This is a really interesting and illuminating discussion, thanks for those who are contributing.
The design team mostly wants to make sure people have fun. Which of course makes sense! A few different valid points have been raised:
1) People, in general, may have less fun if they play against someone who drags on the game forever - also because there is an expectation that many online players will only have a couple minutes on the bus or in between chores.
2) People may dislike playing against control decks that limit their options of playing their own preferred strategies.
Though related, these are different points, and I think it's good to keep them separate.
On 1), I agree. I also very much prefer facing opponents who play fast. That does
not mean I prefer games that last a low number of turns - in fact, the opposite. I just like each turn to be fast.
Also on 1): there is a fundamental choice to be made here as well. The designers could choose to move the game towards a meta where each game is (predictably) fairly short. This would help those with little chunks of time to enjoy the game. However, it would (in my opinion) almost necessarily also move the game a little bit more towards "casual" rather than "strategic". I'm sure there are people who would like or prefer that. I'm not one of them: I strong prefer strategic games over casual games.
To be a bit more clear: one way to make sure that all games are short enough, is to sculpt a meta where most games lasts at most, say, 6 to 10 turns. This means that players will have seen around 12-16 cards from their decks. Luck of the draw will play a bigger role than if you see more of your deck each game. That's a valid choice: the luck will still wash out over many games, and well-navigated and well-sculpted decks will still win more than they lose.
I personally prefer games that last more turns, where it really feels like an epic battle between two well-matched players. So I don't mind a game which lasts, say, 20 to 30 turns, as long as the game feels balanced.
Which brings us to 2). I don't really know how many of these people there are, also because complaints are often conflated with the first point. But limiting your options is not the same as "dragging the game on forever". I personally don't like playing (with or against) rush or burn decks. I also don't really like playing (with or against) decks with a resource curve that is highly tuned to the first 5 turns, runs great for those turns, but then keeps on drawing dead 2cc drops that are only in there to prevent you from losing in the first 3 turns against a rush opponent. I like playing (with
and against) decks that try to win in some tactically smart way - not just by "my monster is bigger than yours" or "my deck type happens to hard-counter yours".
This doesn't mean that control decks should or will always lead to long games. Even the worst stall archetypes (Millstalker, Gwen-in-the-forest) don't necessarily lead to slow games: typically both players can play quite fast (e.g., Gwen: into the forest, opponent: play ally, done). I personally even think properly played
stall is fine: as long as you don't unnecessarily draw out the turns, the game could still feel quite fast and exciting, you just happen to go through more short turns rather than a few longer turns. That said, of course I fully agree that
uncounterable stall should be prevented - and I believe it has been at this point. And, considering all, even if I don't mind playing against it, I also don't mind if the designers limit pure stall, as they have. This is all fine.
Moving away from stall, a similar argument applies to control. A control player typically can play quite fast, because a lot of plays are quite reactive. E.g., you play ally? I play crippling blow: your turn again. So "many turns" does not imply "30 minute game".
Of course, I do know some players abuse the turn counter when playing stall or control, thereby not just increasing the number of turns, but also (unnecessarily) increasing the game time. That is bad, and should be avoided, and is frustrating even when each game only lasts 5 or 6 turns (because it still means you can only play one game rather than 3 in the same amount of time). I don't really know how to prevent that though. But if the design team think of something for that, I would be very supportive! (In a different thread, someone asked for faster animations, which may be part of a solution?)
So, in summary: I'm strongly in favour of making the game enjoyable, fun, and snappy, and making turns go fast if not a lot is happening. I'm also strongly in favour of a meta where games can last for many turns, and turn into epic strategic battles, which to me means that control should be allowed, and even encouraged, to facilitate that. I'm also strongly in favour of limiting "block all" control and stall, although I find myself hating
Serena more than
Moonstalker (stealing random cards messes more with my strategy and feels more unfair to me than a temporarily deferring an impending onslaught - also because it introduces more randomness, so it is much harder to plan for).
Anyway, please do continue (civilised) discussion - I think this is very helpful. It does feel like the design team has to make a conscious decision on whether to encourage the meta to be more casual (which I wouldn't like as much) or more strategic. To me it has felt as if we're leaning more towards casual lately, and perhaps that's deliberate. But perhaps it would be good to discuss that in the open, rather than indirectly by talking about the merits of specific archetypes.
Bookmarks