Hearthpwn

I feel that people are misrepresenting Blizzard's view on skillful decks.

Let's imagine a world where Blizzard didn't touch the high skill cap decks, such as Patron.  If a deck is truly difficult to play and master, then the good players will play and master it.  At which point it becomes oppressive, because if you're good it's the only deck to play.  If you're not as good, then you accept that you will be utterly crushed by it repeatedly.

"Well, in that case Blizzard should have multiple equally-viable high skill decks!"  Easier said than done.  The difference between a "good" and "bad" deck is exactly as narrow as the players make it.  For instance, if one deck has a 45% win rate and another has a 55% win rate, then you will clearly choose the 55% win rate and call the 45% win rate deck "bad."  What about 50% and 55%?  50% is bad.  What about 54% and 55%?  54% is bad.  What is "bad" is relative.  The situation gets even worse when you realize that what is "good" and "bad" also depends on the meta, not just the deck itself.  It creates a moving target from a development standpoint.

So the problem isn't that Blizzard somehow "hates" skill or that they "must cater to casuals."  It's the fundamental problem that a single high-skill-high-win deck has terrible effects on the players, but that the ideal situation (many high-skill decks that are balanced) is notoriously difficult to achieve in any world.  If Blizzard really wanted to achieve this, and I believe they could, they would have to stop releasing new content because of course every set of cards shakes things up again.  But I don't think anybody wants that.

Quote from Tze >>

 Fair enough, things have seemed to get derailed into talking more about the people making the arguments than the arguments being made themselves. I'm certainly guilty of this and as much as it's frustrating to argue with what feel like brick walls behind a keyboard, would certainly like to move on from that aspect of it. I personally don't feel great letting my own arguments devolve to that level, and if people do wish to actually progress a discussion then they'll need to set those tendencies aside as well. 

Quote from craptasm >>

I think a lot of HS's critics are frustrated by ways in which it compares unfavorably to MtG. One aspect I think is the lack of...I guess you could call it subtlety?...in the design...

I guess I'm just hoping that the upcoming year, with its larger pool, gives us more interesting but bad cards. I know this seems like a strange thing to wish for, but I do think a lot of the staleness of the game comes not just from the competitive side (which will probably always for the most part be an optimization game within very narrow constraints) but from the fact that there's not really another way to play.

He isn't a card that sees any play, but I know that he did show up in StrifeCro's potential Krul Warlock list if the meta becomes more Jade-heavy.

The idea is that he is good for Krul the Unshackled in the same way that Infested Tauren is good for N'Zoth, the Corruptor.  It allows you to play the card defensively, blocking an attacker that might otherwise prevent you from using it.  

Again, this is simply theoretical on StrifeCro's part and I'm not sure I would necessarily keep it just for that reason.  But it does show that sometimes old cards can be potentially revisited in the future.

I've been circling around making a thread on this topic.  

The more I experiment with Finja, the Flying Star the more I realize that he works remarkably well in a variety of decks, even without extensive murloc support or The Curator.  He's pseudo-card draw and tempo in one.  It's kind of like the Pirate package - just like how you could slot Pirates into a weapon class for early game, you can slot Finja, the Flying Star and Bluegill Warrior/Murloc Warleader into your midgame to give it an extra punch.

Quote from Purpenflurb >>

The point of the nerfs wasn't to get rid of pirate warrior.  It was to prevent STB + Patches from showing up in half of your ladder games.  I don't mind pirate warrior at all personally, it is a fast deck, but it is also a relatively fair deck.  It's not like shaman that can play aggressively, then switch to a value plan, then burn you out from 15 health.  Some players like to play aggro, and aggro helps to prevent decks from getting too greedy.  

• Their weapons, especially Arcanite Reaper, are very weak to removal
• They are stopped cold by taunts
• Their deck is very low value overall so they will run out of cards rapidly and go into topdeck mode by turn 5-6

Again, none of the counters are 100%.  It is, after all, a very good Tier 1 deck.  But Aggro Shaman had the same damage potential AND multiple powerful class minions AND higher value AND wasn't countered by weapon removal AND had Maelstrom Portal to counter other aggressive decks AND high spell damage to bypass taunts.  It was better than Pirate Warrior in nearly every conceivable way except it was harder to play, which meant it took more practice to get those better results.  

So it isn't a failure of the nerfs that Pirate Warrior is still around.  It will be a failure of the nerfs if Aggro Shaman is still as successful as it was before.

Quote from Infirc >>

 hey don't make fun of people just because they weren't born with english as their first language!, i'd like to see you try to speak our languages, that way you'll see how hard it actually is instead of being a massive jerk. 

Will Not Miss:

• Brann Bronzebeard: He was fun when the best things to pair him with were Blackwing Corruptor or Babbling Book.  But now with cheap powerhouse battlecries such as Netherspite Historian, Jade Claws, and Kazakus I'm getting really tired of a 3-mana legendary being one of the MUST KILL NOW OR LOSE cards in the game.
• Tunnel Trogg: No explanation needed.

Will Miss:

• Drakonid Crusher: A "fair" card that was good in some situations but not ridiculous.  It fit well in a variety of decks and was fun to use.
• Arch-Thief Rafaam: Was never quite usable in most decks, but I kept trying anyway.  I really loved the idea behind the card and it was so close to working.
• Chromaggus: Another legendary that had a lot of fun potential but never quite made it into any significant lists.  
• Naga Sea Witch: A unique effect that I dreamed of pairing with 10-mana cards to make them more playable.  Unfortunately since LoE running 10mana cards that didn't practically win the game was laughable.  Oh well, maybe some day in Wild.

@Hoothout Okay, now if you will permit me the same courtesy I want to express as clearly as possible my own position.

First, Blizzard's job is to maximize the enjoyment of the game for the most amount of people over a long period of time.  They will certainly try to support many different types of players, but sometimes it is not possible to support them all at once.  It is as the saying goes: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

Second, I would argue (in agreement with Blizzard) that the keys to generating enjoyment are variety and interactivity.  It is important that players experience a variety of games, and that these games involve an active struggle between the two decks for supremacy.  Blizzard has emphasized the importance of the board in this contest, as that is where the action happens.

Now, Blizzard has not been successful with their stated goals.  We have Shamans pushing upward of 30% of the ladder and the pirate package being played in 50%+ of the games at high ranks.  This is the antithesis of variety.  They have clearly made errors, and have owned up to them.  They have explained that they did not anticipate cards such as Jade Lightning and Maelstrom Portal to be used in aggro, and were sorely surprised when they were.  Claims that Blizzard is purposefully creating this situation are baseless conspiracy theories.

So why is it that Blizzard keeps erring on the side of aggression?  Why don't they "learn" from their mistakes?  Why don't they do what Asmodeus recommends and print more powerful, flexible reactionary cards?  I would argue, and this is clearly where we differ, that a "control meta" would be far, far worse than what we have now.

Max McCall recently explained part of this idea in his post about combo decks.  The essence of the problem isn't that Blizzard "hates" control or combo.  They are good, important, and are supported every single expansion.  The issue is that when they make up the majority of the games they are a problem, because even if they are high skill they are low interaction.  

Allow me to use this game as an example.  Are there interesting turns?  Certainly.  But notice how many of them are Hero Power -> Pass, or turns in which StrifeCro purposefully plays nothing because he is trying to force his opponent to cap on cards.  As a one-off, this is interesting.  It is different than normal (variety) and so a unique experience about how to think about the game in a new way, and certainly required a greater degree of skill and understanding than playing his entire hand out by turn 5.  But would you really want a game in which the common strategy is to play nothing for several turns?  To have game after game feel like a Mexican standoff?

This is why I am also very excited about Renomage and Renolock as decks.  They are much more active and dynamic compared to the old school of control decks, and offer the possibility that one day we can have a slower meta which still involves engaging gameplay.  Does this involve making control more "aggressive"?  Yes, it does.  But truly, if the majority of the ladder ever becomes classic Control Warrior the game will suffer.

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Do you ever manage to comprehend the context and point of a post or always stop at the words of it?

Okay, so now that we've apparently gotten our terms crossed...let's try this again.

@Hooghout, your concern is specifically that decks which have "aggressive" strategies are have held too much influence on the history of Hearthstone.  Furthermore, the reason they have been too common is due to the mismanagement by Team 5.  

And to avoid any confusion:

• Your classification of an "aggressive" deck is one which contains burst damage, in the form of charge minions, weapons, or spells.   
• "Influence" can be generally construed as being played too commonly and being too successful, from your point of view.
• Finally, "mismanagement" can be understood as Team 5 either excessively supporting "aggressive" decks directly, or through incompetence not properly designing "non-aggressive" decks

Did I miss anything?  Specifically, am I misrepresenting your arguments in any way?  Is there anything that you wish to add to clarify on your position?  Am I twisting your words?

Quote from Hooghout >>

Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.

Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.

My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.

Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.

Quote from scorpyon >>

 The mistake here is in assuming that having random elements in any game removes the necessity (or ability) for skill...

Quote from PsyyKik >>

 Holding back on lightning bolt or lava burst to make a more efficient play later, or playing around a likely AoE  is hardly on the the level of math warrior though is it? It's a level above pirate warrior I'll grant you, but don't tell me aggro shaman is a difficult deck to play. It's really rather easy, and the fact you get that ultra fast win condition generally puts all the pressure on your opponent to play perfectly, not the other way around.

Quote from Hooghout >>

 Another braindead admirer of Brode with card design skills as an constant insult to my intellect. The likes of you keeps card design repulsively low skill.

Quote from ruipxPT >>

 No, HS is extremely mechanically simple: it's a matter of having mana or not,a trade kills or or not. Nothing more than simple arithmetic operations. Still room for skill? Of course.

Quote from PsyyKik >>

What they like is decks like pirate warrior and aggro shaman, because this is a win or lose, head-to-head game - victory = validation. These decks are not only powerful but it's super easy to understand why you lost when you do lose. There is a very low skill ceiling and once you hit that it's just down to draw luck for or your opponent.

Quote from XtahBX >>

 Compared to other CCGs it's not all that generous.