I hate going second!

[Deleted]

Yea, you get the coin, which gives you +1 mana for 1 turn and you can combo it with some pretty interesting stuff, and you get +1 card, but what good is a card if you dont have any mana? On the other hand your enemy ALLWAYS has 1 more mana than you, and whatever minion you place, the enemy has the opportunity to counter, and you are allways left as the underdog, because the guy that goes first allways has 1 more mana than you on his turn. This is also supported by the fact that statistically, players that have the first turn win more.


I would like to have a so called "Preparation turn" which is a shared turn, where both players set up any 1 costers, if they have them in their starting hand of 3 cards, without being able to attack. After this turn ends, a coin is tossed to deremine who gets to play first and who gets to have the coin and an extra card (the coin will no longer count as a spell or a card, but will be a part of the UI)

After that, the guy who starts first starts with 1 mana, and the match continues as usual. I am aware this change will completely ruin the early game meta, but that is what the beta is for, testing stuff.

[shise]

I love going second, it gives you an extra card pretty much plus the chance to plan your strategies further ahead.

[Swiftninja]

First is the worst, second is the best.

[Deleted]

I love going second, it gives you an extra card pretty much plus the chance to plan your strategies further ahead.

You cant plan anything because when you play it you get countered on the next turn, its like trying to put your hand on a cat's paw, the cat will allways put its paw on top of your hand. It's called the upper paw.

- - - Updated - - -

First is the worst, second is the best.

Statistics say otherwise.

[Nekovivie]

I prefer to play second as the coin + extra card makes twilight drakes super beefy and mountain giants possible on turn 4.

[Sarevokcz]

for constructed, i like going first, but for arena, I prefer going second almost always, helps smoothing out the mana curve alot

[vizzle]

And where do you get these statistics?

[Chat]

Statistics also show that if you're good at a game you'll win more often then someone who's bad at the game.
Honestly.. I think the games just fine the way it is.

[Calzaeth]

You cant plan anything because when you play it you get countered on the next turn, its like trying to put your hand on a cat's paw, the cat will allways put its paw on top of your hand. It's called the upper paw.

- - - Updated - - -



Statistics say otherwise.

http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/The_Coin

Blizzard statistics from 8th November 2013 had previously shown a 51.3% win rate for high-ranked players going first, with a slightly higher 53% for players at lower levels.

Statistics are insignificant, according to the people with the numbers.

[McNeil]

It really depends on the deck I play. On my warrior I don't have any turn 1 play, but my priest would love putting a Northshire Cleric the moment the game started...

[Deleted]

http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/The_Coin



Statistics are insignificant, according to the people with the numbers.

3% is not exactly insignificant for a game that is supposed to be balanced, and even 1,3% more means a slight imbalance. The Coin seems to me like a temporary fix untill a better solution to give both players an equal start is found.

[Calzaeth]

3 percent, based on a 50/50 chance. That means that even if the players are equally skilled, and the decks are perfect counter/counter-counters to each other, the player with 53% chance can STILL be screwed by luck of the draw.

So, yes. 3% are pretty damn insignificant.

[jimlow]

First is the worst, second is the best.

Third is the one with the treasure mans chest

[vizzle]

3% is not exactly insignificant for a game that is supposed to be balanced, and even 1,3% more means a slight imbalance. The Coin seems to me like a temporary fix untill a better solution to give both players an equal start is found.

3%, 1.3% mean nothing. If you're losing games it's not because you're going second (personally I love going second). There is no ideal solution to this that will make it 100% fair. Someone will always go first and someone will always go second; your proposed solution doesn't change the issue, it just goes about it in a roundabout way. I don't see why you think that solves it.

[Coombs]

Statistics say otherwise.

Their statistics are misleading. It's a blatant overall first wins x% of times, but they don't provide the statistics for rogue/mage/druid and other classes who can combo well with the coin. As soon as they provide individual class statistics on a lot of areas then I will accept the balance of the coin.

[Vankrys]

i prefer the coin and an extra card. Chances are, i have nothing to play for 1 mana on turn 1 most of the time (in arena that is). the coin can give you the momentum you need.

Some class are really taking advantage of the coin. Mana wyrm get buffed, defias combo into another 2/1. coin + double flame imp is a strong strond opening.

[Deleted]

3%, 1.3% mean nothing. If you're losing games it's not because you're going second (personally I love going second). There is no ideal solution to this that will make it 100% fair. Someone will always go first and someone will always go second; your proposed solution doesn't change the issue, it just goes about it in a roundabout way. I don't see why you think that solves it.

Because when both players will have minions on the table to start with it is more fair.

As it stands if player one plays a minion, player two plays a minion (or not, because player 1's minion will kill player 2's minion) player 1 will either trade, wich results in a status quo, or will remove player 2's minion, wich results in a board control for player 1, and the same game will be played on the next pair of turns. Or alternatively, player 2 will use removal on player 1's 1 cost minion, which results in a status quo, on which player 1 will again gain the upper hand on the next turn.

[vizzle]

Because when both players will have minions on the table to start with it is more fair.

As it stands if player one plays a minion, player two plays a minion (or not, because player 1's minion will kill player 2's minion) player 1 will either trade, wich results in a status quo, or will remove player 2's minion, wich results in a board control for player 1, and the same game will be played on the next pair of turns. Or alternatively, player 2 will use removal on player 1's 1 cost minion, which results in a status quo, on which player 1 will again gain the upper hand on the next turn.

Yes but after your preparation turn, when both players place one minion on the table, then someone is still going to place the second minion first, right? Which means that someone is going to use his first minion to kill the opponent's first minion, which leaves the board with Player A's second minion and Player B with nothing. How does your solution change anything?

[Deleted]

I prefer going second by far. It's pretty rare for anyone to play something on turn one, which means when they play something on turn two after you've coined a minion, you're the one who gets to make the trades. I win a lot more frequently when I'm going second. Imo the first player should get the card so they have a bit of an opportunity to catch up with player 2. I also wouldn't mind the hero power costing 1 mana on turn one.

[Raiju]

A vast majority of decks I play I prefer going second. In my warrior 'rush' deck I prefer going first only with a leper gnome or squire at start. Usually for me the card advantage outweighs the mana advantage as I find capping mana played often isn't the best response anyway. The few times you need the mana advantage, coin.