I just realized that all the archetypes that people complain about are fueling each other for the ultimate vicious cycle.
you lose to aggro-> you play aggro-> you lose to control-> you play control-> you lose to OTK-> you play OTK-> you lose to aggro
I do not understand. I can not grasp. How this cycle is still in the game. Why? WHY?
the outcome of every game we play is determined by turn 2. let that sink in for a second. the outcome of the game you play is determined by turn 2, when you find out what you are up against.
the only time. and I repeat. the ONLY time, the outcome is dependent on only skill and card draw is when two midrange decks, with no infinite value generators and known lists are facing off.
we don't even know what that feels like anymore. maybe, just maybe that will change on Tuesday.
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
I tend to disagree a bit. To me the ideal Meta would be dominated by midrange decks, with aggro, control and OTK together being the minority.
But I know this is unrealistic, so I just try to have the most fun possible.
You can still dream... :-)
Edit: Sorry, just now saw, you just said "represented equally", which is of course true! I first read "consisting equally", which sounded like there was no fourth option...
Matchups are never 100%-0, the outcome is not decided by turn 2.
Try CW vs Exodia mage in a meta without any tech like Dirty Rat or when your opponent coin a Keleseth...
Turn 2 Keleseth decide a lot of games but not even close to turn 3 Barnes.
Old gods and Justicar control warrior vs freeze mage was the most polarizing matchup in the game history afaik, and it was around 95% favoured for the warrior.
I am not sure if the OP is correct. I know no Hearthstone players who enjoy all the different playstyles enough to go through that cycle. It is also too simple, aggro decks can counter other aggro decks, and aggro, tempo, midrange, control, mill and otk are the different styles in the game with different strengths and weaknesses.
Matchups are never 100%-0, the outcome is not decided by turn 2.
Try CW vs Exodia mage in a meta without any tech like Dirty Rat or when your opponent coin a Keleseth...
Turn 2 Keleseth decide a lot of games but not even close to turn 3 Barnes.
I agree, and it's unhealthy for the game to have super polarized matchups and cards like Barnes and Keleseth, but what I meant is that 100-0 matchups are not the norm and that even if your opponent has keleseth on 2 you can still win and that there's skill involved, contrary to what the OP suggests.
There is both a skill and an rng component, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.
yep. in the 70%-30 matchups (control vs. aggro, aggro vs. otk, otk vs. control) there is skill involved. but because the odds are so heavily against you (or heavily in your favor) there are way less situations where skill matters.
yes. my writing style is semi-offensive, but that doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.
in the end my goal is to make hearthstone more fun for everyone who is >not< playing right now.
of course there are some people like you who don't see any problem with 75% of their games being completely onesided.
but that's maybe 20% of the people playing. the majority of >potential< hearthstone players shares my opinion.
and that opinion is: Hearthstone is at its best when every matchup is 50%-50. you win 50% of your games and you lose 50% of your games. but if you are skilled, then you win 60% of your games and lose 40%. and if you are pro level skilled then you might win 65% and lose 35% of your games. that's the dream. looking at rise of shadows Blizzard definitely just took a big step in the right direction.
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
Idk why I'm doing this, why I'm writing all this out, when it won't change anything, but here goes nothing.
in the ideal meta there:
-> is not a single deck that is pure aggro, control or combo.
-> all you have is midrange decks.
-> every matchup is 50%-50.
-> the skilled player wins 60% of the time.
-> adding heavy rng cards to your midrange deck makes it more fun to play, but reduces your winrate by 5 to 10%.
there.
that's it. that's the ideal meta for the average gamer.
game design isn't about what makes you happy, it's what makes (would make) the majority of your (potential) customers happy.
playing aggro vs. aggro, otk vs otk or control vs control is EXACTLY like playing midrange vs. midrange.
it's 50%-50, better player wins more often, it's fun, games are always played out. it's awesome.
the problems start when you queue your aggro deck into control or your control deck into otk.
an option would be to have aggro decks queue only into other aggro decks, have ctrl q only into ctrl, and otk only into otk.
that would be more fun than what we had the last couple of years, but it's still not optimal because you would have to split the cards in 3 categories; aggro, ctrl, otk.
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
Idk why I'm doing this, why I'm writing all this out, when it won't change anything, but here goes nothing.
in the ideal meta there:
-> is not a single deck that is pure aggro, control or combo.
-> all you have is midrange decks.
-> every matchup is 50%-50.
-> the skilled player wins 60% of the time.
-> adding heavy rng cards to your midrange deck makes it more fun to play, but reduces your winrate by 5 to 10%.
there.
that's it. that's the ideal meta for the average gamer.
game design isn't about what makes you happy, it's what makes (would make) the majority of your (potential) customers happy.
That honestly doesn't sound like a card game at all. That sounds like a well handled turn based strategy game.
The idea behind a turn based strategy game is to create a 50/50 situation. Even if both sides aren't the same, the balance is set where both sides have a 50/50 chance to win. RNG is then eliminated completely leaving the game down to the player's ability to know and perform the different skill elements of the game.
Starcraft, though Real time instead of Turn based, is a perfect example of this. The sides aren't equal but are balanced so that the choice is based on personal preference and desired focus of strategy rather than trying to achieve an advantage. Thus the difference that drives who wins is who has best mastered the MANY highly complex and difficult elements of the game.
That doesn't work in a card game. Unlike other games where you have a SPECIFIC set of units/skills/abilities that can then be manually tuned to each other, we have some 400-700 cards that, though, are split up between classes, still create tens of thousands of combinations that change how the deck operates. You're NOT going to make a meta of 50/50 matchups with that.
You also take away from a major concept of the game: deck design. The idea is that I'm supposed to be putting my deck against your deck. Which means my goal is to find a deck that has an advantage against your deck. It's WHY we design decks in the first place. The entire POINT to playing aggro is to beat midrange by outracing it. The POINT to playing control is to beat Tempo decks. If you aren't letting the different archetypes fight each other, you might as well not HAVE archetypes, which then questions what the point of allowing deck designs in the first place.
After all, you don't HAVE to allow players to design their own decks. Games like Red Dragon Inn give pre-made decks which are then balanced for a fair fight.
Which means you aren't anywhere close to a CCG at all. Which is my point. It's not that what you are asking for is wrong or bad. It's..well.. it's a person playing a first person shooter and wanting to be able to have everyone pause it and have set turns instead. You just might be in the wrong genre.
There is both a skill and an rng component, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.
yep. in the 70%-30 matchups (control vs. aggro, aggro vs. otk, otk vs. control) there is skill involved. but because the odds are so heavily against you (or heavily in your favor) there are way less situations where skill matters.
yes. my writing style is semi-offensive, but that doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.
in the end my goal is to make hearthstone more fun for everyone who is >not< playing right now.
of course there are some people like you who don't see any problem with 75% of their games being completely onesided.
but that's maybe 20% of the people playing. the majority of >potential< hearthstone players shares my opinion.
and that opinion is: Hearthstone is at its best when every matchup is 50%-50. you win 50% of your games and you lose 50% of your games. but if you are skilled, then you win 60% of your games and lose 40%. and if you are pro level skilled then you might win 65% and lose 35% of your games. that's the dream. looking at rise of shadows Blizzard definitely just took a big step in the right direction.
All right all right, I have to admit that you are right to a degree, but I think maybe you should have said it differently in your first post, because it comes across as the typical new player who makes a post about how he's good at the game but RNG screws him and how there's no skill involved (not saying that you are such thing btw).
70-30 matchups indeed exist and they shouldn't but I also agree with iandakar's post above. I think it's healthy (and more entertaining) to have different archetypes (aggro, combo, control, midrange/tempo) and that some should be favored against others, naturally driving their winrate against their good matchups above 50% (up to 60-65% would be reasonable imo).
I also agree with him in his reference to other genres and what should be expected from them.
OP... I don't know how to explain... but your statement is complete BS.
If you don't like the games cycle just stop playing...
It is the way it is, and it's healthy.
You just described the good part of the game: Every archetype has a Counter...
And BTW it is not true, that the cycle is only WIN vs LOSE on turn 2... you can beat Aggro with OTK (for me it was an easy matchup when I played OTK), Aggro can overwhelm Controles, and Controls can beat OTKs if they have the tech cards...
Realize that you are creating a problem and making it bigger than it actually have to be, even though I do agree with that the meta is a little bit too set in stone right now. Although, at the same time, you just fell into the trap of "learnt helplessness". The impact you have on the game is bigger then what you make it out to be.
Realize that this game partly is based on luck. With that said, also realize that it's about making calculated risks and value plays. It's about knowing your deck and how it pairs up against your opponents deck.
Obviously people are going to play what is successful in the ladder. Everyone wants to win. Also, certain strategies tend to have higher win rates against others - counters, etc. A meta is created. But why is all of this a bad thing?
People gather and create hatred and despise. You don't have to despise it. This cycle that you're talking about is what's going to naturally come. Again; people are obviously going to play what is good. What you can do, is to optimize a deck and adding mechanics towards hard match ups, which will help you win those tough games, while still playing well against other decks, to optimize your win rate. This cycle that you're talking about however, is just part of life.
You can go around and be all "I hate how we have to make money to make a living as human beings". But the trick is to make reality and how things work to your advantage. Start making money out of something that you love to do = make a deck you enjoy playing and adapt it so it's easier to win against certain match ups.
LEARN TO ADAPT AND BE A WINNER. It doesn't matter if we're talking hearthstone or IRL. Don't be a victim and don't create shit that really isn't there/make it a bigger issue than it actually is.
All right all right, I have to admit that you are right to a degree, but I think maybe you should have said it differently in your first post, because it comes across as the typical new player who makes a post about how he's good at the game but RNG screws him and how there's no skill involved (not saying that you are such thing btw).
70-30 matchups indeed exist and they shouldn't but I also agree with iandakar's post above. I think it's healthy (and more entertaining) to have different archetypes (aggro, combo, control, midrange/tempo) and that some should be favored against others, naturally driving their winrate against their good matchups above 50% (up to 60-65% would be reasonable imo).
I also agree with him in his reference to other genres and what should be expected from them.
Indeed 70-30 is NOT healthy for a card game. You don't need such a massive imbalance to create the effect I'm promoting. The problem is what you said, the OP didn't phrase their original post at ALL properly. It honestly sounds like that anything outside of 100% pure midrange 50/50 no RNG Final Destination gameplay is bad and need to be eliminated from Hearthstone.
A GOOD card game meta is a 60/40 split if you get deck advantage at most (and in most cases more like 55/45). It rewards players who wield decks that work against the field over players who want to mindlessly play the same deck over and over. Decks are not meant to work like races in Starcraft or fighters in a fighting game. They are meant to be like weapon choices. You choose the right one for the field and swap them out as necessary. If the field is anti-aggro and you DEMAND to play aggro, you deserve a -10% hit to your win rate. Same for if you DEMAND to play midrange into an aggro lineup. That's poor play in a card game.
But you shouldn't just instant WIN because you picked the 'right deck'. Other factors should come into play (great RNG, great play, player mistakes, good tech options, so on). A bad matchup should be an uphill fight but just should leave you looking for options and taking risks, not just conceding. That's the difference between a balanced meta and a polarized one.
To note, the past year has been *VERY* polarized. But we aren't talking about it anymore because we've spent the past YEAR screaming at how bad the meta was because of it's polarized matches. It sucks. We know it. And we're eagerly awaiting the end of it with Shadows.
If that was what the OP was getting at, then yes that first post was very poorly written, to be blunt. It just kind of assumes we all agree then takes the most extreme solution possible. If the OP did mean what they said at the beginning and what I wrote the post sounded like ..well... my last post stands.
Hey Hearthpwners!
I just realized that all the archetypes that people complain about are fueling each other for the ultimate vicious cycle.
you lose to aggro-> you play aggro-> you lose to control-> you play control-> you lose to OTK-> you play OTK-> you lose to aggro
I do not understand. I can not grasp. How this cycle is still in the game. Why? WHY?
the outcome of every game we play is determined by turn 2. let that sink in for a second. the outcome of the game you play is determined by turn 2, when you find out what you are up against.
the only time. and I repeat. the ONLY time, the outcome is dependent on only skill and card draw is when two midrange decks, with no infinite value generators and known lists are facing off.
we don't even know what that feels like anymore. maybe, just maybe that will change on Tuesday.
Regarding the cycle, it's for the best. For example, if you took OTK out of the cycle, then control would rule forever.
Matchups are never 100%-0, the outcome is not decided by turn 2.
There is both a skill and an rng component, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.
How many times must we endure this kind of posts?
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
I tend to disagree a bit. To me the ideal Meta would be dominated by midrange decks, with aggro, control and OTK together being the minority.
But I know this is unrealistic, so I just try to have the most fun possible.
You can still dream... :-)
Edit: Sorry, just now saw, you just said "represented equally", which is of course true! I first read "consisting equally", which sounded like there was no fourth option...
Try CW vs Exodia mage in a meta without any tech like Dirty Rat or when your opponent coin a Keleseth...
Turn 2 Keleseth decide a lot of games but not even close to turn 3 Barnes.
Old gods and Justicar control warrior vs freeze mage was the most polarizing matchup in the game history afaik, and it was around 95% favoured for the warrior.
I am not sure if the OP is correct. I know no Hearthstone players who enjoy all the different playstyles enough to go through that cycle. It is also too simple, aggro decks can counter other aggro decks, and aggro, tempo, midrange, control, mill and otk are the different styles in the game with different strengths and weaknesses.
Editor of the Heartpwn Legendary Crafting Guide:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/card-discussion/205920-legendary-tier-list-crafting-guide
I agree, and it's unhealthy for the game to have super polarized matchups and cards like Barnes and Keleseth, but what I meant is that 100-0 matchups are not the norm and that even if your opponent has keleseth on 2 you can still win and that there's skill involved, contrary to what the OP suggests.
true. they aren't 100%-0, they are 70%-30. if it was 100%-0 then I wouldn't have to explain myself.
as you might have guessed by now; 70%-30 is just as bad.
yep. in the 70%-30 matchups (control vs. aggro, aggro vs. otk, otk vs. control) there is skill involved. but because the odds are so heavily against you (or heavily in your favor) there are way less situations where skill matters.
yes. my writing style is semi-offensive, but that doesn't make what I'm saying any less true.
in the end my goal is to make hearthstone more fun for everyone who is >not< playing right now.
of course there are some people like you who don't see any problem with 75% of their games being completely onesided.
but that's maybe 20% of the people playing. the majority of >potential< hearthstone players shares my opinion.
and that opinion is: Hearthstone is at its best when every matchup is 50%-50. you win 50% of your games and you lose 50% of your games. but if you are skilled, then you win 60% of your games and lose 40%. and if you are pro level skilled then you might win 65% and lose 35% of your games. that's the dream. looking at rise of shadows Blizzard definitely just took a big step in the right direction.
Idk why I'm doing this, why I'm writing all this out, when it won't change anything, but here goes nothing.
in the ideal meta there:
-> is not a single deck that is pure aggro, control or combo.
-> all you have is midrange decks.
-> every matchup is 50%-50.
-> the skilled player wins 60% of the time.
-> adding heavy rng cards to your midrange deck makes it more fun to play, but reduces your winrate by 5 to 10%.
there.
that's it. that's the ideal meta for the average gamer.
game design isn't about what makes you happy, it's what makes (would make) the majority of your (potential) customers happy.
playing aggro vs. aggro, otk vs otk or control vs control is EXACTLY like playing midrange vs. midrange.
it's 50%-50, better player wins more often, it's fun, games are always played out. it's awesome.
the problems start when you queue your aggro deck into control or your control deck into otk.
an option would be to have aggro decks queue only into other aggro decks, have ctrl q only into ctrl, and otk only into otk.
that would be more fun than what we had the last couple of years, but it's still not optimal because you would have to split the cards in 3 categories; aggro, ctrl, otk.
That honestly doesn't sound like a card game at all. That sounds like a well handled turn based strategy game.
The idea behind a turn based strategy game is to create a 50/50 situation. Even if both sides aren't the same, the balance is set where both sides have a 50/50 chance to win. RNG is then eliminated completely leaving the game down to the player's ability to know and perform the different skill elements of the game.
Starcraft, though Real time instead of Turn based, is a perfect example of this. The sides aren't equal but are balanced so that the choice is based on personal preference and desired focus of strategy rather than trying to achieve an advantage. Thus the difference that drives who wins is who has best mastered the MANY highly complex and difficult elements of the game.
That doesn't work in a card game. Unlike other games where you have a SPECIFIC set of units/skills/abilities that can then be manually tuned to each other, we have some 400-700 cards that, though, are split up between classes, still create tens of thousands of combinations that change how the deck operates. You're NOT going to make a meta of 50/50 matchups with that.
You also take away from a major concept of the game: deck design. The idea is that I'm supposed to be putting my deck against your deck. Which means my goal is to find a deck that has an advantage against your deck. It's WHY we design decks in the first place. The entire POINT to playing aggro is to beat midrange by outracing it. The POINT to playing control is to beat Tempo decks. If you aren't letting the different archetypes fight each other, you might as well not HAVE archetypes, which then questions what the point of allowing deck designs in the first place.
After all, you don't HAVE to allow players to design their own decks. Games like Red Dragon Inn give pre-made decks which are then balanced for a fair fight.
Which means you aren't anywhere close to a CCG at all. Which is my point. It's not that what you are asking for is wrong or bad. It's..well.. it's a person playing a first person shooter and wanting to be able to have everyone pause it and have set turns instead. You just might be in the wrong genre.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
All right all right, I have to admit that you are right to a degree, but I think maybe you should have said it differently in your first post, because it comes across as the typical new player who makes a post about how he's good at the game but RNG screws him and how there's no skill involved (not saying that you are such thing btw).
70-30 matchups indeed exist and they shouldn't but I also agree with iandakar's post above. I think it's healthy (and more entertaining) to have different archetypes (aggro, combo, control, midrange/tempo) and that some should be favored against others, naturally driving their winrate against their good matchups above 50% (up to 60-65% would be reasonable imo).
I also agree with him in his reference to other genres and what should be expected from them.
That was spitefull summoner decks and i think you can't be more wrong even if you try.
Maybevthe problem is people like you who think they have the right to determine what "healthy gameplay" is.
Because they doesn't.
OP... I don't know how to explain... but your statement is complete BS.
If you don't like the games cycle just stop playing...
It is the way it is, and it's healthy.
You just described the good part of the game: Every archetype has a Counter...
And BTW it is not true, that the cycle is only WIN vs LOSE on turn 2... you can beat Aggro with OTK (for me it was an easy matchup when I played OTK), Aggro can overwhelm Controles, and Controls can beat OTKs if they have the tech cards...
matchups aren't 100%- 0% though. even old freeze mage vs old cw was a 90/10 in favor of the warrior.
it's only losing to combo when I'm playing a control deck that makes me switch like that
Realize that you are creating a problem and making it bigger than it actually have to be, even though I do agree with that the meta is a little bit too set in stone right now. Although, at the same time, you just fell into the trap of "learnt helplessness". The impact you have on the game is bigger then what you make it out to be.
Realize that this game partly is based on luck. With that said, also realize that it's about making calculated risks and value plays. It's about knowing your deck and how it pairs up against your opponents deck.
Obviously people are going to play what is successful in the ladder. Everyone wants to win. Also, certain strategies tend to have higher win rates against others - counters, etc. A meta is created. But why is all of this a bad thing?
People gather and create hatred and despise. You don't have to despise it. This cycle that you're talking about is what's going to naturally come. Again; people are obviously going to play what is good. What you can do, is to optimize a deck and adding mechanics towards hard match ups, which will help you win those tough games, while still playing well against other decks, to optimize your win rate. This cycle that you're talking about however, is just part of life.
You can go around and be all "I hate how we have to make money to make a living as human beings". But the trick is to make reality and how things work to your advantage. Start making money out of something that you love to do = make a deck you enjoy playing and adapt it so it's easier to win against certain match ups.
LEARN TO ADAPT AND BE A WINNER. It doesn't matter if we're talking hearthstone or IRL. Don't be a victim and don't create shit that really isn't there/make it a bigger issue than it actually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU
Indeed 70-30 is NOT healthy for a card game. You don't need such a massive imbalance to create the effect I'm promoting. The problem is what you said, the OP didn't phrase their original post at ALL properly. It honestly sounds like that anything outside of 100% pure midrange 50/50 no RNG Final Destination gameplay is bad and need to be eliminated from Hearthstone.
A GOOD card game meta is a 60/40 split if you get deck advantage at most (and in most cases more like 55/45). It rewards players who wield decks that work against the field over players who want to mindlessly play the same deck over and over. Decks are not meant to work like races in Starcraft or fighters in a fighting game. They are meant to be like weapon choices. You choose the right one for the field and swap them out as necessary. If the field is anti-aggro and you DEMAND to play aggro, you deserve a -10% hit to your win rate. Same for if you DEMAND to play midrange into an aggro lineup. That's poor play in a card game.
But you shouldn't just instant WIN because you picked the 'right deck'. Other factors should come into play (great RNG, great play, player mistakes, good tech options, so on). A bad matchup should be an uphill fight but just should leave you looking for options and taking risks, not just conceding. That's the difference between a balanced meta and a polarized one.
To note, the past year has been *VERY* polarized. But we aren't talking about it anymore because we've spent the past YEAR screaming at how bad the meta was because of it's polarized matches. It sucks. We know it. And we're eagerly awaiting the end of it with Shadows.
If that was what the OP was getting at, then yes that first post was very poorly written, to be blunt. It just kind of assumes we all agree then takes the most extreme solution possible. If the OP did mean what they said at the beginning and what I wrote the post sounded like ..well... my last post stands.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.