Bwonsamdi in Rogue with the buffed pogo hoppers
Bwonsamdi in Rogue with the buffed pogo hoppers
This just sound like salt to me. The aggro-control-combo cycle is essential for not just HS but also other similar cards games. In the ideal meta aggro, control and combo should be represented equally.
You should have a prize for being such a genius
I rarely concede, even when I know I have lost. Personally I just find it more honorable to not concede. Conceding feels wrong, even when I know I have lost. And also there is the very small possibilty that my opponent's internet disconnects and I win.
Hearthstone favors aggro compared to other TCGs. The fact that the attacker chooses the defender makes you able to continously go face, then end games quickly. Combined with the fact that aggro decks are usually cheap and rather simple to play makes them attactive to especially player with limited resources like f2p players and players with minimal time to spend on the game.
Do you think or reread what you write? 'Hearthstone favors aggro compared to other TCGs' If that is the case it is a developers card design choice, NOT game design. Wonder why in the world you even think that they print cards just at random, with no reason at all, as long as it is question-aggressive and let the community sort out the decks. Do you really think developers are that stupid?
The fact that HS is a question game doesn't explain why answers are deliberately insufficient. That is also a card design choice. It also doesn't explain why questions should be enhanced by Burn, Buffs, Chargers, Summon, Weapons and Discover cards (BBCSWD).
That HS is a question game is just an interpretation for its aggressive state. You could also argue that it needs more balance between questions and answers.
The top of meta is decided by the player base. People discover what is strong, then play that. Then people discover effective counters and starts to play that.
Who said that? Some game developers on youtube? If I say that the meta is not decided but executed, that is not a conspiracy theory but a reasonable assumption that you and all the fanboys alike might not favor, but point to card designers thinking what kind of meta they want to be constructed for various beneficial reasons (identifying possible nerfs, enhancing pack selling, marketing etc.) Do you really think designers are that stupid that they really don't assess or want to know how that meta will develop up front and don't want to steer that?
Worth noting is also the fact that the meta has not always been dominated by aggro (Druid and Cubelock meta).
Right on, true but other meta share the same polarized win condition mechanic: Kill you as fast as possible vs. If you fail you are dead by default.
Is it really so difficult to slow down the game, raise, the skill floor, diversify win conditions, let skill decided the game?
It has absolutly nothing to do with card design at all. You could remove all aggressive tools and people would still play the fastsest deck, it makes grinding more efficient.
I don't believe the devs are dumb at all nor do I think they just print cards at random. Assuming they did would be blatantly ignorant. We see new mechanics and synergies every expansion which also looks to implement existing cards to be as effective as possible. That's not just random printing of cards. But fact still stands that an expansion is finished months before it is released meaning that Blizzard doesn't have a "100%-idea" which meta they release it into. I even posted a link earlier explaining this. I don't disagree with the fact that Blizzard needs the meta to benefit them for the very reasons you list and obviously they want to steer towards that meta. In fact I even already said so when we compared Blizzard to Commodus. So I can see you agree with me on that front.
The meta is executed indeed. Executed on a decision made by the players; they want to win. How do you win? Kill your opponent before he kills you; 'as fast as possible' to use your own words. Players discover some decks does this better than others and thus they play those decks. Then some time into an expansion an another effective deck can be discovered by the players which shakes up the meta, this was the case with cubelock. In this meta aggro was less effective due to the defensive tools most of players ran in Cubelock, so it was faster to climb while not playing aggro.
The meta was shaped by the players decision to win and you win by killing your opponent. That is game design. People play whatever they have discoverd to be efficient in the current meta cause, that is the easiest way of winning. So the meta is shaped by the players to best take advantage of the way the game is designed.
You are making this more complicated than it is.
Edit: On a side note, Blizzard has clearly tuned down the amount of aggression being pushed into the game. Just look at the almost non-existing amount og Charge cards and synergy Blizzard has put in the game resently, while pushing a great amount of rush cards.