Slight Rant - Deck Matchups

[stepmcgee]

So, in most card games, the matchups are usually 60-40, maybe 70-30 based on deck type. An example is Hearthstone, where almost every deck has a somewhat reasonable chance of winning against other decks. Sure, there are tougher matchups, but it's usually 70-30 at worst. However, SV feels much more 90-10 or maybe 80-20 in every game. I basically know in the first few turns if I'll win or not based on the type of deck I'm playing and my opponents' deck based on his first few plays. Sometimes it's harder to tell immediately, but I can usually figure it out. The only time it's not that lopsided is when I queue up to the same type of deck as mine (i.e. control v. control). But when it's aggro v. control or combo v. control, etc., the game is usually decided by the decks and not skill.

Perhpas I am the only one that experiences this, but wins/losses seem to be based primarily on deck matchup.

[Janni]

I feel like SV has a lot of balanced matchups and close to none are one sided except maybe dshift and seraph against control decks.

Personally i get multiple win streaks (usually 10) with every kind of decks (like control sword, silver bolt forest and or Ramp dragon) and i never felt like a game was unwinable, almost all matches were decided by who made the right decisions and used their evo points right.

Anyways i think with hearthstone you have made the worst example possible for a balanced meta, because while the winrates there seem to be balanced this is only because there are so few viable decks. (ever tried winning with paladin or hunter ? those sure arent balanced matchups at all)
Also again 50% winrate doesnt mean its good or fair you have a 50% chance to win a coinflip but that doesnt make it good or fair (and exactly thats what games in HS feel like atm a coinflip)

Let me say tho that i love HS (but i only play wild because i think Std meta is boring)

[Sir Fluffykins]

You say the game is balanced because you get win streaks with copied high winrate decks? That's great....but you clearly don't see the problem then.

I swear people start this game, immediately type into google "highest winrate Shadowverse decks" copy that deck then spam it forgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck.

Granted with more cards, come more possible decks and more room to see different cards played, but the game isn't balanced because you win with the highest win rate meta decks XD

[Janni]

Sir Fluffykins a écrit :

You say the game is balanced because you get win streaks with copied high winrate decks? That's great....but you clearly don't see the problem then.

I swear people start this game, immediately type into google "highest winrate Shadowverse decks" copy that deck then spam it forgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck.

Granted with more cards, come more possible decks and more room to see different cards played, but the game isn't balanced because you win with the highest win rate meta decks XD

Ramp Dragon and Control Sword are far from highest winrate decks, heck some even see Ramp Dragon as a very weak deck, and Silverbolt forest is strong but not everyone can play it correctly.

And i never said i literally netdecked the versions of my deck, you know you can still play control sword but have some variation right ? (altho i dont see much wrong with netdecking either)

If i played the best ladder decks i would just play Tempo Rune and or Mid Swordscraft.

[Silviechan]

Sir Fluffykins a écrit :

You say the game is balanced because you get win streaks with copied high winrate decks? That's great....but you clearly don't see the problem then.

I swear people start this game, immediately type into google "highest winrate Shadowverse decks" copy that deck then spam it forgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck.

Granted with more cards, come more possible decks and more room to see different cards played, but the game isn't balanced because you win with the highest win rate meta decks XD

"orgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck"
that was lost a long time ago and in any competative version of any card game there will be decklist that people use since they are consistent and because people are not always good at deck building(it happened in both magic and yugioh for years and thats why some cards is inf more value then others since higher rarity+more used card=higher value on the market)
and even before there was more populare and easy way to find decks on internet people found them in magazines(why stuff like interviews with WC of yugioh and the world tour always contained couple of deck list of the players because it was a well known fact and the company could sell more if people knew what decks to try and "aim for")

[Kayneth]

An Umbreon a écrit :

"orgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck"
that was lost a long time ago and in any competative version of any card game there will be decklist that people use since they are consistent and because people are not always good at deck building(it happened in both magic and yugioh for years and thats why some cards is inf more value then others since higher rarity+more used card=higher value on the market)
and even before there was more populare and easy way to find decks on internet people found them in magazines(why stuff like interviews with WC of yugioh and the world tour always contained couple of deck list of the players because it was a well known fact and the company could sell more if people knew what decks to try and "aim for")

So basically, your long-winded rant tells us that strongly believe that the only way to play a game is to be a tryhard MLG-pro wannabe, and that games do not have any other dimension by which one may gain enjoyment, such as exploration or experimentation.

Fair enough.

[Silviechan]

Kayneth a écrit :

An Umbreon a écrit :

"orgetting the whole idea of a card game is to make your own deck"
that was lost a long time ago and in any competative version of any card game there will be decklist that people use since they are consistent and because people are not always good at deck building(it happened in both magic and yugioh for years and thats why some cards is inf more value then others since higher rarity+more used card=higher value on the market)
and even before there was more populare and easy way to find decks on internet people found them in magazines(why stuff like interviews with WC of yugioh and the world tour always contained couple of deck list of the players because it was a well known fact and the company could sell more if people knew what decks to try and "aim for")

So basically, your long-winded rant tells us that strongly believe that the only way to play a game is to be a tryhard MLG-pro wannabe, and that games do not have any other dimension by which one may gain enjoyment, such as exploration or experimentation.

Fair enough.

Ofcourse not I like making my own deck and explode and try to find counters for the "metta" but saying the "WHOLE IDEA" is to make your own deck is quite flawed since most card games also have decks that you can buy and such,..
I rather say that the "whole idea" of a card game is to try and have fun and if you enjoy having fun siting for hours thinking if card x is better then card y in your deck because deck type Q is currently strong go for it(I am in this category myself)
and If you are not as good in deck making and just want to find a deck to try and use a net deck go for it
neither way is wrong and both is imo good for the game