Battle starting balance

Website Feedback
1

I must say, I feel quite disappointed realizing that both of my requests to make screen reader play easier were totally ignored.
(haven’t recieved a single response, nor even a reaction to them)

This time I shall try with another request though, to make the battle starting odds a bit more balanced, and this one I am really insisting on, hoping it will be taken and considered seriously for a change:

In this specific game, starting 1st in battle does provide some advantage over the enemy, but it is a pretty slight one, so I do think the current compensations granted to the 2nd playing hero are too much.

Currently he has both the coin, and 1 cards more to choose from than the starting side.

I say, and I do deliberately insist on this, that one, (not both, by no means), so one of the advantages granted against the starting side should be removed or equalized:

This would mean, that either:

At the start, so initially, both opponents should have the very same number of cards. (either 3 or 4, as you see fit)
Normally, in this case, the 2nd side would still preserve the advantage provided by the coin)

or

At the start, the hero playing 2nd would still have 1 more cards than the starting one, (so 1 more alternatives to choose, select from, both to change, aka replace at the very start, and to play in the very 1st turn), but in this case the coin should be taken away from him.

Please Blizzard staff, do consider, take this request seriously, it would greatly improve the game balance in battles, for currently the side playing 2nd has a too significant starting advantage over the 1st playing one.

Everyone, please try to remember, or start following it now for yourselves, I bet you have achieved significantly better results, meaning scored more victories, aka have a much better win/loss ratio when playing as 2nd in battles.
(due both of the quite significant starting advantages mentioned above)

2

If Im not mistaken, without the coin the player going first will always have the advantage of being 1 mana crystal ahead of the player that goes 2nd. The Coin gives that player a one turn option to level that to not be the case. For one Turn. Once youve both reached 10 mana its not an issue anymore and its meant to be a spare mana to pull off something that would require 11 mana. But it is designed to be a balancing card for the first 10 rounds where the first player would always have the mana advantage otherwise. The extra cards for the 2nd player im not as sure about. If I had to guess it too is a balancing feature to give the player perpetually behind the other one in mana and turns to give them 1 more option to choose from than their opponent who gets to go first and gets to draw first and can generally use their hero power first.(with some exceptions of course).

Im not knocking your point at all, just giving my understanding of why the game is the way it is. I might be wrong and just have that understanding by coincidence. Just something to mull over I suppose.

3

Well, why do you say the 1st player would be in a mana advantage?

Both players start (play their 1st turn) with 1 mana, but the 2nd one has the coin TOO, so he in fact has 1 mana MORE than the 1st one, that is why I feel starting with more cards TOO is just too much advantage for him.

Not to mention, how 2nd player can utilize his mana advantage provided by the coin any time, in any turn, whenever he feels fit.

So the least we could do to decrease this lack of balance is, to equalize the number of starting cards for both, so then “only” the coin would remain iin 2nd player’s favor, for again, currently, player 1 initially has not only 1 mana LESS than player 2, but also 1 less amount of cards to choose from.

Or, as I alternatively suggested, let them both start with 1 mana and without coin, but keep the 1 more card advantage for player 2, to still compensate for playing 2nd in some way…but both 1 more cards and 1 more mana to use is just too much.

Hs is a turn based game, where battle evolves gradually, turn by turn.

There is not much one can do in the very 1st turn, so the starting, initial advantage of player 1 is , although it exists, still not significant enough to provide even 2 compensations to player 2.

Let’s do a brief analysis:

In 1st, starting turn, after choosing his cards to change, player 1 has 1 mana, so if he gets lucky with the draw, in best case he can play a 0 or 1 mana card, out of 4 cards.
(the starting 3 and the one he drew after changing them)

On the other hand, player 2 starts his 1st turn with 4 cards he can change, PLUS a 5th one he draws when his turn starts.

So he already has a significantly higher chance to get a 0 or 1 mana card he can actually start with.

Beyond this, he not only has 1 mana just like player 1, but he has the coin too, which means not only an additional mana, which, if used, allows him to play a 2 mana cost card already in his 1st turn, (or 2 cards with less than 2 mana cost even), but also provides him the alternative to preserve the coin for later, when an additional plus mana will probably prove to be even more advantageous, so by saving it for later, he constantly preserves that mana advantage over his opponent, till the very turn when he actually decides to utilize and play it.

No, in a game like HS, merely starting 1st should definitely not grant such a double, too significant advantages to the player starting 2nd, so keeping only one of them, either 1 more cards, or the coin, would be much more balanced.

4

To illustrate the mana coin balance feature, assume all cards drawn cannot be played, hero powers only. And for the sake of simplicity let us say both are a Hunter.

Now, without the coin, it will be a given that the first player reaches 2 mana first, and will be able to use their hero power first, if allowed to play out all the way to the end, it is a given that player one, since they got the first attack off using hero power, will kill player 2 before player 2 can kill player one.

With the coin, this allows the player 2 to strike first, and turn the table back, but only if they choose to use it then and only then. As it wont help them in any other later turn since they can only use their hero power once per turn (without special voodoo witchcraft shenanigans).

The coin is to give the 2nd player the fair chance to turn the table and change the tempo from 1-2, 1-2, to 2-1,2-1. But there is only one opportunity to do that. So it is a very strategicly played card in this scenario. Fail to use it at the only turn it matters, and player 2 always loses in a straight up head to head hero power on hero power fight against its enemy who uses the same hero power.

It is an advantage in that scenario, but it is the only way to make it have an opportunity to be fair, not fair outright, just the opportunity to be. If you know when to play it.

Now introduce the cards you draw for beginning hand, and you can see the math gets really complicated on what can happen. But the coin itself is a balancing feature to merely give the opportunity to be a fair fight right off the bat. choosing to use it later is a strategic decision in itself, which might pay off and give a win condition, or might just be a way to play a 6 and 5 cost cards the same turn. Which might not even help at all.

Also, there are cards that let you get the coin from them either directly from their hand, or as they play it, or you could negate it with a secret such as counterspell. SO them having it is not a pre-ordained superior position,

As for the increased handsize at the beginning, Im of two minds about it. I can see it as an unfair advantage, and I can understand it as a balance feature for the player that has to go second. imagine trying to play a Questline on your second turn and being counterspelled. merely because you didnt play it your first turn. now your whole decks thing is completely shot in its own foot.

I can see it from both sides on that issue of starting handsize. I could be convinced to go either way on that, but the coin, is all about the chance to be able to turn the tables, but doesnt mean it will.

If you are gonna play first player in a match, assume they will use the coin and play a 2 cost card or use their hero power, etc. just make it part of the plan when you are going first. if they choose not to use it, its just gonna be a support card later for mana they dont have or a condition maker like combo.

5

Look, to put this simple:

In Hs initially 1st player would have a slight advantage of…starting the battle, aka playing 1st.

To compensate this, game grants even 2 advantages to 2nd player, which makes the ods shift into his favor, harming the game balance.

Only one, but not 2 compensation for player 2 would be enough, and much more balanced.

So I shall repeat my original suggestion, player 2 should ng second, but both are just too much.

As for hero power type demonstration for hunter, in 1st turn player 1 cannot use hunter special power, but player 1 can, by using the coin.

He plays 2nd, so fine, let it be.

But beyond this, he even has 1 more cards to start with.

Or even worse, he can preserve to play the coin later, when that 1 more extra mana will probably provide him with even more significant advantage.

That is just too much compensation.

So to summarize, from the normal situation when player 1 would have a pretty small advantage of merely starting, (with only 1 starting mana, it’s really not a too significant advantage in this game), compared to him, due the double compensation granted, player 2 is in quite significantly better position, for he has (again) BOTH one more cards to choose from, PLUS the coin, which grants him one more mana than player 1, who initially should have a slight advantage, but actually suffers a more significant disadvantage instead.

I really can’t explain my point even more obviously than this, if you really fail to notic, and anticipate such a clear case of spoiled starting balance, (due granting too much, double conpensation to player 2), then I am giving up this whole attempt to fix, or at least to reduce this so evidently existing lack of balance.

Again, the solution would be very simple, one advantage for compensation would be enough to player 2, he should have either 1 more cards, or the coin, but by no means both.

6

You seem to have missed the point I was making. In my scenario I proposed, the 2nd player did not have a coin in Hunter V Hunter hero power only match, In that setup, the player that gets to 2 mana first to use their hero power first, will always win. and so that is determined by the one who gets to go first. This setup, with the player 1 getting the advantage and player 2 getting none, is unfair due to no fault of anyone but the order of play. Not a Great setup.

Introduce the coin now.

Now, if player 2 is smart, they will use it when it is possible right away to be the first to strike with their power. But that is only if they chose to use it. If they didn’t, the previous scenario would play out.

The difference between no coin and coin is the opportunity to allow either player to get a win condition. Thus making it a fair game no matter who gets to go first. It is entirely dependent on the Player 2 not just having the coin, but knowing when to play it.

I get what you are saying about the card advantage at the beginning. That is a separate issue unrelated to the coin balance scenario I was presenting. The Coin is to balance the opportunity to be a fair game to both players. I see the extra card advantage as the balance to the other player getting to go first.

Player one can play something with Charge, or card draw, or a secret, or a quest, any number of things that establish the tempo of the game right away. It is a very different game playing against Quest Pirate Warrior than say Soul Gem Warlock when it comes to what cards come out in the first turn. This means that Player 2 if, given equal hand size at beginning, would have had to predict the starting play based on their mulligan or not. While possible it is not anything one can truly depend on to get a more favorable hand in the mulligan phase. With an exact same hand size as PLayer one, if player 2 lacks the perfect answer in that mulligan to the beginning round, Like a Taunter, or Secret, their own quest to race them against theirs, etc… player 2 is immediately far behind in the game tempo as well as turns. Only the very luckiest of scenarios would allow for a fair matchup for Player 2 with the same hand size and going 2nd.

Introduce the extra card in hand.

Now there is one more option to be able to try and answer the opening tempo that Pkayer 1 establishes. This extra option might be the taunter that would have come 1 turn too late in the previous scenario, or not at all. It could be the Secret to mess things up for their planned deployment of cards next round. It is a small advantage in hand size but it balances out the not getting to go first and not getting to have a say in the tempo of the match to begin with.

Now with the Coin and the 1 extra card in hand, you as player 2 are given the opportunity of a fair fight from the outset, and compensated for not having a say in the tempo of the match from the beginning.

Keep in mind, Player 2 may not even begin with a hand that can even be played at all their first turn with both the extra card and the coin available to them. Player 2 while given the balanced mechanics, still can suffer bad RNG, or choose poorly with their mulligan choices, etc… despite the hand size and coin.

The real question is if your deck/playstyle/strategy can be obliterated by 1 mana and 1 card, it probably needs revisiting and not the balance mechanics. Because even if Player 2 didn have these balances Player 2 now lacks 1 mana and is always 1 card behind.

What you propose is a half measure, Ill grant that, but I dont feel it would change anything without having some unforeseen consequences.

7

In your scenario, you forget that player 2 has 1 more card than player 1, so even without coin, he still has 1 compensation.

If we delete the coin, player 2 will still have one more cards to start with than player 1, which reduces his disadvantage to minimum.

My point is, in that case, his disadvantage would still be much less significant, than his advantage with coin would be.

So with both coin and 1 more cards in his 1st turn, player 2 has a much more significant advantage, than his disadvantage would be with only 1 more cards and no coin, or a coin but equal number of cards to player 1.

Since my goal is to improve the starting balance with this suggestion, taking any of the 2 starting advantages away from player 2, (so either the coin, or one more card), would result in player 1 having less starting advantage than player 2 has currently.

So it would still improve game balance in general, instead of significant starting advantage of player 2, player 1 would have a pretty small one, for, again, player 2 would preserve either the coin, or 1 more cards to start with.

8

Interesting idea. You seem to forget one small detail though.

Based on all statistics gathered, going first is still advantageous in the current rules, so Coin + extra card combined is not even enough compensation to get the match balance to 50%.

My own data (collected by Hearthstone Deck Tracker; 1409 ranked games total):
Going first: winrate 56% (399 wins; 308 losses)
Going second: winrate 50% (353 wins; 349 losses)

Arena (data collected in HearthArena; 5081 games total):
Going first: winrate 63.09% (1581 wins; 925 losses)
Going second: winrate 53.11% (1316 wins; 1162 losses)

Of course you could argue that this is on me. That I somehow fail to properly use the advantage of coin + card. But several years ago, I watched a video where Ben Brode explained how they had tried various things and the current rule got them closest to 50/50 though not entirely there because the first player still has a small advantage left.

I’m not sure if sites such as HearthArena or HSReplay allow one to access their aggregated grand totals to see the actual real win rates going first versus going second across all their collected data.

9

Look, let’s take the most simple case, in 1st turn, both players have an unlucky draw even after changing some cards, none of them gets a 0 or 1 cost card…even then, unlike player 1, player 2 still already has an option, a move to play, aka his hero power.

Not to mention the case they both get 0, 1, or even 2 mana cards, (let’s ignore 0 cost ones, for those can be normally played by both), then player 2 can play a combo of 2 1 cost cards, or a cost 2 card even, again, unlike player 1, who can, in best case, play a single 1 cost card.

But ok, fine, let him keep the coin then, and preserve this advantage, but hey, then at least they should have the same number of cards to start with!

As for my preferred strategy, starting phase plays a quite important role in it, for I like to play in a charging, attacking way, the sooner to deal as many damage as possible the better, so a good early start, a lucky enough starting draw is very important to me, and can often seriously influence the flow of the battle, by even deciding its final outcome.

10

Please read the post already above yours.
Even with the combination of the coin PLUS the extra card, the second player still has a small DISadvantage.

11

Well, I am quite surprised reading, how you others just don’t feel the huge advantage of player 2 at battle starts, I myself experience it all the time, and do feel annoyed by it each time, especially whenever I play 1st, and don’t get a single card to play, while my opponent can play some, (due more lucky draw and 1 more cards), plus he preserves the coin for later use too…

You really don’t experience the same way, you really don’t anticipate the very significant advantage in most, if not all the cases when you play 2nd, and the significant disadvantage whenever playing 1st?

Well I do, so I did my best here to try to improve the game balance by reducing that significant advantage/disadvantage, or eventually turn it to a very slight advantage/disadvantage, but in both cases, whichever starting advantage we take away from player 2, (either the plus card or the coin), the result would grant much more balanced starting ods for both opponents in battles.

Just have a last appeal to all those who disagree with my point:

Please, do try to find an opponent with a very equal strength deck, against who your winning percent is round 50, then please do follow, observe the starting phase of your battles against him, especially when you go 1st, and especially till, and when he uses the coin…then maybe you will notice, realize in what a significantly advantageous situation he is compared to you, and how much it influences the whole battle, sometimes including its final outcome too…then maybe change your mind regarding the matter, start seeing it my way, and approve, agree with this suggestion of mine.

I really did my very best here to attempt to overcome a significant lack of battle starting balance, if it was still not enough, sorry, I rest my case.
(and hope one day in the future, like how it usually happens, people, in this case HS players and devs, will still become aware of this balance issue, then agree to fix it, without even remembering me already suggesting it before)

Edit:
But ok, let’s forget about the coin then, let player 2 keep it, no problem.
In that case however, I really can’t see why player 2 should start with 1 more cards TOO, in additional, when he already has the coin for compensation for playing 2md already, which is a very significant boost, there is really no need to to even increase it by starting with more cards too, the least game can do for balance is equalizing the starting number of cards for both players.

Final suggestion made, decide whatever you wish, and consider for fair.

Oh, and a last addition:

I really cannot imagine due what sensible reason you think it’s the 1st player who has currently any advantage at all.

He does start 1st, true, BUT WITH BOTH 1 LESS CARDS A N D MANA!

I myself can’t help it, but feel pissed off each single time I start the battle, and due to unlucky draw even after starting changes, have not a single card to play in 1st turn, while my opponent has the coin, so in worst case can still play his hero power, PLUS, he has 1 more cards to choose from, so in addition, he is much more likely to get a low enough mana cost card to start with.

Sorry, but I still refuse to believe you people fail to notice and realize the serious lack of balance I explained here so evidently, pheww!

And the knowledge of this very obvious lack of anticipation, (makes me feel revolted each single time I keep experiencing such unbalance starts in HS battles, sorry for stating it this straight and honest.

JESUS CHRIST, HOLY HEAVENS, I JUST CHECKED AND REALIZED, IT’S NOT 1, BUT IN FACT EVEN 2 CARDS MORE PLAYER 2 STARTS WITH!

AT THE END OF MY TURN, WITHOUT PLAYING A CARD, I HAD 4, OPPONENT HAD 5, BUT HE DRAWS ANOTHER, ADDITIONAL ONE WHEN HE STARTS, SO IN HIS 1ST TURN HE HAS 6 CARDS WHILE I HAVE 4, SO… PRACTICALLY T W O CARDS MORE EVEN, P L U S THE COIN, NO PEOPLE, I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU REALLY CONSIDER THIS FOR BALANCED!

Edit:

Look, let me just ask you a very straight question:

2nd player already initially has the coin, what grants him one more (additional) mana than player 1 has, which mana he can use in any turn he sees fit.

I am asking you, why, so WHY ON EARTH, is he granted to start, beyond his mana advantage, with even 2 cards more than his opponent?

Is his starting disadvantage indeed so huge that he deserves all these "compensations, are both of them truely justified and necessary?

If really so, then W H Y , due what reason?

If someone of you will manage to explain this to me, I promise I will rest my case once and for all.

12

That’s the difference.
You draw conclusions based on your feeling. But human emotion, observation, and memory are all known to be very unreliable. Just Google for terms such as observer bias or confirmation bias.

I have tracked most of the games I played. Not just the ones that caught my attention, I just play with tools that track all games. And then I look at the numbers collected.
I posted them in an earlier reply in this thread.

Read it again. Check how often I mention anything “feeling unbalanced”.

For me, based on my play style and skill level, the recorded numbers simply show that I win slightly more often going first than going second.
And as far as I know (it’s a long time ago I did read it on the internet somewhere, and I could not find a link now so I understand if you reject this as not supported by evidence), sites and companies that collect far more data than I can (Blizzard themselves, HSReplay, HearthArena) all see the same in their collected data. Across the entire player base, going first under the current rules gives a slight advantage.

Your lengthy response, partially in all caps (why??), is all about how you feel and think.
I’m not denying your feelings, nor your thoughts. But looking at the numbers I do have, and remembering the numbers I once saw, my response is that no matter how valid your feelings might be, they are not confirmed by actual collected data. And hence you are wrong.

One card more. Not two. Well, unless you count the Coin, but you already counted that as a mana advantage (which it is), so then ALSO counting it as a card advantage (which it is not) would be a double count.

Yes.
As proven by the hard numbers of number of games won and lost by me. And my millions of other players.

One word: Tempo.
Advantage 1: The first player gets to act first on the first turn, so they can put a threat and player two has to respond.
Advantage 2: Even if player two manages to put a threat, then player one can (until turn ten) always use one more mana to respond. Dealing with a 4 mana threat with 5 mana is simply easier than dealing with that same thread with 4 mana.