Consider this thread a nod towards the idea that more players want less interactive play (note I did not say non-interactive because I don't believe such a deck exists currently).
The Problem of Counter Decks Doing Their Job too Well (Aka Polarized Metas)
I feel that an increasing number of players in the community don't want to play games in Hearthstone where they have much of a chance of losing (No big surprise there obviously), instead wanting to opt for games where the deck that they players uses completely locks out all or most of an entire archtype that faces their deck, or even locking out more than one archtype that does horrendous against their deck (e.g. Kingsbane Rogue countering most control AND OTK/combo, the pre-nerf giant decks in wild countering almost all control decks when highrolling, pre-nerf Even Pally and wild Aggro Shaman locking out most locking out most non-warlock control classes).
"Wait Lyra, these players are simply playing against the meta with decks T5 has allowed players to use. They're simply playing smart and doing their best to increase their chances of succeeding where both fun and winning reward them for doing well with their decks!"
^ Inb4 this is spammed in the thread I will address this prematurely. While there is nothing wrong with using the game as intended by targeting specific playstyles to increase your odds of winning, since the game has always been a loose rock-paper-scissors game from the start, some metas more indicative of this than others) the degree to which the community adopts and uses some of these decks says something about the community, particularly when a deck like Kingsbane Rogue (wild), Big Priest, giant decks, pre nerf Cube Lock and Even Pally, etc punished one or more specific archtypes as a whole so much that winrates for those archtypes were abysmal. While this issue is more complex than I am doing it justice I feel it is still noteworthy to raise the possibility that more players enjoy playing almost one-sided games so long as they win. They want opponents to have less impact when trying to struggle in an unfavored match-up, more so than what might otherwise be considered a 'moderate' level of struggling when [Rock Deck A] faces [Paper Deck B].
The Community's General Acceptance of Using Overly Punishing Decks
The latest off-meta deck spotlight recently caused me to think about this aspect of the community, as well as what has become of it. Posters who expressed dislike of Kingsbane Rogue (which was one deck featured on the thread) were downvoted into oblivion, while others were generally upvoted for posting in favor of the deck. While this is a comparatively meaningless and small sample size it goes to show there are many players who enjoy playing decks that put one or more other archtypes at 40% win rates when facing said deck(s) (and 40% is being generous).
When giant-based decks utilizing Naga Sea Witch pre-nerf the decks were littered throughout the ranks (particularly between ranks 20 and 10, though Nagalock was a control punishing variant that did have some success even clear up to legend ranks). Decks such as Kingsbane Rogue and Big Priest are still everywhere on ladder and it isn't surprising to face these decks in casual either. Decks such as pre-nerf Cubelock and Even pally, which massively punished aggro/other control respectively, were also used ad nauseam in order to produce what the community quickly termed "polarizing match-ups", match-ups that created and took advantage of a rock-paper-scissors paradigm that resulted in above average win or loss rate ratios when pitting weaker or stronger archtypes against one another.
What This Thread is Not Trying to Accomplish
Say that all players enjoy and/or use decks that disproportionately punish one or more entire archtypes.
Argue that any of the aforementioned decks, or any that will arise in the future that fit the category of this thread, are unbeatable, are 'S/0/1 tiered', or that these decks do not not have adequate weaknesses in the form of another archtype (ie control, aggro, or combo).
That counter decks or the general rock-paper-scissors format are bad (assuming that an entire archtype's win-to-loss ratio isn't creating an abnormally large gap between an archtype versus that single deck).
That any one of the non-nerfed versions of the aforementioned decks actually need a nerf to any of said decks' already existing cards (Although, it may be beneficial for current and future discussions to consider how adequate soft counters can change a match-up from 'polarizing' to 'acceptable disadvantage'.)
Argue that any particular deck or archtype is "non-interactive" (e.g. Implying that OTK decks are non-interactive for control players, or that aggro is non-interactive against slower decks).
Community Discussion
If you've taken the time to read all, or enough, of this lengthy thread then tell us your thoughts.
What are your thoughts about the perceived rise or fall of the community's use and acceptance of polarizing decks?
How might Hearthstone's community be affected as a whole should we end up seeing more of the playerbase preferring to engage in games where their opponents have significantly less impact on the overall likelihood of the game's outcome?
Well... I did get 28 upvotes in my post hating on Kingsbane in the spotlight thread. Probably because I didn't just call it "stupid cancer" like most of the others. Back to the point:
I feel that, in Standard at least, this is the worst time to make this kind of thread. Don't get me wrong, I think you make a lot of good points, but there are just so many interesting matchups right now. Quest Rogue, Spiteful Decks, and Even Paladin all got obliterated this patch, leaving a bunch of really solid t2 decks to try out.
Personally my favorite games are the nail-biters where its a close game from start to finish. It's the main reason I really don't like Rogue. The matches are usually pretty polarizing: Playing aggro/midrange? 90% of the time you win. Playing control? Concede. Pretty annoying. (The exceptions are Odd and Tempo Rogue, but considering they see much less play now I"m counting them out).
I prefer to play a deck that has a good chance across the field rather than a deck made specifically to counter control/aggro unless we are in a meta where a deck is VERY dominant like prenerf witchwood(cubelock) or koft prenerf(jade druid)
they you have to have a counter deck so you don't auto loae, auto losing sucks.
I’ve been an avid card/table top/board gamer for most of my adult life and one thing that really takes the fun out of a game is facing the same thing every single game.
Variety is the spice of life, and (for me personally) when I fight several of the same deck in a row I will walk away for a short period and then come back. Sometimes I’ll get salty, sometimes it’s worse than others. The worst I ever faced was right when Contest of Champions came out, I fought 13 secret Paladins in a row.
Whenever a meta sets and there’s an absolute top dog, it’s frustrating for sure. You try to learn from it and find your own counters, but yeah, it’s not fun. I don’t play a game to win every chance I get and min/max my way to the top. I want to enjoy myself and unfortunately for me not everyone plays this same way. Just because I play a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to.
All this said, with a harsh harsh exception of Odd Paladin (I’ll face like 1 in 3), I feel the lower ranked Standard Meta right now is pretty varied, to the point where I can plan my mull around either a spell or recruit hunter, and encounter aggro or even. I’ve enjoyed it.
I think the reason why people enjoy these Decks that create polarizing MUs is pretty obvious, the vast majority of people likes to win and for them the easier it is to win the better.... If your odds of winning against a Deck are 90/10 it doesn't matter if you misplay the whole time and your opponent plays flawlessly,you'll most likely win anyway.... Pre nerf Cubelock is a good example of this.... The Deck was so damn OP that even if you fucked up completely you'd win anyway cause the difference in powerlevel compared to other Decks was huge...
I don't know, I liked HS the most probably way back in the Face Hunter era; I was playing exclusively Control Paladin, and even though some matchups were extremely hard, I always had a feeling I could win.
Now, there are too many, as you said, polarizing matchups, where you know you lost UNLESS you draw perfect and the opponent draws horrible (i.e. something like shudderwock or jaina last card in the deck). It decreases the value of gameplay skill (yes there is such a thing), in favor of idk, deck-choosing skill?
Don't get me wrong, I still like this game, and I like playing tournaments where it's important to build a good lineup so the deck choices are an important part of the experience, but I do hope some of these problems will go away soon, at least in Standard.
I do not believe it is healthy for the game when one card, matchup, or deck can completely negate (or drastically decrease your chances of winning in that game) another deck or archetype. For example, it's not good that Deathstalker Rexxar or Shudderwock completely ruins fatigue. It's not good that queuing into Rogue means your Tess Rogue deck is completely invalid (because 8 other valid classes exist and you're not going to run crap like Witch's Cauldron just for the off-chance you get a Rogue mirror).
Also, while I do enjoy the ideas of Baku and Genn from a deckbuilding stance, I don't like what they've done. Running odd-only or even-only should be a drawback. The stats have shown that the decks running these cards perform better (than running all cards). The reward of a better Hero Power just magnifies things I already don't like about the game. In the old days of Face Hunter vs Control Priest, I could rest easy knowing that my Hero Power could sustain me once I cleared their board, because "Restore 2 Health" completely negated "Deal 2 Damage." However now, if my opponent is running Baku, the only way I can stand a chance if we both no longer have resources is if I am also running Baku.
tl;dr bad matchups are fine. Cards, decks, and classes that singlehandedly ruin your entire deck/archetype are not okay. Baku and Genn, good in theory bad in practice. We need tech cards besides Spellbreaker.
Well, you might have nailed a real issue, if we are discussing of how players may "perversely" like polarised matchups: they can put less effort, while the meta gives them a fair winrate. This, in turn, may allow a lazier game design, since stats can be kept in balance anyway, despite the broken individual matchups.
Yet, i still think that the current situation is fair enough, or acceptable in a card game, even in Wild: the problem is only with those decks that are polarising AND highrolling at the same time.
I don't know, I liked HS the most probably way back in the Face Hunter era; I was playing exclusively Control Paladin, and even though some matchups were extremely hard, I always had a feeling I could win.
Now, there are too many, as you said, polarizing matchups, where you know you lost UNLESS you draw perfect and the opponent draws horrible (i.e. something like shudderwock or jaina last card in the deck). It decreases the value of gameplay skill (yes there is such a thing), in favor of idk, deck-choosing skill?
Don't get me wrong, I still like this game, and I like playing tournaments where it's important to build a good lineup so the deck choices are an important part of the experience, but I do hope some of these problems will go away soon, at least in Standard.
And then there's those of use who are STILL playing Control Paladin...
But yes, I absolutely agree. Matchups have become increasingly polarized, and while it can, for instance, still win against Kingsbane Rogue, Jade Druid and the like, it requires that the other deck draw poorly.
Today in my free brawl pack I got Barongeddon, then I had a cup of fresh green tea. As a result of that, I think Priest is OP because my keyboard is not a mechanical one. I hope Blizzard will address this issue.
I think the reason why people enjoy these Decks that create polarizing MUs is pretty obvious, the vast majority of people likes to win and for them the easier it is to win the better.... If your odds of winning against a Deck are 90/10 it doesn't matter if you misplay the whole time and your opponent plays flawlessly,you'll most likely win anyway.... Pre nerf Cubelock is a good example of this.... The Deck was so damn OP that even if you fucked up completely you'd win anyway cause the difference in powerlevel compared to other Decks was huge...
I just don't care for this rock-paper-scissors style meta we've had the last couple of expansions. I prefer where every competitive deck you have a chance. Where the game isn't nearly decided before a single card is played.
Don't get me wrong but when decks overspecialize into something they start to generate this style of reaction in the game and this is why rotation exist in first place. Because such decks existing in standard would create a necessity for powercreep just to maintain the game more interactive.
2.If someone not wanna to get punished by a deck they should stop to play one tricky poney decks.
If you put your brain to work it is not even dificult to create decks that are flexible and not suck. But people prefer dive into the most powerfull synergy they can and try to not give a single chance to their opponents.
Hibrid decks are a thing and a powerfull one in these situations but people not use they enough because they are not flashy.
You've only noticed this now? It's been an issue that's been getting worse and worse since Jade idol was printed
It's definitely not an issue of players "liking" polarized decks though. Most players play tier 1-2 decks and those happen to be very polarized. Don't hate the player; hate the game, as they say. You'd be very hard pressed to name a tier 1-2 deck in either game mode that doesn't have auto lose/win matchups these days
1. Most players especially those who play ranked want to win. If you have the option to play a deck that shuts down 30% of your oponents you will play it. If that means they feel bad ... you dont care so be it.
2. Having a rock-paper-scissors is the target meta as in what we are aiming for .... yes actually we are aiming for a game like that with maybe 6-7 tools rather than 3 but thats the general idea. If all decks were rocks it would take less than a week to establish which deck has the slightest of advantages and 80% of the people will play that deck. This is how competitive ladder games work.
3. I am very confused how many threads like this have to pop up and how is it so hard for people to understand this. Hearthstone is a game. ... what people mostly play games for is to win .... non-interactive meta stomping bullshit abusing decks give you wins ... sometimes free wins as you stated yourself as they do not meet a particular level of opposition ... meta where 1 things beats another that beats another etc. aint as bad as you make it out to be ... I dont get it you want 1 OP deck and rest is trash to play mirror matches into oblivion .... no a meta where there are X number of equally created and strong decks is impossible ... there always will be a best one ... and if there isnt a counter to that deck (as in bullshit abusing meta stomping deck) ... most of the people would not change from that deck
4. Its WILD .... if you havent understood by now the idea behind WILD is to have broken polarized shit in it ... its WILD ... game is not and will never ever be structured or balanced around WILD. It is what WILD is and how WILD works.
Herein lies the problem with the players: they want easy wins with little to know effort. Sad and pathetic. No one wants to earn their wins, and this is a generation thing. I would much much much rather feel a sense of pride when I win than “mana cheat” or scam my way to victory. I swear if a FPS game came out and all you had to do to win is point the crosshairs somewhere near the opponent and get an instant headshot, people would love it. Lots a wins and no skill at all. Just like if a card was printed that said draw this card, win the game, people would be crafting it all day long. It’s sad.
OP has a lot of valid points. Wild should be more insane, but that’s expected. I think Shudderwock is a first look at an autopilot combo deck, which is stupid. I don’t care if it’s T1 or T5, combo decks should require a high level of skill to pilot well (think classic freeze mage). Let’s keep our heads up and play for fun rather than cheesy unearned wins.
1. Most players especially those who play ranked want to win. If you have the option to play a deck that shuts down 30% of your oponents you will play it. If that means they feel bad ... you dont care so be it.
2. Having a rock-paper-scissors is the target meta as in what we are aiming for .... yes actually we are aiming for a game like that with maybe 6-7 tools rather than 3 but thats the general idea. If all decks were rocks it would take less than a week to establish which deck has the slightest of advantages and 80% of the people will play that deck. This is how competitive ladder games work.
3. I am very confused how many threads like this have to pop up and how is it so hard for people to understand this. Hearthstone is a game. ... what people mostly play games for is to win .... non-interactive meta stomping bullshit abusing decks give you wins ... sometimes free wins as you stated yourself as they do not meet a particular level of opposition ... meta where 1 things beats another that beats another etc. aint as bad as you make it out to be ... I dont get it you want 1 OP deck and rest is trash to play mirror matches into oblivion .... no a meta where there are X number of equally created and strong decks is impossible ... there always will be a best one ... and if there isnt a counter to that deck (as in bullshit abusing meta stomping deck) ... most of the people would not change from that deck
4. Its WILD .... if you havent understood by now the idea behind WILD is to have broken polarized shit in it ... its WILD ... game is not and will never ever be structured or balanced around WILD. It is what WILD is and how WILD works.
I agree that rock-paper-scissors in general (in a non-polarazing way, such as 55-45 or 60-40 win rates as opposed to 90-10) is what the game would intend, but some of the more polarizing decks we have are not just the rock to another deck's paper. Some of these decks currently maintain a role that is more like a combined rock and scissors type of effect, or that some decks don't just succeed against one of the three core decks of control, aggro, and midrange, but actually fend off one of three a good portion of the time and can fend off a second archtype, such as Big Priest holding their own against both control and midrange. The community understands this with a number of polarizing decks and this is a reason that encourages them to continue playing the deck.
Yes, it is a game, but I know plenty of players that only want to play challenging games. There are reasons why more than a fair share of platformers have multiple difficulties, and that is because there is a large audience of players that want a challenge, not an easy non-challenging 5 minute speed runner. While I admit that not every player wants some intense legend level fps level of difficult shooter when they play a game like HS I am confused about why so many users of polarizing decks don't want any challenge at all. Games can still be very much intrinsically motivating, but if you aren't really working hard for that then it stands to common sense that the rewarding feeling wouldn't be as high. For example, how many Kingsbane players think to themselves; "Wow, it was so hard to beat that control player. I feel really good about the effort I put into that game because my opponent had so many choices to almost cause me to lose!"
Don't get me wrong but when decks overspecialize into something they start to generate this style of reaction in the game and this is why rotation exist in first place. Because such decks existing in standard would create a necessity for powercreep just to maintain the game more interactive.
2.If someone not wanna to get punished by a deck they should stop to play one tricky poney decks.
If you put your brain to work it is not even dificult to create decks that are flexible and not suck. But people prefer dive into the most powerfull synergy they can and try to not give a single chance to their opponents.
Hibrid decks are a thing and a powerfull one in these situations but people not use they enough because they are not flashy.
How are control decks being a one trick pony, when losing to a Kingsbane rogue player? Even if you make your control deck more tempo based and lower curved it still stands that you're going to need to at some point deal 30 damage to the rogue in one turn to win. Does the opponent really believe that their opponents have many choices to make decisions? Probably not, instead they know that unless they're facing a Cubelock with massive Doomguard burst they have nothing to worry about regardless of the control class they are facing.
Users of these decks want to win with no effort and little to no input from their opponents, and I feel this is a terrible way for the community to act. I participated in plenty of content in WoW where players I raided with or did rbgs with or even collecting stuff had a sense of pride for all of the hard work they put in. Now Hearthstone? Players are almost giddy that they net a bunch of wins where they opponent was never able to threaten them, as if giving your opponent a significantly fewer number of options to affect the game showed some degree of skill as a player.
1. Most players especially those who play ranked want to win. If you have the option to play a deck that shuts down 30% of your oponents you will play it. If that means they feel bad ... you dont care so be it.
2. Having a rock-paper-scissors is the target meta as in what we are aiming for .... yes actually we are aiming for a game like that with maybe 6-7 tools rather than 3 but thats the general idea. If all decks were rocks it would take less than a week to establish which deck has the slightest of advantages and 80% of the people will play that deck. This is how competitive ladder games work.
3. I am very confused how many threads like this have to pop up and how is it so hard for people to understand this. Hearthstone is a game. ... what people mostly play games for is to win .... non-interactive meta stomping bullshit abusing decks give you wins ... sometimes free wins as you stated yourself as they do not meet a particular level of opposition ... meta where 1 things beats another that beats another etc. aint as bad as you make it out to be ... I dont get it you want 1 OP deck and rest is trash to play mirror matches into oblivion .... no a meta where there are X number of equally created and strong decks is impossible ... there always will be a best one ... and if there isnt a counter to that deck (as in bullshit abusing meta stomping deck) ... most of the people would not change from that deck
4. Its WILD .... if you havent understood by now the idea behind WILD is to have broken polarized shit in it ... its WILD ... game is not and will never ever be structured or balanced around WILD. It is what WILD is and how WILD works.
I agree that rock-paper-scissors in general (in a non-polarazing way, such as 55-45 or 60-40 win rates as opposed to 90-10) is what the game would intend, but some of the more polarizing decks we have are not just the rock to another deck's paper. Some of these decks currently maintain a role that is more like a combined rock and scissors type of effect, or that some decks don't just succeed against one of the three core decks of control, aggro, and midrange, but actually fend off one of three a good portion of the time and can fend off a second archtype, such as Big Priest holding their own against both control and midrange. The community understands this with a number of polarizing decks and this is a reason that encourages them to continue playing the deck.
Yes, it is a game, but I know plenty of players that only want to play challenging games. There are reasons why more than a fair share of platformers have multiple difficulties, and that is because there is a large audience of players that want a challenge, not an easy non-challenging 5 minute speed runner. While I admit that not every player wants some intense legend level fps level of difficult shooter when they play a game like HS I am confused about why so many users of polarizing decks don't want any challenge at all. Games can still be very much intrinsically motivating, but if you aren't really working hard for that then it stands to common sense that the rewarding feeling wouldn't be as high. For example, how many Kingsbane players think to themselves; "Wow, it was so hard to beat that control player. I feel really good about the effort I put into that game because my opponent had so many choices to almost cause me to lose!"
Don't get me wrong but when decks overspecialize into something they start to generate this style of reaction in the game and this is why rotation exist in first place. Because such decks existing in standard would create a necessity for powercreep just to maintain the game more interactive.
2.If someone not wanna to get punished by a deck they should stop to play one tricky poney decks.
If you put your brain to work it is not even dificult to create decks that are flexible and not suck. But people prefer dive into the most powerfull synergy they can and try to not give a single chance to their opponents.
Hibrid decks are a thing and a powerfull one in these situations but people not use they enough because they are not flashy.
How are control decks being a one trick pony, when losing to a Kingsbane rogue player? Even if you make your control deck more tempo based and lower curved it still stands that you're going to need to at some point deal 30 damage to the rogue in one turn to win. Does the opponent really believe that their opponents have many choices to make decisions? Probably not, instead they know that unless they're facing a Cubelock with massive Doomguard burst they have nothing to worry about regardless of the control class they are facing.
Users of these decks want to win with no effort and little to no input from their opponents, and I feel this is a terrible way for the community to act. I participated in plenty of content in WoW where players I raided with or did rbgs with or even collecting stuff had a sense of pride for all of the hard work they put in. Now Hearthstone? Players are almost giddy that they net a bunch of wins where they opponent was never able to threaten them, as if giving your opponent a significantly fewer number of options to affect the game showed some degree of skill as a player.
Well put. As I said in my post, it’s a generational thing. Games are so much more fun when it’s close. Even if they topdeck an answer on card 25, it’s ok because that’s how cars games work. But if it’s card 25, it’s usually a close game.
1. Most players especially those who play ranked want to win. If you have the option to play a deck that shuts down 30% of your oponents you will play it. If that means they feel bad ... you dont care so be it.
2. Having a rock-paper-scissors is the target meta as in what we are aiming for .... yes actually we are aiming for a game like that with maybe 6-7 tools rather than 3 but thats the general idea. If all decks were rocks it would take less than a week to establish which deck has the slightest of advantages and 80% of the people will play that deck. This is how competitive ladder games work.
3. I am very confused how many threads like this have to pop up and how is it so hard for people to understand this. Hearthstone is a game. ... what people mostly play games for is to win .... non-interactive meta stomping bullshit abusing decks give you wins ... sometimes free wins as you stated yourself as they do not meet a particular level of opposition ... meta where 1 things beats another that beats another etc. aint as bad as you make it out to be ... I dont get it you want 1 OP deck and rest is trash to play mirror matches into oblivion .... no a meta where there are X number of equally created and strong decks is impossible ... there always will be a best one ... and if there isnt a counter to that deck (as in bullshit abusing meta stomping deck) ... most of the people would not change from that deck
4. Its WILD .... if you havent understood by now the idea behind WILD is to have broken polarized shit in it ... its WILD ... game is not and will never ever be structured or balanced around WILD. It is what WILD is and how WILD works.
I agree that rock-paper-scissors in general (in a non-polarazing way, such as 55-45 or 60-40 win rates as opposed to 90-10) is what the game would intend, but some of the more polarizing decks we have are not just the rock to another deck's paper. Some of these decks currently maintain a role that is more like a combined rock and scissors type of effect, or that some decks don't just succeed against one of the three core decks of control, aggro, and midrange, but actually fend off one of three a good portion of the time and can fend off a second archtype, such as Big Priest holding their own against both control and midrange. The community understands this with a number of polarizing decks and this is a reason that encourages them to continue playing the deck.
Yes, it is a game, but I know plenty of players that only want to play challenging games. There are reasons why more than a fair share of platformers have multiple difficulties, and that is because there is a large audience of players that want a challenge, not an easy non-challenging 5 minute speed runner. While I admit that not every player wants some intense legend level fps level of difficult shooter when they play a game like HS I am confused about why so many users of polarizing decks don't want any challenge at all. Games can still be very much intrinsically motivating, but if you aren't really working hard for that then it stands to common sense that the rewarding feeling wouldn't be as high. For example, how many Kingsbane players think to themselves; "Wow, it was so hard to beat that control player. I feel really good about the effort I put into that game because my opponent had so many choices to almost cause me to lose!"
Don't get me wrong but when decks overspecialize into something they start to generate this style of reaction in the game and this is why rotation exist in first place. Because such decks existing in standard would create a necessity for powercreep just to maintain the game more interactive.
2.If someone not wanna to get punished by a deck they should stop to play one tricky poney decks.
If you put your brain to work it is not even dificult to create decks that are flexible and not suck. But people prefer dive into the most powerfull synergy they can and try to not give a single chance to their opponents.
Hibrid decks are a thing and a powerfull one in these situations but people not use they enough because they are not flashy.
How are control decks being a one trick pony, when losing to a Kingsbane rogue player? Even if you make your control deck more tempo based and lower curved it still stands that you're going to need to at some point deal 30 damage to the rogue in one turn to win. Does the opponent really believe that their opponents have many choices to make decisions? Probably not, instead they know that unless they're facing a Cubelock with massive Doomguard burst they have nothing to worry about regardless of the control class they are facing.
Users of these decks want to win with no effort and little to no input from their opponents, and I feel this is a terrible way for the community to act. I participated in plenty of content in WoW where players I raided with or did rbgs with or even collecting stuff had a sense of pride for all of the hard work they put in. Now Hearthstone? Players are almost giddy that they net a bunch of wins where they opponent was never able to threaten them, as if giving your opponent a significantly fewer number of options to affect the game showed some degree of skill as a player.
Simple not being able to push tempo when needed is already be a one tricky poney.
Actual control decks are really greedy and maybe even lazy when we think about it. Not do a proactive play until turn 5 is something that should be punished and thanks to god it really is.
A hibrid deck does not overcommit to a synergy to the point that it almost autolose to something and while they are not META they still work properly while they received good support cards like azalina for example.
The option is here and works.People just not play these decks because there are easier ways to win the game but when you have auto wins you have no right to whine about auto loses.
"Wait Lyra, these players are simply playing against the meta with decks T5 has allowed players to use. They're simply playing smart and doing their best to increase their chances of succeeding where both fun and winning reward them for doing well with their decks!"
--> I like that you considered this criticism, but I don't think you adequately addressed it. If the design team allows for hyper polarizing interactions (shudderwock, prenerf quest rogue, aggro paladin w/ prenerf CtA or current odd version) - it virtually forces people to either adopt them or play their counters, or just not play at all. I played a slower, more controlish version of spiteful/lady in white priest that seemed to have a chance against everything. Eventually, I couldn't keep up with the hyper aggro decks, kept getting answered by super control decks or broken combos interactions. So I stopped playing that deck. I suspect the same is true of a lot of players who have experimented with more balanced decks. They are forced out of the meta by poor design choices that create the possibility for polarized deck and the lack of regular balance updates.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Consider this thread a nod towards the idea that more players want less interactive play (note I did not say non-interactive because I don't believe such a deck exists currently).
The Problem of Counter Decks Doing Their Job too Well (Aka Polarized Metas)
I feel that an increasing number of players in the community don't want to play games in Hearthstone where they have much of a chance of losing (No big surprise there obviously), instead wanting to opt for games where the deck that they players uses completely locks out all or most of an entire archtype that faces their deck, or even locking out more than one archtype that does horrendous against their deck (e.g. Kingsbane Rogue countering most control AND OTK/combo, the pre-nerf giant decks in wild countering almost all control decks when highrolling, pre-nerf Even Pally and wild Aggro Shaman locking out most locking out most non-warlock control classes).
"Wait Lyra, these players are simply playing against the meta with decks T5 has allowed players to use. They're simply playing smart and doing their best to increase their chances of succeeding where both fun and winning reward them for doing well with their decks!"
^ Inb4 this is spammed in the thread I will address this prematurely. While there is nothing wrong with using the game as intended by targeting specific playstyles to increase your odds of winning, since the game has always been a loose rock-paper-scissors game from the start, some metas more indicative of this than others) the degree to which the community adopts and uses some of these decks says something about the community, particularly when a deck like Kingsbane Rogue (wild), Big Priest, giant decks, pre nerf Cube Lock and Even Pally, etc punished one or more specific archtypes as a whole so much that winrates for those archtypes were abysmal. While this issue is more complex than I am doing it justice I feel it is still noteworthy to raise the possibility that more players enjoy playing almost one-sided games so long as they win. They want opponents to have less impact when trying to struggle in an unfavored match-up, more so than what might otherwise be considered a 'moderate' level of struggling when [Rock Deck A] faces [Paper Deck B].
The Community's General Acceptance of Using Overly Punishing Decks
The latest off-meta deck spotlight recently caused me to think about this aspect of the community, as well as what has become of it. Posters who expressed dislike of Kingsbane Rogue (which was one deck featured on the thread) were downvoted into oblivion, while others were generally upvoted for posting in favor of the deck. While this is a comparatively meaningless and small sample size it goes to show there are many players who enjoy playing decks that put one or more other archtypes at 40% win rates when facing said deck(s) (and 40% is being generous).
When giant-based decks utilizing Naga Sea Witch pre-nerf the decks were littered throughout the ranks (particularly between ranks 20 and 10, though Nagalock was a control punishing variant that did have some success even clear up to legend ranks). Decks such as Kingsbane Rogue and Big Priest are still everywhere on ladder and it isn't surprising to face these decks in casual either. Decks such as pre-nerf Cubelock and Even pally, which massively punished aggro/other control respectively, were also used ad nauseam in order to produce what the community quickly termed "polarizing match-ups", match-ups that created and took advantage of a rock-paper-scissors paradigm that resulted in above average win or loss rate ratios when pitting weaker or stronger archtypes against one another.
What This Thread is Not Trying to Accomplish
Community Discussion
If you've taken the time to read all, or enough, of this lengthy thread then tell us your thoughts.
What are your thoughts about the perceived rise or fall of the community's use and acceptance of polarizing decks?
How might Hearthstone's community be affected as a whole should we end up seeing more of the playerbase preferring to engage in games where their opponents have significantly less impact on the overall likelihood of the game's outcome?
Well... I did get 28 upvotes in my post hating on Kingsbane in the spotlight thread. Probably because I didn't just call it "stupid cancer" like most of the others. Back to the point:
I feel that, in Standard at least, this is the worst time to make this kind of thread. Don't get me wrong, I think you make a lot of good points, but there are just so many interesting matchups right now. Quest Rogue, Spiteful Decks, and Even Paladin all got obliterated this patch, leaving a bunch of really solid t2 decks to try out.
Personally my favorite games are the nail-biters where its a close game from start to finish. It's the main reason I really don't like Rogue. The matches are usually pretty polarizing: Playing aggro/midrange? 90% of the time you win. Playing control? Concede. Pretty annoying. (The exceptions are Odd and Tempo Rogue, but considering they see much less play now I"m counting them out).
Unpopular opinion: Rogue is OP
I prefer to play a deck that has a good chance across the field rather than a deck made specifically to counter control/aggro unless we are in a meta where a deck is VERY dominant like prenerf witchwood(cubelock) or koft prenerf(jade druid)
they you have to have a counter deck so you don't auto loae, auto losing sucks.
I’ve been an avid card/table top/board gamer for most of my adult life and one thing that really takes the fun out of a game is facing the same thing every single game.
Variety is the spice of life, and (for me personally) when I fight several of the same deck in a row I will walk away for a short period and then come back. Sometimes I’ll get salty, sometimes it’s worse than others. The worst I ever faced was right when Contest of Champions came out, I fought 13 secret Paladins in a row.
Whenever a meta sets and there’s an absolute top dog, it’s frustrating for sure. You try to learn from it and find your own counters, but yeah, it’s not fun. I don’t play a game to win every chance I get and min/max my way to the top. I want to enjoy myself and unfortunately for me not everyone plays this same way. Just because I play a certain way, doesn’t mean they have to.
All this said, with a harsh harsh exception of Odd Paladin (I’ll face like 1 in 3), I feel the lower ranked Standard Meta right now is pretty varied, to the point where I can plan my mull around either a spell or recruit hunter, and encounter aggro or even. I’ve enjoyed it.
I think the reason why people enjoy these Decks that create polarizing MUs is pretty obvious, the vast majority of people likes to win and for them the easier it is to win the better.... If your odds of winning against a Deck are 90/10 it doesn't matter if you misplay the whole time and your opponent plays flawlessly,you'll most likely win anyway.... Pre nerf Cubelock is a good example of this.... The Deck was so damn OP that even if you fucked up completely you'd win anyway cause the difference in powerlevel compared to other Decks was huge...
"この 先は 暗い 夜道 だけが も 知らない それでも信じて 進むんだ 星が その道 を 少し でも 照らしてくをるのを"
I don't know, I liked HS the most probably way back in the Face Hunter era; I was playing exclusively Control Paladin, and even though some matchups were extremely hard, I always had a feeling I could win.
Now, there are too many, as you said, polarizing matchups, where you know you lost UNLESS you draw perfect and the opponent draws horrible (i.e. something like shudderwock or jaina last card in the deck). It decreases the value of gameplay skill (yes there is such a thing), in favor of idk, deck-choosing skill?
Don't get me wrong, I still like this game, and I like playing tournaments where it's important to build a good lineup so the deck choices are an important part of the experience, but I do hope some of these problems will go away soon, at least in Standard.
You can't stop the signal.
I do not believe it is healthy for the game when one card, matchup, or deck can completely negate (or drastically decrease your chances of winning in that game) another deck or archetype. For example, it's not good that Deathstalker Rexxar or Shudderwock completely ruins fatigue. It's not good that queuing into Rogue means your Tess Rogue deck is completely invalid (because 8 other valid classes exist and you're not going to run crap like Witch's Cauldron just for the off-chance you get a Rogue mirror).
Also, while I do enjoy the ideas of Baku and Genn from a deckbuilding stance, I don't like what they've done. Running odd-only or even-only should be a drawback. The stats have shown that the decks running these cards perform better (than running all cards). The reward of a better Hero Power just magnifies things I already don't like about the game. In the old days of Face Hunter vs Control Priest, I could rest easy knowing that my Hero Power could sustain me once I cleared their board, because "Restore 2 Health" completely negated "Deal 2 Damage." However now, if my opponent is running Baku, the only way I can stand a chance if we both no longer have resources is if I am also running Baku.
tl;dr bad matchups are fine. Cards, decks, and classes that singlehandedly ruin your entire deck/archetype are not okay. Baku and Genn, good in theory bad in practice. We need tech cards besides Spellbreaker.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!
Well, you might have nailed a real issue, if we are discussing of how players may "perversely" like polarised matchups: they can put less effort, while the meta gives them a fair winrate. This, in turn, may allow a lazier game design, since stats can be kept in balance anyway, despite the broken individual matchups.
Yet, i still think that the current situation is fair enough, or acceptable in a card game, even in Wild: the problem is only with those decks that are polarising AND highrolling at the same time.
And then there's those of use who are STILL playing Control Paladin...
But yes, I absolutely agree. Matchups have become increasingly polarized, and while it can, for instance, still win against Kingsbane Rogue, Jade Druid and the like, it requires that the other deck draw poorly.
#gNOmeferatu
I just don't care for this rock-paper-scissors style meta we've had the last couple of expansions. I prefer where every competitive deck you have a chance. Where the game isn't nearly decided before a single card is played.
Certain decks have to concede on turn 1 vs other decks. Thats wrong and should never exist. Skill should determine outcome of match not the deck
Sincerely 2 things.
1.Wild is the place for these decks.
Don't get me wrong but when decks overspecialize into something they start to generate this style of reaction in the game and this is why rotation exist in first place. Because such decks existing in standard would create a necessity for powercreep just to maintain the game more interactive.
2.If someone not wanna to get punished by a deck they should stop to play one tricky poney decks.
If you put your brain to work it is not even dificult to create decks that are flexible and not suck. But people prefer dive into the most powerfull synergy they can and try to not give a single chance to their opponents.
Hibrid decks are a thing and a powerfull one in these situations but people not use they enough because they are not flashy.
You've only noticed this now? It's been an issue that's been getting worse and worse since Jade idol was printed
It's definitely not an issue of players "liking" polarized decks though. Most players play tier 1-2 decks and those happen to be very polarized. Don't hate the player; hate the game, as they say. You'd be very hard pressed to name a tier 1-2 deck in either game mode that doesn't have auto lose/win matchups these days
Legend with : S65 Freeze Mage, S57 Maly Gonk Druid, S57 "Okay" Shaman, S53 Boom-zooka Hunter, S53 Maly Tog Druid, S52 Wild Tog Druid ft.Blingtron, S50 Quest Rogue, S49 Dead Man's Warrior, S41 Wild Clown Fiesta Druid, S41 Hadronox Jade Druid, S40 Wild OTK Dragon Druid, S35 SMOrc Shaman, S33 Jade Druid, S22 Control Priest, S19 Control Priest
There are more decks in the Meta now than ever before. More decks ==> more “polarizing” matchups. That sounds all there is to it.
Herein lies the problem with the players: they want easy wins with little to know effort. Sad and pathetic. No one wants to earn their wins, and this is a generation thing. I would much much much rather feel a sense of pride when I win than “mana cheat” or scam my way to victory. I swear if a FPS game came out and all you had to do to win is point the crosshairs somewhere near the opponent and get an instant headshot, people would love it. Lots a wins and no skill at all. Just like if a card was printed that said draw this card, win the game, people would be crafting it all day long. It’s sad.
OP has a lot of valid points. Wild should be more insane, but that’s expected. I think Shudderwock is a first look at an autopilot combo deck, which is stupid. I don’t care if it’s T1 or T5, combo decks should require a high level of skill to pilot well (think classic freeze mage). Let’s keep our heads up and play for fun rather than cheesy unearned wins.
I agree that rock-paper-scissors in general (in a non-polarazing way, such as 55-45 or 60-40 win rates as opposed to 90-10) is what the game would intend, but some of the more polarizing decks we have are not just the rock to another deck's paper. Some of these decks currently maintain a role that is more like a combined rock and scissors type of effect, or that some decks don't just succeed against one of the three core decks of control, aggro, and midrange, but actually fend off one of three a good portion of the time and can fend off a second archtype, such as Big Priest holding their own against both control and midrange. The community understands this with a number of polarizing decks and this is a reason that encourages them to continue playing the deck.
Yes, it is a game, but I know plenty of players that only want to play challenging games. There are reasons why more than a fair share of platformers have multiple difficulties, and that is because there is a large audience of players that want a challenge, not an easy non-challenging 5 minute speed runner. While I admit that not every player wants some intense legend level fps level of difficult shooter when they play a game like HS I am confused about why so many users of polarizing decks don't want any challenge at all. Games can still be very much intrinsically motivating, but if you aren't really working hard for that then it stands to common sense that the rewarding feeling wouldn't be as high. For example, how many Kingsbane players think to themselves; "Wow, it was so hard to beat that control player. I feel really good about the effort I put into that game because my opponent had so many choices to almost cause me to lose!"
How are control decks being a one trick pony, when losing to a Kingsbane rogue player? Even if you make your control deck more tempo based and lower curved it still stands that you're going to need to at some point deal 30 damage to the rogue in one turn to win. Does the opponent really believe that their opponents have many choices to make decisions? Probably not, instead they know that unless they're facing a Cubelock with massive Doomguard burst they have nothing to worry about regardless of the control class they are facing.
Users of these decks want to win with no effort and little to no input from their opponents, and I feel this is a terrible way for the community to act. I participated in plenty of content in WoW where players I raided with or did rbgs with or even collecting stuff had a sense of pride for all of the hard work they put in. Now Hearthstone? Players are almost giddy that they net a bunch of wins where they opponent was never able to threaten them, as if giving your opponent a significantly fewer number of options to affect the game showed some degree of skill as a player.
Well put. As I said in my post, it’s a generational thing. Games are so much more fun when it’s close. Even if they topdeck an answer on card 25, it’s ok because that’s how cars games work. But if it’s card 25, it’s usually a close game.
Simple not being able to push tempo when needed is already be a one tricky poney.
Actual control decks are really greedy and maybe even lazy when we think about it. Not do a proactive play until turn 5 is something that should be punished and thanks to god it really is.
A hibrid deck does not overcommit to a synergy to the point that it almost autolose to something and while they are not META they still work properly while they received good support cards like azalina for example.
The option is here and works.People just not play these decks because there are easier ways to win the game but when you have auto wins you have no right to whine about auto loses.
"Wait Lyra, these players are simply playing against the meta with decks T5 has allowed players to use. They're simply playing smart and doing their best to increase their chances of succeeding where both fun and winning reward them for doing well with their decks!"
--> I like that you considered this criticism, but I don't think you adequately addressed it. If the design team allows for hyper polarizing interactions (shudderwock, prenerf quest rogue, aggro paladin w/ prenerf CtA or current odd version) - it virtually forces people to either adopt them or play their counters, or just not play at all. I played a slower, more controlish version of spiteful/lady in white priest that seemed to have a chance against everything. Eventually, I couldn't keep up with the hyper aggro decks, kept getting answered by super control decks or broken combos interactions. So I stopped playing that deck. I suspect the same is true of a lot of players who have experimented with more balanced decks. They are forced out of the meta by poor design choices that create the possibility for polarized deck and the lack of regular balance updates.