Hearthpwn

Well . . . you have to write THAT specifically, for one thing.  Your OP conflated netdeckers with this (straw?) group that apparently only plays one deck year after year.  I don't know any players who actually stick to only one deck by choice.  Either they are severely limited in time and money they can devote to the game, and thus have a very small collection, or they are working to break into the tournament scene, in which case for most of HS's history, they have to have a minimum of 4 decks with which to practice.

Sooooo . . . don't know who you're talking about who willingly play nothing but one deck for years.

I mean, certainly one can create scenarios and lines of play that result in the coin being enough to snatch and keep tempo advantage.

However, if you take a holistic look at the game, I think you'll find that in nearly every matchup, the player acting first will have a win rate advantage.  That has certainly been true in every set of data I've ever collected from my own play with one archetype exception . . .

When one plays a mirror match between decks that are fully sold out to a combo as a win condition, the extra drawn cards and the subsequent odds of reaching the needed cards before the opponent may tip the balance in favor of the Coined player.  I remember I ran an experiment with Shudderwock back in the day, and though the sample size was too low to be certain, there was a noticeable skew in mirror matches towards the Coined player.

Funnily enough, this ONLY seems to work for true combo decks; NOT for control v control matches.  I suspect the reason for this is the ramping of fatigue damage rendering the extra card draws a BAD thing in the long run, but that's just a guess.

By the way, plz stop with the backpedaling.

You have not been polite or respectful.  You called people including myself morons for finding the fact that the decks DO change over the years relevant.  You referred to netdeckers as "clowns" who "undermine half the game already" and suggest the computer should play for us.

You made no allowance in your OP for the possibility that folks enjoy the actual act of playing the game far more than deck building because that's not your personal take on the game and you can't imagine anyone else has a legitimate different take.

Don't get me wrong, I frankly and openly think you're a blatant idiot for embracing the food analogy, but I'm not going to turn around and pretend I've been respectful.

Terrible analogy, but I'll go with it if it helps.

I never claimed I was a better cook.  I never claimed to care who was a better cook.

Diets consisting of a very few selected foods CAN be perfectly healthy; though just because one netdecks/eats at restaurants doesn't mean one can't eat at MANY DIFFERENT restaurants.  I frequently have 27 different restaurants on speed dial (remember, you picked this god awful analogy).

I'd love to know what deck/restaurant you're referring to that hasn't changed in years.  Even Rez and Raza Priest . . . hell, even Secret Mage in wild have changed their "flavors" to varying degrees in the past year.  Rez Priest has completely revamped itself in choice of minions, for example.  Furthermore, the phenomenon of decks enduring multiple metas is a fundamental feature of Wild format.  In standard, it's far less of an issue.

I don't find any special merit or credit should be given to cooks who make shitty food.  I like good food, regardless of whether I cook it or not.

Cooking skills are an infinitesimal part of life.

Since we're using food and we have to stick to this stupid metaphor, regardless of the food you choose, there are other aspects of eating like the ability to move the food to one's mouth.  Some can skillfully maneuver chopsticks while others attempt to eat a forkful of salad and end up pouring rat poison down their throat.  Regardless of how good or bad the food you choose is, a lot of folks vary in how skillfully they can manage to eat.

Congratulations!  This officially is the weirdest post I've ever felt compelled to write.  Not because of the content, but because I promised myself I'd adhere to a woefully ill-considered analogy insisted upon by the OP.

The VAST majority of opponents I've seen could stand to play a bit slower, judging by the rampant sub-par play.

I don't make roping a habit when there's no reason for it, but I would never take one second less than is allowed if it meant making a better play, and while I know the standard response is "this is a kid's game, doesn't take time to play good, blah blah blah", the reality is, I very rarely see an opponent play a flawless game (or play one myself), and hurrying to meet your schedule is not high on my list of priorities.

As for the, "it's about respect" crowd, nothing about this population of players suggests to me that I should start with greater than zero respect for a random Hearthstone player until it has been earned.

Sorry I'm late to this party, but there are two equally valid observations one might have to respond to OP's questions.

First and most common, there's plenty of the game left over after deckbuilding considerations are exhausted.  I personally could care less who built a deck I'm using, but I'm very interested in who can manage to pilot said deck to its highest possible win rate.  This was the driving curiosity behind my recent experiments with Silas Warrior, and though as far as I know, no one "built" my exact version of that deck before I did, I couldn't care less if that is actually true or not.  The experiment regarding Tickatus and popular conceptions about matchups was much more interesting and engaging.

Second, and partially related to my recent travails into Tickatus matchups, I don't concede the point that there's no deckbuilding to be done in a mature meta.  I have conclusively shown that perceptions about matchups overpower the reality of the matchups.  That is to say, when folks believe a meta is solved or restricted, they will (as a group) generally act accordingly and not attempt to disprove the accepted belief.  As a result, there have been countless metas that have been "solved" only in the sense that we got to a certain point and decided  there was nothing new out there that could be competitive, and so stopped looking.

If one is inclined to not believe this is true, one has only to observe the latest meta snapshot and the tier 1 status of Control Priest.  Yes, I know there were recent nerfs, but the mantra has been repeated over and over:  "Tickatus prevents any other control deck from appearing in this meta", and whatever story one wants to tell about nerfs, certainly Tickatus Lock was not nerfed in any way relevant to Priest.

It was lucky that the nerfs forced a reevaluation that otherwise probably would not have occurred on a big enough scale to debunk the accepted knowledge.

So, in short, yes, the game is very fun regardless of whether you build your own decks.

And no, I don't accept the premise that there is no competitive deckbuilding to be done just because YOU can't seem to manage it yourself.

Quote from JoeByeDon >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

A bit surprised that Paladin didn't take more of a hit, but utterly shocked that the bitching about Tickatus was somehow resisted.

Good job there, Devs.  Absolutely no sarcasm meant; after the Flametongue nerf, I give credit every time public outcry doesn't result in a terrible balance decision.

Not sure what the shaman buffs were intended to accomplish.  I suppose they could be built upon in the next expansion, but currently, I still don't see a shaman deck that works well enough to compete at the top.  At least once per meta, I always try to get control shaman to work, and this time it's just not happening.

Wouldn’t be a Shadowrisen post without mentioning Tickatus in some way. For all the complaining you do about the topic, you sure seem to like bringing it up quite a bit.

 I don't complain about Tickatus.  I complain about complaining about Tickatus.

This is the only thread I've said anything about Tickatus in context of the nerfs/buffs coming out.  Seemed like the right place to do so.

I was genuinely surprised they didn't cave and nerf something that didn't need a nerf as they have in the past.

Cool?

Grim Patron is the "patron" saint of misleading statistics.

You're absolutely correct that its overall win rate wasn't crazy high, but NOT for the same reason as the Tick.  Patron Warrior in its first iteration had zero bad matchups in the meta, but many of the players who copied the deck played it terribly and came nowhere near getting the most possible wins out of the deck.  However, I remember several streamers who played the deck correctly mentioning how the Patron Warrior months were the fastest climbs to legend of all time, as the deck had no problem carving up the entire meta if you knew what you were doing, and in many cases, the worst matchup by winrate was the mirror.

Tickatus is not in the same universe of power level, but he and Patron do share one trait:  being the cautionary tale against reading statistics and believing you can tell the whole story based on single-variable analysis.

Right . . . except a large number of players don't agree with the "feels terrible to play against" statement.

We know for a fact they have made all sorts of nerfs related to player base whining.  That's why I complimented them for NOT bowing to it this time, because it is NOT a consensus of the player base.

A bit surprised that Paladin didn't take more of a hit, but utterly shocked that the bitching about Tickatus was somehow resisted.

Good job there, Devs.  Absolutely no sarcasm meant; after the Flametongue nerf, I give credit every time public outcry doesn't result in a terrible balance decision.

Not sure what the shaman buffs were intended to accomplish.  I suppose they could be built upon in the next expansion, but currently, I still don't see a shaman deck that works well enough to compete at the top.  At least once per meta, I always try to get control shaman to work, and this time it's just not happening.

As usual in this situation, there aren't any criminal charges filed so there won't be any finding of fact.  Accusations will tarnish reputations permanently with no actual resolution.

I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the restraint shown in severity of buff/nerf.

When 15 changes are being rolled out at once, it's pretty important to not go overboard on any one card.  Very easy to go WAY too far with this number of changes.

I don't see any huge red flags though.  Just looks like they had some cards they hoped would get played at the start of the expansion/core set, and when they didn't see play, Bliz decided to amp them up or tune down others.

Quote from HatShapedHat >>

Quote from pacaholic >>

No one likes when rich people talk about their wealth. No one likes with attractive people talk about their attractiveness. No one likes when smart people talk about how smart they are.

Same thing happens to me all the time. Considering my IQ is in the top 1% and my education level is much higher than most as well, I chop it up to the fact that most people just don't function at the same level.

 

The irony of someone bragging about an IQ in the top 1% of people yet not knowing that the phrase is "chalk it up" instead of "chop it up" is really delicious.

 I didn't have the heart to mention that . . . but glad someone did.

I'm aware you don't lose your MMR, but there's no way to display it as far as I know.

Again, the fact that SC2 is less volatile than HS was never in question.  There is no RNG element to overcome.  That doesn't say anything about luck being the predominant factor in HS, it only confirms what we already knew about their being no luck factor in SC2.  It certainly doesn't speak to which is "the deepest strategically" until you find a way to control for the luck factor.

By astonishing coincidence, it looks like I hit the post button almost exactly the same moment as DLord.  For the record, post #31 was mostly directed at Slyde and I hadn't read his yet.

I flatly disagree with the characterization of MtG as more complex, but that's a very long subject and I need to sleep.

I am unfamiliar with the rest of the games mentioned, unfortunately.

Fair enough, concerning the player base and other wording clarifications.