The least interactive decks I know in the game are the old Naga Sea Witch decks. That deck is all about its own gameplan (Spam as many giants as possible on turn 5) and they cared very little about what their opponent were doing. The decks barely had any reactive cards! Big Priest is fairly uninteractive too, but mostly when they highroll Barnes. In normal games, there can be some interresting value wars.
Even the old NSW decks (while obviously infuriating to face against) had a good degree of interactivity involved. You couldn't just simply ignore what the opponent was doing if they were playing a fast deck that threatened to wipe you out before you hit the required turn to "go off". And inversely, if you knew what was coming then (as the opponent) then you knew enough to keep an answer to hand to deal with it - usually a simple board clear was enough interactivity.
I might go so far as to say that Pirate Warrior and Original Quest Mage have been the closest to being decks that did not care in the slightest about what the other player was doing, but even these decks had a degree of interactivity - though QM required you to have some sort of useful tech to really stand much chance.
All that said, I think a lot of the arguments back and forth on the subject of interactivity here seem to stem from the poster's subjective definition of what interactivity should "entail". Not necessarily what the specific definition of the word is, but where on the greay scale of interaction a deck is required to lie before it can be considered interactive. And therein we see the divide of reasonability and acceptance of individuals who argue either way.
"For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release"
The very fact that aggro players consider their playstyle interactve and full of skill proves how Blizzard is able to let them think just that. Only those who have been freed from 'The Matrix' of the Aggro world see that. Remember this guy?
That's a pretty naive assumption to make. If you somehow don't think that aggro decks require knowledge of the game and good decision-making skills to pilot with consistent success... well, then that's your own misunderstanding at work, really.
Amazing to watch the succes of Blizzard in convincing people to believe the game is interactive. Amazing to watch fakenews converted into the real thing. Amazing to watch people debasing themselves just for an uninteractive mindless winfix. Amazing amazing then when their mindless agressive playstyle or OTK is considered to be interactive and full of skill.
The succes of devs = the 'mindlessification' of the masses. Good for you.
You know nothing if you really think Blizzard is "mind-controlling" people. For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release of the game, this is nothing new. At least inform yourself a little before posting...
You just proved my point.
WTF? How?
"For example, most aggro players have considered their beloved playstyle interactive and full of skill since the release"
The very fact that aggro players consider their playstyle interactve and full of skill proves how Blizzard is able to let them think just that. Only those who have been freed from 'The Matrix' of the Aggro world see that. Remember this guy?
That's a pretty naive assumption to make. If you somehow don't think that aggro decks require knowledge of the game and good decision-making skills to pilot with consistent success... well, then that's your own misunderstanding at work, really.
If you can have sidedeck, f.e. 5 tech cards and if you can add them to your deck when you facing this and that deck (before match start of course), then it will be ok for eveyrone...
F,e.: If I know I facing Priest I can guess what Priest it should be and then take off f.e. 2 cards a add 2 tech cards from my sidedeck to fight Priest effectively, the same can do you opponent...
This solution may solve lot of problems and it´s cheap, fast and fair...And it´s very strategical...Only good and skilled player will know what decks are playing from this and that class and what cards are good enough against them...
Just idea...
The idea itself isnt a bad one (side boards are obviously used in most paper card battle games) - however the problem with this idea arises in the implementation.
There are two main factors that prevent the side board concept from working:
1. You have to know what the other player's deck is going to be. That means you have to have prior knowledge of his deck before the game. This is a big no-no. This isn't a tournament mode. Not knowing what is in the other person's deck is half the point of the game. It requires you to consider what they might be playing next. To instantly know what's in the other person's deck before hand feels far too much like an exploit.
or
2. You need to have to play the same person twice in a row. Now this isn't necessarily impossible to do, but 9 times out of 10 I have little desire to play the same person twice in a row. Especially if I just lost to his steaming pile of cancer deck. Even if I have a side board to tech in cards, he would also know what I just played and would do the same.
I'm not saying aggro is "dead". Just a lot less powerful / prevalent than it has been in recent months. And the shift in power balance (due to the gap left by aggro decks) has enabled OTK decks to come to the forefront
It is the same old story, really. People complained for ages that Hearthstone was just Aggro-City and over-run with aggro decks. So eventually Blizzard took notice and slapped pretty much all aggro decks down hard. The result of this is that (since aggro decks were no longer around to punish them), OTK decks have come to the foreground and are now dominant. Since they are almost always more powerful than control decks, we now have a slant in that direction as the aggro decks aren't there to beat them anymore.
And thus if people complain enough about OTK decks, then Blizzard may eventually do the same thing and slap them into obscurity. At which point control decks will suddenly be the new "problem" again. (Like we saw back with CubeLock during the Dark Days (TM).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorEven the old NSW decks (while obviously infuriating to face against) had a good degree of interactivity involved.
You couldn't just simply ignore what the opponent was doing if they were playing a fast deck that threatened to wipe you out before you hit the required turn to "go off".
And inversely, if you knew what was coming then (as the opponent) then you knew enough to keep an answer to hand to deal with it - usually a simple board clear was enough interactivity.
I might go so far as to say that Pirate Warrior and Original Quest Mage have been the closest to being decks that did not care in the slightest about what the other player was doing, but even these decks had a degree of interactivity - though QM required you to have some sort of useful tech to really stand much chance.
All that said, I think a lot of the arguments back and forth on the subject of interactivity here seem to stem from the poster's subjective definition of what interactivity should "entail". Not necessarily what the specific definition of the word is, but where on the greay scale of interaction a deck is required to lie before it can be considered interactive.
And therein we see the divide of reasonability and acceptance of individuals who argue either way.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorYes, really.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThat's a pretty naive assumption to make.
If you somehow don't think that aggro decks require knowledge of the game and good decision-making skills to pilot with consistent success... well, then that's your own misunderstanding at work, really.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorDid you just discover how to post? Lol
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe idea itself isnt a bad one (side boards are obviously used in most paper card battle games) - however the problem with this idea arises in the implementation.
There are two main factors that prevent the side board concept from working:
1. You have to know what the other player's deck is going to be. That means you have to have prior knowledge of his deck before the game. This is a big no-no. This isn't a tournament mode. Not knowing what is in the other person's deck is half the point of the game. It requires you to consider what they might be playing next. To instantly know what's in the other person's deck before hand feels far too much like an exploit.
or
2. You need to have to play the same person twice in a row. Now this isn't necessarily impossible to do, but 9 times out of 10 I have little desire to play the same person twice in a row. Especially if I just lost to his steaming pile of cancer deck. Even if I have a side board to tech in cards, he would also know what I just played and would do the same.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI'm not saying aggro is "dead". Just a lot less powerful / prevalent than it has been in recent months.
And the shift in power balance (due to the gap left by aggro decks) has enabled OTK decks to come to the forefront
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorIt is the same old story, really.
People complained for ages that Hearthstone was just Aggro-City and over-run with aggro decks.
So eventually Blizzard took notice and slapped pretty much all aggro decks down hard.
The result of this is that (since aggro decks were no longer around to punish them), OTK decks have come to the foreground and are now dominant. Since they are almost always more powerful than control decks, we now have a slant in that direction as the aggro decks aren't there to beat them anymore.
And thus if people complain enough about OTK decks, then Blizzard may eventually do the same thing and slap them into obscurity. At which point control decks will suddenly be the new "problem" again. (Like we saw back with CubeLock during the Dark Days (TM).