There is something wrong about balance

Play Mode Discussion
01/12/2018 10:27 AMPosted by Gishgeron
Warlock and priest dictate our current meta. This is the main reason they are being brought to tournament, these two decks act as a hard gateway.

If you bring any kind of mid range or value control other players using these will shut you down. Obviously one will be banned, so you take both. Only ant is using a full aggressive line-up and it's obviously built to fight one of the two so he can ban the other.

Look at the lists...its 100% centered around dealing with these two. Because they are really strong and create points of no return.

The cycle is as follows;

priest > warlock > druid > priest.

Thanks to new tools of armor stacking, taunts, and Branching Paths adding consistency and stability, druids are much more well equipped to deal with aggro than before. They're still vulnerable to explosive starts and warlock stacking the board with Doomguards at turns 5-6.

Hence, warlock and priest indeed dictate everything else as you said. Druid is the only one who compete with warlock in the late game, and the only one who can outlast priest. Any other options is always centered around highrolling these 3 down.
[quote="207592978096"]what is your opinion on 2 bans on tournment


I think it's an interesting concept. Just have to be careful with implementing things like this. It can quickly turn into "why not 3 or 4".

Has a world champion , u must master more than 50% of the classes, which means that if each one is 11,11%
4 classes goes for 44,44%
5 classes goes for 55,55%

And u can imply 1 ban at the start and the 2nd ban when the openent goes for the match point.
Example
Player 1 plays with
Priezt
Lock
Warrior
Rogue
Druid

Player 2( same as player 1 to get easier the ecample)

P1 banned priest of p2
P2 banned druid of p1

P1 wons 2 games with rogue and warrior, going for match point wich lefts him with lock and priezt. Now p2 can ban one of those. Which was priezt, lefting warlock for p1,
P2 won 2 games with druid and lock, going for match point with rogue and warrior, now the p2 can ban rogue or warrior for his final match with warlock.

Sounds complicated, but feels a more refined ban system , i think we should think about this in a near future.

This way we have a more dynamic tournment with the same number of games per player. That way u have tech your decks wisely and not just against 1/2 classes.
I think two bans is too much, we will always have elitism at the highest level of play even if the balance was closer there will always be some decks considered just slightly better and those are the decks that will be brought.

Also if you watch ladder Paladin is very consistent and have so far this expansion had the highest winrate together with Tempo Rogue still only three players brought it. I think its more because some people prefer it others don't.

Also most pro gamers have plenty of experience with both Razakus and now Control Warlock decks so obviously they feel comfortable bringing them.

By my calculations there is 28 aggro/tempo/midrange types of decks in the tournament. While there are 36 control/combo based decks in the tournament. Would it really be better if Priest and Warlock was less popular and aggro/tempo was a big majoroity of all decks brought.

From my point of view i'd rather have a close to even mix of the different types of decks rather than have one type domiante. For a long time its been pretty tempo oriented in tournaments with Razakus as the only control contender and before Raza is it was Jade Druid other than that most tournaments the last year has been very aggressive line up wise.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather see card bans than class bans. What happens every tournament is the same 3 decks are played constantly, to the point where it just becomes boring. Tournaments should incorporate actual deck building, instead of just being a reflection of ladder. If anduin, keleseth, and cube were banned during a match, then those top tier decks wouldn't be played. The players would have to adjust those decks or find something else to play. This would give more diversity of decks to play, and would be more fun to watch.

I am not kidding when I say I watched a tournament, everyone was playing aggro shaman, raza priest, or keleseth rogue last expansion. everyone. I stopped watching after halfway through the tournament because it isn't fun watching the same plays, every game, turn after turn.

The reason I say card bans seem to work better, is that a local tournament that I was a part of did that instead of banning heroes. for each match we had to ban 5 of any cards we wanted, and we had 15 minutes to alter our decks before the match began. obviously the top tier meta decks got gutted, but what resulted was fun to play matches, fun to watch matches, but more importantly, more creative decks. The games were still missing warriors and hunters, but you saw more than just rogue or priest. I saw an unusually high number of shamans, with decks that weren't awful.
01/12/2018 12:35 PMPosted by Rôxo
[quote]
01/12/2018 10:25 AMPosted by Rôxo
what is your opinion on 2 bans on tournment


I think it's an interesting concept. Just have to be careful with implementing things like this. It can quickly turn into "why not 3 or 4".

Has a world champion , u must master more than 50% of the classes, which means that if each one is 11,11%
4 classes goes for 44,44%
5 classes goes for 55,55%

And u can imply 1 ban at the start and the 2nd ban when the openent goes for the match point.
Example
Player 1 plays with
Priezt
Lock
Warrior
Rogue
Druid

Player 2( same as player 1 to get easier the ecample)

P1 banned priest of p2
P2 banned druid of p1

P1 wons 2 games with rogue and warrior, going for match point wich lefts him with lock and priezt. Now p2 can ban one of those. Which was priezt, lefting warlock for p1,
P2 won 2 games with druid and lock, going for match point with rogue and warrior, now the p2 can ban rogue or warrior for his final match with warlock.

Sounds complicated, but feels a more refined ban system , i think we should think about this in a near future.

This way we have a more dynamic tournment with the same number of games per player. That way u have tech your decks wisely and not just against 1/2 classes.

if we had proper balancing we wouldn't need bans.
I personally consider the best ladder players better than the winner of a tournament.
The game is just so luck oriented that to determine someone's personal skill they need multiple games in tournaments,and whats the point of multiple games with the same deck and class?This is what shaped the current tournament system.
01/12/2018 12:44 PMPosted by H7qgr81fabfa
I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather see card bans than class bans. What happens every tournament is the same 3 decks are played constantly, to the point where it just becomes boring. Tournaments should incorporate actual deck building, instead of just being a reflection of ladder. If anduin, keleseth, and cube were banned during a match, then those top tier decks wouldn't be played. The players would have to adjust those decks or find something else to play. This would give more diversity of decks to play, and would be more fun to watch.

I am not kidding when I say I watched a tournament, everyone was playing aggro shaman, raza priest, or keleseth rogue last expansion. everyone. I stopped watching after halfway through the tournament because it isn't fun watching the same plays, every game, turn after turn.

The reason I say card bans seem to work better, is that a local tournament that I was a part of did that instead of banning heroes. for each match we had to ban 5 of any cards we wanted, and we had 15 minutes to alter our decks before the match began. obviously the top tier meta decks got gutted, but what resulted was fun to play matches, fun to watch matches, but more importantly, more creative decks. The games were still missing warriors and hunters, but you saw more than just rogue or priest. I saw an unusually high number of shamans, with decks that weren't awful.


Its way more complicated that way, cuz u ban a whole deck with that, that might work on arena tournments, the issue is the same as mine u want to see differentt decks interect with each other not the same crap over and over again. Another way to do this, is one player choose one class to his openent play and ban another one if the 9 classes, letting to choose the remaining 2 of the 7vleft
With huge amounts of money on the line, tournament players are going to bring the strongest decks possible. Even a couple percentage points of win ratio could make or break a deck!

The game also changes when your opponent can read your deck lists. And when you play multiple games with know deck pools...

It has nothing to do with ladder and plenty of decks are viable for climbing
01/12/2018 12:55 PMPosted by SquidLips
With huge amounts of money on the line, tournament players are going to bring the strongest decks possible. Even a couple percentage points of win ratio could make or break a deck!

The game also changes when your opponent can read your deck lists. And when you play multiple games with know deck pools...

It has nothing to do with ladder and plenty of decks are viable for climbing


Ladder again, i am not saying that the decks not bringed to tourments will do bad on ladder
I am saying the lack of diversity is something not very pleasent for the people that r seeing. All 16 want win that s obvious, and they choose the bezt wYs to do that efficiently. But its an entretainment event, and the audience like to see players out of their beach of confort.
For u which one deserves the title, the one that is the best with X deck, or the one whi can pilot a lot of differebt decks.
R we prizing the best player or the best deck?
I don't think more bans would change much. Everyone would still gravitate towards the solution that they thought was the best, and it would probably be similar between the players.

It's one of the weaknesses of the conquest format because you have to win with all of your decks. Everything needs to be able to stand on its own so there is not much room for strategy.
01/12/2018 10:18 AMPosted by Jesse Hill
01/12/2018 09:03 AMPosted by minami
That tournaments are not ladder.

In real ladder you can climb as any class as long as you adapt to your pocketmetagame.

Tournaments use more than one deck


01/12/2018 09:18 AMPosted by Swift
Tournament play is very different than ladder play. Tech choices are much more important, and there's the element of bans and the roster of pre-made decks that each competitor brings to the table.


Fantastic points guys!

I feel some players fall into this rut of "it is played at a tourney so that is my only option". Ladder takes some adapting and adjustments. I'm not taking away from the fact that some classes have better match-ups. Just that tournament lists are the set in stone options for ladder play.

:)

You also have to look at the fact all -6 took preist. Why? Because it is the strongest, most consistent, no hard counters, if both players draw perfectly the preist player will always come out the winner
Those who think tournament is "very" different from ladder are so "unrealistic".

Just admit this fact. In tournament, pro players always bring the best decks to compete because they want to win the prize, and it is also the undeniable fact that "better" or "best" decks have more chance to win against "average" decks. So, the conclusion is obvious that decks used in tournament are the best decks in standard-mode Hearthstone at the moment.

It is just a simple logic. It is just a statistically proven fact. I do not understand why people always find nice words to deny themselves away from this.
Can't wait to watch several days of endless TalkStone with 15-minute breaks, all interspersed with Raza vs Cube vs Keleseth plays. Wow.
01/12/2018 01:59 PMPosted by globalist
Can't wait to watch several days of endless TalkStone with 15-minute breaks, all interspersed with Raza vs Cube vs Keleseth plays. Wow.


Hope that kelly raza and cubes die on the bottom of the deck, that s the most exctment part to see them suffer that rng
01/12/2018 02:56 PMPosted by Rôxo
01/12/2018 01:59 PMPosted by globalist
Can't wait to watch several days of endless TalkStone with 15-minute breaks, all interspersed with Raza vs Cube vs Keleseth plays. Wow.


Hope that kelly raza and cubes die on the bottom of the deck, that s the most exctment part to see them suffer that rng


Yeah, and if/when they draw it, Kibler/Admirable/TJ will all be like: "OH MY GOD, THAT IS A HUUUUGE DRAW. LOOKS LIKE THE BETTER PLAYER WON!!!11!!!!"
Tournament players use decks that are successful on ladder... They practice these decks on ladder.... Ladder dictates what will be used in tournaments.

I'm tired of people using that "Tournament is totes different" falsity.

People use the most powerful decks and cards.
01/12/2018 01:36 PMPosted by Kaizer
Those who think tournament is "very" different from ladder are so "unrealistic".

Just admit this fact. In tournament, pro players always bring the best decks to compete because they want to win the prize, and it is also the undeniable fact that "better" or "best" decks have more chance to win against "average" decks. So, the conclusion is obvious that decks used in tournament are the best decks in standard-mode Hearthstone at the moment.

It is just a simple logic. It is just a statistically proven fact. I do not understand why people always find nice words to deny themselves away from this.
That IS very "simple" logic; I have to give you that.

However, it completely ignores some very important points. And some of it just isn't true.

How well a deck does is incredibly dependent on the surrounding metagame. For example, in the Midrange Shaman metagame, the Shaman had one "poor" matchup: Freeze Mage. Freeze Mage would win 55% of the time. (This one counterexample means that your "best decks beat average decks" point is not generally true.)

If everyone had played either Freeze Mage or Midrange Shaman, then Freeze Mage would have emerged as the "best deck". But that didn't happen, because the other 50% of ladder were all decks that (mostly) beat Freeze Mage.

Your assumption that class bans don't affect the metagame has absolutely nothing to support it. The "simple" fact is that in a world where you ban Priest, you don't have to worry about beating Priest with Aggro Druid or Tempo Rogue (both losing matchups).

You also don't care that Paladin is around 50% against Razakus Priest (this is one of the main reasons to play Paladin instead of Tempo Rogue or Aggro Druid).

You do care that Aggro Druid and Tempo Rogue are generally better at fighting for the board than the Paladin decks. And you definitely care that Aggro Druid beats Tempo Rogue (Paladin does not), which you expect to see a lot of. And that is why you don't see many Paladins in the lineup.
01/12/2018 03:13 PMPosted by Goozmania
People use the most powerful decks and cards.


Sure...but that doesn't mean the full card list is exactly the same. It is these possible differences that make the difference between tournament play and ladder play.

In my opinion, with ladder, you tend to lean towards more, direct consistency. Simply because you don't know who you may face next. So, you look to have an efficient deck that runs pretty much the same each game.

Tournaments, I believe there is a different expectation. Players will look to, of course, run proven, powerful decks, but with a heavier emphasis on direct counters.

These counter cards are much more impactful in a tournament situation. Simply because each win carries a heavier weight.

While I agree with your words, I think the order is off.

I believe Tournaments help to dictate ladder.

A deck is successful at a big tourney, people start playing it on ladder. Ladder adapts, a major deck makes its way to the top, Pro players practice on ladder playing against said deck. They make adjustments and think of counters. Go to the next tournament, win against the "popular deck", the the community sees what changes and decks do well and adjust.

Rinse & Repeat.

/shrug
There's no doubt that Shaman and Warrior need work in standard.

The best classes right now have legendaries and epics that synergize with eachother as well as core cards. (Raza, Kazakus, Shadow Anduin, low cost spells or DK Guldan, Skull, Cube, Voids, etc)

Shaman and Warrior legendaries/epics... are hit and miss don't provide much synergy.
They are considering some balance changes after the tournament.

If we have a less successful event due to certain decks or cards I'm sure it will influence their decision, ala Yogg.

Almost makes never ending priest and warlock worth it :).
01/12/2018 03:30 PMPosted by Jesse Hill
01/12/2018 03:13 PMPosted by Goozmania
People use the most powerful decks and cards.


Sure...but that doesn't mean the full card list is exactly the same. It is these possible differences that make the difference between tournament play and ladder play.

In my opinion, with ladder, you tend to lean towards more, direct consistency. Simply because you don't know who you may face next. So, you look to have an efficient deck that runs pretty much the same each game.

Tournaments, I believe there is a different expectation. Players will look to, of course, run proven, powerful decks, but with a heavier emphasis on direct counters.

These counter cards are much more impactful in a tournament situation. Simply because each win carries a heavier weight.

While I agree with your words, I think the order is off.

I believe Tournaments help to dictate ladder.

A deck is successful at a big tourney, people start playing it on ladder. Ladder adapts, a major deck makes its way to the top, Pro players practice on ladder playing against said deck. They make adjustments and think of counters. Go to the next tournament, win against the "popular deck", the the community sees what changes and decks do well and adjust.

Rinse & Repeat.

/shrug


The flaw in this thinking is that we all actually get to watch that first part...the one happening before the tournament. We see Zalae and Firebat trying different builds and we watch Kolento tech for different lineups. Streaming has fully removed the space between, we already have good ideas of what is strong and what can be done about it.

So we sit here at a month in no longer really needing to wonder. Besides the time already spent dealing with these decks personally, we watch 10 different professionals each day too.

As all of this happens on ladder (and, frankly, casual too. That's where I stay usually, and i face more cubelock and priest there than I do on the pre 10 ladder), it stands to reason ladder essentially controls all other elements of your non-solo game.

Which is good, because it makes seeing a trend and knowing when limiters are needed much easier. Blizzard has 100% access to those results. If it really all came down to tournaments, you guys would be horribly blindsighted. Some of these guys test theoreticals (cards and changes not yet released) in other environments to see how they impact things and how they can adjust.

Short summary: Ladder commands everything else. Successful strategies there are always brought to tournament. And also planned around in tournament.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum