Every meta. Why?

Why do they even bother to release these fun cards if they aren't going to be competitive??? I started playing back in Meanstreets and it's always been the same problem: they release some very clever and enjoyable cards but rarely and never very successfully give them a buff or support when they fall short 

My eyes lit up when I found out neo burgle Rogue was actually decent... Well that was until the experimenting phase ended. Now I'm running into the same libram pals, quest mages and locks and etc ( YOu SOULESs ROBOTs Do Us A FAVOr ANd UNINSTALl YOURSELVEs).

But I really can't blame them. Nobody likes losing multiple times in a row with a horse that can't quite race. But what if it's the horse you love?

Why the crap haven't they learned over these years to just buff what ppl want to play. They A. Have the data. And B. They should have a responsibility to back up these cards they release and ppl look forward to.

If "fun" stuff would be buffed to the point of being competitive with current meta decks, then those "fun" decks will be similarly complained about, thus removing their "fun" aspect.

Fun is relative obviously. If you mean why meme decks can't succeed as well as the competitive decks, then its fairly obvious by our own labeling. Meme decks are supposed to be niche. If its competitive then it'll be part of the meta and ceases to be a niche.

If you like a certain horse, that's nice. But if it can't run then there's no point of racing it, lose, and then start complaining about how other horses race better.

From my own experience, burgle rogue plays fine. Its just very inconsistent because there's plenty of holes in that deck, not to mention that its basically at the mercy of what you discover or get off generation. Best list in my opinion is full on disruption, with 2x Savory Deviate Delight, 2x Parrrley and Vanessa VanCleef with plenty of hope of getting your opponent's win con along the way. Plenty of laughs, just dont expect to climb up high in the rankings.

Oh, and Cera'thine Fleetrunner is bait. If you're playing a list with this card, well, then there's not much else to say really.

"Fun is when I win with the cards I choose."

-this guy

Hey, look. It's two people that responded that totally don't get it.

Games are supposed to be fun and when you invest time/$/resources into finding a deck you enjoy playing you should be able to win with it.

Oh, wait I forgot. I'm the only one in the world that thinks constructed is a joke right now. My ideas must not matter because it's obviously perfect.

Guys, when someone makes a post you don't have to just automatically disagree with it before thinking.

I don't understand how you can be this delusional.

"I should be able to win with any deck I choose. If a deck that I didn't choose wins that must mean the meta is wrong."

Are you actually a real person or are you just an algorithm trying to come up with the most outlandish takes on every matter?

BUt hey, let#s just take your advice and buff the cards people want to play, surely nothing can go wrong there, right?

Right?

RIGHT?

I'm saying that if new archetypes are introduced they shouldn't just be abandoned with a shrug.

Sadly this concept is a little too advanced for you guys. Have fun playing your brainless robot decks I guess

Quote From YourPrivateNightmare

"Fun is when I win with the cards I choose."

-this guy

In fairness, that's a reasonable way to assess fun for a lot of individuals. Frankly, I think it's a pretty concise description of the Johnny/Jenny player archetype (and dips a bit into the Timmy/Tammy archetype as well). It's also understandably frustrating to feel like a lone Johnny/Jenny in a sea of Spikes.

 It is very often you make a thread, people disagree with you, and you start to insult people. Why do you do this?

Quote From YourPrivateNightmare

I don't understand how you can be this delusional.

"I should be able to win with any deck I choose. If a deck that I didn't choose wins that must mean the meta is wrong."

Are you actually a real person or are you just an algorithm trying to come up with the most outlandish takes on every matter?

 

BUt hey, let#s just take your advice and buff the cards people want to play, surely nothing can go wrong there, right?

Right?

RIGHT?

No one asked for quest warrior deck buff. No one

I opened Shadowcrafter Scabbs and Cera'thine Fleetrunner on the first day of the expansion, and was really excited to try out Burgle Rogue too. And it's certainly a cool deck that does some powerful stuff. The early tempo you can get from Double Agent and Wildpaw Gnoll thanks to how they interact with Maestra of the Masquerade is awesome, and Contraband Stash is a great payoff card that benefits from smart playing (e.g. by picking spells from Wand Thief that will always target enemies, picking high-value deathrattles from Reconnaissance, or maybe holding back a bit when playing Shadowjeweler Hanar to avoid losing out on the tempo value you might otherwise get from the Contraband Stash).

It's a sweet deck, and when it goes off it's incredibly fun. I played a game where, between Reconnaissance and Contraband Stash, I generated a full board of Greyboughs and become untouchable. A part of me feels the same way you do about wanting to see it be more competitive so that I can win more and enjoy these sweet moments.

The reality, though, is that cards and archetypes are intentionally not created equal. These articles by Mark Rosewater back in 2009 speak to how MTG goes about designing for different players. Together I think they paint a good picture of how cards and archetypes will naturally vary in strength because they're basically serving different constituencies. As I see it, Burgle Rogue is likely always going to occupy some Timmy/Johnny design space, and probably won't be terribly competitive. That's not to say that every individual player can't find success with it (e.g. Rogue has some nice disruption tools that can really mess with OwlTK Warlock), but it's naturally going to be weaker because it's built to serve a set of players who care more than the average player about the "how" of winning.

To the broader point about issues with the metagame, I think you're right that it's in an unhealthy place right now. You need only tune in to one of Kibler's streams to see a player who is famous for winning with "Timmy decks" frustrated at every turn by the efficiency of the top tier decks.

Quote From HuntardHuntard

 It is very often you make a thread, people disagree with you, and you start to insult people. Why do you do this?

Because my soul is already dead.

I think a lot of people that play net-deck auto-win decks want to have their cake and eat it too.

I've caught flack on forums for admitting that I happily will rope those players (ideally for 7 turns playing excellently though I know I'm going to lose). And am vocal about not enjoying stale metas with obviously overpowered decks running rampant.

People, the amount of time I'm allotted a turn is for me to decide as are my opinions. They are as valid as yours and I don't call it BMing, I call it protest.

I'm going to add to what @anchom4n said by pointing out you recently opted to make a troll post when prompted to give a genuine answer to the thread in question (about people's favourite Merc character). I know nothing about you personally, but knowing that you are more than happy to make troll posts hardly makes me want to take what you say seriously.  

If you are genuinely annoyed with how people respond to your comments, then you have been shooting yourself in the foot for a while and would benefit from taking a more genuine and respectful tone in future. You reap what you sow, so to speak.

If you don't actually care then fine, I guess. That's my baseline assumption anyway.

--------------------

FWIW, as a burgle rogue main, I actually think it has been the most consistently well-balanced archetypes in the game. It has never been prominent in the meta, but it is the sort of deck that we don't really want to be either lest things devolve into completely unpredictable RNG fiestas. They make some popular Tavern Brawls, but not constructed metas.

Ultimately, burgle rogue is a meme deck that manages to retain a following pretty much regardless of what the Wild and Standard metas are doing, and generally does so without inviting calls for nerfs or buffs. That's a lot more than most archetypes can claim, and makes it one of the most successful archetypes they have ever designed.

Quote From meisterz39

I opened Shadowcrafter Scabbs and Cera'thine Fleetrunner on the first day of the expansion, and was really excited to try out Burgle Rogue too. And it's certainly a cool deck that does some powerful stuff. The early tempo you can get from Double Agent and Wildpaw Gnoll thanks to how they interact with Maestra of the Masquerade is awesome, and Contraband Stash is a great payoff card that benefits from smart playing (e.g. by picking spells from Wand Thief that will always target enemies, picking high-value deathrattles from Reconnaissance, or maybe holding back a bit when playing Shadowjeweler Hanar to avoid losing out on the tempo value you might otherwise get from the Contraband Stash).

It's a sweet deck, and when it goes off it's incredibly fun. I played a game where, between Reconnaissance and Contraband Stash, I generated a full board of Greyboughs and become untouchable. A part of me feels the same way you do about wanting to see it be more competitive so that I can win more and enjoy these sweet moments.

The reality, though, is that cards and archetypes are intentionally not created equal. These articles by Mark Rosewater back in 2009 speak to how MTG goes about designing for different players. Together I think they paint a good picture of how cards and archetypes will naturally vary in strength because they're basically serving different constituencies. As I see it, Burgle Rogue is likely always going to occupy some Timmy/Johnny design space, and probably won't be terribly competitive. That's not to say that every individual player can't find success with it (e.g. Rogue has some nice disruption tools that can really mess with OwlTK Warlock), but it's naturally going to be weaker because it's built to serve a set of players who care more than the average player about the "how" of winning.

To the broader point about issues with the metagame, I think you're right that it's in an unhealthy place right now. You need only tune in to one of Kibler's streams to see a player who is famous for winning with "Timmy decks" frustrated at every turn by the efficiency of the top tier decks.

The efficiency of top tier decks continually seems to be born from "overwhelming" turns, usually due to some form of mana cheating.  I think the most restrictive thing is that the hearthstone team constantly seems to turn to mana cheating as their "wow this card is so cool" as some sort of design crutch instead of creating other interesting mechanics or ways to interact on the board.

I've read the MTG articles before, and while I understand the premise, I also think it's highly outdated.  Why can't fun and competitive be the same thing? (yes I know that "fun" is subjective but the underlying point still stands)

Timmy will play card "A" if its a powerful and aesthetic card,  Johnny will play card "A" if it's a way to get a complicated flashy win, Spike will play card "A" only if it improves the efficacy of his deck and makes him win % more games.

Those are the fundamental (in a nutshell) differences between the players.  If we want to give them "real names".  Why does Timmy's control deck seem to never have the tools necessary to allow him a chance at reaching end game?  Why does Spike's aggro/otk deck always seem to have a plethora of ways to easily win?  People are fine with everyone having different playstyles.  What they aren't fine with is more tools being available to the Spike players.  Control players holistically have to "survive" an onslaught of cards and hope that they luck out.  Meanwhile aggro players (and in this meta OTK decks) simply just draw their their deck spamming minions, or tutors, until they get their win condition. 

It's a disparity in the way that cards are designed that fundamentally means that control players are always left feeling like they are on the back foot.  Never being able to do anything except clear/taunt/survive until something hopefully breaks their way.

And to be honest, it's a problem with the way HS was designed.  Other games such as MTG and even LoR have far better systems designed to allow control opponents flexibility.  LoR allows control players to bank mana to use on later turns as "spell mana" which lets them access more expensive spells to summon stronger units or stronger board clears naturally because the aggro player isn't going to bank mana, they are going to spend their mana summoning a bunch of smaller units.  The only way HS allows this is through mana cheating.  Except mana cheating is universal.  It can be used by any archetype (see Incanters flow)

What HS needs is either way more restrictive deck building decisions (similar to vandar or drek actually) that force players to build their decks in specific ways if they want some sort of bonus.  Or they need to fundamentally change how the game works (which let's be honest, will probably never happen).

I'll also point out that with so much card draw, player hand management/resource management is next to nothing.  If card draw wasn't so universally available or at least as "easily" available to use without restrictions, you'd see more careful play and more mid-range decks pop up.  

If I personally had to boil down the two biggest issues in Hearthstone it would be "too much card draw" and "too much easy/non-restrictive mana cheating".

I agree with you that the two biggest issues Hearthstone has is card draw and mana cheating. Time and again those are the things that end up warping metagames. But I also think that's kind of tangential to desire expressed by the OP to see new archetypes buffed to have a chance. Central to that is the question of whether or not all archetypes should be equally viable in competitive environments, and the Mark Rosewater articles are still hugely relevant to that.

Quick aside - you equate Timmy with Control and Spike with Aggro/OTK, but that's not really correct. Quoting from the Timmy article: "I should stress that Timmies don't like cards because they're expensive. They like cards that are impressive, and many of the most impressive cards are big (in size or effect) and thus are expensive. In addition, let me point out that a card doesn't have to be expensive to appeal to Timmy. If a card has a fun effect or creates interesting gameplay, Timmy can get quite excited even for cards that cost one or two mana."

Timmies care about big, impressive plays (which often requires a slower metagame), but they don't need to be playing a strict control deck to get that. Burgle Rogue is a great example of this - Contraband Stash is absolutely a Timmy card, but the deck is really more of a midrange/tempo deck than a control deck. Many versions happen to run disruption cards because that's the only way to stay alive in a warped OTK metagame. Similarly, Spike cares about efficient plays that rack up wins, so while Spikes tends to gravitate toward aggro decks for their efficiency they're not strictly aggro players. (Hearthstone has had some degenerate Control metas - e.g. Bomb Warrior meta - and you can bet Spike was playing optimized control decks in those metas.)

So, why can't fun and competitive be the same thing? For some people they are the same thing, and some archetypes exist to support them. For some people they're not, and other archetypes exist to support them (e.g. Burgle Rogue). They can't all be buffed to equal competitive levels just because some part of the player base likes them. Now, should those "fun" decks like Burgle Rogue be more competitive than they are? Probably, but that reflects problems like excess draw and mana cheating, and buffing weaker decks will only serve to power creep the whole game rather than reign in the actual problems.

It is good to hear your wise words, ⚓. I apologize if I offended anyone. I feel sometimes when I simply convey my feelings on threads it seems like everyone jumps me down.

The meta sucks imo but if you guys are enjoying it I'm genuinely happy for you. I can admit I've had a lot of fun when by total luck I run into another burgle enthusiast and we reveal ourselves on turn 2 or 3 and madness insues. To be fair that has been fun : D