I wasn't a pro in magic, but I played at least casually competitively and liked to play in tournaments in my local internet café, and what I loved about that game was how almost any type of deck was viable. You wanted to go fast red burst? Go ahead! Big and slow green? Absolutely! Spell-based and counter blue? Right on! Defensive with some deck destruction in black-white? Yeah!
There is probably a meta even in magic on higher levels, but with Hearthstone there's even a meta of viable decks even on a casual level, unlike Magic. Current balance decides if control wins the days or if aggro rushes through.
Why is Blizzard so bad at balancing Hearthstone?
Even Magic the gathering: Arena, their digital response to Hearthstone, is far better balanced even with the limited card pools.
If you had played MtG at a higher level, you would have known that most of the time it's balance is laughable.
There is usually one dominating deck and maybe a couple counter decks that are designed specifically to beat that one deck, ignoring anything else. It's so bad that oftentimes the discussion is about how to get an edge in the mirrormatch, instead of vs other decks.
Blizzard doesn't balance the game as "well" as WotC. They do it better... usually.
Hearthstone and magic are totally different games. HS effects can be inconsistent due to a lot of cards having random effects. Hardly any interaction on your opponents turn, meaning you can’t really stop ur opponent from assembly combos or holding burst damage. Lastly because mana is given for free each turn, it is more effective to play cards on curve early and win the board as early as possible. Making arrgo and midrange more appealing. The reason why I believe MTG is more diverse is not because the game is more balance, but because the players play what they think is fun. I know a lot MTG players will stick to certain colors just because they like the archetype, and not because it’s “meta”. In HS everyone is always asking “what’s the best deck to climb ladder” and the answer is usually aggressive archetypes because you can jam a bunch games. In my experience hearthstone will always face an unbalance meta because as soon something gets nerf, everyone looks for the next “broken” thing to exploit.
If you had played MtG at a higher level, you would have known that most of the time it's balance is laughable.
There is usually one dominating deck and maybe a couple counter decks that are designed specifically to beat that one deck, ignoring anything else. It's so bad that oftentimes the discussion is about how to get an edge in the mirrormatch, instead of vs other decks.
Blizzard doesn't balance the game as "well" as WotC. They do it better... usually.
I mentioned that. Every game probably has an optimal strategy at high-level play. The problem is that Hearthstone has that issue even on non-competitive levels. You can't just make what you think is fun and necessarily be successful with it, even at something as low as silver. In HS, I can't just decide to make a deck with just greed, greed and more greed. In MtG, even up to "casual fun tournament"-levels, you can.
In my opinion, hearthstone and magic are totally different games. HS effects can be inconsistent due to a lot of cards having random effects. Hardly any interaction on your opponents turn, meaning you can’t really stop ur opponent from assembly combos or holding burst damage. Lastly because mana is given for free each turn, it is more effective to play cards on curve early and win the board as early as possible. Making arrgo and midrange more appealing. The reason why I believe MTG is more diverse is not because the game is more balance, but because the players play what they think is fun. I know a lot MTG players will stick to certain colors just because they like the archetype, and not because it’s “meta”. In HS everyone is always asking “what’s the best deck to climb ladder” and the answer is usually aggressive archetypes because you can jam a bunch games. The main thing is if you plan on climbing the HS ladder expect to see the same decks on the higher ranks.
I guess. I wish there was some way for the game to balance itself our so that even with the core mechanics staying the same, any type of deck could be viable anytime, even up to good ranks like just before Legend.
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
2. Kibler? Seriously?? Among all the amazing and incredible streamers?
You clearly didn't play enought MtG if you think the game is balanced and HS is not. People want every single game to be balanced and every class being represented but that would be just extremely boring. In every competitive game there will always be a deck, a class, a character, a gun or a strategy that's the best, that's just how life in general works, and if that gets nerfed then the second most powerful thing in line will be the new king and so on and so forth.
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
2. Kibler? Seriously?? Among all the amazing and incredible streamers?
Lol not my favorite streamer. Bold assumption tho. Just the only streamer that came to mind that I know is always playing off meta decks (plus we are talking about MTG). And I completely understand that playing 8 hours of hearthstone is more then enough make someone go mad and not recommended. I’m not sure if you know but Highlander Hunter is pretty good. I can’t say Hunter is my main class but it’s the deck I’ve hit legend with the most and it’s in a good spot rn.
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
2. Kibler? Seriously?? Among all the amazing and incredible streamers?
Hunter the 2nd most high win rate at the moment. Let that sink in...
WHY in the world would a company that gets plenty of media showcase off random and unbalanced content, and gets whales purchasing all the newest created content, that needs to be more unbalanced than the previously existing one in order to appeal, would ever want to change that in a product that produces billions of dollars ? It works, it makes money. The very basic of HS's existence is to make winning feel great.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a humble and friendly european indie living in Asia. During the day I build computer games. During the night, I am batma I build computer games. Together with a wonderful artist, I help run this very unique comic site : Comic Devs
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
2. Kibler? Seriously?? Among all the amazing and incredible streamers?
Hunter the 2nd most high win rate at the moment. Let that sink in...
But I think the problem with the hs meta being solved quickly and meta decks being played on nearly all levels of play is not blizzards fault.
The amount of players in hearthstone that contribute data for meta analysis sites like hsreplay or vicious syndicate is immense. (and I think far higher than in MtG).
And the more data you have the faster you will find the best decks and what cards to cut from them.
Also people playing only those decks is a really hard problem to solve. What kind of incentive would the players have in trying other decks? I am free to play myself and can only craft 1 or 2 decks per exp. Why should I craft meme decks instead of meta decks? And even if I had a full collection I would probably play what's good.
Also I just wanted to say that in the meta right now nearly every class has a viable deck. That is not what I would call bad balancing at all.
Because Blizzard loves printing out cards such as discover, add random card/minion/spell with continuity to the point where you conjure infinite value, etc.
I think balance is really a difficult thing to do.
We're all sitting here thinking, "just fix the cards, bro" but in reality, we've seen how when they nerf a card, even just changing one small part of it, like one more mana cost, or one less attack power, suddenly it becomes unusable, and falls out of existence. That doesn't mean every card ends up like this, but a lot of them do.
And every time something gets nerfed, another thing will rise up and become more powerful, because we never realized that the power level of one card was holding back another card from shining. You just clipped the bird's wings, now the worms are too strong.
I think as long as every class can play some sort of competitive deck without being totally blasted out of the water by something else, we're doing okay...
There is probably a meta even in magic on higher levels, but with Hearthstone there's even a meta of viable decks even on a casual level, unlike Magic.
Erm, what do you mean? Casual in Hearthstone is just Ranked bout without a ladder.
In other words you hardly see a fun / orignal deck in casual... All the same as ranked.
As for your question.
Wizards acts after a (out)cry from the community (Uro, Oko, Omnath anyone) and Blizzard refuses (Tickatus, Dragonqueen Alexstraza, Edwin anyone).
Also Wizards looks at deck performances and informs the community, so we get the feeling they are keeping an eye on the balance of the game. Blizzards sucks at communication with their community, so no feeling here at all...
Can we please put this myth to bed? No one who has a real life and a real job and who cannot play hearthstone 16 hours out of every 24 can practically make legend with a mere %51 win rate. At that rate, according to at least one win rate calculator, you will get to legend in an average of 782 games, with a standard deviation of 216. That's a big time sink. I've reached legend every month for more than a year, and I'm certain that if I ever had to commit to play that many games, I never would have made it.
i think you are biased because of the different audiences. MtG, the physical TCG, is a game most casual players play with their friends. you build an play decks for the fun of playing together, not necessarily to win. in hearthstone you play against strangers on a ladder. for a lot of players only winning is fun. of course that makes the game more competitive. if you only play vs your friends in hs, you can also agree to play wacky fun decks.
Quote from StopHypers>>1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
LULW are you serious? hunter is the second best class by winrate right now. highlander hunter is the second best deck in standard and you are crying? get real mate
i'd argue that a meta where 9/10 classes have at least 1 deck with an _average_ winrate above 50% even in higher skill ranks (d5-legend) is actually pretty pretty well balanced.
I wasn't a pro in magic, but I played at least casually competitively and liked to play in tournaments in my local internet café, and what I loved about that game was how almost any type of deck was viable. You wanted to go fast red burst? Go ahead! Big and slow green? Absolutely! Spell-based and counter blue? Right on! Defensive with some deck destruction in black-white? Yeah!
There is probably a meta even in magic on higher levels, but with Hearthstone there's even a meta of viable decks even on a casual level, unlike Magic. Current balance decides if control wins the days or if aggro rushes through.
Why is Blizzard so bad at balancing Hearthstone?
Even Magic the gathering: Arena, their digital response to Hearthstone, is far better balanced even with the limited card pools.
the thing is, HS is a very balanced game
trust me, you wouldn't want to see what an unbalanced version of Hearthstone looks like ;)
I havent played MtG much, but I think it comes from the blockers in MtG.
If you had played MtG at a higher level, you would have known that most of the time it's balance is laughable.
There is usually one dominating deck and maybe a couple counter decks that are designed specifically to beat that one deck, ignoring anything else. It's so bad that oftentimes the discussion is about how to get an edge in the mirrormatch, instead of vs other decks.
Blizzard doesn't balance the game as "well" as WotC. They do it better... usually.
Hearthstone and magic are totally different games. HS effects can be inconsistent due to a lot of cards having random effects. Hardly any interaction on your opponents turn, meaning you can’t really stop ur opponent from assembly combos or holding burst damage. Lastly because mana is given for free each turn, it is more effective to play cards on curve early and win the board as early as possible. Making arrgo and midrange more appealing. The reason why I believe MTG is more diverse is not because the game is more balance, but because the players play what they think is fun. I know a lot MTG players will stick to certain colors just because they like the archetype, and not because it’s “meta”. In HS everyone is always asking “what’s the best deck to climb ladder” and the answer is usually aggressive archetypes because you can jam a bunch games. In my experience hearthstone will always face an unbalance meta because as soon something gets nerf, everyone looks for the next “broken” thing to exploit.
I mentioned that. Every game probably has an optimal strategy at high-level play. The problem is that Hearthstone has that issue even on non-competitive levels. You can't just make what you think is fun and necessarily be successful with it, even at something as low as silver. In HS, I can't just decide to make a deck with just greed, greed and more greed. In MtG, even up to "casual fun tournament"-levels, you can.
I guess. I wish there was some way for the game to balance itself our so that even with the core mechanics staying the same, any type of deck could be viable anytime, even up to good ranks like just before Legend.
It is possible to make it to legend with janky decks (just ask Brian Kibler), he makes it to legend with just about anything he decides to play. You just have to polish ur game decisions and meta analysis. It comes down to having at least a 51% win rate.
1. The fact that your favourite streamer plays 8 hours per day with a "51% winrate" fun deck doesnt mean that the meta is balanced in ANY WAY. Ask hunter main players if they feel that this meta is balanced.
2. Kibler? Seriously?? Among all the amazing and incredible streamers?
You clearly didn't play enought MtG if you think the game is balanced and HS is not. People want every single game to be balanced and every class being represented but that would be just extremely boring. In every competitive game there will always be a deck, a class, a character, a gun or a strategy that's the best, that's just how life in general works, and if that gets nerfed then the second most powerful thing in line will be the new king and so on and so forth.
Lol not my favorite streamer. Bold assumption tho. Just the only streamer that came to mind that I know is always playing off meta decks (plus we are talking about MTG). And I completely understand that playing 8 hours of hearthstone is more then enough make someone go mad and not recommended. I’m not sure if you know but Highlander Hunter is pretty good. I can’t say Hunter is my main class but it’s the deck I’ve hit legend with the most and it’s in a good spot rn.
Hunter the 2nd most high win rate at the moment. Let that sink in...
WHY in the world would a company that gets plenty of media showcase off random and unbalanced content, and gets whales purchasing all the newest created content, that needs to be more unbalanced than the previously existing one in order to appeal, would ever want to change that in a product that produces billions of dollars ?
It works, it makes money. The very basic of HS's existence is to make winning feel great.
I'm a humble and friendly european indie living in Asia. During the day I build computer games. During the night,
I am batmaI build computer games.Together with a wonderful artist, I help run this very unique comic site : Comic Devs
HSReplay in 2021 LUL
I never played MtG so I don't know much about it.
But I think the problem with the hs meta being solved quickly and meta decks being played on nearly all levels of play is not blizzards fault.
The amount of players in hearthstone that contribute data for meta analysis sites like hsreplay or vicious syndicate is immense. (and I think far higher than in MtG).
And the more data you have the faster you will find the best decks and what cards to cut from them.
Also people playing only those decks is a really hard problem to solve. What kind of incentive would the players have in trying other decks? I am free to play myself and can only craft 1 or 2 decks per exp. Why should I craft meme decks instead of meta decks? And even if I had a full collection I would probably play what's good.
Also I just wanted to say that in the meta right now nearly every class has a viable deck. That is not what I would call bad balancing at all.
Because Blizzard loves printing out cards such as discover, add random card/minion/spell with continuity to the point where you conjure infinite value, etc.
I think balance is really a difficult thing to do.
We're all sitting here thinking, "just fix the cards, bro" but in reality, we've seen how when they nerf a card, even just changing one small part of it, like one more mana cost, or one less attack power, suddenly it becomes unusable, and falls out of existence. That doesn't mean every card ends up like this, but a lot of them do.
And every time something gets nerfed, another thing will rise up and become more powerful, because we never realized that the power level of one card was holding back another card from shining. You just clipped the bird's wings, now the worms are too strong.
I think as long as every class can play some sort of competitive deck without being totally blasted out of the water by something else, we're doing okay...
Erm, what do you mean? Casual in Hearthstone is just Ranked bout without a ladder.
In other words you hardly see a fun / orignal deck in casual... All the same as ranked.
As for your question.
Wizards acts after a (out)cry from the community (Uro, Oko, Omnath anyone) and Blizzard refuses (Tickatus, Dragonqueen Alexstraza, Edwin anyone).
Also Wizards looks at deck performances and informs the community, so we get the feeling they are keeping an eye on the balance of the game. Blizzards sucks at communication with their community, so no feeling here at all...
Can we please put this myth to bed? No one who has a real life and a real job and who cannot play hearthstone 16 hours out of every 24 can practically make legend with a mere %51 win rate. At that rate, according to at least one win rate calculator, you will get to legend in an average of 782 games, with a standard deviation of 216. That's a big time sink. I've reached legend every month for more than a year, and I'm certain that if I ever had to commit to play that many games, I never would have made it.
i think you are biased because of the different audiences. MtG, the physical TCG, is a game most casual players play with their friends. you build an play decks for the fun of playing together, not necessarily to win. in hearthstone you play against strangers on a ladder. for a lot of players only winning is fun. of course that makes the game more competitive. if you only play vs your friends in hs, you can also agree to play wacky fun decks.
LULW are you serious? hunter is the second best class by winrate right now. highlander hunter is the second best deck in standard and you are crying? get real mate
i'd argue that a meta where 9/10 classes have at least 1 deck with an _average_ winrate above 50% even in higher skill ranks (d5-legend) is actually pretty pretty well balanced.