Hearthstone- Heroes of Warcraft (Enter Your ID!)

[xRECKONERx]

jesus christ, reno jackson is just bonkers

CONTROL META YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Venmar]

I'm not saying your statement is invalid, but what you are implying is that we need to do away with a whole array of deck archetypes. There are a number of non-interactive decks out there right now, and that's one of the reasons I can only stand to play a dozen or so games of ranked in any given month.

Fair Enough. I personally think Freeze is quite a bit more non-interactive than the two you mentioned. I don't see much Face Hunter anymore, at least not in my ELO. Secret Pally has been manageable. I'm not trying to say we need to do away with a whole archetype, i'm just frustrated that playing against Freeze Mage is you watching your board get frozen while your opponent watches porn until they draw their stupid combo. At least with rush decks you can try to control them and interact via killing their minions and applying pressure, but with Freeze Mage you sit there and take it up the bum win or lose since those matches take forever.

That being said, I found that Midrange Pally is pretty good at controlling aggro decks. I have a pretty good record against Secret Pally's, Zoolocks, and a handful of Aggro Shamans with it.

[xRECKONERx]

Freeze Mage is pretty easy to beat when you know the deck, tbh. It's about being tactical with your plays.

[Venmar]

Could say that about every deck and matchup honestly.

It's not a fun experience win/lose, that's why it's the one deck I actually hate.

[MTD]

As I said, its one of the decks I like playing against regardless of whether I win or lose

guess there are different people in this world...

[Siveure DtTrikyp]

Mill rogue yaaay!

Seriously though, interactive decks are not very well supported by hearthstone's design, because all there is is hitting minions on your own turn.

[PJ.]

I feel the game is designed to be non-interactive...

So if i'm commiting to rogue by build fel reavers, would it be better just to grab force and ancient of lore?

[BROseidon]

The interactivity in hearthstone comes from guessing what your opponent has. It's not amazing design

[PJ.]

Right, it's a deck building game, but it kind of defeats the purpose when everyone runs basically the same 5ish decks based on whatever x site says is worth playing.

[Venmar]

Every deck building trading card game does this. Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic the Gathering aren't exceptions and both have archetypes and specific decks that rotatate as Tier 1 decks most top level players either copy or imitate. Nobody will build a shitter deck with magma ragers or shitty basics and commons, people will build good decks. If that means people copy top level decks from sites then so be it, but people like me will always tweak them to preference if needed. If u can't accept that people will use what is objectively considered good and consistent, or think that is boring, maybe you shouldn't be playing a tcg.

[Sudo_Nym]

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying, that with so little interaction, and with the fact that most turns feature no real decision making, the only strategy left is in deckbuilding. Which is a harsh place to be, since as you point out, any deckbuilding game is going to have netdecking. So Hearthstone is kinda shooting itself in the foot from square 1.

[BROseidon]

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying, that with so little interaction, and with the fact that most turns feature no real decision making, the only strategy left is in deckbuilding. Which is a harsh place to be, since as you point out, any deckbuilding game is going to have netdecking. So Hearthstone is kinda shooting itself in the foot from square 1.

Pretty much this.

In Hearthstone, the only decisions you make that directly interact with your opponent are what you attack and what you cast spells on. Because there's no agency around when secrets activate, for instance, they don't really add interactivity directly. That means that the game largely comes down to just guessing which options your opponent has and running with it.

in MTG, because you have things like abilities that you can use during your opponent's turn, instances, and because the defender declares blockers, there are more points of interaction and more places for you to try to outplay your opponent. Even if there are still only ~5 top-tier decks in any given format, the match ups individually are going to be far more interesting b/c there's more gameplay skill involved.

[BROseidon]

Also at first I thought guaranteed mana was an implicitly good thing, but now I don't really think that's the case >.>

[BROseidon]

Also, lol "Reno killed aggro": https://tempostorm.com/hearthstone/deck ... orc-shaman

Best part about it is the deck is also super economy (1 epic, 2 rares, rest are commons/class cards)

[Iecerint]

There's always Arena.

[Venmar]

Hearthstone has always been against using cards that activate on your opponents turn and cards that affect your opponents hand or draw, so I guess interactivity as you guys described will be an issue for a while.

[BROseidon]

I kind of want Golden Monkey decks to become a thing...

[PJ.]

Every deck building trading card game does this. Yu-Gi-Oh and Magic the Gathering aren't exceptions and both have archetypes and specific decks that rotatate as Tier 1 decks most top level players either copy or imitate. Nobody will build a shitter deck with magma ragers or shitty basics and commons, people will build good decks. If that means people copy top level decks from sites then so be it, but people like me will always tweak them to preference if needed. If u can't accept that people will use what is objectively considered good and consistent, or think that is boring, maybe you shouldn't be playing a tcg.

There's a difference between MTG and heartstone in that MTG has interaction between decks, where as hearthstone is literally just about putting a deck together that takes 30 life from the opponent faster. The entire point of HS seems to be curving out and punching face.

As Broseidon said, just the interaction of declaring blockers makes two aggro decks far more interactive in MtG than in HS. It's not incredibly interactive by MtG standards but it's definitely something, to where even if you're just straight running Gobbos you need to take into consideration something other than your opponents life counter+taunt. Even taunt isn't incredibly interactive because they essentially just add life total to the opponent - Sledge Belcher basically says gain 7 health, the opponents take 3 damage to deal 5 damage it, take 1 damage to take the other 2. Even if you go to the MOST extreme side of no interaction in MtG, which would probably be something like Legacy Belcher(which also happens to be a deck I tremendously enjoy playing), you still have the bare minimum interaction of "hey, I'm comboing out, do you have a Force or nah". The other big thing(and MtG was getting away from it as I was getting away from MtG because it's unfun) is resource denial. There's no way to interfere with the opponents resources. Card in hand(deck) or Crystals(there is actually one exception I can think of off the bat, but the point mostly stands). I think there being spells that can target random cards in hand Hymm To Tourach style could be cool.

[MTD]

I kind of want Golden Monkey decks to become a thing...

I would be seriously surprised if they did...

[BROseidon]

The other big thing(and MtG was getting away from it as I was getting away from MtG because it's unfun) is resource denial. There's no way to interfere with the opponents resources.

Land-destro decks being viable is super toxic. The only reason to print those cards is for sideboard tech in limited against splashes.

[BROseidon]

http://i.imgur.com/tHHYqpW.jpg

This game is dumb >.>

[chamber]

Resource denial doesn't need to be land destruction. It can also be targeted discard.

[BROseidon]

Discard is substantially less toxic, though, and you largely don't build entire strategies around it.

[xRECKONERx]

Hearthstone's real problem is the lack of control viability. I wrote a long post about this on reddit awhile back that got pretty good feedback, but the TLDR is that there's not enough solid removal/interaction options in Hearthstone to make a true "control" deck viable.

Looking back at MtG's meta when I used to play, ignoring land slots since Hearthstone doesn't have mana like that, a ~35 card deck would have ~14 board wipes/removal spells to deal with aggro. There aren't even enough cards in Hearthstone to devote half your deck to killing aggro boards, and if you did, there are not enough big endgame wincons to justify it. The big fatties just aren't "win the game alone" good.

[BROseidon]

You also don't have shit like counterspells to protect your wincon.