Fully balanced meta - such a thing does not and cannot exist. Nobody asks for that.
On the other hand, a relatively balanced meta is possible: a state of game where there is less power disparity between classes and where different archetypes have their weaknesses and strengths. Hearthstone used to have such state of things (not always though) where aggro, midrange, control/attrition and combo/otk archetypes were all viable, all of them used to have their strong and weak match-ups, keeping in check each other. Currently, unprecedented power level of draw, mana cheat and direct damage cards leaves no room for that. On top of that, we have only 2-3 classes that actually have these tools and completely dominate the game.
1) the top 3 classes don't represent 50% of the metagame (by playrate)
2) there is not a disparity in playrate of "10%" from second highest to second lowest classes (for exampe: if second most played is 20%, and the second lowest is 5%, that fails. If the second highest is 15% and the second lowest is 7%, that passes)
There's always been a "lol 9th/10th/11th class in year XX" afoot, just as a consequence of how many classes there are, and there will always be a clear "the playerbase primarily gravitates towards X deck" just because of psychology, but a diverse pool of viable alternatives is a good sign of a healthy and balanced metagame
In an ideal world all classes should be in the range of the same win % in each rank. But that's impossible. Neither does Blizzard care the slightest about win %. They only look at in how many decks is each card. If a card is in 90% of all decks of a certain class, it will get nerfed.
There is a good reason why the same classes are in the top rankings and other are in the bottom ranks for many, many months. They don't give a sh*t.
Only way to balance currently is to introduce a combat phase. This will also increase the skillceling of hearthstone by 1000%. Oh, and rework 90% of facespells to be minion spesific as is way to easy to face with them.
a balance meta to me doesn’t rely on rock paper cissors matchups. On the big picture it seems balanced but the feel of knowing you have lost before turn 1 is awful imo.
On top of that, a balance meta should allow most of its card pool to be playable (right now i feel like archetype-support cards are too powerfull)
So, a few comments on some of the more recent posts. All very interesting.
@M1ch43l: Disagree. Blizzard certainly does care about deck winrate. In fact, I'd say in most cases a specific deck's winrate is the primary reason for a nerf. They look at a deck, try to figure out which card is the most problematic, and reduce its power. Now, certainly it also looks at how many decks the card is in. (That appears to be what they did for Theotar, the Mad Duke) But I think that's a less common occurrence.
@XanKortal: Interesting. I hadn't really thought about class playrate as a metric. Not sure how I feel about that, since I don't care as much about whether class X is a dumpster fire for a given expansion (as long as each class eventually gets a good deck). In fact, I think I'd argue that it's good for a given class to suck for a while: it encourages people to learn how to play other classes, which I think improves the overall quality of play. (Maybe.) And, I think if you balance across deck types, you're going to get a reasonable spread of classes as well.
@DrFlan: To some degree, a healthy meta will always have an element of rock, paper, scissors. I'm primarily a control deck player, so going into a match against a midrange deck, I know I'm at a disadvantage. But, I think the key question is: how big a disadvantage? (Some of this will obviously depend on what type of control deck I'm playing.) Assuming equal player skill, is 60/40 too big? I don't know, but that doesn't seem unreasonable. It's close enough that you still have a decent chance of winning, but still encourages a diversity of deck types.
I think balanced meta is a meta where every type of deck has at least a couple of different viable decks, there is no deck with too big winrate and every class has at least one playable (tier 3 or better) deck. The problem is, it's harder and harder to achieve with endless power creep and bigger difference between high and low levels of play (so they need to balance several metas at once).
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
He doesn't want aggro dead, he wants control to be OP. I mean, "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank" clearly indicates that he wants an advantage over combo too. It's interesting how in such threads aggro, midrange and combo players typically say that everything should be viable and some control players just come to rant about how the game is unbalanced and skill is not required because games are not long enough, basically implying that the game is balanced and skillful only if it is dominated by control (or even fatigue in most severe cases).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
I can say what would be the ideal fun meta look like for me:
1st: there must be a lot of variety. not everybody netdecking the same s-tier decks. just like the old days' expansion launch day. where decks and archetypes were not pre-built and player creativity is awarded over long periods of time. you face against different decks each game, where some of the games you should be able to feel fascination for what your opponent came up with.
2nd: I should be able to play anything I want. want zoo? done. want some wacky otk deck? done. want something old school for wild like a c'thun deck? done. as long as your deck is not just some random cards put together with no synergy at all, you should not get absolutely crushed by every opponent you face. sure there might be some games here and there. but if I want to get a win with my very silly deck, I should be able to get it, like every 5 games. at least games should feel like you have some chance.
3rd: games should not be predictable at the start. I hate it when I see the first card my opponent plays and know the exact 30 cards he/she put into their deck. or even worse, same when I just see their class.
if somehow game becomes something like this, I swear I would play this game till I get old. maybe spend some money on it too. I used to have a lot of fun when the old expansions launched, where the meta was at least similar to what I aforementioned for like a week. nowadays top tier meta decks are either pre-built, or are very easy to come up with and within hours the meta feels like it has settled, where you face the same broken decks again and again. And never be able to play what you want. for me to have fun, I should not be forced to join the netdeck club to get at least some wins or close games.
I think balanced meta is a meta where every type of deck has at least a couple of different viable decks, there is no deck with too big winrate and every class has at least one playable (tier 3 or better) deck. The problem is, it's harder and harder to achieve with endless power creep and bigger difference between high and low levels of play (so they need to balance several metas at once).
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
He doesn't want aggro dead, he wants control to be OP. I mean, "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank" clearly indicates that he wants an advantage over combo too. It's interesting how in such threads aggro, midrange and combo players typically say that everything should be viable and some control players just come to rant about how the game is unbalanced and skill is not required because games are not long enough, basically implying that the game is balanced and skillful only if it is dominated by control (or even fatigue in most severe cases).
Control decks shouldn't be OP. I never said that. Keep your issues to yourself please.
If you want combo to be OP, sure. It's your opinion. Stop shitting on mine. Just because i don't like wasting time to play single player (i.e. watch opponent kill me in one turn without any way to answer it) doesn't mean i want any archetype to be OP.
Sure, aggro and midrange are board-based strategies and are ok to be viable. But when the game ends too quickly it means there's an inability to answer them by other strategies. Which leads to the stupid binary metas that we keep having - you know if you have a chance by turns 5-6. Is that fun for you?? Really?? Do you like conceding or wasting your time every 2 games (based on a 50% win rate which is purely theoretical anyway)?? If so, i wish you never design a game. I wish blizzard stopped designing games too lol.
How about playing a meaningful number of turns instead? Actually feeling like you played SOMETHING even if you end up losing. How about having multiple chances to turn the game around, no matter the archetype you use? This is what i'd like. If it's too hard to comprehend this for you, then stay in your bubble and have fun playing this fucked up game. "Balanced and fun" my ass. Yea, it's balanced and fun because you play the meta decks which give you fast and more certain wins. Trying anything else would make you miserable.
Enjoy your stupid game. Maybe you'll come to realize some things about it after a while.
I think balanced meta is a meta where every type of deck has at least a couple of different viable decks, there is no deck with too big winrate and every class has at least one playable (tier 3 or better) deck. The problem is, it's harder and harder to achieve with endless power creep and bigger difference between high and low levels of play (so they need to balance several metas at once).
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
He doesn't want aggro dead, he wants control to be OP. I mean, "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank" clearly indicates that he wants an advantage over combo too. It's interesting how in such threads aggro, midrange and combo players typically say that everything should be viable and some control players just come to rant about how the game is unbalanced and skill is not required because games are not long enough, basically implying that the game is balanced and skillful only if it is dominated by control (or even fatigue in most severe cases).
Control decks shouldn't be OP. I never said that. Keep your issues to yourself please.
If you want combo to be OP, sure. It's your opinion. Stop shitting on mine. Just because i don't like wasting time to play single player (i.e. watch opponent kill me in one turn without any way to answer it) doesn't mean i want any archetype to be OP.
Sure, aggro and midrange are board-based strategies and are ok to be viable. But when the game ends too quickly it means there's an inability to answer them by other strategies. Which leads to the stupid binary metas that we keep having - you know if you have a chance by turns 5-6. Is that fun for you?? Really?? Do you like conceding or wasting your time every 2 games (based on a 50% win rate which is purely theoretical anyway)?? If so, i wish you never design a game. I wish blizzard stopped designing games too lol.
How about playing a meaningful number of turns instead? Actually feeling like you played SOMETHING even if you end up losing. How about having multiple chances to turn the game around, no matter the archetype you use? This is what i'd like. If it's too hard to comprehend this for you, then stay in your bubble and have fun playing this fucked up game. "Balanced and fun" my ass. Yea, it's balanced and fun because you play the meta decks which give you fast and more certain wins. Trying anything else would make you miserable.
Enjoy your stupid game. Maybe you'll come to realize some things about it after a while.
Wanting the game to go to 10 mana all the time equals aggro being dead.
So, a few comments on some of the more recent posts. All very interesting.
@M1ch43l: Disagree. Blizzard certainly does care about deck winrate. In fact, I'd say in most cases a specific deck's winrate is the primary reason for a nerf. They look at a deck, try to figure out which card is the most problematic, and reduce its power. Now, certainly it also looks at how many decks the card is in. (That appears to be what they did for Theotar, the Mad Duke) But I think that's a less common occurrence.
@XanKortal: Interesting. I hadn't really thought about class playrate as a metric. Not sure how I feel about that, since I don't care as much about whether class X is a dumpster fire for a given expansion (as long as each class eventually gets a good deck). In fact, I think I'd argue that it's good for a given class to suck for a while: it encourages people to learn how to play other classes, which I think improves the overall quality of play. (Maybe.) And, I think if you balance across deck types, you're going to get a reasonable spread of classes as well.
@DrFlan: To some degree, a healthy meta will always have an element of rock, paper, scissors. I'm primarily a control deck player, so going into a match against a midrange deck, I know I'm at a disadvantage. But, I think the key question is: how big a disadvantage? (Some of this will obviously depend on what type of control deck I'm playing.) Assuming equal player skill, is 60/40 too big? I don't know, but that doesn't seem unreasonable. It's close enough that you still have a decent chance of winning, but still encourages a diversity of deck types.
Deck's/Class winrate usually leads to popularity. Not always, as has been the case recently with Boon Priest, presumably due to a boring gameplay but that's usually how things go. And despite that high winrate, Priest has been dodging the nerfs for a long time simply because there weren't many complaints about it. Class play and win rates need to be assessed in conjunction so perhaps something like this:
- low win rate, low play rate: balancing needed - low win rate, high play rate: ideal for Blizz, tells them there is sth people like to play with but doesn't really require any action - high win rate, low play rate: careful monitoring required - high win rate, high play rate: balancing needed
Controversially or not, balancing is just one aspect. I can easily see why unbalanced metas over a long period of time could be beneficial for Blizz from sales perspective: - bad metas get talked about a lot. It's like telling new and returning players: there's an extremely broken=fun thing to play right now, jump back in! As for engaged players, it just keeps them engaged up to a point - it attracts counters, becomes a challenge players can try to solve and again, creates engagement. It's happening right now with Svalna Priest and Control Paladin trying to counter Rogue (and took a while to emerge!). - if one or two classes dominate, it encourages people to buy cards, craft new decks etc. Then they get nerfed, another class becomes dominant and again encourages the same process = blizz gets more money as f2p get left behind - this could be especially true over longer periods of time, lets say 1 year. 1 year of almost perfectly balanced meta might not generate the same engagement with the game and on social media (which translates into revenue) as an unbalanced one.
Whatever engagement this creates, dies down at some point and that is when balancing helps. Not necessarily to balance anything, we've seen balance introducing new un-balance before, but to generate engagement again. They keep telling us they nerf things because of 'feels', recent comment that they will make 'spicy changes', I think those are the best clues we have that it is less about balance and more about engagement. If you're very cynical, you could say that they have a plan for which class will be in the spotlight and when throughout a given year. Maybe Rogue or Druid are the classes that generate the best engagement so it's worth always making them strong. Perhaps Priest does not and so it tends to be weak. Etc.
Control decks shouldn't be OP. I never said that. Keep your issues to yourself please.
If you want combo to be OP, sure. It's your opinion. Stop shitting on mine. Just because i don't like wasting time to play single player (i.e. watch opponent kill me in one turn without any way to answer it) doesn't mean i want any archetype to be OP.
Sure, aggro and midrange are board-based strategies and are ok to be viable. But when the game ends too quickly it means there's an inability to answer them by other strategies. Which leads to the stupid binary metas that we keep having - you know if you have a chance by turns 5-6. Is that fun for you?? Really?? Do you like conceding or wasting your time every 2 games (based on a 50% win rate which is purely theoretical anyway)?? If so, i wish you never design a game. I wish blizzard stopped designing games too lol.
I absolutely don't want combo to be OP. You said "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank", so combo should be weaker than everything else. I would like it too, since I hate combo playstyle, but it's not balanced by any means. The whole point of aggro decks vs everything and midrange decks vs control is to not give you, as a control player, enough time to answer them. If you're always able to answer them and every game reaches turn 10, they are dead as aggro and in huge disadvantage as midrange, which means control is OP. If that happen, combo comes to save the day, but combo have harder time reaching the set rank, so not used by anyone except for dedicated combo fans. Do you really not see that you described the balanced meta as the ultra-greedy, heavily control dominated meta? Yes, I prefer to know that I'm dead by turn 5 rather than realize by turn 10 that I have small chance to win and have to concede or play 30 extra minutes. That's why I never minded aggro decks, despite my matchups against them typically were unfavorable most of the time and when I pick my deck, if options are equal, I will pick the one that counters most annoying combo or control deck, not aggro. I'm just pointing that everything you want leads to the same control mindset about skills being tested only if game is hour long when in reality most of the combo decks, as much as I don't like them, are more skillful than control, and piloting control is not harder than piloting aggro in my experience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
I wasn't targeting the "aggro > combo > control > aggro", but rather the "Class A wins 75% of the time against Class B, Class B wins 75% against Class C, ect ect...", because of the design of the class. But I agree with you !
I brought this view up in the other thread about optimal meta, but it fits here even better. The game balance can't be determined from the play or win rates of top decks and how many classes are represented and in which proportions in high tiers. The game's (any games' unless they're dying) playerbase is in majority casual players so a good analysis of the meta and balance must account for players who are playing tier 3, or tier 5 decks, or even ones that are homebrewn with no knowledge of meta concepts like deck types and can't perhaps be classified in any tier. Decks like that would've been called tier 6 when the game first released, but nowadays you can probably count a dozen tiers of decks without getting to what a new player would come up with.
There very much is an objective measure of power levels. Everything can be evaluated in regards to vanilla power levels, the amount of cards drawn and mana gained per turn by default, the default starting health and decksize, etc. You'd think, for example, prima facie power creep in burst damage can be offset by power creep in heal, armor gain, and other defensive tools, but with the amount of starting health staying the same, there is in fact an increased degree of volatility being introduced. A single bad draw or a series of good draws has, with these things being changed, a greater impact than when the game released. (This is, of course, everything in theory as this is a simplified model - power creep in card draw has the opposite effect but causes aggro to lose their weakness in sustainability, and power creep in stats, tempo, disruption, and every other mechanic further makes the reality of balance more complex.)
Power creep in stats is probably the most harmful, though it's necessary with all other power creep to keep the game board centric. Here, too, vanilla power levels establish a base line from which even filler cards deviate, and synergies allow for further emergent power creep. More stats mean more attack damage and now even midrange decks need more heal and the advantage of the aggressor in the match is increased (even with stronger heals, because they don't need to waste cards and mana on keeping themselves alive). More stats means necessary implemented power creep in removals which goes hand in hand with increased damage spells and increased burst damage.
Of course much of that is up to debate and matters of individual preference. Running out of cards is frustrating, so maybe a deck designed to by outlasting the opponent punish them for not being sustainable is not objectively good - there's definitely a place for aggro in a healthy meta. But the game is supposed to be fun, this is what that argument too relies on, so how can a view be justified that the performance of bad decks doesn't matter? The combination of power creep and how it favors aggro leaves new players (and experienced players wanting to experiment with janky ideas) quite defenseless.
The question can be framed in the following way: what is the solution to keeping aggro as a part of the meta without it ruining the fun for everything that, frankly, sucks? The answer, equally frankly, is that it's not possible with these kinds of power levels.
TL;DR: power creep favors already good decks over archetypes that don't get support. Good meta is one that leaves room for bad decks.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond.
1) Not sure I understand your point about objective measure of power levels. Yes, you can (to some degree) calculate the "real" mana value of a particular card by looking at stats, draw, battlecry direct damage, taunt, etc. And, yes, current decks are vastly more powerful than "vanilla" decks you could create using Core cards. So what? Unless you're trying to make the case that people should be able to ladder with reasonable success using a vanilla deck (which is silly; see below), all that matters in terms of meta balance is the relative power of various decks.
2) A bad deck is, by definition, one that is unlikely to win against any meta deck. Thus, the idea that a balanced meta (which is what this thread is about) should "leave room" for bad decks is absurd. That's logically impossible. If you play a deck with a 20% win rate, you're not going to ladder effectively. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that people should play the game for fun. If your idea of fun is playing some goofy deck with a lousy winrate, go for it. Nothing in HS prevents you from doing so. But the "cost" of that fun is that you're going to lose a lot, earn less XP, and not move up the ladder. If you want to ladder, you need to play a deck that's at least competitive.
3) I'm not an aggro player, but still don't get the aggro hate you're sending out. Some people do find them fun, even if I don't. As I've tried to explain, without good viable decks of each style, there's no hope for a balanced meta. I hate decks like Face Hunter with a passion, but I recognize they play an important role in the meta. I would also point out that aggro decks are, historically, significantly cheaper than midrange or control decks and are, therefore, easier to build and more popular with new players. You say you're concerned about new players: hurting aggro hurts them.
it cannot exist in a best-of-one ladder format.
Fully balanced meta - such a thing does not and cannot exist. Nobody asks for that.
On the other hand, a relatively balanced meta is possible: a state of game where there is less power disparity between classes and where different archetypes have their weaknesses and strengths. Hearthstone used to have such state of things (not always though) where aggro, midrange, control/attrition and combo/otk archetypes were all viable, all of them used to have their strong and weak match-ups, keeping in check each other. Currently, unprecedented power level of draw, mana cheat and direct damage cards leaves no room for that. On top of that, we have only 2-3 classes that actually have these tools and completely dominate the game.
Quasi-stellar radio source
My stab at a balanced meta would be that both:
1) the top 3 classes don't represent 50% of the metagame (by playrate)
2) there is not a disparity in playrate of "10%" from second highest to second lowest classes (for exampe: if second most played is 20%, and the second lowest is 5%, that fails. If the second highest is 15% and the second lowest is 7%, that passes)
There's always been a "lol 9th/10th/11th class in year XX" afoot, just as a consequence of how many classes there are, and there will always be a clear "the playerbase primarily gravitates towards X deck" just because of psychology, but a diverse pool of viable alternatives is a good sign of a healthy and balanced metagame
In an ideal world all classes should be in the range of the same win % in each rank. But that's impossible. Neither does Blizzard care the slightest about win %. They only look at in how many decks is each card. If a card is in 90% of all decks of a certain class, it will get nerfed.
There is a good reason why the same classes are in the top rankings and other are in the bottom ranks for many, many months. They don't give a sh*t.
We have had some metals where 8 out of 10 classes were viable. It's rare but it can happen.
Only way to balance currently is to introduce a combat phase. This will also increase the skillceling of hearthstone by 1000%. Oh, and rework 90% of facespells to be minion spesific as is way to easy to face with them.
a balance meta to me doesn’t rely on rock paper cissors matchups. On the big picture it seems balanced but the feel of knowing you have lost before turn 1 is awful imo.
On top of that, a balance meta should allow most of its card pool to be playable (right now i feel like archetype-support cards are too powerfull)
So, a few comments on some of the more recent posts. All very interesting.
@M1ch43l: Disagree. Blizzard certainly does care about deck winrate. In fact, I'd say in most cases a specific deck's winrate is the primary reason for a nerf. They look at a deck, try to figure out which card is the most problematic, and reduce its power. Now, certainly it also looks at how many decks the card is in. (That appears to be what they did for Theotar, the Mad Duke) But I think that's a less common occurrence.
@XanKortal: Interesting. I hadn't really thought about class playrate as a metric. Not sure how I feel about that, since I don't care as much about whether class X is a dumpster fire for a given expansion (as long as each class eventually gets a good deck). In fact, I think I'd argue that it's good for a given class to suck for a while: it encourages people to learn how to play other classes, which I think improves the overall quality of play. (Maybe.) And, I think if you balance across deck types, you're going to get a reasonable spread of classes as well.
@DrFlan: To some degree, a healthy meta will always have an element of rock, paper, scissors. I'm primarily a control deck player, so going into a match against a midrange deck, I know I'm at a disadvantage. But, I think the key question is: how big a disadvantage? (Some of this will obviously depend on what type of control deck I'm playing.) Assuming equal player skill, is 60/40 too big? I don't know, but that doesn't seem unreasonable. It's close enough that you still have a decent chance of winning, but still encourages a diversity of deck types.
A balanced meta looks like an utopia, no one has ever seen one. :P
I think balanced meta is a meta where every type of deck has at least a couple of different viable decks, there is no deck with too big winrate and every class has at least one playable (tier 3 or better) deck. The problem is, it's harder and harder to achieve with endless power creep and bigger difference between high and low levels of play (so they need to balance several metas at once).
He doesn't want aggro dead, he wants control to be OP. I mean, "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank" clearly indicates that he wants an advantage over combo too. It's interesting how in such threads aggro, midrange and combo players typically say that everything should be viable and some control players just come to rant about how the game is unbalanced and skill is not required because games are not long enough, basically implying that the game is balanced and skillful only if it is dominated by control (or even fatigue in most severe cases).
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
not about balance but
I can say what would be the ideal fun meta look like for me:
1st: there must be a lot of variety. not everybody netdecking the same s-tier decks. just like the old days' expansion launch day. where decks and archetypes were not pre-built and player creativity is awarded over long periods of time. you face against different decks each game, where some of the games you should be able to feel fascination for what your opponent came up with.
2nd: I should be able to play anything I want. want zoo? done. want some wacky otk deck? done. want something old school for wild like a c'thun deck? done. as long as your deck is not just some random cards put together with no synergy at all, you should not get absolutely crushed by every opponent you face. sure there might be some games here and there. but if I want to get a win with my very silly deck, I should be able to get it, like every 5 games. at least games should feel like you have some chance.
3rd: games should not be predictable at the start. I hate it when I see the first card my opponent plays and know the exact 30 cards he/she put into their deck. or even worse, same when I just see their class.
if somehow game becomes something like this, I swear I would play this game till I get old. maybe spend some money on it too. I used to have a lot of fun when the old expansions launched, where the meta was at least similar to what I aforementioned for like a week. nowadays top tier meta decks are either pre-built, or are very easy to come up with and within hours the meta feels like it has settled, where you face the same broken decks again and again. And never be able to play what you want. for me to have fun, I should not be forced to join the netdeck club to get at least some wins or close games.
Control decks shouldn't be OP. I never said that. Keep your issues to yourself please.
If you want combo to be OP, sure. It's your opinion. Stop shitting on mine. Just because i don't like wasting time to play single player (i.e. watch opponent kill me in one turn without any way to answer it) doesn't mean i want any archetype to be OP.
Sure, aggro and midrange are board-based strategies and are ok to be viable. But when the game ends too quickly it means there's an inability to answer them by other strategies. Which leads to the stupid binary metas that we keep having - you know if you have a chance by turns 5-6. Is that fun for you?? Really?? Do you like conceding or wasting your time every 2 games (based on a 50% win rate which is purely theoretical anyway)?? If so, i wish you never design a game. I wish blizzard stopped designing games too lol.
How about playing a meaningful number of turns instead? Actually feeling like you played SOMETHING even if you end up losing. How about having multiple chances to turn the game around, no matter the archetype you use? This is what i'd like. If it's too hard to comprehend this for you, then stay in your bubble and have fun playing this fucked up game. "Balanced and fun" my ass. Yea, it's balanced and fun because you play the meta decks which give you fast and more certain wins. Trying anything else would make you miserable.
Enjoy your stupid game. Maybe you'll come to realize some things about it after a while.
Wanting the game to go to 10 mana all the time equals aggro being dead.
And the decision heavy games are usually aggro mirrors
Deck's/Class winrate usually leads to popularity. Not always, as has been the case recently with Boon Priest, presumably due to a boring gameplay but that's usually how things go. And despite that high winrate, Priest has been dodging the nerfs for a long time simply because there weren't many complaints about it. Class play and win rates need to be assessed in conjunction so perhaps something like this:
- low win rate, low play rate: balancing needed
- low win rate, high play rate: ideal for Blizz, tells them there is sth people like to play with but doesn't really require any action
- high win rate, low play rate: careful monitoring required
- high win rate, high play rate: balancing needed
Controversially or not, balancing is just one aspect. I can easily see why unbalanced metas over a long period of time could be beneficial for Blizz from sales perspective:
- bad metas get talked about a lot. It's like telling new and returning players: there's an extremely broken=fun thing to play right now, jump back in! As for engaged players, it just keeps them engaged up to a point
- it attracts counters, becomes a challenge players can try to solve and again, creates engagement. It's happening right now with Svalna Priest and Control Paladin trying to counter Rogue (and took a while to emerge!).
- if one or two classes dominate, it encourages people to buy cards, craft new decks etc. Then they get nerfed, another class becomes dominant and again encourages the same process = blizz gets more money as f2p get left behind
- this could be especially true over longer periods of time, lets say 1 year. 1 year of almost perfectly balanced meta might not generate the same engagement with the game and on social media (which translates into revenue) as an unbalanced one.
Whatever engagement this creates, dies down at some point and that is when balancing helps. Not necessarily to balance anything, we've seen balance introducing new un-balance before, but to generate engagement again. They keep telling us they nerf things because of 'feels', recent comment that they will make 'spicy changes', I think those are the best clues we have that it is less about balance and more about engagement. If you're very cynical, you could say that they have a plan for which class will be in the spotlight and when throughout a given year. Maybe Rogue or Druid are the classes that generate the best engagement so it's worth always making them strong. Perhaps Priest does not and so it tends to be weak. Etc.
I absolutely don't want combo to be OP. You said "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank", so combo should be weaker than everything else. I would like it too, since I hate combo playstyle, but it's not balanced by any means.
The whole point of aggro decks vs everything and midrange decks vs control is to not give you, as a control player, enough time to answer them. If you're always able to answer them and every game reaches turn 10, they are dead as aggro and in huge disadvantage as midrange, which means control is OP. If that happen, combo comes to save the day, but combo have harder time reaching the set rank, so not used by anyone except for dedicated combo fans. Do you really not see that you described the balanced meta as the ultra-greedy, heavily control dominated meta?
Yes, I prefer to know that I'm dead by turn 5 rather than realize by turn 10 that I have small chance to win and have to concede or play 30 extra minutes. That's why I never minded aggro decks, despite my matchups against them typically were unfavorable most of the time and when I pick my deck, if options are equal, I will pick the one that counters most annoying combo or control deck, not aggro.
I'm just pointing that everything you want leads to the same control mindset about skills being tested only if game is hour long when in reality most of the combo decks, as much as I don't like them, are more skillful than control, and piloting control is not harder than piloting aggro in my experience.
English is not my native language, so, with a high probability, mistakes were made.
I wasn't targeting the "aggro > combo > control > aggro", but rather the "Class A wins 75% of the time against Class B, Class B wins 75% against Class C, ect ect...", because of the design of the class. But I agree with you !
I brought this view up in the other thread about optimal meta, but it fits here even better. The game balance can't be determined from the play or win rates of top decks and how many classes are represented and in which proportions in high tiers. The game's (any games' unless they're dying) playerbase is in majority casual players so a good analysis of the meta and balance must account for players who are playing tier 3, or tier 5 decks, or even ones that are homebrewn with no knowledge of meta concepts like deck types and can't perhaps be classified in any tier. Decks like that would've been called tier 6 when the game first released, but nowadays you can probably count a dozen tiers of decks without getting to what a new player would come up with.
There very much is an objective measure of power levels. Everything can be evaluated in regards to vanilla power levels, the amount of cards drawn and mana gained per turn by default, the default starting health and decksize, etc. You'd think, for example, prima facie power creep in burst damage can be offset by power creep in heal, armor gain, and other defensive tools, but with the amount of starting health staying the same, there is in fact an increased degree of volatility being introduced. A single bad draw or a series of good draws has, with these things being changed, a greater impact than when the game released. (This is, of course, everything in theory as this is a simplified model - power creep in card draw has the opposite effect but causes aggro to lose their weakness in sustainability, and power creep in stats, tempo, disruption, and every other mechanic further makes the reality of balance more complex.)
Power creep in stats is probably the most harmful, though it's necessary with all other power creep to keep the game board centric. Here, too, vanilla power levels establish a base line from which even filler cards deviate, and synergies allow for further emergent power creep. More stats mean more attack damage and now even midrange decks need more heal and the advantage of the aggressor in the match is increased (even with stronger heals, because they don't need to waste cards and mana on keeping themselves alive). More stats means necessary implemented power creep in removals which goes hand in hand with increased damage spells and increased burst damage.
Of course much of that is up to debate and matters of individual preference. Running out of cards is frustrating, so maybe a deck designed to by outlasting the opponent punish them for not being sustainable is not objectively good - there's definitely a place for aggro in a healthy meta. But the game is supposed to be fun, this is what that argument too relies on, so how can a view be justified that the performance of bad decks doesn't matter? The combination of power creep and how it favors aggro leaves new players (and experienced players wanting to experiment with janky ideas) quite defenseless.
The question can be framed in the following way: what is the solution to keeping aggro as a part of the meta without it ruining the fun for everything that, frankly, sucks? The answer, equally frankly, is that it's not possible with these kinds of power levels.
TL;DR: power creep favors already good decks over archetypes that don't get support. Good meta is one that leaves room for bad decks.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying, but I'll try to respond.
1) Not sure I understand your point about objective measure of power levels. Yes, you can (to some degree) calculate the "real" mana value of a particular card by looking at stats, draw, battlecry direct damage, taunt, etc. And, yes, current decks are vastly more powerful than "vanilla" decks you could create using Core cards. So what? Unless you're trying to make the case that people should be able to ladder with reasonable success using a vanilla deck (which is silly; see below), all that matters in terms of meta balance is the relative power of various decks.
2) A bad deck is, by definition, one that is unlikely to win against any meta deck. Thus, the idea that a balanced meta (which is what this thread is about) should "leave room" for bad decks is absurd. That's logically impossible. If you play a deck with a 20% win rate, you're not going to ladder effectively. Now, I wholeheartedly agree that people should play the game for fun. If your idea of fun is playing some goofy deck with a lousy winrate, go for it. Nothing in HS prevents you from doing so. But the "cost" of that fun is that you're going to lose a lot, earn less XP, and not move up the ladder. If you want to ladder, you need to play a deck that's at least competitive.
3) I'm not an aggro player, but still don't get the aggro hate you're sending out. Some people do find them fun, even if I don't. As I've tried to explain, without good viable decks of each style, there's no hope for a balanced meta. I hate decks like Face Hunter with a passion, but I recognize they play an important role in the meta. I would also point out that aggro decks are, historically, significantly cheaper than midrange or control decks and are, therefore, easier to build and more popular with new players. You say you're concerned about new players: hurting aggro hurts them.
Dragonflight ;)