What do you like about Hearthstone?

Multiplayer Discussion
1

Having talked with a lot of people on this forum, I’ve found that many people have a very different perspective from me on what is and isn’t fun about Hearthstone (or about card games in general).

Personally, I dislike cards like Zul’Jin, Conjurer’s Calling, Mana Cyclone, Mind Blast, Divine Spirit/Inner Fire, Barnes, Underbelly Angler, Deathstalker Rexxar, Soul of the Forest, Spiteful Summoner, Spreading Plague, Clockwork Goblin, Frost Nova, Archivist Elysiana and Dr. Boom.

But I do like cards such as Hench-Clan Burglar, Acornbearer, Brawl, Walking Fountain, Doomsayer, Shimmerfly, Unleash the Beast, Tar Creeper, Sunkeeper Tarim, Kalimos, and Fire Plume’s Heart.

So, looking at these examples, there’s a clear pattern:
-I don’t like cards that can give you an effect that’s way above the normal power curve, and doesn’t come with a drawback that feels meaningful. If your card can play 20+ mana worth of cards while you only pay 10 mana for it, or if it can fill your hand with random cards for only 2 mana, I’m probably going to hate it. But if, like Fire Plume’s Heart, a powerful card comes with a significant drawback or caveat that “balances” its power level, I often won’t feel so negative towards it.

-I don’t like it when the whole game revolves around a single card, and the outcome of the match is determined by when it’s drawn. If I lose a match because my opponent happened to draw into their hero card at just the right time, or if the biggest factor for a deck’s success is how lucky their draws are, that irritates me.

-I don’t like cards that let you ignore your opponent’s board. If a deck spends most of its time playing Solitaire while it draws into the combo pieces for an OTK, and/or if it renders your minions powerless with Freeze and cards like Time Out, then I’m probably going to hate it.

-I don’t like cards that punish you for doing something that normally benefits you, especially when you can’t really play around it. I don’t like Spreading Plague because it punishes you for playing minions (and the deck that used it, Jade Druid, was a deck that forced you to be really aggressive and play lots of minions). I don’t like Bomb Warrior because it punishes you for drawing cards.

-I don’t like cards that negate the normal weaknesses of an archetype. If there’s a card that allows a token deck to prevent the board from being cleared, or a card that lets a Control deck dominate the early game and mid game, or a card that gives a powerful draw engine to an aggressive deck, I’m probably going to hate it.

-I don’t like it when matchups are polarized. When it’s super easy for you to win against some decks, while other decks in the meta steamroll you, that makes the game feel less skillful to me. Every deck should have a fair shot at beating most of the other decks in the meta.

To me, the joy of Hearthstone comes from a “balanced” deck that has some good synergies and a win condition, but also has significant weaknesses and limitations on what it can do. If it wants to make a power play like healing yourself to full, summoning a big minion early on or filling your hand with cards, that has to come with some sort of risk, cost or limitation.

If you want to summon an early Mountain Giant, you should need to Life Tap (or just hold onto your cards) for the first few turns, and be afraid of hard removal. If your deck can fill the board with tokens and give them buffs, you should always be worried about board clears. If your deck is aggressive and can put out a lot of early face damage, it should be worried about running out of steam as the game goes on. If you want to get a strong new Hero Power, you should have to earn it somehow, such as by playing a Quest and fulfilling its conditions.

An ideal meta for me would look a lot like the post-nerf Journey to Un’Goro meta; “mana-cheating” mechanics were kept to a minimum, every class was viable and had clear strengths and weaknesses in the meta (but few matchups that felt unwinnable), and you usually had lots of decisions to make and lots of ways to interact with your opponent, no matter what deck they were playing.

But I’ve met people who feel differently; who enjoy playing super-powerful cards and power plays that dramatically swing a game’s momentum, for a relatively low cost. Or who enjoy combos that create a result far greater than the sum of its parts. Or who enjoy being creative with decks to try and discover new, unorthodox and meta-breaking strategies.

So I’d like to know how other people feel. What are the cards that get on your nerves, and what are the cards that you consider fun/interesting? What would your ideal meta look like? And perhaps most importantly, why do you like/dislike certain cards, decks and metas?

4 Likes
2

Why I disagree.

Without the ability to inoculate a board built by 4 cards against single card removal it polarizes the aggro control matchup by allowing the control deck to play an uninteractive game plan of 12+ AOE effects with little board presence like we had with Big Spell Mage last year.

Fire Plume’s Heart Warrior was one of the most polarized decks of its time. Having a fair shot was rarely the case when playing against it; it was either climbing Mount Everest or a mole hill. So I don’t understand why you think it’s an example of a good card.

I don’t like it when there’s a tech card against one specific deck (Skulking Geist) that then removes a type of card from a whole cross class archetype (Only Odd Warrior was the control deck playing 1 mana spells), but they introduced multiple Hero cards in KFT, but never a card that countered their HP upgrade (my proposal was a symmetric random HP battlecry at 7 mana with 7/8 stats (it should not be even costed to stop Genn decks from using it against Baku decks, much like I disapproved of Skulking Geist being even for the same reason)

3

I like HS is oversimplified game with very casual friendly “skill gap” where there isnt any significant difference in performance of same deck played by average or veteran player.

So I can learn a new decks very fast thus not getting that easily bored. If HS would require intensive gameplay experience to play certain decks I might get bored becuase that would lead to some “main” decks and I was always “alt” player :smiley:

Besides that… I do not think I like anything else. Its pretty much the main reason I am playing.

4

I like games that last at minimum 10 turns so that all cards have a chance to see play.

I like interaction through minions.

I like when plays have counters.

I like deathrattle better than battle cry because it can be countered.

I dislike OTK from hand.

I dislike cards that directly target the other hero.

I dislike repetitive board fills as well as repetitive board clears (unless the fills and clears balance out).

I dislike mana cheating that allows for plays way outside the normal mana curve.

I dislike infinite value plays.

3 Likes
5

I like anything basicly,as long as it requires skill and thought to be executed properly.
In general I don’t like decks that are easy to play or execute and highroll decks with no counter at all once the high roll is there.
Other then that I don’t really mind,its all in the game and its fun to see all the different things that are there,as long as they require some thought to be executed properly.

I don’t care for archetypes and strengths/weaknesses of a class and I don’t care if cards go against that. Those strengths and weaknesses are only an artificial limitation. As long as the deck is fun and challenging to play its fine with me.

Right now there isn’t a single card in the game that I hate.

6

Mhh nothing atm tbh.

This game is all about RNG and winning the cheese exploits.

7

I hate all things mage.
I hate thief priest and big priest.

And that’s pretty much it - I haven’t encountered much I legitimately hated in Wild aside from the above decks.

8

Good post, I can agree with you on all your points - they all seem logical to me.

I also hate how some cards are so high above the power curve that nothing can touch them. Should we still live in a Chillwind Yeti meta? Of course not. But the amount of new cards per year for the last 3 years had (obviously) the side effect of ripping the balance to shreds. Instead of realeasing smaller expansions (like how adventures introduced a more managable cardpool) they went all out on 135 x 3 new cards per year - and it shows. It really does.

The core system really suffered and some cards like (and this is only an example) Time Out! completely go against the internal rules of the game. I don’t think that cards like that should exist (I’m really happy they HoF’d Ice Block).
I hate how more and more cards just play around golden rules of the game. You remember fatigue? Jade Idol, Espionage and Elysiana sure don’t. For just 4 or 9 mana you may add another 10 cards into your deck - how is that a good idea for a game like this?

1 Like
9

I can agree with this to some extent, but then the Control deck usually needs some sort of insurance policy to keep from losing the game to cards like Soul of The Forest. The only successful Control deck in the RoS meta was Control Warrior, and I think a lot of that had to do with Warpath; one of the only ways for a Control deck to counter cards like Soul of the Forest, and other sticky Deathrattle cards.

The only other strategy that seems to work is playing a Taunt minion too big for a token deck to kill. But that comes with a lot of risks of its own; against a deck like Tempo Rogue with lots of easy removal, the Taunt minion is often a waste of a card slot. Or the Token deck might run Silence. Or they might just buff up their board enough to kill the Taunt minion without losing their own minions. Then you’re back where you started.

I like it less because of its matchups, and more because it’s the type of build-around card that I like to see. Instead of crossing your fingers and hoping that you’ll draw one specific card right when you need it (looking at you, Hero cards), you start with the card in your hand, pass on turn 1, and then you earn your payoff by playing Taunt minions.

I just think Quests are a better design than Hero cards, in general.

Yeah, I kinda wish that Sideshow Spelleater was added to the Classic set. In my opinion, it would make a good tech card against a lot of decks that upgrade their hero power. Although an odd-costed version might indeed be better.

1 Like
10

And that shows the difference between how we are analyzing the game.

I am looking at things from the lens of whether they are leading to excessive polarization and meta warping rather than whether they conform to a leveling up build up type RPG fantasy.

I am concerned that Murloc Paladin may be a problematic deck because it’s a combo deck with a great early curve that can fight for board very well against other aggressive decks.

I am also concerned about Control Warrior, but my problem is not that it has a fantastic value Hero card, rather it’s the fantastic 1 drops that I find excessively strong and problematic. I have been proposing a nerf to Eternium Rover since April.

I think whenever possible nerfing around the cornerstone Legendary that people play the deck for is the right way to do things and that nerfing the legos and giving people more dust deletes decks rather than keeping them at healthier lower power and numbers because it’s way more depressing to play with a nerfed Mad Genius than a nerfed Rover and it’s also a lot harder to get people to re craft a Legendary than a common.

11

Well, I think the reign of Odd Paladin shows the dangers of nerfing around a powerful cornerstone card, instead of nerfing the card itself. Odd Paladin, by its nature, wasn’t dependent on any one card in its deck, apart from Baku herself.

The more you nerf a deck’s support cards and enablers instead of their power plays, the more you pigeonhole that class into depending on that power play to succeed. For example, when Wild Growth and Nourish were nerfed in order to weaken decks that use Ultimate Infestation, Druid as a whole became even more dependent on Ultimate Infestation to close out games. And now that UI has rotated out, Druid naturally struggles to be relevant outside of token decks.

Eternium Rover is a powerful card, but nerfing it would also nerf any Warrior deck that can make use of a powerful 1-drop. Midrange Warrior, Aggro Warrior, and Quest Warrior could all find a use for Eternium Rover as it is now, and a nerf to Rover would weaken all 3 archetypes, making Warrior more dependent on Dr. Boom than ever.

1 Like
12

I like that it’s better than Pokemon!:grinning:

13

Let me expand on that. I rarely beat Rover on 1. But when there’s no turn 1 Rover, I feel comfortable to beat Boom on 7. I think Rover is too game deciding for a 1 drop.

14

Well, the same can be said about a lot of 1-mana minions with 3 health. Zombie Chow was even worse. I’d be comfortable with seeing Eternium Rover nerfed, if Warrior had a couple more cards along the line of Town Crier or Frightened Flunky. Having nothing good to play for the first 1-3 turns is a death sentence for most decks (which is why I doubt that Quest Druid will perform well).

I’m usually one to advocate for decks that are built around multiple cards with a moderate power level, rather than a single card with a huge power level. I feel like that helps prevent highroll victories, and creates more opportunity to differentiate by player skill.

15

Let me expand further. Eternium Rover’s Mulligan Win Rate is 67.2, but it’s Played Win Rate is 67.3 with the average turn of play being 7.

A card like Zombie Chow in comparison is really bad late game because it’s easy to remove and the downside is significant. Rover holds the amazing feat of being the third best card in the Mulligan and being great later on.

Warrior now adds Flunky, another card with a similar Win Rate profile and it’s on the verge of S Tier.

An enormous difference between Baku and Mad Genius is that Baku makes a difference in 100% of the games he’s played in, whereas many games are already decided by the time Mad Genius comes into play. It’s such a slow card that the Warrior can’t play it when they are threatened, and it’s just players going through the motions of not conceding after their resources have dried up that the Warrior can play a 7 mana do nothing turn.

16

You know, there is a browser game called Pokemon Showdown, where you can create your own teams of pokemon, specify all of their moves and stats, and play against other people using Smogon’s rules for Competitive Pokemon. You might want to check it out if you’re interested in seeing how a real “Pokemon master” plays.

May I see those statistics? I couldn’t find anything like that on HSReplay.

Well, I think Dr. Boom (along with Omega Assembly) indirectly contributes to Eternium Rover and Frightened Flunky’s winrate, because in a typical Control Warrior shell, they are mainly used as stalling tools. The stronger your power plays are, the more value you can get out of your early plays.

I would argue that Dr. Boom is also a particularly problematic card in Control mirrors; his presence makes it very difficult for anyone but Warriors (and Shamans) to win the long game in a Control mirror. Giving Rush to all of your minions in addition to getting such a strong and versatile hero power is pretty hard to beat.

I think that Control Warlock, Control Mage, Control Paladin and even Control Priest might be viable if Dr. Boom wasn’t such a powerhouse in the late game.

1 Like
17

Click on Tier List. First deck up is Control Warrior.

Playing Mad Genius isn’t a power play, it’s 7 mana do nothing. A power play is Giant, Khadgar, CC; Togwaggle, Prep, Wand; or Mechano Egg, Emperor Wraps.

Mad Genius is a long term value play at the expense of Tempo. I agree that his availability in Warrior means that other classes are forced to have finishers in their control decks. I have no problem with different control decks being designed to close out the game differently, this is excellent since it provides different gameplay experiences, the different classes should be more than just different skins. The problem is that in RoS those finishers were lacking.

SoU Control Warrior is looking like RoS Party Rogue, but it’s not one individual card, it’s how the whole tool kit comes together. I thought it needed a very light one card nerf in RoS, if things stay as they are, I think it will need at least a two card nerf.

18

I first made the transition from Yugioh for one very simple reason - I got bored with reading an essay every time I ran into a new card.

Hearthstone’s format best suits proactive game plans with straightforward and satisfying strategies, however I clearly miss at least some of what Yugioh brought to the table. In Yugioh, every deck is a combo deck.

I at my happiest with decks that I know I am not playing optimally. Patron Warrior, Highlander Priest, Quest Rogue. Decks that you could play for a month straight and still be learning the nuances.

Otherwise, I also enjoy the weird and quirky and not in the ‘I played this massive minion that no one else wants to’ way. I love the Egg Druids, the Inner Fire Priests, the Control Hunters - but they need to have a purpose. Quirky for the sake of quirky is lazy. Quirky with a purpose feels really cool.

2 Likes
19

I think what makes Dr. Boom powerful is that even if the Warrior is running out of removal, Mad Genius still gives him a steady stream of answers to your minions, and threats that you need to clear. A board-based win condition becomes impractical for a Control deck when you have to play your biggest minions first to keep them from just being answered by Dr. Boom’s Hero Power.

Small minions like Lackeys are easy for Dr. Boom to clear without wasting any cards, which often leaves you no choice but to play your bigger minions first. And that gives the Warrior the perfect target for Shield Slam, Execute and Omega Devastator, which he would hesitate to play against smaller, disposable minions.

There are a lot of potential ways for a Control deck to close out the game, but Dr. Boom is the most versatile and the hardest to counter. You could theoretically print more late-game cards along the line of King Phaoris to make up the difference and give other classes a chance, but that leads to powercreep (which I oppose), and it would be simpler to change one card.

I can understand that. But even with simple decks like Aggro or high-tier decks like Bomb Warrior, I feel like there’s a lot to learn about playing optimally. People like Brian Kibler have a high winrate almost regardless of the deck they play, after all. To me, the issue comes with cards that are so powerful on their own that they can beat a Rank 1 Legend player just by getting lucky. Barnes is the classic example.

20

I like arena.
I like clicking all the doodads in corner of the screen.
I like using and playing against midrange decks. I used to say the same about control but the current definition of control seems to be painfully long games with unlimited resources and there is no fun in that imo.