This is of course a typical pro team-5 comment (they are wise and if you don't get it you are to blame). Thinning out the conception of interaction to influence is fundamentally not the way interaction is suppose to be: give your opponent the chance to react in a skillful, meaningful way. A matchup against an OTK-deck is by that definition already an 'action affected your opponent.' That is totally missing the point.
Basically this. Players want to win because they outsmarted their opponents and played around their strategy, not because they queued a deck that the opponent's deck sucks against. I'd like to see more tools that aid in the following; combo decks to survive against aggro, aggro decks to maintain pressure for longer against control and control decks to have meaningful plays to make against combo, The less extreme the traingle of Aggro > Combo > Control the better. Giving any archetype a reasonable shot against another by introducing different ways to interact with the opponent's cycle, mana or cards off of the board (not anything as extreme as Dirty Rat, however) is a step in the right direction.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Sure they do, but I think I pretty well explained why the complaining is pointless. The change you are after would require Hearthstonme to become vastly more complex than it is - larger decks, more complex and crucially lower power level cards, more charcter health, more complex mechanics. If the game was slower, had more depth to its that better players in constructed won more often, then you would have a more interactive game. But Blizzard would also have a less profitable, less casual friendly game. That is kind of like....yup, ARENA.
Again, I am not looking for change or complaining. I am creating a discussion around some issues with the game.
Hearthstone has always been designed that way. It is what provides bad players with wins and keeps a lot of you here playing. even the worst player at hearthsone will win 35% of his games with his deck becasue some of the time his opponents will not be able to resond to whatevr his deck does and are shutdown. You are the one choosing to play a game designed to let the idiot win atleast some of the time, stop complaining.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
Interactive Action: reaching the opponent's face, after going through the board.
"Going through the board" is the important notion here. The board is the only place in Hearthstone we meet our opponent's cards (aside from a very few fringe cases of hand/deck interaction). This is the issue with facing decks that win entirely from the hand. There is no strategy for controlling such a win condition and they degrade the game into a race of damage vs cycle.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
You just described control decks.
Depending on the control deck. If the win condition is fatigue (the example of Odd Warrior has been used), then yes I did (and these decks are simlarly awful to play against). But look at Control Priest as an example of what a control deck should be. Proactive win condition, has to fight you for the board using minions to deal chip damage before going for their finisher, which can be played around with defensive play and/or life gain. The point is this deck creates scenarios where you get to play against it other than playing guys, hoping they stick and smashing face.
I am not an advocate of "OTKs are bad, and everyone should play control" - that is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to discuss why any "uninteractive" deck is a shite to play against and what makes it so. So if you want to include Odd Warrior, Big Spell Mage and Peanut Shaman in this then it also applies to them.
I've been giving some thought lately to the argument of "OTK combo decks are uninteractive" and the counter argument "they clear your board, that is interaction." Curiously this led me to remember a quote that I'm sure a lot of parents who have children of schooling age will have heard from their children's teachers at parents evening - "your child is easily distracted" - and the true meaning behind that statement - "your child is distracting others." this also applies to the "uninteractive deck" argument.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Basically this. Players want to win because they outsmarted their opponents and played around their strategy, not because they queued a deck that the opponent's deck sucks against. I'd like to see more tools that aid in the following; combo decks to survive against aggro, aggro decks to maintain pressure for longer against control and control decks to have meaningful plays to make against combo, The less extreme the traingle of Aggro > Combo > Control the better. Giving any archetype a reasonable shot against another by introducing different ways to interact with the opponent's cycle, mana or cards off of the board (not anything as extreme as Dirty Rat, however) is a step in the right direction.
Again, I am not looking for change or complaining. I am creating a discussion around some issues with the game.
While I opened this thread to discuss what makes a deck uninteractive or not enjoyable to play against, rather than to complain about combo decks, I will still point out that consumers have the right to complain if they are not satisfied with their product should they choose to.
"Going through the board" is the important notion here. The board is the only place in Hearthstone we meet our opponent's cards (aside from a very few fringe cases of hand/deck interaction). This is the issue with facing decks that win entirely from the hand. There is no strategy for controlling such a win condition and they degrade the game into a race of damage vs cycle.
Depending on the control deck. If the win condition is fatigue (the example of Odd Warrior has been used), then yes I did (and these decks are simlarly awful to play against). But look at Control Priest as an example of what a control deck should be. Proactive win condition, has to fight you for the board using minions to deal chip damage before going for their finisher, which can be played around with defensive play and/or life gain. The point is this deck creates scenarios where you get to play against it other than playing guys, hoping they stick and smashing face.
I am not an advocate of "OTKs are bad, and everyone should play control" - that is not the purpose of this thread. The purpose is to discuss why any "uninteractive" deck is a shite to play against and what makes it so. So if you want to include Odd Warrior, Big Spell Mage and Peanut Shaman in this then it also applies to them.
Correct.
I've been giving some thought lately to the argument of "OTK combo decks are uninteractive" and the counter argument "they clear your board, that is interaction." Curiously this led me to remember a quote that I'm sure a lot of parents who have children of schooling age will have heard from their children's teachers at parents evening - "your child is easily distracted" - and the true meaning behind that statement - "your child is distracting others." this also applies to the "uninteractive deck" argument.
We know it feels bad to play against these decks, but I don't believe its because they don't interact with us (because they do), but because they deny us the ability to interact meaningfully with them. Sitting back and passively clearing the board while gaining tons of life is all well and good if players have other ways to interact with you/your board, but these decks typically don't have a board (or much of one) to interact with and Hearthstone isn't too big on hand/deck/mana control, and cards that can be played in the opponents turn don't work so well with Hearthstone's engine. THIS is what I think people mean when they call a deck uninteractive - the interaction is one-sided with the non-combo player being left unable to make meaningful decisions.