Toolbox of Terror: The Glass Ceiling
Posted by Scrubby Bubbles on August 27, 2008
Game design 101 tells us that a balanced and robust game should never tilt in one direction or another. All styles and strategies of game play should get equal attention and should be equally powerful. Rock has Paper, Paper has Scissors and Scissors has rock. As a designer we should be able to easily map out which strategies are efficient, powerful and fun to play, likewise, we should also be able to map out which other strategies beat anything else, etc, etc. Like two sides of a scale, one should weigh equally as the other. Balance. Every game aspires to this lofty goal. Some make it, many don’t; such is the life of a game and it’s design principles.
But, what if things were to skew in one direction?
I believe the World of Warcraft TCG has achieved a level of balance not many games have attainted and it’s to be commended; however, I feel like there is still much work to do and something is still amiss. When I look at many of the Heroes and classes across all of the sets it becomes painfully apparent that certain strategies created by a small number of cards contribute to a premature obsolescence. Why is the hunter class relegated to a punch line? Why are Demon Heroes languishing in my box, cursing the very existence of Twig of the World Tree and Form of the Serpent? Why can a well-oiled Desecrator deck beat more than 60% of the current tournament decks with even a marginal draw?
The heart of the dilemma we’re seeing is a small number of cards coming together to create a synergy that seems contrary to what we’d expect in a certain deck archetype. Form of the Serpent by itself is powerful; however, when backed up with cards like The Natural Order, Cyclone and Twig of the World Tree, you have a perfect storm coalescing into an unstoppable force. Rush decks like Desecrator, from a design standpoint, pose a very real risk to any card game in that they typically have three qualities every good tournament player looks for in a deck. They’re powerful, they’re fast, and they can overcome marginal draws and still win games. What we’ve seen here in the WOWTCG is a class known for utility (Druid) become dominant in the early game. Is this good or bad? I think it’s still early, but the signs are already obvious and something the design team should take very serious.
What to do?
When we look at a newly released set or a group of cards it’s easy to speculate how they ‘might work.’ We can theory-craft, debate and even test, but what good would this do if any type of test excludes, first and foremost, the benchmark for our game. Enter Desecrator. More to the point, does the design team use Desecrator as a benchmark for new builds and new cards? I think it’s a fair question because the deck renders roughly 60% of the current Heroes (and archetypes) unplayable in tournaments. Obviously I have no solid numbers to back this up, so it’s just speculation, but if the given turnout at the recent Continental Championships is any indication; the game is indeed skewed.
The problem is not the deck itself, but the natural tendency of your average player to gravitate to what is easy. Game designers must know this; at least, we all hope they know this. It seems a bit strange though that a deck like Desecrator would be allowed to flourish for as long as it has without an ‘answer card’ being printed. The simple answer could be that it was all part of the plan; or the more sinister, conspiracy-theory answer could be, is that there is no answer and the monster they birthed will simply have to be ‘phased out’ though a series of stronger cards in coming sets. Scary if you ask me. Desecrator poses an interesting problem because it’s not like the Rotun deck from Worlds ‘07. They can’t simply print Bringer of Death and call it day, no it has to be more subtle like a souped up version of Xanata or Antikron. Whatever the answer, it’s going to take some serious thought.
The purpose of this article was not to rant, but to simply point out and ask a question, “Why let a deck like Desecrator create a glass ceiling for 60% of the game?” Because that’s really what it’s done.
What do you think?
Jeff Mikos
Icaursforte@gmail.com
UDEBoardID: Icarusforte
MasterBofSweden said
You mean like Gorebelly TWIG rush before it?
The added wastewalker helm & serpentform adds to the superiority of the weapon, couldn’t have been THAT hard to foresee?
Cost 3 World tree’s mutation
Ability General
“Target Twig of the world tree in play Ongoing: The Twig of the world tree looses all powers and can’t strike. Hero wearing the twig can’t atack or strike with weapons and take 2 damage at the start of every turn.”
OR
Play Blocked
OR
Play Desecrator
In any of the cases above there is no perfect solution. There will be cards like the Black Lotus in all games. It’s up to us as players to determine what we want to do, own the card and feel the awe from our peers or just make UDE give us a format that bans the card so noone can have the awesome feeling of owning one in the year 2015. (How awesome? Like a million hotdogs, Sir!!!)
Rex said
There’s always a ‘deck to beat’. A lot of times, it’s not the best deck. But right now Descecrator is that deck. If you can’t beat Descecrator, you have to build something that can.
Besides, it’s not just Form and Twig. The entire druid aggro deck has to be looked at. It’s a finely tuned deck with some flexibility. If it were just those two cards, I’d run Angelista and Chipper and call it a day.
Kysuke said
Rush decks have been around since Elendril rush. The solution to ending the stranglehold Elendril had on the game was to make a better rush deck: Omedus. Omedus’ reign ended when they made an even better rush deck: Desecrator. So you’re right, Desecrator’s reign will have to end sometime. But it will end not because the deck gets nerfed but because other decks get stronger. Rush decks will never die so stop complaining.
And please, not another Bringer = death of solo comparison.
MasterBofSweden said
Angelista is just postponing the inevetable one round.
and
Chipper takes out form in round 5 you are almost dead by then.
If they where any real answer to twig and form they would be in more decks!
What we need is a twigeater coz that one will never go away in constructed. But then again if it does… there be another vanilla flavored card that be da s**t tomorrow. So why worrie at all rush is part of the cycle rock, paper & scissor. People better get used to it!
Jedion said
I think they printed a fix to desecrator when they printed insect swarm?
No?
Tyler said
Insect Swarm…a Druid card. So, enhancing Druids, again, and limiting the answer to only one class. Is that a true answer? I think not.
Scrubby Bubbles said
Kysuke,
Elendril, Omedus and Phaladus can be totally forgiven given the age of the game when these decks were popular. As mentioned in the article, the topic was not a rant, just a simple observation on where we’re at right now. It seems a bit strange to me that we’re almost two years into the game and a deck like Desecrator can still be run out at major tournaments with fairly broad success. Not only that, the deck pulls out wins that it clearly should not have. Even at the height of Omedus’s power, there were still decks that could auto win against it (many competitive decks in-fact); not so with Desecrator. The closest thing I’ve seen is the Black Ice Mage deck, but that seems tailor made to beat Twig/Serpent.
You’re correct that rush decks will always have a place in the game; however, I would argue that Desecrator is an exception to the rule and has such broad sweeping power against many decks in the meta that it’s unhealthy for the game. Many rush decks will always auto-win against certain builds at any given time; I’m just disappointed that Desecrator is far more reaching and wonder if the designers really intend for 60% of their Heroes to be unplayable against something so powerful.
-Jeff-
Gamwich said
Seriously, play Black ice, and test against it.
Descecrater is such a so called “problem” because so many people play it.
I dont think you can blame people for playing a good deck. However, I really dont think the deck is too strong. Many decks can beat it. Even other rush kan actually beat it.
Descecrater is also not the most consistant. However, it does have a lot of … Well, I call it “blowout”. Twig with double rak is indeed strong. But it always has been. Still, I havent seen a lot of Twigbelly lately (not even the new troll warrior). Yes theyre around, and still explosive. Just less popular.
Yes it is a good deck. But honestly, I believe that Blackice just happens to be better. And can wreck a lot more of the “field”.
Gamwich said
Wante dto add: didnt want to sound rough
Glenn Jones said
Desecrator is still the deck to eat? I did not know that…
The one point this article really brought up that I do agree with is “Druid has way too many amazing cards in relation to other classes.”
Glenn Jones said
*beat
LwoodY2K said
“Desecrator is still the deck to eat?”
Nom nom nom.
(Because cannibalize is good against it, that becomes even more amusing).
Jedion said
Nom nom nom!!!
I think druid has soo many amazing cards, becuase it is essentially a class that is broken up into 4 classes… boomkin cards arent played in feral, which arent played in resto, etc… When those cards are able to be mixed with each other (form of the serpent) is when the deck becomes good.
I honestly think warrior strike out is just as good of deck as desecrator… but.. No one plays it anymore..
twig/heroic/rak rak is deifnitely more “hey, i just won that game” than form of serpent/twig/rak/rak….. especially considering warrior has access to other weapons that are almost on par with form of serpent, they have 3 more life, and they have the natural order equivalent in “puncutre”..
jookie said
doesn’t red control pally beat desecrator? So does control priest with maindeck 4 x absorb magic
jookie said
strikeout warriors only have 2 more health than desecrator (damn them taurens!)
I think druid > strikeout warrior mainly due to druid’s access to better answers for abilities and turn 2 xanata.
Kysuke said
Scrubbly, I disagree. I see Desecrator as the same kind of rush deck as any rush decks of the past. Rush decks are inherently more consistent than any other decks (except for Gorebelly Bluffwatcher deck). In a game where chance is a constant factor, consistency becomes valuable. Ergo, rush decks may still win games that it should not, especially in a tournament with a finite number of rounds.
Phil Cape’s Desecrator ended up undefeated at Conts. Not to belittle his skills, but if a billion people played the deck, through brute force of sheer numbers someone’s got to flip heads 9 times in a row. If Desecrator really is so @#*$&ing powerful, it should have dominated the top 8 list. But it didn’t. For the ton of other Desecrator piloters that weekend, the deck failed them.
And FYI, strikeout warrior made top 8 in day 1.
Scrubby Bubbles said
Scrubbly, I disagree. I see Desecrator as the same kind of rush deck as any rush decks of the past. Rush decks are inherently more consistent than any other decks (except for Gorebelly Bluffwatcher deck). In a game where chance is a constant factor, consistency becomes valuable. Ergo, rush decks may still win games that it should not, especially in a tournament with a finite number of rounds.
I agree with some of points, but I’d argue that past rush decks don’t have nearly as much utility as Desecrator or had matchups that were outright auto-losses. As I mentioned earlier, there’s probably one deck in the meta that could be close to an auto-loss for Desecrator, which would make Black Ice “The deck to beat!”
Phil Cape’s Desecrator ended up undefeated at Conts. Not to belittle his skills, but if a billion people played the deck, through brute force of sheer numbers someone’s got to flip heads 9 times in a row. If Desecrator really is so @#*$&ing powerful, it should have dominated the top 8 list. But it didn’t. For the ton of other Desecrator piloters that weekend, the deck failed them.
And FYI, strikeout warrior made top 8 in day 1.
You’re correct, however, you don’t account for all the Desecrator/Kilzen Mirror matches that inevitably happened. Again, the article wasn’t about how ‘unbeatable’ SerpentTwig is, but more on how many decks are marginalized because of it. Answer me this: Why is it acceptable that a single deck makes so many other Heroes and archeytpes unplayable at the tournament level? Obliveron is a very strong deck both in block and constructed, but yet it gets smashed by Twig. Same goes for Mother Misery, Boomkin (yes that’s right), Rogue, etc, etc.
And for the record, I think Desecrator is far superior to Strikeout Warrior.
-Jeff-
Jedion said
Man, all this strikeout warrior hate…
I am just curious…
How many of you have tested Protection warrior strikeout? HmmM?
GPFault said
As the guy who played strikeout warrior to top-8 (day 1), I was more than happy to see desecrator sitting across from me as I feel like the matchup is very much in Warrior’s favor.
That said, I also feel that warrior can recover better from having its back broken by a control deck than Desecrator can.