I see people all over the place who think hyper aggro metas are boring, seeing nothing but Demon Hunter over and over again is exhausting and not fun. I'm more or less inclined to agree, but this does raise a question from me.
What is everybody's ideal meta? I'll be throwing in a poll to get numbers from but I'd love to hear what people specifically really want. I personally don't mind aggro, but I loathe the idea of a control-only format where games take 20 minutes and turns go by with nothing happening. I also don't really care for the idea of a combo heavy meta, where you're locked in this "if you can't win soon enough you automatically lose" situation.
I really enjoy when the meta is balanced for all three deck types. Aggro beats out combo consistently, combo beats control consistently, and control beats out aggro consistently. That's the natural rock-paper-scissors of most tcgs like Hearthstone, and that's what I think it should look like. But maybe there's something I'm not considering. Let me know!
I feel the same way. You need all 3 deck types to be able to flourish or the meta gets stale. The problem now, imo, is that aggro blitz decks are fairly dominant, which is making the meta repetitive and boring. All these aggro decks are forcing me to play control priest, which makes me feel like a bad person when I play against a non-aggro deck; I end up wanting to message the other player and say "I am so sorry for the slow slog of a game we're about to have".
aggro will always be the dominant type of deck in ANY standard meta regardless of viability, considering it is much cheaper and faster to play than control, making it more suitable for f2p players / people who just do their quests. but yeah, I'd prefer if it was like a 50/50 split between aggro and control and every kind of deck got to see play
The moment a combo deck becomes popular people start to whine a lot more than aggro dominant meta... They use "fun and interactive" for combo decks. A combo deck is supposed to be uninteractive/OTK and is unfun for other player. But that's how it is. I personally like a balance between all 3.
a) Tier 1 decks shouldn't be much better than tier 4 decks. 60\40 is good, 80\20 is not. b) There should be at least 3 sufficiently different tier 1 decks.
I personally prefer control matchups, but the best metas in my opinion are ones where all the classes have a playable deck. This whole year demon hunter has been over the top dominant while warlock, mage, druid and priest have been hurting. I’m fine playing control in an aggro heavy meta, the problem is when they make wriggling horror and bonechewer as neutrals but none of the control classes can get a 3 damage aoe spell. That’s just poor design.
I prefer heavy control meta because that's where the battle of resources management could happen.
In aggro mirror it basically just rng draw in the early game whose matter the most. In aggro vs control, it will be one side battle of attacking and defending, which is not fun for me. The same as combo vs control, but instead of attack and defend, it just battle of digging the deck. Combo deck digs for the combo, and control deck digs for their tech card that can counter the combo.
So the most healthiest gameplay for me when both seems to do what they really want to do with their deck is when they both play control deck. Battle of resource, knowing when to use the clear and when to hold the value.
I prefer the current agro meta. Reason being is agro decks are way cheaper. If it returns to a balanced meta, it basically means "control" is the best because the decks are way more expensive than the cheaper agro decks. I.e. a balanced meta = a pay to win meta as "rich" players go with control decks and f2p or "poor" players are stuck with agro. I'd change my mind if the game becomes significantly (~10X) cheaper or Bliz can release some cheaper control and mid range decks.
My ideal meta would be control/value heavy, although I'd say the value needs to be within reason. People should have chances to play their cards, find their outs, make interesting decisions. Those are always the most fun games, win or lose, and a meta that inspired more of those games would be best, I think.
There was a bit of a rock paper scissors between Aggro DH, evolve shaman and control warrior for the past month. But aggro DH was just too good against the rest of the field and so it took over and players weren't willing enough to play the counter, control warrior. So aggro DH proliferated, and the actual most oppressive deck, evolve shaman, took a seat because it lost to aggro DH. Now people have abandoned aggro DH and evolve shaman is everywhere. If they find weapon and have dread corsair on 5, then hare on 6, no control deck can reliably counter that. People used to complain that Big Priest was too powerful because games were just over by turn 5 with the play of one card. That's evolve shaman now.
Would say Boggspine Knuckles and Tickatus are the two worst offenders in the current meta. Cards that just absolutely shut down entire decks/strategies. Can't build a deck around lategame, because Warlock will burn 1/3 of your deck. Can't build a midrange curvestone deck because shaman will outvalue you. So that leaves you with aggro, building decks around neutral 1 and 2 drops. That's not why any of us signed up to play this game, is it?
I see what you're saying. As a Wild player mainly, my view of Standard is only from the lens of the content creators I watch. So it's interesting to hear what's going on from the perspective of people who experience it. Although I will say, the apparent sleeper deck according Dean Ayala (who has all the numbers I assume, could be wrong about that) Highlander Hunter was the highest performing deck before its nerfs, thus why it was nerfed instead of say, Bogspine Knuckles and Tickatus. It was much less frequent on ladder, is my guess as to why people weren't complaining about it so much.
I think of the "I just want to play my cards" thing a lot, and it's probably my favorite defense of control heavy metas. With an economy as bad as Hearthstone's, of course a lot of people want to play slowly. Gotta get their money's worth.
As far as I'm concerned, my only wish would be that tier 1 decks stay out of casual. But, as it stands, I'd be better off wishing peace on Earth. It seems way more likely.
You can (in theory) have a aggro/midrange/control/combo meta without either of these archetypes being autowin against the less favoured deck style for your deck. That's what the game should aim for imo, as it places much more emphasis on the match itself rather than the deck you chose.
I see people all over the place who think hyper aggro metas are boring, seeing nothing but Demon Hunter over and over again is exhausting and not fun. I'm more or less inclined to agree, but this does raise a question from me.
What is everybody's ideal meta? I'll be throwing in a poll to get numbers from but I'd love to hear what people specifically really want. I personally don't mind aggro, but I loathe the idea of a control-only format where games take 20 minutes and turns go by with nothing happening. I also don't really care for the idea of a combo heavy meta, where you're locked in this "if you can't win soon enough you automatically lose" situation.
I really enjoy when the meta is balanced for all three deck types. Aggro beats out combo consistently, combo beats control consistently, and control beats out aggro consistently. That's the natural rock-paper-scissors of most tcgs like Hearthstone, and that's what I think it should look like. But maybe there's something I'm not considering. Let me know!
please don't bully my son
I feel the same way. You need all 3 deck types to be able to flourish or the meta gets stale. The problem now, imo, is that aggro blitz decks are fairly dominant, which is making the meta repetitive and boring. All these aggro decks are forcing me to play control priest, which makes me feel like a bad person when I play against a non-aggro deck; I end up wanting to message the other player and say "I am so sorry for the slow slog of a game we're about to have".
When we had 3 way meta with viable control, combo, aggro and midrange decks you guys were whining about how the meta is "rock paper scissors".
aggro will always be the dominant type of deck in ANY standard meta regardless of viability, considering it is much cheaper and faster to play than control, making it more suitable for f2p players / people who just do their quests. but yeah, I'd prefer if it was like a 50/50 split between aggro and control and every kind of deck got to see play
That's Incredible!
The moment a combo deck becomes popular people start to whine a lot more than aggro dominant meta... They use "fun and interactive" for combo decks. A combo deck is supposed to be uninteractive/OTK and is unfun for other player. But that's how it is. I personally like a balance between all 3.
I require two things to enjoy the game.
a) Tier 1 decks shouldn't be much better than tier 4 decks. 60\40 is good, 80\20 is not.
b) There should be at least 3 sufficiently different tier 1 decks.
I personally prefer control matchups, but the best metas in my opinion are ones where all the classes have a playable deck. This whole year demon hunter has been over the top dominant while warlock, mage, druid and priest have been hurting. I’m fine playing control in an aggro heavy meta, the problem is when they make wriggling horror and bonechewer as neutrals but none of the control classes can get a 3 damage aoe spell. That’s just poor design.
I prefer heavy control meta because that's where the battle of resources management could happen.
In aggro mirror it basically just rng draw in the early game whose matter the most. In aggro vs control, it will be one side battle of attacking and defending, which is not fun for me. The same as combo vs control, but instead of attack and defend, it just battle of digging the deck. Combo deck digs for the combo, and control deck digs for their tech card that can counter the combo.
So the most healthiest gameplay for me when both seems to do what they really want to do with their deck is when they both play control deck. Battle of resource, knowing when to use the clear and when to hold the value.
NOT P2W Meta...this one I want off forever.
I prefer the current agro meta. Reason being is agro decks are way cheaper. If it returns to a balanced meta, it basically means "control" is the best because the decks are way more expensive than the cheaper agro decks. I.e. a balanced meta = a pay to win meta as "rich" players go with control decks and f2p or "poor" players are stuck with agro. I'd change my mind if the game becomes significantly (~10X) cheaper or Bliz can release some cheaper control and mid range decks.
My ideal meta would be control/value heavy, although I'd say the value needs to be within reason. People should have chances to play their cards, find their outs, make interesting decisions. Those are always the most fun games, win or lose, and a meta that inspired more of those games would be best, I think.
There was a bit of a rock paper scissors between Aggro DH, evolve shaman and control warrior for the past month. But aggro DH was just too good against the rest of the field and so it took over and players weren't willing enough to play the counter, control warrior. So aggro DH proliferated, and the actual most oppressive deck, evolve shaman, took a seat because it lost to aggro DH. Now people have abandoned aggro DH and evolve shaman is everywhere. If they find weapon and have dread corsair on 5, then hare on 6, no control deck can reliably counter that. People used to complain that Big Priest was too powerful because games were just over by turn 5 with the play of one card. That's evolve shaman now.
Would say Boggspine Knuckles and Tickatus are the two worst offenders in the current meta. Cards that just absolutely shut down entire decks/strategies. Can't build a deck around lategame, because Warlock will burn 1/3 of your deck. Can't build a midrange curvestone deck because shaman will outvalue you. So that leaves you with aggro, building decks around neutral 1 and 2 drops. That's not why any of us signed up to play this game, is it?
I see what you're saying. As a Wild player mainly, my view of Standard is only from the lens of the content creators I watch. So it's interesting to hear what's going on from the perspective of people who experience it. Although I will say, the apparent sleeper deck according Dean Ayala (who has all the numbers I assume, could be wrong about that) Highlander Hunter was the highest performing deck before its nerfs, thus why it was nerfed instead of say, Bogspine Knuckles and Tickatus. It was much less frequent on ladder, is my guess as to why people weren't complaining about it so much.
I think of the "I just want to play my cards" thing a lot, and it's probably my favorite defense of control heavy metas. With an economy as bad as Hearthstone's, of course a lot of people want to play slowly. Gotta get their money's worth.
please don't bully my son
It looks like everyone wants a good
Ménage à Trois
As far as I'm concerned, my only wish would be that tier 1 decks stay out of casual. But, as it stands, I'd be better off wishing peace on Earth. It seems way more likely.
I just want Mage to have a single tier 1-2 that is not centered around card generation, that's all.
My favorite meta is Aggro + Midrange + Control without Combo.
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
More aggros please. Clear board and let opponent ragequit after playing whole hand at once.
You can (in theory) have a aggro/midrange/control/combo meta without either of these archetypes being autowin against the less favoured deck style for your deck. That's what the game should aim for imo, as it places much more emphasis on the match itself rather than the deck you chose.
I want to survive early game so I can play my cards, winning or losing doesn't matter that much, evolve shaman wins the game on turn 4 so that's a no.
Prefer a combo meta with tech's against them.