we both played the game perfectly.
As RPS is too steep right now , you will have no way of winning the game. If RPS was more shallow, less steep, you would have a greater chance of winning the game based on skill. Now please concede. Fun isn't it? Dirty rat was a poor way of even the odds. Is it really that hard to keep RPS in place, but don't let it devolve in a polarized frenzy?
No it isn't.
You start by an already flawed premise. You assume Combo decks don't require a high skill floor, when this can easily be proven otherwise. Combo decks by default as the most technical play demanding decks.
Even if you play it poorly, right now a non- aggressive deck stand no chance.
The rest of your post I consider T5- emissary reasoning. You know this guy?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The only uninteractive decks most of you have seen in Hearthstone are the Aggro mage deck back before the Mana Wyrm nerf and the Aggro druid deck popular at the World Championships last year.
They are uninteractive because they will frequently choose the same line of play regardless of what their opponent plays (with the pedantic exception of taunt minions forcing a response).
Nothing in the current meta plays that way. Hearthstone is a game of tempo and board control except at the most extreme fringe of aggro decks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
As RPS is too steep right now , you will have no way of winning the game. If RPS was more shallow, less steep, you would have a greater chance of winning the game based on skill. Now please concede. Fun isn't it? Dirty rat was a poor way of even the odds. Is it really that hard to keep RPS in place, but don't let it devolve in a polarized frenzy?
No it isn't.
Even if you play it poorly, right now a non- aggressive deck stand no chance.
The rest of your post I consider T5- emissary reasoning. You know this guy?
You still seem to fail to realise that there is nothing wrong with a steep RPS model, if you perfect player technical play, that is what you attain. I'm not saying players out there play perfectly, I'm just telling you that you interpret RPS steepness as a problem when in perfect conditions, that is exactly how a perfectly balanced Strategy Card Game operates. If players of this game played perfectly every game, it would be fully RPS, not steep, but full on RPS.
You still have a chance to win unfavoured games not matter how unfavoured your strategy is, but it doesn't depend solely on your skill. You need to play nearly perfect in most of these matchups, and you need your opponent to ALSO make mistakes. You can play perfectly as much as you want, if your opponent is playing as well or better than you, you will not win, nor should you. (In case he has a favoured strategy).
What you want, and is essentially impossible to accomplish without fully breaking the game, is to remove strategy decisions from the matchup deciding factors. That will not happen when you are playing a Strategy Card Game. The Strategy is not there by accident, Strategy is an extremely important part of the game, and it also happens to be a decision the player makes. Decisions in this game matter both during and before the game, not only during the game. You want to remove the impact of decisions before the game.
No, right now, a low level player stands almost no chance of beating a very unfavoured matchup. High level players can still beat very unfavoured matchups, but it will require them to play nearly perfect and have the opponent make mistakes that they can abuse. If the opponent doesn't make those mistakes, they cannot win.
It shouldn't be a surprise that it works this way. A favoured matchup is your matchup to lose. It is the favoured player that stands to lose the matchup because they are naturally favoured, if they don't make mistakes, they will almost never lose. You might not like this, because if you are standing in the unfavoured position, your only chance to win is to play perfectly and hope the opponent fails, it doesn't depend that much on you, aside from playing perfectly, which is entirely on you, and maybe induce the opponent in error, which can be done but is not that easy, specially against high level players.
I guess this is essentially the whole hopelessness feeling you feel, you feel like playing perfectly in an unfavoured matchup is not enough to win, and that is how it is meant to work. You are doing your job, playing perfectly, but in an unfavoured matchup, this alone is not enough, you are still waiting for your opponent to make mistakes, which you don't control for the most part. You are for the most part, helpless unless they decide to fuck up, or by miracle you find a way to force them to fuck up.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
You cannot make the RPS shallower without removing strategies from the game. It is because we have various different strategies that don't all play the same way and that interact differently with each other that we have a steep model, and the more you add, the steeper it tends to be.
You might not be having as much fun in the current Combo focused year rotation, but soon enough you will have a different focus and that will possibly skew it for something you enjoy more, Control.
I'll use the Control Warrior v Freeze Mage example again, because this is one of the most polarised matchups that has ever been part of the game.
The reason this matchup is so polarised is because their strategies are almost polar opposites. Freeze Mage is a limited damage burn deck, which lacks any significant minion threats to increase it's damage output. The minions are a laughable excuse and they don't deal chip damage, that means the Mage is limited to the Burn it has in the deck.
Control Warrior has a main condition of outlasting the opponent by increasing it's health. All the Warrior needs to do to win the Matchup is increase the Health past the limit of Burn the Mage has, and the matchup is won.
Their strategies clash in this way, Freeze Mage decides not to rely on minions for damage, which is fine against other decks, but against Warrior that can increase it's health, the fact that they don't rely on minions completely turns the matchup into a near impossible feat.
If I were like most people here, I would be complaining that Warrior shouldn't be able to increase their health past my Burn limit because it makes the matchup almost impossible and too polarised. I obviously would never do that, because I myself decided to use a strategy that is completely destroyed by the Warrior. I can make a large variety of strategies that can beat the Warrior if I want to, but if I want to play this strategy, I have to accept that when I face a Warrior, I will almost inevitably lose, and that is perfectly fair, fine and acceptable.
The more different strategies the game has, the more likely you are to have two strategies that clash into extremely polarised matchups. If you don't want polarised matchups, all you can do is prevent these strategies from existing and people can only play boring minion bland strategies. I hope the game never goes in that direction.
Edit: You should try and play a Strategy that doesn't clash with other strategies in such a polarising manner. I can understand that you don't like polarising matchups, but you are the one that is deciding to play strategies that possess polarising matchups. You shouldn't try and remove the option for other players to play strategies they enjoy, that is a very bad attitude to have. Instead, you should change your own strategy so you avoid polarised matchups, or you can just continue playing the same strategy and accept that your strategy will face polarised matchups and that is perfectly fair, fine and acceptable.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
You cannot make the RPS shallower without removing strategies from the game.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
You might not be having as much fun in the current Combo focused year rotation, but soon enough you will have a different focus and that will possibly skew it for something you enjoy more, Control.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
The reason this matchup is so polarised is because their strategies are almost polar opposites.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
The more different strategies the game has, the more likely you are to have two strategies that clash into extremely polarised matchups.
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
You should try and play a Strategy that doesn't clash with other strategies in such a polarising manner.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
The thing is my reasoning is not stupid. I know 2+2=4, I've examined why this happens, I verified it to be fact, so I don't question it any longer. I don't need to question something I already took the time to verify it as a fact. Unless you can provide me conflicting evidence that questions that, why would I question?
You can tell me 2+2=10 and that I only believe it is 4 because X entity defined it and that I follow the entity instead of thinking for myself, but in reality, you are just being dumb and trying to be contrarian just for the sake of feeling unique.
Being unique is not special or good unless what makes you unique is good. You can be the only person in the world that believes the Earth is flat. You certainly are unique, but your uniqueness is not good.
I know you want to remove strategies from the game, but that is the wrong decision to make if you are designing the game and intend on widening your player base. Giving players more strategies they can use is better. Hell, this is how it works in most areas. It is far better to have a large variety of products to buy and choose, rather than have that selection limited for arbitrary reasons.
The difference between me and you is simple:
We both have preferences, we both have things we like and things we don't like. I want to have the things I like to exist and be available to me, and I also want the things I don't like to exist and be available to me, but more importantly, for the people that like them. I don't like them, but my personal perspective shouldn't stop others from having that option for themselves.
You however, you want the things you like to exist and be available to you, but you do not want the things you don't like to exist at all. It's either your way, or not way at all.
You should consider changing that mindset. Live and let live. If you don't, you risk ending up being on the losing side in the future.
I don't think answering the rest is productive because your mindset is both closed and flawed, and that is an unworkable combination. I won't bother further.
Therefore let it be known that there is no reason at all why the meta should be polarized as a sign of good card design.
Let it be known then that you have no sufficient reasons to defend the current politics of card design.
Let it be known then that bandwagon-argumentation only serves the purpose of getting upvotes.
Let it be known there is no defends as you seem to do for unethical card design.
The lack of skill based card design is nothing more then to serve a target audience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
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.
ARENA is where the best player wins? lol what? No, arena is where the luckiest player wins. I've dabbled in it and constantly get pitted against people who got to draft something like zoo lock or pirate warrior. If you have good drafts you can win. A really good player can get garbage drafts and just lose all of their games. Not only is your definition of "Uninteractive," really bad, but so is your definition of, "best player."
I only just read this but I had to respond because your logic is in the gutter.
The best arena players get far higher win rates than hte best constructed players.
Drafting is based on luck but over time (not just one run) the better players do noticably better in arena than the better players do in constructed. The skill gap is there and it's massive.
So what you thnik of my definition of interactive is irrelevant, because you are clueless.
I think what some people may mean is it's very frustrating to queue into a match and know that your chances of winning are very slim. And it's not because you built the deck wrong. It's not because you chose the wrong opponent, or user name or whatever arbitrary reason someone may try to argue.
If I want to play Odd Warrior, but I queue into Mecha'thun Priest, how exactly do you expect me to win? What card could I put in my deck to win that game? A good portion of my cards are designed to stabilize against aggro and do absolutely nothing in the OTK Priest deck.
Control decks cannot normally put enough pressure on the OTK decks in order to win a rush strategy. Also, hitting your hero power turn after turn doesnt win either. So to me, this Priest deck does not have to do much interaction to win.
When I see the term 'uninteractive' some may see it as the opponent does just enough to stay alive in order to get their combo pieces and win the game on the spot. Many combo decks throw in every board clear and card draw and has no chance of winning outside of their combo.
This CAN be bad for the health of the game. This IS very frustrating when you know your deck has absolutely no answers to certain decks.
I think what most players want, is the feeling that you COULD win a match. That your choices and skill matters in whom wins and loses. That when you queue into a match you are not at a 10% win percentage.
For me, the term uninteractive is a 2 way street. For example, I cannot interact with the OTK Priest deck with my Odd Warrior deck in any way that matters. They in turn, simply play their card draw and combo pieces and win. Occasionally, if forced to, they will play their board clears. Neither deck is making any decisions that will actually affect the win percentage at all. It is pre-determined.
Instead, a Warlock deck that can transform your minion into a demon IS directly interactive with the OTK Priest deck. My win percentage is far better than with my Warrior deck. Now the skill, timing and luck come into play here. When do you play the spell as the Warlock? And as the Priest you now have meaningful decisions too. Do you play out all of your small minions to draw cards? If you do, there is a larger chance that their transform spell hits your key combo piece in your hand. So instead, you hold off on a few minions, hoping that spell gets one of them instead.
That is what I would define as interaction. Both the Warlock and Priest player are not just playing cards already knowing the outcome. They have to plan, perhaps bluff, perhaps even get alittle lucky, but in the end, their choices are what mattered.
To me, uninteractive or 'unfun' is when both players have little impact on the game other than playing on curve.
I'm sure 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. By thông cống nghẹt Minh Đức
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dịch vụ rút hầm cầu Minh Đức giá rẻ 0908887541, chuyên nghiệp tại tphcm https://thongcongnghethcm.net/Rut-ham-cau-gia-bao-nhieu-mot-khoi.html. Chuyên hút hầm cầu, thông cống nghẹt uy tín, nhanh, bảo hành chu đáo với chi phí rẻ, hệ thống máy móc hiện đại giúp thời gian xử lý nhanh hơn.
It is the same old story, really. People complained for ages that Hearthstone was just Aggro-City and over-run with aggro decks. So eventually Blizzard took notice and slapped pretty much all aggro decks down hard. The result of this is that (since aggro decks were no longer around to punish them), OTK decks have come to the foreground and are now dominant. Since they are almost always more powerful than control decks, we now have a slant in that direction as the aggro decks aren't there to beat them anymore.
And thus if people complain enough about OTK decks, then Blizzard may eventually do the same thing and slap them into obscurity. At which point control decks will suddenly be the new "problem" again. (Like we saw back with CubeLock during the Dark Days (TM).
Aggro is not dead. We sould wait a bit. Even shaman took a hard hit with the totem change and paladin with good old equality got a harsh global nerf. If OTK is so strong now you need to be more creative to beat them and yes like always sometimes you just loose. Regardless if it´s against OTK, aggro or control.
I'm not saying aggro is "dead". Just a lot less powerful / prevalent than it has been in recent months. And the shift in power balance (due to the gap left by aggro decks) has enabled OTK decks to come to the forefront
If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...
F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...
This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...
If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...
F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...
This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...
Just idea...
I like this idea too. Something that has been suggested in the past in other forums. I would even go as far as try it out in a Tavern Brawl to see how it works out first. You could even create a new permanent play mode in which you have a 'sideboard'. When you queue up, you know you are facing priest and yes, you can take out cards you know will be useless and put in other cards you think will work.
You could even make it Discover like effect. You premake all of your sideboard packages. 1 for Aggro match ups. 1 for Control and 1 for OTK decks. Then when you start the game and you know what class they are playing you 'Discover' one of your 3 pre made packages.
The packages would define what cards get taken out and the cards you chose go in place of them. Quick Example...
1. Aggro - take out my 8, 9 and 10 drop cards and replace them with board clears and healing cards.
2. Control - take out my early game minions and replace them with my 8, 9 and 10 drops.
3. OTK - take out some of the vanilla minions and add in tech minions.
I do think a Tavern Brawl to test out these ideas is exactly why Tavern Brawl was created. Come up with kooky ideas and let the players loose on it. This idea is far better than the current Tavern Brawl of 'play a minion, cast random spell and win or lose on the spot.'
The discover which variant of the deck to pick at muligan sounds cool. But it should be like the deck is altered by two or three cards maximum and yo uselect vanilla version or mod A or mod B or propably even only one card diffrent and the discover shows which one is exchanged (preset). I can imagin it´s quite possilbe to also show two exchanges visually well.
If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...
F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...
This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...
Just idea...
The idea itself isnt a bad one (side boards are obviously used in most paper card battle games) - however the problem with this idea arises in the implementation.
There are two main factors that prevent the side board concept from working:
1. You have to know what the other player's deck is going to be. That means you have to have prior knowledge of his deck before the game. This is a big no-no. This isn't a tournament mode. Not knowing what is in the other person's deck is half the point of the game. It requires you to consider what they might be playing next. To instantly know what's in the other person's deck before hand feels far too much like an exploit.
or
2. You need to have to play the same person twice in a row. Now this isn't necessarily impossible to do, but 9 times out of 10 I have little desire to play the same person twice in a row. Especially if I just lost to his steaming pile of cancer deck. Even if I have a side board to tech in cards, he would also know what I just played and would do the same.
I don´t thin that deck knowledge is needed. I agree that not knowing the oponets deck is one of the most important things in this game. I can pick one version by only knowing the opponents class. I played MTG tournes in the past a lot and there you have a sideboard but thats diffrent. I hate games where you exactly see what you are playing. Chess would be a perfect example for all is known and is completely diffrent and doesn´t have a high playerbase due to being purely intelect and training based.
Yeah, but now you also didn´t know what deck you facing, you only know class (if you are not play against someone you know what he´s/she´s playin) and now you dont´t have any chance to counter that. With sidedeck you have option to do something with it. Especially if you know meta and know decks you are almost facing.
f.e.: I know that many druids now will be Mechathun, then i can do something with it. Ok, I´m not lucky and it´s not mechathun in 1 of 5 games, but other 4 games i can influence that. Still have another strategic option which is not problematic with flow of the game.
Another good example are decks running Baku or Genn. You know that rgoue will be 90% odd, so you can do something with that etc. etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically this. Players want to win because they outsmarted their opponents and played around their strategy, not because they queued a deck that the opponent's deck sucks against. I'd like to see more tools that aid in the following; combo decks to survive against aggro, aggro decks to maintain pressure for longer against control and control decks to have meaningful plays to make against combo, The less extreme the traingle of Aggro > Combo > Control the better. Giving any archetype a reasonable shot against another by introducing different ways to interact with the opponent's cycle, mana or cards off of the board (not anything as extreme as Dirty Rat, however) is a step in the right direction.
I simply also inderstand their design phylosophy too and unfortunately it is not how you understand it.
Their design phylosophy is caring for a target audience who.
Therefore card design is marketing defined. That's about it. All others not part of the target audience may join the party, but are not the main focus of attention. The succes of HS is therefore not something to do with balance, diversity or any other ingame requierment. Its succes is serving the mindless masses.
The same way president Trump is serving and talking to his base, the same way Ayala and consort are looking after their base. The politics of card design.
This is not so much difference in opinion. This goes much deeper. It's difference in raison d' etre. An existential difference in where you say this is how card games work, where I say: this is the chosen politics of card design to serve the target audience.
I don't argue against the existence of RPS, I argue against the steepness to serve the target audience. Steepness leads to polarisation and that is not what you want in a card game. You want diversity in win conditions, You want a higher skill floor to ensure the better player wins.
That steepness renders useless any attempt to play better and win. I don't feel entittled to win. That is a BS-argument. It is not even an argument at all. Winning not based on being the better player is cheating. To justify that with RPS is windowdressing true intentions that you design cards only to serve that target audience.
You seem to accept that people who are not entitled to win, win games just because they play the right mindless deck. Well that is repulsive, abhorrant. It's called unethical card design.
The mindless masses don't seem to understand that Ayala and consort just have major contempt for hem. Defaming people by giving them an easy winfix, not based on skill, is taking away the very notion of being human. The result is a dehumanisation, reducing people to their mammalistic brains of only looking for pleasure, which debases you to animals. My selfrespect lies in cognition of constructing the world around me based on insight and skill, not the given rush of feeling good when I in case of HS win playing a mindnumbing deck.
Remember how slaveowners did regard their slaves? Not as humans, but as animals. That same principle happens when card design is not based on skill based winning, but just on a RPS-rush.
You talk about Strategy Card Games. Well there is not much of a strategy if you can concede turn 1 because you know there is no way in the world, you gonna win this one.
Your way of reasoning is typical for those who think residing with decisionmakers will rub off on you putting you in a spot where you think your opinion is more entitled to be right. Well those who speak truth to power will always regard fellow travellers on the bandwagon of Ayala and consort as intellectually compromised.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
As RPS is too steep right now , you will have no way of winning the game. If RPS was more shallow, less steep, you would have a greater chance of winning the game based on skill. Now please concede. Fun isn't it? Dirty rat was a poor way of even the odds. Is it really that hard to keep RPS in place, but don't let it devolve in a polarized frenzy?
No it isn't.
Even if you play it poorly, right now a non- aggressive deck stand no chance.
The rest of your post I consider T5- emissary reasoning. You know this guy?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
build a deck with vanilla cards without effects, and play vs inkeeper , that´s the most interactive game in hearthstone
The only uninteractive decks most of you have seen in Hearthstone are the Aggro mage deck back before the Mana Wyrm nerf and the Aggro druid deck popular at the World Championships last year.
They are uninteractive because they will frequently choose the same line of play regardless of what their opponent plays (with the pedantic exception of taunt minions forcing a response).
Nothing in the current meta plays that way. Hearthstone is a game of tempo and board control except at the most extreme fringe of aggro decks.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Now here's my question: what would happen if RPS was shallower than it is now? What would happen to the meta, skill level, experience of fun and overal diversity?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Looking and reading your way of reasoning I can understand why we will never agree on anything. Your reasoning is bandwagon bound. You simply cannot reason outside that box set for you by T5. They forbid it. Thats why you aren't able to exercise critical thinking.
That is exactly what I want. Strategies that serves a mindless target audience should be dismantled in favor of skill being a decisive factor of winning.
I don't care about control or any other type of gameplay. I don't think T5 will change the current card design philosophy in favor of preferred audience.
Tell me something new. By the way your style of reasoning here: water is wet because it is liquid. Or otherwise: 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2. Who do you think you are talking to?
Think again. This is simply not true. Polarizing meta = proof of poor card design leading to imbalances = exclusion of diverse win conditions = less different strategies = politics of card design.
Playing the same game here? Dominance of polarizing strategies means other strategies suffer to be of importance. Simply pushed out the meta to serve the need of the target audience that can't handle shallow RPS = would mean the skill floor would rise.
TLDR. If T5 would come up with more skill intensive diverse strategies with more diverse win conditions, you would change you way of reasoning to get in line with the new situation. This is because you can't think independently. You should free yourself and jump of that bandwagon. Try to get a spine.
The right answer to my question: A shallower RPS, would mean rising of the skill floor, more diverse win conditions and that is exactly what is a skill based game is all about.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Therefore let it be known that there is no reason at all why the meta should be polarized as a sign of good card design.
Let it be known then that you have no sufficient reasons to defend the current politics of card design.
Let it be known then that bandwagon-argumentation only serves the purpose of getting upvotes.
Let it be known there is no defends as you seem to do for unethical card design.
The lack of skill based card design is nothing more then to serve a target audience.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I only just read this but I had to respond because your logic is in the gutter.
The best arena players get far higher win rates than hte best constructed players.
Drafting is based on luck but over time (not just one run) the better players do noticably better in arena than the better players do in constructed. The skill gap is there and it's massive.
So what you thnik of my definition of interactive is irrelevant, because you are clueless.
I think what some people may mean is it's very frustrating to queue into a match and know that your chances of winning are very slim. And it's not because you built the deck wrong. It's not because you chose the wrong opponent, or user name or whatever arbitrary reason someone may try to argue.
If I want to play Odd Warrior, but I queue into Mecha'thun Priest, how exactly do you expect me to win? What card could I put in my deck to win that game? A good portion of my cards are designed to stabilize against aggro and do absolutely nothing in the OTK Priest deck.
Control decks cannot normally put enough pressure on the OTK decks in order to win a rush strategy. Also, hitting your hero power turn after turn doesnt win either. So to me, this Priest deck does not have to do much interaction to win.
When I see the term 'uninteractive' some may see it as the opponent does just enough to stay alive in order to get their combo pieces and win the game on the spot. Many combo decks throw in every board clear and card draw and has no chance of winning outside of their combo.
This CAN be bad for the health of the game. This IS very frustrating when you know your deck has absolutely no answers to certain decks.
I think what most players want, is the feeling that you COULD win a match. That your choices and skill matters in whom wins and loses. That when you queue into a match you are not at a 10% win percentage.
For me, the term uninteractive is a 2 way street. For example, I cannot interact with the OTK Priest deck with my Odd Warrior deck in any way that matters. They in turn, simply play their card draw and combo pieces and win. Occasionally, if forced to, they will play their board clears. Neither deck is making any decisions that will actually affect the win percentage at all. It is pre-determined.
Instead, a Warlock deck that can transform your minion into a demon IS directly interactive with the OTK Priest deck. My win percentage is far better than with my Warrior deck. Now the skill, timing and luck come into play here. When do you play the spell as the Warlock? And as the Priest you now have meaningful decisions too. Do you play out all of your small minions to draw cards? If you do, there is a larger chance that their transform spell hits your key combo piece in your hand. So instead, you hold off on a few minions, hoping that spell gets one of them instead.
That is what I would define as interaction. Both the Warlock and Priest player are not just playing cards already knowing the outcome. They have to plan, perhaps bluff, perhaps even get alittle lucky, but in the end, their choices are what mattered.
To me, uninteractive or 'unfun' is when both players have little impact on the game other than playing on curve.
I'm sure 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. By thông cống nghẹt Minh Đức
Dịch vụ rút hầm cầu Minh Đức giá rẻ 0908887541, chuyên nghiệp tại tphcm https://thongcongnghethcm.net/Rut-ham-cau-gia-bao-nhieu-mot-khoi.html. Chuyên hút hầm cầu, thông cống nghẹt uy tín, nhanh, bảo hành chu đáo với chi phí rẻ, hệ thống máy móc hiện đại giúp thời gian xử lý nhanh hơn.
It is the same old story, really.
People complained for ages that Hearthstone was just Aggro-City and over-run with aggro decks.
So eventually Blizzard took notice and slapped pretty much all aggro decks down hard.
The result of this is that (since aggro decks were no longer around to punish them), OTK decks have come to the foreground and are now dominant. Since they are almost always more powerful than control decks, we now have a slant in that direction as the aggro decks aren't there to beat them anymore.
And thus if people complain enough about OTK decks, then Blizzard may eventually do the same thing and slap them into obscurity. At which point control decks will suddenly be the new "problem" again. (Like we saw back with CubeLock during the Dark Days (TM).
Aggro is not dead. We sould wait a bit. Even shaman took a hard hit with the totem change and paladin with good old equality got a harsh global nerf. If OTK is so strong now you need to be more creative to beat them and yes like always sometimes you just loose. Regardless if it´s against OTK, aggro or control.
I'm not saying aggro is "dead". Just a lot less powerful / prevalent than it has been in recent months.
And the shift in power balance (due to the gap left by aggro decks) has enabled OTK decks to come to the forefront
Sorry for my bad english...
If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...
F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...
This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...
Just idea...
I like this idea too. Something that has been suggested in the past in other forums. I would even go as far as try it out in a Tavern Brawl to see how it works out first. You could even create a new permanent play mode in which you have a 'sideboard'. When you queue up, you know you are facing priest and yes, you can take out cards you know will be useless and put in other cards you think will work.
You could even make it Discover like effect. You premake all of your sideboard packages. 1 for Aggro match ups. 1 for Control and 1 for OTK decks. Then when you start the game and you know what class they are playing you 'Discover' one of your 3 pre made packages.
The packages would define what cards get taken out and the cards you chose go in place of them. Quick Example...
1. Aggro - take out my 8, 9 and 10 drop cards and replace them with board clears and healing cards.
2. Control - take out my early game minions and replace them with my 8, 9 and 10 drops.
3. OTK - take out some of the vanilla minions and add in tech minions.
I do think a Tavern Brawl to test out these ideas is exactly why Tavern Brawl was created. Come up with kooky ideas and let the players loose on it. This idea is far better than the current Tavern Brawl of 'play a minion, cast random spell and win or lose on the spot.'
The discover which variant of the deck to pick at muligan sounds cool. But it should be like the deck is altered by two or three cards maximum and yo uselect vanilla version or mod A or mod B or propably even only one card diffrent and the discover shows which one is exchanged (preset). I can imagin it´s quite possilbe to also show two exchanges visually well.
The idea itself isnt a bad one (side boards are obviously used in most paper card battle games) - however the problem with this idea arises in the implementation.
There are two main factors that prevent the side board concept from working:
1. You have to know what the other player's deck is going to be. That means you have to have prior knowledge of his deck before the game. This is a big no-no. This isn't a tournament mode. Not knowing what is in the other person's deck is half the point of the game. It requires you to consider what they might be playing next. To instantly know what's in the other person's deck before hand feels far too much like an exploit.
or
2. You need to have to play the same person twice in a row. Now this isn't necessarily impossible to do, but 9 times out of 10 I have little desire to play the same person twice in a row. Especially if I just lost to his steaming pile of cancer deck. Even if I have a side board to tech in cards, he would also know what I just played and would do the same.
Hi
I don´t thin that deck knowledge is needed. I agree that not knowing the oponets deck is one of the most important things in this game. I can pick one version by only knowing the opponents class. I played MTG tournes in the past a lot and there you have a sideboard but thats diffrent. I hate games where you exactly see what you are playing. Chess would be a perfect example for all is known and is completely diffrent and doesn´t have a high playerbase due to being purely intelect and training based.
Yeah, but now you also didn´t know what deck you facing, you only know class (if you are not play against someone you know what he´s/she´s playin) and now you dont´t have any chance to counter that. With sidedeck you have option to do something with it. Especially if you know meta and know decks you are almost facing.
f.e.: I know that many druids now will be Mechathun, then i can do something with it. Ok, I´m not lucky and it´s not mechathun in 1 of 5 games, but other 4 games i can influence that. Still have another strategic option which is not problematic with flow of the game.
Another good example are decks running Baku or Genn. You know that rgoue will be 90% odd, so you can do something with that etc. etc.