Responding to what you mentioned, let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to reply to. Otherwise I'm assuming we're finished talking about this topic, since I don't want it to become too antagonistic or board-flooding. Thanks for your polite answers.
TYou accused me of focusing on winrates, but that isn't true.
[...]
It's the majority of the post you responded to but skipped over:
People hate whatever they lose to. Lose to aggro a bunch? What a bunch of bullshit, I died before I could even get my deck going! Lose to control a bunch! What the hell, they had answers for everything and I sat around top-decking and waiting for the match to end. Lose to combo a bunch? This isn't even interactive, my board is frozen and I'm not playing! Lose to midrange a bunch? LOL curvestone this game is terrible, uninstall!
And I won't pretend that I haven't had my share of anger toward some of these in the past. But it's healthier to move past it and realize that sometimes you get overrun. Sometimes your opponent has all the answers. Sometimes your board is frozen while all the combo pieces are drawn. Sometimes the curve is too strong and you get swallowed up by an impossibly strong board. If these things never, ever happened, those decks wouldn't work - it's how they work. One of those archetypes might bother you, but that doesn't mean it's inherently problematic. People tend to hate control and combo more than the other archetypes because they like "playing stuff" and seeing it hit the other person. If they don't get to do that, it makes them sad! :(
I did respond to the bolded paragraph in that the common factor in those cases is "Lose to [X] a bunch". Note that if you're losing to something a bunch, you're not winning, and that's why I was pointing out you're focusing on the winning aspect. My point was that some things feel bad to some players
even if they win, and in my experience the things I disliked, I disliked
even though I typically won, and thus your argument that people dislike what they lose against wasn't the whole picture.
Yes, there are many frustrating things with the game, and we all deal with it and move on, but I was trying to explain the thought process for some people, the reasoning behind it, and the reason certain mechanics feel bad to play against. The answer to this can be a fatalistic one -- the game is a certain way, everyone should deal with it and never ask or hope for change -- but I disagree with that approach, and either way it doesn't help one understand player thought processes.
In short, some people need to get over the idea that what "feels bad" to them is some kind of meaningful metric for changes to the game.
You and some other players no doubt feel this way, but I do not. In fact, even if you think "feeling bad" is a meaningless metric, and you don't mind playing a game that "feels bad" (even to you), I would suggest you reconsider solely because some players DO care. If enough players decide the game mechanics feel bad, they stop playing. Matchmaking suffers, Blizzard income suffers, and the game budget and state suffers. Slowly but ultimately, it affects everyone.
