Ben Brode Discusses the Current Meta (Shaman and Future Balancing)

Ben Brode discusses the current meta along with a potential balance patch coming later this month! He also mentions Fibonacci’s Control Warrior that I featured on the site today.

Hey everyone!

I’ve been reading a lot of feedback on the state of the game, whether pirates are too good, and whether shaman is too good. I’m also seeing a lot of folks wondering what we are planning to do about some of the current issues.

I should start by saying that we truly appreciate all of your feedback. I think Hearthstone is at its best when the development team and the community discuss and share ideas back and forth. These are real issues, and hearing about your experiences has been helpful for us in determining next steps.

So today, I wanted to talk a bit about the meta, potential nerfs, and how we think about balance.

To get us started, I wanted to define some terms. These are common terms, so there may be no revelations here, but it’s useful to make sure we’re talking about the same things, and how these terms (which are common to all games) are specifically used in relation to Hearthstone.

— About the Meta —

The Meta is short for the ‘metagame’. The game is what happens once you tap ‘Play’ and see the spinner. The metagame is what happens outside of the game. It’s what deck you choose to play. It’s what decks your opponents choose to play. Some people define ‘metagame’ as literally everything game-related, including chatting with friends about it, reading information about it online, or anticipating upcoming content. The Hearthstone community uses it more frequently as “all decks that everyone is using” and often more specifically as the “the top X decks”. If there are 7 decks that all see enough play that you see them again and again while you play, you might say those decks are ‘the meta’. If you’re playing a deck that people don’t see often, you are playing ‘off meta’. If you build a deck specifically to beat the most popular deck then you are playing to counter the meta. It doesn’t matter if a deck is good or bad, what affects the meta most is how frequently any one deck appears. It’s important to note that bad decks can be part of ‘the meta’, and good decks might not be widely spread enough yet to have become part of ‘the meta’.

— About Balance—

Balance can mean different things in different contexts. Sometimes we use it to describe the relative power level between things. Sometimes we use it to describe how often things are being used in relation to each other. And there is a complex relationship between these two metrics.

For example, a class might have a very high win rate, relative to others. That’s not balanced. When that happens, more people tend to flock to that class, increasing the play rate. Eventually, that class will become played more than other classes. That’s also not balanced, and it’s the more worrying imbalance.

We believe, at its core, Hearthstone is more fun when you are having a variety of experiences. We randomize the order of cards in your decks, restrict you to 2 copies of each card, and limit your hand size and the amount ‘card draw’ we print to help make experiences different each game. We print cards with random effects partially for this reason. But one of the biggest ways to give you different experiences (and problems to solve) each game is to give you different opponents with different decks. We also release new cards, because even all of these things isn’t quite enough to keep things variant over time.

There are games with less variety (like Chess), that are still very deep. But we believe that allowing creativity in deckbuilding, and giving players new and different problems to solve is really fun.

The value of Balance, then, is to keep giving players different experiences.

This is not to say that each card’s role is to compete for a spot in a competitive deck. Some cards (like Majordomo Executus), are intended to be a lot of fun for players who like big splashy moments. Other cards are meant to be deckbuilding challenges to players who like to experiment with cards that others have deemed weak (Hobgoblin). Some are meant to be hooks for learning or comparison. (“This is like Chillwind Yeti, but better! That must be good!”)

— Statistics and the State of the Meta —

I wanted to go through some stats about the current meta, and talk about how we analyze them.

Over the last two weeks, 30% of players are piloting Shaman at Legend. If you include all ranks, 17% of players are playing Shaman. This includes several decks: Aggro Shaman, Midrange Shaman, Control Shaman and Jade Shaman.

The worst point of imbalance in our history was Undertaker Hunter, where Hunter was played by 35% of players across all ranks.

The Pirate ‘package’ of Small-Time Buccaneer and Patches the Pirate is played in about 50% of all decks at rank 5 and above.

The average win rate of the best deck in the meta is 53%. Historically, there has never been a ‘best deck’ with a lower win-rate. Put another way, this is the worst ‘best deck’ in Hearthstone’s history. The win rate is consistent across all ranks, though individual players have wildly variant individual experiences. We don’t include mirror matches in our calculations.

The highest win rate of all time was Undertaker Hunter around 60%.

When evaluating balance, we look at the win rate of decks and classes, compare them to the impossible ideal (50%), and to the worst case (60%). Knowing that 50% is impossible, we just want it to be “close”. This isn’t a science, but for us, that has traditionally been between 53% and 56%. This isn’t the most important metric, though. If a deck has a 70% win rate, but only a handful of players are playing it, that’s great. It doesn’t cause the issues of non-variant gameplay… yet. Traditionally when a deck has a very high win rate, people begin to copy it, and it becomes a larger and larger part of the meta. Another important consideration for us at that point is ‘Counters’.

When a deck loses to specific cards or other decks, players can be rewarded for playing those counters as that deck rises in popularity. If a deck ever became 60% of the meta, but there was a deck that handily beat it, then you could have a 60% win rate by playing that deck, and it would become the new best deck in the meta. This phenomenon causes metas to change over time. We’ve seen that so far since the release of Gadgetzan – Pirate Warrior hit peaks of 30%, but shrank to as low as 10% over time. There were also a few days in which Reno Warlock was the dominant deck and which Rogue was the dominant deck at very high skill levels. When the meta is still changing, we don’t like to make changes to cards.

Right now, Aggro Shaman is one of our highest win-rate deck, but has a 35% win rate vs Control Warrior decks that are tuned to beat them. Reno Mage is also a bad match up for them. Does this mean that it has become ‘correct’ to play Control Warrior? It depends on the other decks in the meta, and whether Aggro Shaman continues to become more popular. Fibonacci recently took advantage of the predictable meta and built a Control Warrior deck that did very well against Aggro Shaman.

We believe that it’s important to let good players recognize shifts in the meta, and capitalize on their knowledge before the meta shifts and the ‘solution’ changes. This is one of biggest reasons why we don’t nerf cards very frequently. When metas stagnate for too long; When there are no good counters; When the best decks aren’t fun to play or lose to; these are all reasons we have made balance adjustments in the past. If a deck is popular for a few weeks, that isn’t a reason to make a nerf on its own. We’d have to be concerned about the fun, not be seeing any emerging counter-strategies, or be far enough away from a new content release to be worried about stagnation for a long time.

So that brings us to today. Another consideration for making a balance adjustment is planning around a client patch for each of our platforms. We are working on the ability to stream balance adjustments (and other content) directly to players’ devices, but until we have that ability, we need to release a client patch to make a change to a card. Our next patch is planned for around the end of this month. You can expect an announcement from us regarding balance changes either way in the week or so leading up to that date.

[Source]

Leave a Reply

18 Comments

  1. OptimusPrime
    February 6, 2017 at 9:14 am

    This game is unplayable right now … 8 out of 10 decks open with “STB + Patches” … this means absolutely no fun-factor! very disappointing all in all … playing since season 2 and thinking about to quit right now

  2. Goldenpants
    February 5, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    (1) I, among others, feel like these changes are far too late. It is hardly surprising we have seen rants from Kripp, Hotform, Amnesiac etc. lately about the state of the game. More frequent updates (can’t use the P word here(patches) due to negative connotations) I think would help keep things fresh during the season as the game just gets too stale.

    (2) Playing or playing against aggro right now results in very little decision making. The existence of aggro is vital but I don’t feel it should be the most populous archetype. It would be nice if aggro existed to punish certain greedy control decks etc. Right now it can even beat decks teched to deal with it.

    (3) In general I also feel most matchups are too polar. It is nice to have favoured matchups but going into a game knowing you have like a 25% winrate just isn’t fun.

  3. Taylor
    February 5, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    As Ben explained there are counters to the meta, aggro shaman is easily beat by control warrior or reno mage. I’d like to mention how chess is brought up and that the game has depth. I feel that Hearthstone loses depth and strategy with the cards that create randomness. It take away from the strategic level of the game. A game may be turned over by simply getting lucky, this deters skilled game players from the game as one may have out witted the opponent or skillfully read the plays and interactions and came out on top only to lose because of somthing “random”. For example: Firland portal is activated and summons leeroy jenkins. Not likely of happening but also has little skill to it. I believe the random cards could have solid effects which would bring more skill and depth to the game. For example: Fireland portal: deal 5 damage and summon a 4/4 elemental. Of course im sure the cost and stats of summoned cards would have to be adjusted but players could incorporate planning and tactics as they come to find what they are playing against. The rng is also litteraly the only thing that would ever prevent this game from being a physical card game. I find and i am sure many others whole-heartedly agree that the randomness ruins a games logic, skill and integrity. Despite that thank you for Hearthstone and all the great joy and salt it has given me.

  4. CocoAsticot
    February 4, 2017 at 1:48 am

    Nerf of tunnel trogg?

  5. Davidus0707
    February 3, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    I agree with Ben in almost everything he has said. Meta is relatively great right now. Variety of decks, new stuff, anything too good, different styles viable. Bad part: Paladin and hunter are out. Thats a main issue Ben has not talked about. They should care of the 9 classes can play with high winrates. More than a nerf i would love and improvement for pallys and Hunters like turn the call of the wild to 8 again. The grimy goons also have been a fail. I would improve some grimy cards to push that to classes and save the grimis. In the nerf departament, They wont even consider the StB nerf, game needs agro. The card is all right. Only think they may do is nerfing a shamman class card

    • TacoRocco
      February 4, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      I totally agree that the meta is actually in a good state right now. The balance in strength between Control, midrange, aggro, etc. all seems near equal. I think it is great that people can play any type of deck that they enjoy and win with it. People just complain about aggro when it is good because it is popular on ladder and seen often on ladder. Aggro is popular on ladder because it can go through games faster. Climbing the ladder to Legend or higher takes a lot of time, and Control decks just take too long to get wins for some people. The large number of aggro decks on ladder just makes it appear that it is the deck that is broken, when it is really the ladder system that is broken by taking way too long!

      • CD001
        February 6, 2017 at 5:49 am

        “The large number of aggro decks on ladder just makes it appear that it is the deck that is broken, when it is really the ladder system that is broken by taking way too long!”

        Amen to that, even down the scrub-end of the ladder where I normally reside it’s nearly all aggro or Reno – oddly I’m actually finding Wild more fun at the moment even with the odd Dr. Boom mech-mage splattering me all over the floor (I never did pack/craft Dr. Boom) 🙂

      • Puff_danny
        February 6, 2017 at 10:10 am

        “people can play any type of deck that they enjoy and win with it”- I’m sorry, are we in different universes?

        The meta is balanced – true, perhaps, in terms of winrates. And yes, diversity! You can either SMOrc with one of three decks, or play whatever counters those decks.

        But it isn’t fun.

        I for one I do enjoy playing decks like Reno Mage, Reno Priest, Control Warrior, but I do NOT enjoy playing them in this meta, because it’s a significant amount of time against a Warrior who is bashing your face in with an axe or a pirate (or both), and I’m just struggling to have the exact answers I need in the first SEVEN cards of my deck.

        So please, explain to me how I can “play any type of deck that I enjoy and win with it”.

        • TacoRocco
          February 6, 2017 at 2:53 pm

          As I mentioned, ladder is full of aggro decks because they are just faster. If you don’t like playing against aggro decks, then don’t play on ladder. Aggro decks are actually not as strong as you might think. Sure, they are strong early when Control usually doesn’t have the answers, but if Control manages to survive and keep the board under control, aggro will fall apart. As for aggro decks, they try to win before you can get your feet on the ground. But that’s what aggro decks do. Every deck type has a weakness and every deck type has a strength. If ladder was faster to climb, you probably wouldn’t see as many aggro decks on ladder. You also need to build your deck based on the most popular decks; there is no one-size-fits-all for decks. I really haven’t been struggling on ladder with my Renolock because I built it to be able to handle the early game and stall until it can take control. You’re going to lose to aggro no matter how you build your deck because sometimes you get bad draws, and sometimes the opponent gets amazing draws, but you’ll also get your share of good draws and them bad.

          Remember, aggro is a deck type that some people enjoy playing. They have strong strategies, but so does control; they just play at different speeds. Just because you don’t like the play style doesn’t mean that aggro shouldn’t have a fighting chance.

          • Puff_danny
            February 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

            So you claim that “people can play any type of deck that they enjoy and win with it” because YOU happen to play a deck you enjoy and win with.

            But do you really enjoy it? Are you having great moments with your uber-Renolock against all these aggro decks? Does every game feel challenging and different? Or does the continuous drone of “WHO GOES THARRR” “I’M IN CHARGE HERE” “FOR THE WARCHIEF” maybe, just MAYBE elicit a sense of monotony sometimes?

            Suppose I really enjoy playing Hunter decks. Got any decks for me that I can win with? Or N’Zoth Paladin? Or Ramp Druid? Or [insert other archetypes that have been wiped out of this meta]?

            And yes, I am ignoring your ‘solution’ to simply ‘not play on ladder.” It’s a cheap shot and as you may very well know, there are plenty of aggro decks even there. Furthermore, I want to play ladder (because winning there feels-and is!-more rewarding) and I also want that to not be a monotonous chore. is that _really_ too much to ask?

            Yes, I agree that the ladder system is to blame, and that is in the long term definitely something they should fix, but while they don’t, balancing the game so that kill-you-by-turn-4 aggro decks become less dominant would be nice, wouldn’t you agree? I’m sure you’d love to test your uber-Renolock against decks that actually challenge you to try to optimize your game plan, switch strategies, try to read your opponent, take risks, or, heck, maybe even try other decks! Just a thought.

    • Toltec
      February 5, 2017 at 2:47 am

      From what he said in a previous video, Ben thinks people might enjoy goons more as other cards come into the game (and others rotate out). So we’ll see

      • Davidus707
        February 5, 2017 at 4:58 pm

        I would love he is right and if he sais that I belive him cause they know what are coming in the future. But thats not exactly what I care about. What I would love to see is 9 class meta all the time. They may have an objective of 5% minimum per class. Its ugly what happened with priest and now with paly and hunter. I know is not that easy to do it as say it, I apreciate what they do And in general everything is amazing. Its almost imposible to create an expansion that brings that equilibrium so way to go may be improvements. They have never done it and i woul like to hear why not.

  6. zach
    February 3, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    stb?

  7. chris
    February 3, 2017 at 10:41 am

    Small Time Bucc, Spirit Claws, and Totem Golem

    all 3 of those cards need to be taken to Mordor and thrown into the raging fires of Mount Doom so they can burn in hell forever.

  8. David
    February 2, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    So another month of shammanstone, if the dont nerf STB and jade idol I’ll stop playing HS. It sucks having to wait 3 months to get a nerf. Developers why not weekly updates like any other online game?

    • John
      February 3, 2017 at 8:23 am

      He literally answers your exact question in the post. Read the last 4 paragraphs again. It’s literally right there.

    • Encker
      February 3, 2017 at 8:25 am

      I agree with nerfing STB but jade idol? Your opinion I guess.

      My issue is that aggro shaman is extremely inexpensive so almost anyone can play it and if everyone is playing it then the win % won’t be a true reflection of the decks potential. I would like to see the win% past Rank 5 or even legend where you could argue better players are playing the deck. That would be a true win % in my opinion and I’d have to imagine it is closer to 55-58%.