We know that purely, going first gives player the advantage over the player who goes second. We also know that Hearthstone attempts to balance it by giving the second player an extra card from deck and a Coin.
However, as Hearthstone mechanics develop, I start to feel that second player might actually have an advantage over the first. I can't really explain it, but I think the coin can now do a lot more than just add 1 Mana for free. It can be used as a card play and a spell play, making early plays from decks that take advantage of it very powerful.
I mean, certainly one can create scenarios and lines of play that result in the coin being enough to snatch and keep tempo advantage.
However, if you take a holistic look at the game, I think you'll find that in nearly every matchup, the player acting first will have a win rate advantage. That has certainly been true in every set of data I've ever collected from my own play with one archetype exception . . .
When one plays a mirror match between decks that are fully sold out to a combo as a win condition, the extra drawn cards and the subsequent odds of reaching the needed cards before the opponent may tip the balance in favor of the Coined player. I remember I ran an experiment with Shudderwock back in the day, and though the sample size was too low to be certain, there was a noticeable skew in mirror matches towards the Coined player.
Funnily enough, this ONLY seems to work for true combo decks; NOT for control v control matches. I suspect the reason for this is the ramping of fatigue damage rendering the extra card draws a BAD thing in the long run, but that's just a guess.
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.
I mean, certainly one can create scenarios and lines of play that result in the coin being enough to snatch and keep tempo advantage.
However, if you take a holistic look at the game, I think you'll find that in nearly every matchup, the player acting first will have a win rate advantage. That has certainly been true in every set of data I've ever collected from my own play with one archetype exception . . .
When one plays a mirror match between decks that are fully sold out to a combo as a win condition, the extra drawn cards and the subsequent odds of reaching the needed cards before the opponent may tip the balance in favor of the Coined player. I remember I ran an experiment with Shudderwock back in the day, and though the sample size was too low to be certain, there was a noticeable skew in mirror matches towards the Coined player.
Funnily enough, this ONLY seems to work for true combo decks; NOT for control v control matches. I suspect the reason for this is the ramping of fatigue damage rendering the extra card draws a BAD thing in the long run, but that's just a guess.
I didn't know any of that, thank you, this is very informative.
This issue has been batted about since beta. For what it's worth, the developers have mentioned that they keep careful track of whether first or second player wins more often. They know it's not a completely perfect system, but there's no such thing as perfect. It's actually pretty close to even -- close enough that they are willing to live with it.
My personal opinion is this: In most cases, player skill contributes enough to the equation that the tiny Coin advantage/disadvantage is pretty meaningless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
At some point in the game, it really doesn't matter who went first or second. It really comes down to the luck of the draw, and how you use your cards to give yourself the advantage. Sure, the coin can be useful when testing things out, but in the end I don't see a major difference between first and second. As long as you can be skillful enough about what you play and when you play it, it doesn't really matter whether you have the coin or not.
A Deck with low draw but many 2 mana cards, coin is prolly most of the time better. Coining a solid 2 mana card followed by a 2 mana on curve could snowball hard.
In mirror matchups going first is allways a advantage though coin could help with nullifying secrets.
In the end it depends on many things, the decks I play mostly love the coin. But for example if a hunter faces hunter or any other aggro matchup he wants to go first (with a good curve)
What I love most about the coin is that it leaves me with more mulligan options. Keeping two 3 mana cards for example is kinda stupid without.
In aggro mirrors going first is a huge advantage. In slower matchups it is almost irrelevant. There are only specific decks that actually benefit from going second (or actually from starting with a coin and an extra card) such as Token Druid (and the Spell Druid from Ashes of Outland) and even those sometimes have a miserable time going 2nd versus a fast aggro deck
It would make a huge difference if its just...a neutral card, for example you can trigger Spellburst effects with it and it counts as a spell for Yogg or Pyromancer, only a few examples.
In aggro match ups going first is better but in other match ups such as pair offs with midrange vs aggro your rather go second to take back tempo, and depending on the amount of removal you have going second can be better in control so you can clear there board faster but it really depends on the match generally playing rogue you almost always perfer to play second cause of combo.
everything has rush nowadays who cares who goes first lol
I hope that's a joke. The rush ability magnifies the impact of who goes first. The whole purpose of a delay of one turn before a minion comes online for combat is to allow the opponent to respond. Rush allows you to leverage your extra mana into an immediate impact on the tempo battle. Frequently, when one goes back and observes the game-deciding turn in a match of two minion-focused decks, you'll see a rush creature destroying the opponent's previous play and surviving to trade again as the deciding play.
Obviously the coin allows the 2nd player to take one turn where he/she is ahead in that race, but that is effectively the issue here. Can a single turn of an extra mana manage to equalize the race? If the 1st player has a play for the first three or four turns, more often than not the answer is no.
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.
It all depends what kind of deck your playing and how well positioned your removal is vs the opposing aggression on who wants to play first. Most games being a more mid range and control preference as a player I would rather play second so i get my extra card as a removal option to stave off those aggressive minions. However if my hand is clogged with bad cards id prefer to be playing first so that i have the extra turn to draw into something so i get that one extra turn im taking less damage. If im playing the aggressive match id generally perfer to play first exceptions really explosive openers off the coin and card draw reloads. Where im sending 5-6 + damage face on turn 2 other wise as the aggro player going first. If your playing a very high rush deck like Galakrond in wild going second is almost better in most games especially against aggro. But vs control you often want to be going first so your applying pressure earlier forcing them to constantly be reacting so you can get them as low as possible as fast as possible so you just looking for that last 2-3 damage to end the game.
It depends on the deck the match and whos the aggressor in the match. In a game with no real extreme aggressor like a control mirror your looking at how often you can take off a turn to reload. Most slower control mirrors who goes first or second has little impact.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We know that purely, going first gives player the advantage over the player who goes second. We also know that Hearthstone attempts to balance it by giving the second player an extra card from deck and a Coin.
However, as Hearthstone mechanics develop, I start to feel that second player might actually have an advantage over the first. I can't really explain it, but I think the coin can now do a lot more than just add 1 Mana for free. It can be used as a card play and a spell play, making early plays from decks that take advantage of it very powerful.
What do you think about this?
I mean, certainly one can create scenarios and lines of play that result in the coin being enough to snatch and keep tempo advantage.
However, if you take a holistic look at the game, I think you'll find that in nearly every matchup, the player acting first will have a win rate advantage. That has certainly been true in every set of data I've ever collected from my own play with one archetype exception . . .
When one plays a mirror match between decks that are fully sold out to a combo as a win condition, the extra drawn cards and the subsequent odds of reaching the needed cards before the opponent may tip the balance in favor of the Coined player. I remember I ran an experiment with Shudderwock back in the day, and though the sample size was too low to be certain, there was a noticeable skew in mirror matches towards the Coined player.
Funnily enough, this ONLY seems to work for true combo decks; NOT for control v control matches. I suspect the reason for this is the ramping of fatigue damage rendering the extra card draws a BAD thing in the long run, but that's just a guess.
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.
I mean, there were decks in the past, that actually had better win-rate percentage while going second, so that's not the news, if that's the case.
I didn't know any of that, thank you, this is very informative.
This issue has been batted about since beta. For what it's worth, the developers have mentioned that they keep careful track of whether first or second player wins more often. They know it's not a completely perfect system, but there's no such thing as perfect. It's actually pretty close to even -- close enough that they are willing to live with it.
My personal opinion is this: In most cases, player skill contributes enough to the equation that the tiny Coin advantage/disadvantage is pretty meaningless.
"Why, you never expected justice from a company, did you? They have neither a soul to lose nor a body to kick." -- Lady Saba Holland
At some point in the game, it really doesn't matter who went first or second. It really comes down to the luck of the draw, and how you use your cards to give yourself the advantage. Sure, the coin can be useful when testing things out, but in the end I don't see a major difference between first and second. As long as you can be skillful enough about what you play and when you play it, it doesn't really matter whether you have the coin or not.
It rly depends on the Deck and matchup.
A Deck with low draw but many 2 mana cards, coin is prolly most of the time better. Coining a solid 2 mana card followed by a 2 mana on curve could snowball hard.
In mirror matchups going first is allways a advantage though coin could help with nullifying secrets.
In the end it depends on many things, the decks I play mostly love the coin. But for example if a hunter faces hunter or any other aggro matchup he wants to go first (with a good curve)
What I love most about the coin is that it leaves me with more mulligan options. Keeping two 3 mana cards for example is kinda stupid without.
In aggro mirrors going first is a huge advantage. In slower matchups it is almost irrelevant. There are only specific decks that actually benefit from going second (or actually from starting with a coin and an extra card) such as Token Druid (and the Spell Druid from Ashes of Outland) and even those sometimes have a miserable time going 2nd versus a fast aggro deck
everything has rush nowadays who cares who goes first lol
Coin shouldn't be a "spell" imho.
It would make a huge difference if its just...a neutral card, for example you can trigger Spellburst effects with it and it counts as a spell for Yogg or Pyromancer, only a few examples.
In aggro match ups going first is better but in other match ups such as pair offs with midrange vs aggro your rather go second to take back tempo, and depending on the amount of removal you have going second can be better in control so you can clear there board faster but it really depends on the match generally playing rogue you almost always perfer to play second cause of combo.
I hope that's a joke. The rush ability magnifies the impact of who goes first. The whole purpose of a delay of one turn before a minion comes online for combat is to allow the opponent to respond. Rush allows you to leverage your extra mana into an immediate impact on the tempo battle. Frequently, when one goes back and observes the game-deciding turn in a match of two minion-focused decks, you'll see a rush creature destroying the opponent's previous play and surviving to trade again as the deciding play.
Obviously the coin allows the 2nd player to take one turn where he/she is ahead in that race, but that is effectively the issue here. Can a single turn of an extra mana manage to equalize the race? If the 1st player has a play for the first three or four turns, more often than not the answer is no.
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.
It all depends what kind of deck your playing and how well positioned your removal is vs the opposing aggression on who wants to play first. Most games being a more mid range and control preference as a player I would rather play second so i get my extra card as a removal option to stave off those aggressive minions. However if my hand is clogged with bad cards id prefer to be playing first so that i have the extra turn to draw into something so i get that one extra turn im taking less damage. If im playing the aggressive match id generally perfer to play first exceptions really explosive openers off the coin and card draw reloads. Where im sending 5-6 + damage face on turn 2 other wise as the aggro player going first. If your playing a very high rush deck like Galakrond in wild going second is almost better in most games especially against aggro. But vs control you often want to be going first so your applying pressure earlier forcing them to constantly be reacting so you can get them as low as possible as fast as possible so you just looking for that last 2-3 damage to end the game.
It depends on the deck the match and whos the aggressor in the match. In a game with no real extreme aggressor like a control mirror your looking at how often you can take off a turn to reload. Most slower control mirrors who goes first or second has little impact.