Altair's archetype classification

Multiplayer Discussion
1

Alright, this is what it’s come down to.

This is my 1st and only card game I’ve ever played (or intend to), except poker (but it’s not the same type of game, so I don’t count it).

So, no, I don’t know nor do I care about the classifications used in previously famous games like Yugi-oh or MtG. Even if you folks had enough of scientific knowledge to nail the classification for those game, those are likely not applicable in Hearthstone.

That said, we DO desperately need to find a common classification to use in our every day discussion, because we often derail threads by arguing about which deck belongs to which archetype. And without further ado, I bring you not one, but two different ones:

a) Archetypes by average game length:

  1. Aggro - early
  2. Midrange - midgame
  3. Control - late game.

Pretty self-explainable. This classification doesn’t care about your win condition, so most of the OTK decks belong to the “midrange” category, and the rest of them to “control” one. If you have any questions, do ask, but I think the rest is self-evident.

b) Archetypes by win condition:

  1. Aggro
  2. Tempo
  3. Combo/OTK
  4. Value (previously Attrition)

Yes, aggro is the same deck as the aggro from the previous classification, but that’s where the similarities stop.

Tempo, OTK and Attrition (value) are the playstyles which decide possible win conditions for the deck, which helps with deck-building, although it also helps your opponents to pin down your possible win conditions if your deck was meant to be a surprise.

If you give these two classifications a try, not individually but combined, I’m sure you’ll understand the value they bring, and I mean added value, when compared to the previously held classifications (whichever they are).

If not, at least we should pick some and agree to use them to avoid misunderstandings.

Sincerely yours,

Altair.

EDIT: Take it from aggro decks enjoyer - not every aggro deck is made equal. Some require some finesse, such as when to go for tempo, when to go for value, and some are just meant to be full on aggro until the end. Also, everyone seems to understand the concept of “aggro-control” archetype, and now, by using these two classifications together, aggro-control is indeed one of the archetypes in existence.

2 Likes
2

I just have one question is odyn a combo or otk deck because it functions as a control deck but its wincondition is an otk combo hybrid.

Because all the armor cards could combo with odyn ive always been curious about this.

1 Like
3

Thank you for asking!

So, Odyn would belong to the Control archetype when game length is taken into account, and combo/OTK (it’s the same category) archetype when win condition is taken into account, which makes it:

Control Combo/OTK deck.

1 Like
4

Now you’re telling me there’s no control decks in poker? I will become back my money.

5

Nah there definetely is, dont worry. I play an otk combo poker. Sitting back for 10 rounds and then all in with my full house. Altair is very noob though.

2 Likes
6

Ofc there is, I just prefer aggro poker

Nit alert!

3 Likes
7

We can only go by speed, because it gets way too subjective otherwise. All those things will always be subjective because the only truly objective way to look at a deck is to just look at all cards individually and know exactly what they do.

8

I’d add value as en entirely different archetype in the wincon category, as I think it’s different from attrition is some key ways. Also because some attrition decks have very little value. As is, you’d be saying burgle rogue is an attrition type of deck and that’s not really true.

Everything else makes sense. But I will say this is a mostly standard categorization in Hearthstone. Nothing really new here.

1 Like
9

Yeah, I never saw it written like this anywhere, though

This is how I came upon this:

a) Good old Heartharena helper had Aggro, Midrange, Control, Attrition, Tempo archetypes
b) I knew from playing aggro decks that there were multiple types of aggro decks; aggro, tempo, even attrition and OTK
c) I knew from playing aggro and control decks their average game lengths and I knew they come in 3 clusters, so those would have to be aggro, midrange and control
d) everything else just fell in place because of a)-c)

Probably midrange tempo, on average, but sure, I can see it being value/attrition.

If you think value is better than attrition, then let’s put value instead of attrition.

It’s not like attrition exists anymore. Kil’Jaeden made sure of that.

If you said “relative”, I’d say sure, but subjective?

Anyway, doesn’t matter much. If you have good arguments to put a deck into a different category than I did, why not?

In fact, nobody’s forcing anybody anything here. This is just a suggestion, one which I hope at least a part of the regulars will adopt, so we can have healthier and more constructive arguments in the future.

Not everything is strictly inside one box in practice. But better something than nothing, yo

10

I think Midrange Tempo is my favourite kind of deck, don’t mind Midrange Aggro too

1 Like
11

You imply I’m closed minded, and you missed the last thing I said. The only way to be truly complete about this - and ie “fully open minded” - is to go by all individual cards (even 1 card change matters) because at the end of the day all these archetype labels are crude approximations.

Eg so what that Terran Shaman is kind of mid-range in terms of Duration, it’s also sort-of control against the aggro(fast) decks because of its taunting and other tools etc.

12

No, I didnt imply anything of that sort. Please read my post again, multiple times if needed, until you understand it. It’s not hungarian language as far as I know.

Naaah, forget it. I’m putting you ignore this time permanently. I’m not risking another ban because you can’t speak english and because woke blizzard discriminates in your favor.

1 Like
13

They only cater to thier own prerogative. No amout of rereading will bring them understanding because itll never match their bias.

1 Like
14

I understand their classification. It’s just not very descriptive whatever you do. Look at all the cards of a deck to have the full description.

It’s not like we don’t know what the other words generally mean, eg tempo which is a loose term but generally understood.

15

Carnivore you’re being obtuse and a contrarian for no reason. There’s nothing particularly new in the OP categorization, it’s how deck archetypes are broadly classified in Hearthstone and has been for a long time. Most of this doesn’t even come from Hearthstone exclusively, but from other TCGs in general and even competitive strategy games more broadly.

Tempo is a perfectly defined concept both in hearthstone and in strategy games. Whether it is sometimes used loosely or many people have a loose understanding of it is another matter.

And individual card choices don’t change a deck’s overall categorization unless the game plan changes. If you build a deck with a tempo startegy in mind, it’s a tempo deck. If you build it with an attrition/ control strategy, it’s a control deck. You may add control tools to a tempo deck but if your plan is to win with tempo, it’s still a tempo deck.

It very often feels like you argue for the sake of arguing. It’s a common forum-goer vice but you’ll only frustrate people.

1 Like
16

Man you just cant handle anyone disagreeing with you at all. Your ego is way to fragile.

1 Like
17

Yes, seems to be triple cardinal (lead exclusively by emotions, which are allowed to dictate both the logic and the experiences they live through) xDDD

That’s so rare

Let’s say we have on average 1/3 chances to hit cardinal for one placement, and we need 3/3 to hit cardinal, so that’s 1/3^3 = 1/27

That’s 3,7%. I don’t think I’ve met more than 2-3 in my life that I know of (probably more, but didn’t get my hands on their data), and those few that I know, all lead tough lives. But, they’re usually pretty strong and kind, even if impulsive and irrational at all times.

(I know you don’t know what I’m talking about, 99%, but there will come a time in the future when everyone will understand this)

p.s. I’m double cardinal, so I fit the description nicely, too. It takes one to know one, ig. I did always see in Carnivore something which reminded me of myself, which is why I gave him so many chances, but hey, not everyone had the patience for me, so why would I have too much patience for him?

It’ll all turn out OK anyway.

Thank you for your support!

Although I know you didn’t do it because of me, but because it’s the truth, but that only makes me appreciate it even more.

I must admit I never saw a conclusive definition of tempo anywhere, but as I said, I do lack the experience of other card games. I’m probably one of the guys whose definition is more “loose” (I did write it once, but I forgot it by now xD), because I base everything on intuition, and part of the intuition isn’t confined to the rules of logic like written definitions tend to be.

But if we define “soft” and “hard” definitions of everything, I’m pretty sure those would cover all our takes on this forum combined, which is why I’m trying to force definitions and categorizations even when they’re so obviously flawed.

Absolutey. The best possible argument to his “whole deck” nonsense.

I was simply thinking from more empirical, practical positions, and in those, you would use these categorization to predict the rest of the deck when your data are incomplete (new meta, surprise new deck, tricky opponent who changes cards every game or two)

So of what use to me is a categorization that only works for specific 30 cards, when the same 30 cards almost never see a big percentage of total games of the best archetype in the meta??

I really need a more flexible approach which doesn’t dig too deep into specifics (we don’t care if it’s really a combo or OTK deck, because both end the same for you unless you realize what’s coming to you in time to deflect it), but specific enough to allow for differences between decks which feel similar but their stats show big differences (Aggro Terran Shaman vs Control Terran Shaman, Shopper DH vs Naga Shopper DH are some of the examples)

Or to put it much more bluntly, but incorrectly judged as non-important, the categorizations and the definitions I try to impose are those that best match my game knowledge and experience, and by using it, I can freely communicate absolutely everything I know, because even if my words don’t do it, the relationships that you perceive between the categories and the decks will speak the rest of it.

18

Tempo is a musical term (where it is used to determine the pace of sounds), but as a term in strategy games originates from chess. In essence, it is defined as the pace at which one player is able to present threats to the opponent, thereby forcing them into a reactive (rather than proactive) position to defend themselves.

In competitive strategy games, whoever is ahead in tempo is in control of the direction the game is heading. If they’re ahead by a large margin, they can also take advantage of that by developing their late game goals while their opponent is busy reacting, without exposing themselves.

It is a complex concept, so many people either don’t fully understand what it means or use it wrongly, but it’s well defined and established. It can be (and indeed is) applied to pretty much any competitive strategy game. Competitive pokemon, Starcraft, MTG, Standard Hearthstone, Battlegrounds Hearthstone… you name it. They all use the concept of tempo.

So basically, we can say a deck is a ‘tempo’ deck when we are saying that the deck is focused on consistently staying ahead in tempo by relentlessly and efficiently presenting threats; forcing the opponent into a corner and ultimately chipping away at their health. Many different decks may have good tempo, but a deck is a tempo deck if its gameplan is to win by simply excelling at it.

I know you might already be aware of all this but I thought it would be interesting to go through the concept of tempo more deeply since we’re talking about setting up a baseline here.

3 Likes
19

Well said! Yes, and I’m glad I’m not the only one partaking :slight_smile:

Beautifully said. By that definition of a tempo deck, that’s my preferred playstyle.

But what would the “aggro aggro” deck be like then? I lowkey imagined it to look like what you just explained for a tempo deck

So far, I actually thought that, even though we agree on the definition of tempo, that tempo deck means something different.

To me, a tempo deck is a deck which relies on one big board swing (doesn’t matter how early or late in the game, as long as it’s one big tempo swing, could be a combo, but doesn’t have to be, at least not the lethal one) at just the right moment to swing the game in your favor, and decidedly so.

(But then I had another problem - that’s how Heartharena defined Midrange! But in this categorization, Midrange is actually a “game length” modifier, not a “win con” notifier, so it’s off the list. It doesn’t compete with Tempo, hence, no real conflict exists, because Heartharena’s categorization was…all over the place and almost completely arbitrary xD)

2 Likes
20

An aggro deck is usually a tempo deck that has completely lopsided its threat curve to the early game. It is designed to throw everything it has at you within the very first few turns in the hopes to catch you defenseless and win on the spot. The drawback is that once it’s done that, it just runs out of threats later on. If the opponent survives the early game you most likely just lose.

A tempo deck is usually a deck that is more consistent at presenting threats at all times. It has a more normal curve but it soon starts applying constant pressure and bigger and bigger in size until the opponent cracks. They’re also more vulnerable to control/attrition decks, something aggro decks are usually favored against. For this reason, people tend to see them as ‘fair’ decks, (even though broken tempo decks are usually the ones that dominate metas for longer) - they just play good ol’ Hearthstone and win.

1 Like