So, I understand that each match must come to an end. Every match ending is inevitable.
But, I think a lot of salt is created when you face a situation where you see you can't win. No matter what you do. No matter what you draw. No matter how well you play. Your fate is decided.
Of course, there is a concede button to deal with this. You don't have to keep fighting a fight you know is lost unless you don't know how to use the concede button.
But, I would rather the game be designed where there was counterplay. Where there were cards you could include in your deck, that if you included them in your deck building, and you drew them, and played them wisely, you could potentially find ways to combat inevitable situations.
Even if I don't include that card in my deck. I still feel better losing to that situation if I know that I COULD have used it. I COULD have found a way. I COULD alter my deck to give me a chance to defeat that strategy. That to me feels a TON better than just saying, 'that is just a bad matchup'.
I really wish there were more counterplay options in this game. Maybe they need to release more cards each release so that they have room to include some clunky tech cards.
I don't know. Maybe folks don't want counterplay? Maybe they think that inevitability is a good thing?
I think that this is why discover is a good and healthy mechanic for the game.
It's impossible to build your deck such that you will always be able to have an answer against your opponent. There are too many things to build against, right? I mean, the first step should always be to build your deck in the way that will have the most success on its own, but...
With discover, you can make a good guess early on as to what your opponent's win conditions are, and then try to find more answers for what you might face.
Obviously, this is also not a perfect solution, because discover is sometimes limited in what you can find, and you only choose from 3 cards, but at least there's a chance. You're making the best play you can with your resources, and your choices here matter. Interactivity.
My favourite playstyle is attrition; i want to beat my opponent's ENTIRE deck when I play. It's impossible when more than 1/3rd of my games will end up against quest lock. If there were an answer, I would run it. Since there isnt, i need to shelve the entire deck archetype. Feels bad, but thats the game now
Yep, this is the problem with quest warlock and quest mage - they create an inevitable game trajectory. You can pilot like a complete jackass, actively misplaying once the quests are complete and find it hard to or even impossible lose. I hate decks that do this - it is exactly how jade druid used to function, I can not believe they brought it back, after the players base made it quite fucking clear to Blizzard this kind of gameplay was not cool, not cool at all.
I realise that Blizzard probably likes the deck design precisely because it allows jackasses to play like jackasses and still win some games, while feeling super powerful and doing cool shit. Also the meta is so much easier for them to 'balance' when you have decks in the game playing this way - Rock meet scissors... Both these reasons are why Blizzard actively doesn't really like complex counterplay, or at times, any at all..
Winrates have nothing to do with how the fun the game is for the vocal and currently pissed off hearthstone communities of reddit and hearthpwn.
To me it feels like most games now are decided by matchups and you win or lose because you supposed to. Either you crush or get crushed, even games are very rare these days. But I guess it was intentionally designed that way. This makes the game less stressful for many people and therefore more enjoyable. You just have to "win" coin flip (get a good matchup) and the rest is just a formality.
I think that "inevitability" as a general concept is a little too vague for it to have a concrete yes/no answer to whether it is a good thing. In essence, what do really mean by it? And when we apply the concept to a specific situation, are we giving it the appropriate objectivity, or is it tempered with the subjectivity of our opinion on it?
To be a little less vague in my reply here, I am certain that there are times when you face a matchup which appears to have a foregone conclusion that we consider to be an inevitable outcome (assuming that is the sort of thing you are alluding to) - and let's assume for a moment, that this is indeed the case and we put aside the possibility of variance and fortune (and skill perhaps) - well then you are left with an assured outcome that might be negative for you at this moment, but the flip side of this is that there will also be times when you are the assured victor. Now, objectively that might seem like this takes the fun and skill out of the game - but that's because we are looking at it from a flawed premise where we have started with that assertion and hence why we reach it.
Long-winded answer short, I think hard inevitability is detrimental in some amount, but the nature of variance and differing outcome means that the likelihood of that sort of inevitability actually happening is pretty low overall, so shouldn't really have a heavy impact on anything.
To me it feels like most games now are decided by matchups and you win or lose because you supposed to. Either you crush or get crushed, even games are very rare these days. But I guess it was intentionally designed that way. This makes the game less stressful for many people and therefore more enjoyable. You just have to "win" coin flip (get a good matchup) and the rest is just a formality.
That's called a polarized meta, and in the past it was considered unfun and unhealthy for the game.
I guess Team 5 does not agree with that longstanding rule of thumb.
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
All games need inevitabilty. All good decks need it as well. The reason for Shaman being so bad for such a long time was in part their lack for inevitability, they couldn't close games (that and the fact they lacked draw). But starting last mini expansion they got both draw and ways to end the game and immediatly became tier 1. If decks didn't have inevitabilty then all games would be 20 minutes long and would all go downto fatigue. So no, inevitabilty is not the problem, it's necessary, the problem with the current meta is that literally every meta deck right now has inevitability starting on turn 5 or 6. Just look at them:
Warlock can either kill you with self damage or by sticking big bodies and then double windfuring your ass. Shaman either kills you with double spells or with a doomhammer to the face for a million damage. Mage goes turbo nuts with burn spells. Hunter, Priest and Druid are all hyper aggro that can literally win as soon as turn 4 with ok hands, nothing nuts. DH can either fill the board with brutes or hit your face for +15 damage or both. Rogue can kill you in one turn if you fail to do the same and they can do it all from hand requiring minimal set up, but garrote rogue is actually one of the slower decks. And then warrior, which doesn't have good inevitabilty and doesn't see play, cause silas combo is way too slow, the juggernaut is way too slow and a lot of decks don't play too many minions so rush is also not very good.
I think that "inevitability" as a general concept is a little too vague for it to have a concrete yes/no answer to whether it is a good thing. In essence, what do really mean by it? And when we apply the concept to a specific situation, are we giving it the appropriate objectivity, or is it tempered with the subjectivity of our opinion on it?
To be a little less vague in my reply here, I am certain that there are times when you face a matchup which appears to have a foregone conclusion that we consider to be an inevitable outcome (assuming that is the sort of thing you are alluding to) - and let's assume for a moment, that this is indeed the case and we put aside the possibility of variance and fortune (and skill perhaps) - well then you are left with an assured outcome that might be negative for you at this moment, but the flip side of this is that there will also be times when you are the assured victor. Now, objectively that might seem like this takes the fun and skill out of the game - but that's because we are looking at it from a flawed premise where we have started with that assertion and hence why we reach it.
Long-winded answer short, I think hard inevitability is detrimental in some amount, but the nature of variance and differing outcome means that the likelihood of that sort of inevitability actually happening is pretty low overall, so shouldn't really have a heavy impact on anything.
Bro, this game has been reduced to rock paper scissors with the outcome largely determined by turn 4. You have your head in the sand.
The big difference i see in this expansion is that the definition of inevitabilty has been severely altered as opposed to what it used to indicate within the game. Win conditions for decks are not new, and they’re intrinsic to some fan favorite cards like C’Thun, etc. However, these cards could not win you the game without legitimate set-up over multiple turns and paying off around turn 10 or even after that, like a true finisher. Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers. Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.
Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers. Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.
To be fair, I'd say that inevitability of standard Warlock works now (after nerfs) as it always should have been. Because yes, Handlock can still kill the opponent with fatigue damage, but it won't happen before turn 10-11. So it's more of a plan B, to finish off some attrition slowpokes, but it's too slow in most matchups.
I don't mind if a deck almost guaranteed defeats the deck it was built to counter (although some uncertainty is good). I have a much bigger problem with having 3 "solitaire decks" playing dice against you. Seems like drawing many cards is just the way to win now...
C'thun decks weren't inevitable IMHO. As long as you had a decent board you were pretty safe.
I like that. Good end game design IMHO it would win you a lot of games, but there was enough counter play available that it just wasn't a case where you played C'Thun on turn 10 and won.
I didn't even think Jade Druid was that bad. Yes it had infinite potential. But it was also pretty slow and had only a little removal or taunt. If you got Jade Druid on their heels you could often pressure enough to make it interesting. And it didn't require a super aggro deck to do so. Mid-range also worked. But if they got off a auctioneer turn you needed lethal that turn.
I guess my point is you normally could see what your opponent was doing and alter your playstyle to increase your odds of winning. You had the ability to alter tactics on the fly.
I'm not sure you have that ability now. It seems to be 100% strategy and 0% tactics.
Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers. Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.
To be fair, I'd say that inevitability of standard Warlock works now (after nerfs) as it always should have been. Because yes, Handlock can still kill the opponent with fatigue damage, but it won't happen before turn 10-11. So it's more of a plan B, to finish off some attrition slowpokes, but it's too slow in most matchups.
I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.
I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.
This "burn version" without Stealer is most often referred as Quest Zoo Lock, because it runs typical zoo minions like Hecklefang Hyena, Flame Imp or Flesh Giant, but despite that, its main goal is still to complete the quest as quickly as possible and then kill the opponent with transferred self-damage (not necessarily from fatigue). The thing is though, this deck pretty much died after the first round of nerfs, because Darkglare for 3 mana is just to slow, when it gives only one mana crystal.
I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.
This "burn version" without Stealer is most often referred as Quest Zoo Lock, because it runs typical zoo minions like Hecklefang Hyena, Flame Imp or Flesh Giant, but despite that, its main goal is still to complete the quest as quickly as possible and then kill the opponent with transferred self-damage (not necessarily from fatigue). The thing is though, this deck pretty much died after the first round of nerfs, because Darkglare for 3 mana is just to slow, when it gives only one mana crystal.
Is that the same deck with Barrens Scavenger, Soul Rend and Blood Shard Bristleback? That’s the one i was seeing in diamond other than the handlock variant.
I look back fondly to games played, on both sides of the matchup, with Deathstalker Rexxar squaring off against Odd Warrior.
//
Game-length has always been kind of a BS argument, since there's always bottom-right. Want to play hunter but don't want to get dragged down in a lengthy control match at the end? Just don't.
That's something Chess players figured out long ago. Theoretically, a Chess match ends when you checkmate the opposing king. Realistically, games end long before that. Trade pieces down to a winning endgame (the advantage of a Queen vs Rook, or Rook vs Bishop, or maybe even simply a single extra pawn), and that's GG.* It goes further, where sometimes you'll simply have a boardstate where you'll eventually be able to trade down into a clearly winning endgame. And so good chess players have learned to concede games. It's healthy and normal.
But in Hearthstone, that's lacking. Folks have this mindset "decks without win conditions are bad" but that misunderstands what winning actually is, and it's literally impossible to have a deck without a win condition. Winning isn't reducing a player from 30 HP to 0 HP, just like how Chess isn't won by checkmating the opposing king. Chess, and arguably Hearthstone, is won when a player's victory is inevitable.
I think inevitability can be good, but I'm using the word differently, I figure. Non-interactive and inevitable are different things to me. Old timey control decks--the ones that grind an opponent down and run them out of gas--won using inevitability. But an opponent might not realize that their loss is inevitable, and Blizzard decided (wrongly) that the right solution was to add powerful explicit inevitability with the questlines. Now grinder mage burns you out. Now tap warlock burns you out. The questlines mean that there's a clear and consistent way to play the games out, leading to boring and predictable games. Meanwhile, the proactive win conditions with "control" questlines lead to all the downsides of OTK style, non-interactive gameplay. Worst of both worlds.
We'd have been better if Blizzard had left in the uncertain inevitability of grindy control decks, and just taught players to know better when they've been gassed out and can't win.
There is a minor issue with bottom-right, however. Daily and weekly quests often won't mark progress on concede on games that have been fully played, and fully lost, but would be better off ending with concession rather than hitting 0 hp.
To be sure, a much smaller problem than the questline meta.
* At least, outside of some speed chess formats. There, forcing an opponent to play it out on a limited clock, to flag them on time, is a valid strategy.
I would be interested in a legit Blizzard run poll that pinged every HS client out there, and asked them if they liked longer games or shorter games. Just to see what the actual majority of players liked. And it would have to be straight to the client, forum posters aren't a reliable source alone.
I can understand if the developers just believe shorter games with a well defined (inevitable) finish to them is what they think is best for the game. And if that's the case, we don't have much say over it.
But if the decision to makes games faster/shorter was because of player outcry, then really, how many of us really don't like long games?
I mean, we had people on both sides of the argument every day before. "Bah, face hunter is annoying for winning so fast" and "Bleh, control priest is soooo boring to fight". Well, what's the actual percentage?
Anyway, it doesn't matter much now, the game is what it is, and the devs probably won't intentionally slow down the game, whether it was their own choice or a PR band-aid. Just curious, is all.
Is that the same deck with Barrens Scavenger, Soul Rend and Blood Shard Bristleback? That’s the one i was seeing in diamond other than the handlock variant.
The only variant I know with such cards in standard is the Handlock himself. Before, there were also quite similar Control Warlock (with Soul Rend, Bristleback and Scaveger but without hand package like Flash Giant, Anetheron or Goldshire Gnoll), but it was so bad, that it died in the early days of the expansion. Are you sure it wasn't Handlock? Or maybe something new has emerged?
So, I understand that each match must come to an end. Every match ending is inevitable.
But, I think a lot of salt is created when you face a situation where you see you can't win. No matter what you do. No matter what you draw. No matter how well you play. Your fate is decided.
Of course, there is a concede button to deal with this. You don't have to keep fighting a fight you know is lost unless you don't know how to use the concede button.
But, I would rather the game be designed where there was counterplay. Where there were cards you could include in your deck, that if you included them in your deck building, and you drew them, and played them wisely, you could potentially find ways to combat inevitable situations.
Even if I don't include that card in my deck. I still feel better losing to that situation if I know that I COULD have used it. I COULD have found a way. I COULD alter my deck to give me a chance to defeat that strategy. That to me feels a TON better than just saying, 'that is just a bad matchup'.
I really wish there were more counterplay options in this game. Maybe they need to release more cards each release so that they have room to include some clunky tech cards.
I don't know. Maybe folks don't want counterplay? Maybe they think that inevitability is a good thing?
Where do you stand?
Galavant Animation
It seems counterplay has been set aside in the name of shorter matches so people can play Hearthstone on the toilet.
That is literally the trajectory this game has taken, no exaggeration.
"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
I think that this is why discover is a good and healthy mechanic for the game.
It's impossible to build your deck such that you will always be able to have an answer against your opponent. There are too many things to build against, right? I mean, the first step should always be to build your deck in the way that will have the most success on its own, but...
With discover, you can make a good guess early on as to what your opponent's win conditions are, and then try to find more answers for what you might face.
Obviously, this is also not a perfect solution, because discover is sometimes limited in what you can find, and you only choose from 3 cards, but at least there's a chance. You're making the best play you can with your resources, and your choices here matter. Interactivity.
My favourite playstyle is attrition; i want to beat my opponent's ENTIRE deck when I play. It's impossible when more than 1/3rd of my games will end up against quest lock. If there were an answer, I would run it. Since there isnt, i need to shelve the entire deck archetype. Feels bad, but thats the game now
Yep, this is the problem with quest warlock and quest mage - they create an inevitable game trajectory. You can pilot like a complete jackass, actively misplaying once the quests are complete and find it hard to or even impossible lose. I hate decks that do this - it is exactly how jade druid used to function, I can not believe they brought it back, after the players base made it quite fucking clear to Blizzard this kind of gameplay was not cool, not cool at all.
I realise that Blizzard probably likes the deck design precisely because it allows jackasses to play like jackasses and still win some games, while feeling super powerful and doing cool shit. Also the meta is so much easier for them to 'balance' when you have decks in the game playing this way - Rock meet scissors... Both these reasons are why Blizzard actively doesn't really like complex counterplay, or at times, any at all..
Winrates have nothing to do with how the fun the game is for the vocal and currently pissed off hearthstone communities of reddit and hearthpwn.
To me it feels like most games now are decided by matchups and you win or lose because you supposed to. Either you crush or get crushed, even games are very rare these days. But I guess it was intentionally designed that way. This makes the game less stressful for many people and therefore more enjoyable. You just have to "win" coin flip (get a good matchup) and the rest is just a formality.
I think that "inevitability" as a general concept is a little too vague for it to have a concrete yes/no answer to whether it is a good thing.
In essence, what do really mean by it?
And when we apply the concept to a specific situation, are we giving it the appropriate objectivity, or is it tempered with the subjectivity of our opinion on it?
To be a little less vague in my reply here, I am certain that there are times when you face a matchup which appears to have a foregone conclusion that we consider to be an inevitable outcome (assuming that is the sort of thing you are alluding to) - and let's assume for a moment, that this is indeed the case and we put aside the possibility of variance and fortune (and skill perhaps) - well then you are left with an assured outcome that might be negative for you at this moment, but the flip side of this is that there will also be times when you are the assured victor.
Now, objectively that might seem like this takes the fun and skill out of the game - but that's because we are looking at it from a flawed premise where we have started with that assertion and hence why we reach it.
Long-winded answer short, I think hard inevitability is detrimental in some amount, but the nature of variance and differing outcome means that the likelihood of that sort of inevitability actually happening is pretty low overall, so shouldn't really have a heavy impact on anything.
That's called a polarized meta, and in the past it was considered unfun and unhealthy for the game.
I guess Team 5 does not agree with that longstanding rule of thumb.
"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
All games need inevitabilty. All good decks need it as well. The reason for Shaman being so bad for such a long time was in part their lack for inevitability, they couldn't close games (that and the fact they lacked draw). But starting last mini expansion they got both draw and ways to end the game and immediatly became tier 1. If decks didn't have inevitabilty then all games would be 20 minutes long and would all go downto fatigue. So no, inevitabilty is not the problem, it's necessary, the problem with the current meta is that literally every meta deck right now has inevitability starting on turn 5 or 6. Just look at them:
Warlock can either kill you with self damage or by sticking big bodies and then double windfuring your ass. Shaman either kills you with double spells or with a doomhammer to the face for a million damage. Mage goes turbo nuts with burn spells. Hunter, Priest and Druid are all hyper aggro that can literally win as soon as turn 4 with ok hands, nothing nuts. DH can either fill the board with brutes or hit your face for +15 damage or both. Rogue can kill you in one turn if you fail to do the same and they can do it all from hand requiring minimal set up, but garrote rogue is actually one of the slower decks. And then warrior, which doesn't have good inevitabilty and doesn't see play, cause silas combo is way too slow, the juggernaut is way too slow and a lot of decks don't play too many minions so rush is also not very good.
Bro, this game has been reduced to rock paper scissors with the outcome largely determined by turn 4. You have your head in the sand.
The big difference i see in this expansion is that the definition of inevitabilty has been severely altered as opposed to what it used to indicate within the game. Win conditions for decks are not new, and they’re intrinsic to some fan favorite cards like C’Thun, etc. However, these cards could not win you the game without legitimate set-up over multiple turns and paying off around turn 10 or even after that, like a true finisher. Right now we have an issue where decks with inevitable win conditions (Quest Warlock and Mage) were not engineered as such by the developers. Just because ignite doesn’t outright state “deal infinite ever-increasing damage forever” or the warlock quest reward doesn’t state “fatigue your opponent until they die in two turns max” doesn’t mean that the reality of what they do shouldn’t be acknowledged. They are much, much stronger than something like the priest quest because they are able to reach their goal and reach that state of inevitability at a breakneck pace. It is a fundamental error to have such obscene damage output available so early in a game and that’s why it feels worse than almost any other win condition this game has ever seen.
To be fair, I'd say that inevitability of standard Warlock works now (after nerfs) as it always should have been. Because yes, Handlock can still kill the opponent with fatigue damage, but it won't happen before turn 10-11. So it's more of a plan B, to finish off some attrition slowpokes, but it's too slow in most matchups.
I don't mind if a deck almost guaranteed defeats the deck it was built to counter (although some uncertainty is good). I have a much bigger problem with having 3 "solitaire decks" playing dice against you. Seems like drawing many cards is just the way to win now...
C'thun decks weren't inevitable IMHO. As long as you had a decent board you were pretty safe.
I like that. Good end game design IMHO it would win you a lot of games, but there was enough counter play available that it just wasn't a case where you played C'Thun on turn 10 and won.
I didn't even think Jade Druid was that bad. Yes it had infinite potential. But it was also pretty slow and had only a little removal or taunt. If you got Jade Druid on their heels you could often pressure enough to make it interesting. And it didn't require a super aggro deck to do so. Mid-range also worked. But if they got off a auctioneer turn you needed lethal that turn.
I guess my point is you normally could see what your opponent was doing and alter your playstyle to increase your odds of winning. You had the ability to alter tactics on the fly.
I'm not sure you have that ability now. It seems to be 100% strategy and 0% tactics.
I was under the impression that the burn version of Warlock without Stealer of Souls was still strong, but it might be too early to tell. However, in general i have a big problem with a deck that can still kill you with no cards in hand or in their deck and have their fatigue damage affect you.
This "burn version" without Stealer is most often referred as Quest Zoo Lock, because it runs typical zoo minions like Hecklefang Hyena, Flame Imp or Flesh Giant, but despite that, its main goal is still to complete the quest as quickly as possible and then kill the opponent with transferred self-damage (not necessarily from fatigue). The thing is though, this deck pretty much died after the first round of nerfs, because Darkglare for 3 mana is just to slow, when it gives only one mana crystal.
Is that the same deck with Barrens Scavenger, Soul Rend and Blood Shard Bristleback? That’s the one i was seeing in diamond other than the handlock variant.
I look back fondly to games played, on both sides of the matchup, with Deathstalker Rexxar squaring off against Odd Warrior.
//
Game-length has always been kind of a BS argument, since there's always bottom-right. Want to play hunter but don't want to get dragged down in a lengthy control match at the end? Just don't.
That's something Chess players figured out long ago. Theoretically, a Chess match ends when you checkmate the opposing king. Realistically, games end long before that. Trade pieces down to a winning endgame (the advantage of a Queen vs Rook, or Rook vs Bishop, or maybe even simply a single extra pawn), and that's GG.* It goes further, where sometimes you'll simply have a boardstate where you'll eventually be able to trade down into a clearly winning endgame. And so good chess players have learned to concede games. It's healthy and normal.
But in Hearthstone, that's lacking. Folks have this mindset "decks without win conditions are bad" but that misunderstands what winning actually is, and it's literally impossible to have a deck without a win condition. Winning isn't reducing a player from 30 HP to 0 HP, just like how Chess isn't won by checkmating the opposing king. Chess, and arguably Hearthstone, is won when a player's victory is inevitable.
I think inevitability can be good, but I'm using the word differently, I figure. Non-interactive and inevitable are different things to me. Old timey control decks--the ones that grind an opponent down and run them out of gas--won using inevitability. But an opponent might not realize that their loss is inevitable, and Blizzard decided (wrongly) that the right solution was to add powerful explicit inevitability with the questlines. Now grinder mage burns you out. Now tap warlock burns you out. The questlines mean that there's a clear and consistent way to play the games out, leading to boring and predictable games. Meanwhile, the proactive win conditions with "control" questlines lead to all the downsides of OTK style, non-interactive gameplay. Worst of both worlds.
We'd have been better if Blizzard had left in the uncertain inevitability of grindy control decks, and just taught players to know better when they've been gassed out and can't win.
There is a minor issue with bottom-right, however. Daily and weekly quests often won't mark progress on concede on games that have been fully played, and fully lost, but would be better off ending with concession rather than hitting 0 hp.
To be sure, a much smaller problem than the questline meta.
* At least, outside of some speed chess formats. There, forcing an opponent to play it out on a limited clock, to flag them on time, is a valid strategy.
I would be interested in a legit Blizzard run poll that pinged every HS client out there, and asked them if they liked longer games or shorter games. Just to see what the actual majority of players liked. And it would have to be straight to the client, forum posters aren't a reliable source alone.
I can understand if the developers just believe shorter games with a well defined (inevitable) finish to them is what they think is best for the game. And if that's the case, we don't have much say over it.
But if the decision to makes games faster/shorter was because of player outcry, then really, how many of us really don't like long games?
I mean, we had people on both sides of the argument every day before. "Bah, face hunter is annoying for winning so fast" and "Bleh, control priest is soooo boring to fight". Well, what's the actual percentage?
Anyway, it doesn't matter much now, the game is what it is, and the devs probably won't intentionally slow down the game, whether it was their own choice or a PR band-aid. Just curious, is all.
The only variant I know with such cards in standard is the Handlock himself. Before, there were also quite similar Control Warlock (with Soul Rend, Bristleback and Scaveger but without hand package like Flash Giant, Anetheron or Goldshire Gnoll), but it was so bad, that it died in the early days of the expansion. Are you sure it wasn't Handlock? Or maybe something new has emerged?