Alright, the full essay of this is in the below spoiler. However, I know how painful it is to see a superbig post, so summary will go here. Reading the spoilered big text isn't necessary.
- We see a lot of people asking for a slower or 'control' meta. Much of it is to get 'slower' cards into the meta, like some of these new TGT cards.
- However, Control, according to MTG, doesn't sound like it's about dropping 5-7 mana cards that take 2-3 turns to reward you. It's about removal, removal, stalling, and draining you..slowly. Like blue decks that are so hated, or oldstyle Miracle deck that kills without Leeroy/shadowstep. The kind of decks people HATE.
- When they describe what meta they want, it doesn't really sound Control.. or aggro, or ANY deck type. WTF kind of deck would Sneeds fit in anyway? Or Trogz? Or Kodorider? Other than Arena?
- Would we really get what many dream of with a 'slow' meta, or are people dreaming of a game type that never really, or can, exist competitively?
Firstly, to note, this is not so much a discussion that fits everyone in the community. This is directly towards those who wish for, or at times, demand a Control based meta. This is also not a critique towards this mentality. Everyone has their picture of the 'perfect HS game' and everyone is entitled to their preference. This IS sending a question towards such mindsets based on a few thoughts I came across.
Secondly, much of this is based on my reading on deck types in Magic the Gathering. However, my experience with the game, beyond study, lies mostly with some gameplay videos. However, I will be evoking MTG as it sparked what I'm about to write.
The point: I not only will bring up elements of MTG that may lead to correction, but I will, right now, ask for that correct up front. In short, I really would like MTG or ex-MTG players, particularly those who know about competitive play, to chime in, even if it's to say that I'm completely wrong. I'm not so much debating as I am wanting to understand this whole thing more.
Lastly, this is going to be long. It's already long. As said above, there's the summary so don't feel bad if you didn't read most of it.
Alright, so there is this trend by many within the community and professional scene to desire the game slow down and allow for more viable control decks. Some don't mind aggro. Others hate it. Some believe we already have it and others think it's impossible. But accepted or not, the dream of viable Control is strong. I'll admit, I personally prefer Tempo, but I understand the desire. However, I'm confused as to what sort of decks will actually be in a 'Control' meta.
At first, it seems obvious: Control is late game. They play high mana cards, the big boys. They don't win fast or burn out fast. They don't throw 50 damage in one turn. There. That's Control. The thing is, I hear a lot of people of the same type also fuss about 'non-interactivity'. That is, they don't prefer decks that play like combo does: stall and remove and collect cards until they get their winning combo. They want the minion on minion combat. They want Sneeds and dragon decks, and Onyxias, and Wilfred to be viable cards, and they can't be viable in a fast meta.
Well, here's where i get confused. Looking over the deck types in MTG (researching for another post), I reread the matter of Control. Control, according to MTG, is a deck that relies not on beating the opponent so much as stopping their win condition. They block. They stall. They delay and gain advantage while doing so. They don't play many minions and, instead, eliminate any threat the opponent has. They do this over and over, controlling the game state until their opponent is just unable to really do anything, meaning you can win using anything you want.
So looking at the color types, it seems that Control would heavily favor using blue as a color as blue is able to gather card advantage and stall and block very well.
The blue that seems to get Hunter levels of hate. That BLUE. The 'unfun' color.
That got me wondering.. is Control.. actual 'Control' what is actually being asked for? Are we really asking for 'stall and block and card pull until you run out of steam?" If we got that, would cards like Sneeds and dragons actually still fit? Those cards aren't just slow, but also not game breaking. They also can still be removed if your deck plans on fighting against fellow Control decks. Most of the dragons are midrange, well within the 'stall/block/remove' range of Control. If insight goes the way it looks like, the same goes for that. Control is most likely to remove a 4 drop Insight minion than a burn deck. And they won't remove it with fellow minions. Control doesn't mean armies of minions. It means counterspell and Polymorph, HP, pass turn. Isn't that the definition of an 'uninteractive deck'?
Some people DO mean that. If so, then yes they are wanting Control decks and are just waiting for enough 'blue' style cards to do it. For those that want Sneeds and Trogz to reach the meta though, I'm not sure Control is what they want. Which gets to the question of WHAT deck type the want. Because cards like Sneeds doesn't really fit anywhere. It's not aggro, of course, or Combo. But it's not Control since it doesn't stall the game, block the game, or end it. It's not really midrange, at least by how it sound MTG seems to define it. Midrange goes aggro or control depending on the opponent: It relies on adaptability. That's not Wilfred or Junkbot, or Gruul either.
The closest seems to be Arena, which triest to take inefficient card decks and makes a deck type out of them. Gruul works there because..well.. our decks suck enough.
So what is it that's being asked for? Am I wrong with how Control works? Are people really wanting stall/block Control or is this a case of misIDing what deck they are talking about? If so what ARE they after really? Or is it more "I don't know waht I want.. I just know it's not (insert deck here)? Or is it a case where everyone jsut wants something different?
Meanwhile, as far as the cards people wish the game to 'slow' to use, would they really fit that new meta? Would a dragon deck REALLY work if the meta slowed down? Could it withstand a control warrior, or a handlock, or healadin? Would MTG versions of our non-meta HS cards really work in a competitive MTG deck?
Do we really know what we really want when we ask for a slower meta?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alright, the full essay of this is in the below spoiler. However, I know how painful it is to see a superbig post, so summary will go here. Reading the spoilered big text isn't necessary.
- We see a lot of people asking for a slower or 'control' meta. Much of it is to get 'slower' cards into the meta, like some of these new TGT cards.
- However, Control, according to MTG, doesn't sound like it's about dropping 5-7 mana cards that take 2-3 turns to reward you. It's about removal, removal, stalling, and draining you..slowly. Like blue decks that are so hated, or oldstyle Miracle deck that kills without Leeroy/shadowstep. The kind of decks people HATE.
- When they describe what meta they want, it doesn't really sound Control.. or aggro, or ANY deck type. WTF kind of deck would Sneeds fit in anyway? Or Trogz? Or Kodorider? Other than Arena?
- Would we really get what many dream of with a 'slow' meta, or are people dreaming of a game type that never really, or can, exist competitively?
Firstly, to note, this is not so much a discussion that fits everyone in the community. This is directly towards those who wish for, or at times, demand a Control based meta. This is also not a critique towards this mentality. Everyone has their picture of the 'perfect HS game' and everyone is entitled to their preference. This IS sending a question towards such mindsets based on a few thoughts I came across.
Secondly, much of this is based on my reading on deck types in Magic the Gathering. However, my experience with the game, beyond study, lies mostly with some gameplay videos. However, I will be evoking MTG as it sparked what I'm about to write.
The point: I not only will bring up elements of MTG that may lead to correction, but I will, right now, ask for that correct up front. In short, I really would like MTG or ex-MTG players, particularly those who know about competitive play, to chime in, even if it's to say that I'm completely wrong. I'm not so much debating as I am wanting to understand this whole thing more.
Lastly, this is going to be long. It's already long. As said above, there's the summary so don't feel bad if you didn't read most of it.
Alright, so there is this trend by many within the community and professional scene to desire the game slow down and allow for more viable control decks. Some don't mind aggro. Others hate it. Some believe we already have it and others think it's impossible. But accepted or not, the dream of viable Control is strong. I'll admit, I personally prefer Tempo, but I understand the desire. However, I'm confused as to what sort of decks will actually be in a 'Control' meta.
At first, it seems obvious: Control is late game. They play high mana cards, the big boys. They don't win fast or burn out fast. They don't throw 50 damage in one turn. There. That's Control. The thing is, I hear a lot of people of the same type also fuss about 'non-interactivity'. That is, they don't prefer decks that play like combo does: stall and remove and collect cards until they get their winning combo. They want the minion on minion combat. They want Sneeds and dragon decks, and Onyxias, and Wilfred to be viable cards, and they can't be viable in a fast meta.
Well, here's where i get confused. Looking over the deck types in MTG (researching for another post), I reread the matter of Control. Control, according to MTG, is a deck that relies not on beating the opponent so much as stopping their win condition. They block. They stall. They delay and gain advantage while doing so. They don't play many minions and, instead, eliminate any threat the opponent has. They do this over and over, controlling the game state until their opponent is just unable to really do anything, meaning you can win using anything you want.
So looking at the color types, it seems that Control would heavily favor using blue as a color as blue is able to gather card advantage and stall and block very well.
The blue that seems to get Hunter levels of hate. That BLUE. The 'unfun' color.
That got me wondering.. is Control.. actual 'Control' what is actually being asked for? Are we really asking for 'stall and block and card pull until you run out of steam?" If we got that, would cards like Sneeds and dragons actually still fit? Those cards aren't just slow, but also not game breaking. They also can still be removed if your deck plans on fighting against fellow Control decks. Most of the dragons are midrange, well within the 'stall/block/remove' range of Control. If insight goes the way it looks like, the same goes for that. Control is most likely to remove a 4 drop Insight minion than a burn deck. And they won't remove it with fellow minions. Control doesn't mean armies of minions. It means counterspell and Polymorph, HP, pass turn. Isn't that the definition of an 'uninteractive deck'?
Some people DO mean that. If so, then yes they are wanting Control decks and are just waiting for enough 'blue' style cards to do it. For those that want Sneeds and Trogz to reach the meta though, I'm not sure Control is what they want. Which gets to the question of WHAT deck type the want. Because cards like Sneeds doesn't really fit anywhere. It's not aggro, of course, or Combo. But it's not Control since it doesn't stall the game, block the game, or end it. It's not really midrange, at least by how it sound MTG seems to define it. Midrange goes aggro or control depending on the opponent: It relies on adaptability. That's not Wilfred or Junkbot, or Gruul either.
The closest seems to be Arena, which triest to take inefficient card decks and makes a deck type out of them. Gruul works there because..well.. our decks suck enough.
So what is it that's being asked for? Am I wrong with how Control works? Are people really wanting stall/block Control or is this a case of misIDing what deck they are talking about? If so what ARE they after really? Or is it more "I don't know waht I want.. I just know it's not (insert deck here)? Or is it a case where everyone jsut wants something different?
Meanwhile, as far as the cards people wish the game to 'slow' to use, would they really fit that new meta? Would a dragon deck REALLY work if the meta slowed down? Could it withstand a control warrior, or a handlock, or healadin? Would MTG versions of our non-meta HS cards really work in a competitive MTG deck?
Do we really know what we really want when we ask for a slower meta?
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.