On paper, the theory sounds solid. Deck A beats Deck B but loses to Deck C. Right now, I believe Rush Warrior is currently the best deck being played that has the most favorable matchups. However, Rush Warrior dies horribly to Control Priest, which is currently one of the least played decks. I have yet to lose a single game to Rush Warrior when playing my custom made Control Priest. When I queue into a Rush Warrior, I essentially get to enjoy a free win. But, my Control Priest dies horribly to Tickatus Warlock. Out of 10+ games vs Warlock, I've won maybe twice playing my Control Priest. And Tickatus Lock isn't exactly a great deck in the current meta by any stretch because it has more unfavorable matchups than most decks. IE: Tickatus Warlock dies horribly to DH or Face Hunter. DH/Face Hunter dies to Rush Warrior. I mean, it seems like it should be a fairly well balanced meta where most classes are being represented with a respectable deck or two with both favorable and unfavorable matchups. So, why does this meta feel so shitty right now?? Well, I have a theory.
Each deck's weakness is WAY too effective against it. If you are playing a Rush Warrior and you queue into a Control Priest, the game is all but decided before the game even begins. Based on my experience, you're almost guaranteed to lose. If I'm playing my Control Priest and queue into a Warlock, that warlock essentially gets to enjoy it's free win vs me as I just can't deal with Tickatus/Jaraxxus. The matchups are so one-sided that they're incredibly un-fun and arguably not even worth playing.
The whole Rock Paper Scissors thing needs to be toned down so the underdog at least has a reasonable shot at beating the favored deck. I think this is where Blizzard really dropped the ball this rotation/expansion and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a good solution to this problem. I suspect that it may simply be a symptom of the extremely limited card pool and hopefully come the next expansion, the problem will resolve itself. But, it's such a crap feeling when you queue in to an opponent who is so favored against your deck that you might quite literally be better off conceding before Turn 1 to save time in an attempt to queue into a more favored match up. Never in my time playing Hearthstone have I felt that I just simply had 0 chance at winning in certain matchups before even the mulligan. Even when I was unfavored, I always felt that I had a chance to win. But now, depending on what deck I queue up against, there's a chance I'll just get a free win or an all but guaranteed loss, and that makes for a really crappy card game. Just my 2 cents.
I don't remember which youtuber said it, but I believe it's from a video called 'why nerfs are better than buffs' or something along those lines. It was talking about a hypothetical fighting game where character A always beats character B, character B always beats C and C always beats A. Though on paper all characters have an equal winrate, which is theoretically a balanced meta, nobody would enjoy this. That's what the current state of hearthstone has come to though sadly. Tickatus while balanced, perfectly fits that bad hypothetical. I honestly don't know what they could do to fix this meta however.
Honestly the game would probably have to go back into Beta for nerfing cards to have any real effect. The variance between powerful and poor cards is far greater now than a few years ago (excluding pack fillers), and there are many powerful cards. Fixing one issue will likely just lead to another.
Maybe sideboards could help? But that's a topic for more experienced card players to discuss.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been raising this for ages but it’s pretty much the core of the game design.
netdecking and meta driven rotation makes this easy for blizzard to control and keep win rates at an average of c. 50% across the board.
To an extent I can see why ( if rock papers scissors wasn’t part of the game and the matchmaking, everyone would be playing the same deck) but it’s so annoying that it will ultimately be the end of hearthstone as people get bored of endless grinding and games that are finished before they even begin
It's always going to be very complex rock paper scissors. There is a game theory solution to the game. There are some ways to calculate this through simulations. In rock paper scissors the correct solution is to throw each a third of the time in a random fashion. In a more complex game the optimal solution could be, for example 18% paladin, 12% priest, 15% warrior, 5% rogue etc etc all the way up to 100%. If the meta is in an unoptimal state, this can give rise to more of another class being played that otherwise may not be played. For example, if everyone finds warlock fun and wants to play it despite losing, more hunter will come into the meta simply because there will be players who want to beat warlock. More hunter in the meta might give rise to more warrior and paladin coming into the meta too. Due to the aspect of players having fun, players playing unoptimal, and the short length of time between expansions and mini sets, the meta never approaches being optimal.
Where a meta is really bad is if the optimal solution is everyone plays the one deck. if one deck is so strong the only way to be even against it is to play the same deck, that created a completely busted game. You really want a meta where the majority of the classes feature in the optimal solution for the game at some percentage.
My main problem with class design is putting too much power into one card rather than making all cards feel good to play. For example, kazakus imo isn't the best design since we all feel forced to play it and can't play four drops unless the four drops are completely insane. It basically means there is no point printing 4 drops. Scabbs, a card people thought would be broken, doesn't see play. Rogue has nothing to spend mana on anyway. Further, no minion mage had too much power centred on
Having less polarized matchups should definitely be a goal. Playing a matchup where you have 30-40% chance to win is a lot more fun than one at 10-15%. But it can be a tricky thing to balance in a game where players deliberately develop counter strategies.
Personally I don't think a deck like face Hunter should ever be tier 1. It should be tier 2-3 and something that can be brought out to punish slower, greedier strategies.
A card like Tickatus is mainly problematic because it feels terrible to play against. It's winrate isn't that high. But another aspect of it is that it potentially locks out other control strategies, forcing the meta into a corner.
Having less polarized matchups should definitely be a goal. Playing a matchup where you have 30-40% chance to win is a lot more fun than one at 10-15%. But it can be a tricky thing to balance in a game where players deliberately develop counter strategies.
Personally I don't think a deck like face Hunter should ever be tier 1. It should be tier 2-3 and something that can be brought out to punish slower, greedier strategies.
A card like Tickatus is mainly problematic because it feels terrible to play against. It's winrate isn't that high. But another aspect of it is that it potentially locks out other control strategies, forcing the meta into a corner.
Tickatus is fine if they gave control proactive win conditions. The win conditions which can beat tickatus warlock in a control deck aren't very good. They are:
1. Rattlegore - slow, need to draw it before tickatus gets rid of it, and with jarraxus the warlock can deal with it (even if you faceless it).
2. Clowns. This is actually pretty good vs warlock. If you put clowns in priest with some good draw etc you can achieve an even matchup vs warlock. Probably even better than even if you take out a lot of the anti aggro tools for more card draw. You then lose to aggro then.
That's it. They didn't give in class win conditions to priest and shaman for control decks unfortunately. This is why tickatus feels so bad. Tickatus is way too slow and irrelevant if the warlock is playing any sort of midrange/tempo/aggro deck. Basically any deck that does anything beats it. It punishes the control decks too much though. Some people may think this is a good thing since control vs control makes games take ages, but if they just gave control powerful 10 mana plays then it would be fine. Warlock has jarraxus and tickatus. Why can't priest and also shaman get some really powerful 10 mana win conditions. 10 mana plays have to be super strong and basically win you the game to be viable to play. Jarraxus is gain 5 armor and equip a weapon for 9 mana. It does nothing. That's ok though since you get a lot of value from it later (if you didn't have 0 mana taunts though, jarraxus or twisting would feel HORRIBLE to play since your opponent just develops a board).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On paper, the theory sounds solid. Deck A beats Deck B but loses to Deck C. Right now, I believe Rush Warrior is currently the best deck being played that has the most favorable matchups. However, Rush Warrior dies horribly to Control Priest, which is currently one of the least played decks. I have yet to lose a single game to Rush Warrior when playing my custom made Control Priest. When I queue into a Rush Warrior, I essentially get to enjoy a free win. But, my Control Priest dies horribly to Tickatus Warlock. Out of 10+ games vs Warlock, I've won maybe twice playing my Control Priest. And Tickatus Lock isn't exactly a great deck in the current meta by any stretch because it has more unfavorable matchups than most decks. IE: Tickatus Warlock dies horribly to DH or Face Hunter. DH/Face Hunter dies to Rush Warrior. I mean, it seems like it should be a fairly well balanced meta where most classes are being represented with a respectable deck or two with both favorable and unfavorable matchups. So, why does this meta feel so shitty right now?? Well, I have a theory.
Each deck's weakness is WAY too effective against it. If you are playing a Rush Warrior and you queue into a Control Priest, the game is all but decided before the game even begins. Based on my experience, you're almost guaranteed to lose. If I'm playing my Control Priest and queue into a Warlock, that warlock essentially gets to enjoy it's free win vs me as I just can't deal with Tickatus/Jaraxxus. The matchups are so one-sided that they're incredibly un-fun and arguably not even worth playing.
The whole Rock Paper Scissors thing needs to be toned down so the underdog at least has a reasonable shot at beating the favored deck. I think this is where Blizzard really dropped the ball this rotation/expansion and I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a good solution to this problem. I suspect that it may simply be a symptom of the extremely limited card pool and hopefully come the next expansion, the problem will resolve itself. But, it's such a crap feeling when you queue in to an opponent who is so favored against your deck that you might quite literally be better off conceding before Turn 1 to save time in an attempt to queue into a more favored match up. Never in my time playing Hearthstone have I felt that I just simply had 0 chance at winning in certain matchups before even the mulligan. Even when I was unfavored, I always felt that I had a chance to win. But now, depending on what deck I queue up against, there's a chance I'll just get a free win or an all but guaranteed loss, and that makes for a really crappy card game. Just my 2 cents.
I don't remember which youtuber said it, but I believe it's from a video called 'why nerfs are better than buffs' or something along those lines. It was talking about a hypothetical fighting game where character A always beats character B, character B always beats C and C always beats A. Though on paper all characters have an equal winrate, which is theoretically a balanced meta, nobody would enjoy this. That's what the current state of hearthstone has come to though sadly. Tickatus while balanced, perfectly fits that bad hypothetical. I honestly don't know what they could do to fix this meta however.
Honestly the game would probably have to go back into Beta for nerfing cards to have any real effect. The variance between powerful and poor cards is far greater now than a few years ago (excluding pack fillers), and there are many powerful cards. Fixing one issue will likely just lead to another.
Maybe sideboards could help? But that's a topic for more experienced card players to discuss.
I'd say we need flexible cards, like
This way, one deck could have many ways to play the match.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been raising this for ages but it’s pretty much the core of the game design.
netdecking and meta driven rotation makes this easy for blizzard to control and keep win rates at an average of c. 50% across the board.
To an extent I can see why ( if rock papers scissors wasn’t part of the game and the matchmaking, everyone would be playing the same deck) but it’s so annoying that it will ultimately be the end of hearthstone as people get bored of endless grinding and games that are finished before they even begin
It's always going to be very complex rock paper scissors. There is a game theory solution to the game. There are some ways to calculate this through simulations. In rock paper scissors the correct solution is to throw each a third of the time in a random fashion. In a more complex game the optimal solution could be, for example 18% paladin, 12% priest, 15% warrior, 5% rogue etc etc all the way up to 100%. If the meta is in an unoptimal state, this can give rise to more of another class being played that otherwise may not be played. For example, if everyone finds warlock fun and wants to play it despite losing, more hunter will come into the meta simply because there will be players who want to beat warlock. More hunter in the meta might give rise to more warrior and paladin coming into the meta too. Due to the aspect of players having fun, players playing unoptimal, and the short length of time between expansions and mini sets, the meta never approaches being optimal.
Where a meta is really bad is if the optimal solution is everyone plays the one deck. if one deck is so strong the only way to be even against it is to play the same deck, that created a completely busted game. You really want a meta where the majority of the classes feature in the optimal solution for the game at some percentage.
My main problem with class design is putting too much power into one card rather than making all cards feel good to play. For example, kazakus imo isn't the best design since we all feel forced to play it and can't play four drops unless the four drops are completely insane. It basically means there is no point printing 4 drops. Scabbs, a card people thought would be broken, doesn't see play. Rogue has nothing to spend mana on anyway. Further, no minion mage had too much power centred on
Well if you dont have rock paper scissors you have something that dominates everything ? whitch one is better than?
Having less polarized matchups should definitely be a goal. Playing a matchup where you have 30-40% chance to win is a lot more fun than one at 10-15%. But it can be a tricky thing to balance in a game where players deliberately develop counter strategies.
Personally I don't think a deck like face Hunter should ever be tier 1. It should be tier 2-3 and something that can be brought out to punish slower, greedier strategies.
A card like Tickatus is mainly problematic because it feels terrible to play against. It's winrate isn't that high. But another aspect of it is that it potentially locks out other control strategies, forcing the meta into a corner.
Tickatus is fine if they gave control proactive win conditions. The win conditions which can beat tickatus warlock in a control deck aren't very good. They are:
1. Rattlegore - slow, need to draw it before tickatus gets rid of it, and with jarraxus the warlock can deal with it (even if you faceless it).
2. Clowns. This is actually pretty good vs warlock. If you put clowns in priest with some good draw etc you can achieve an even matchup vs warlock. Probably even better than even if you take out a lot of the anti aggro tools for more card draw. You then lose to aggro then.
That's it. They didn't give in class win conditions to priest and shaman for control decks unfortunately. This is why tickatus feels so bad. Tickatus is way too slow and irrelevant if the warlock is playing any sort of midrange/tempo/aggro deck. Basically any deck that does anything beats it. It punishes the control decks too much though. Some people may think this is a good thing since control vs control makes games take ages, but if they just gave control powerful 10 mana plays then it would be fine. Warlock has jarraxus and tickatus. Why can't priest and also shaman get some really powerful 10 mana win conditions. 10 mana plays have to be super strong and basically win you the game to be viable to play. Jarraxus is gain 5 armor and equip a weapon for 9 mana. It does nothing. That's ok though since you get a lot of value from it later (if you didn't have 0 mana taunts though, jarraxus or twisting would feel HORRIBLE to play since your opponent just develops a board).