Hearthpwn

Quote from Haussenfuss >>

The last six or seven posts in this thread have contained no content - posters have decided that there is more value in aimlessly hurling insults at perfect strangers, anonymously.

Close the thread.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Runior1298 >>

I find it hilarious, that some people are convinced any serious game developer is unable to build completely fair, skill-based game. Especially in a company that made Starcraft!

Hearthstone is and always will be a casual, randomized clown fiesta, perfect for hilarious YT videos. It's not the matter of developers' skill, but the bussiness model, which is working perfectly.

 

 I find it hilarious but really pittifying that your comments illustrates excactly what developers wants you to think.

1. The skillcap of hearthstone developers is max aggro/burst oriented.
2. Looking back they are unable to make a slower, creative game. That is too difficult for them. Their overall skillcap is weak to average at most.
3. They can't even make  9/9 viable in ranked.  Every rotation some class falls from ladder. #fail.
4. They don't know how to balance the game between fast and slow decks. Understanding of balance means more aggression, more burn, more aggro.
5. That's why you see rotation after rotation aggro rules.
6. Making Pirates is proof of complete inadequate design skill. #fail. And true the masses wants fast decks so aggro must rule the meta time and again.
7. And indeed the largest part of revenues comes from masses wanting aggro. So the bussiness model is aggro oriented.
8. Control decklists are the neccessary background for aggro to rule.
9. Look at the current stale meta. It is a result of repulsive card design overstreching their hand to see this game as just an aggro cash cow.
10. These developers are not worthy of their own game. This game is being aggro-raped over and over again.
11. That is not good for the game. A rotation of Brode and consort is in order. Fresh blood, new perspectives.
12. There is no Hearthstone Consumers Protection Act or some consumers organization protecting or otherwise fighting for the interest of players against these card designers. Control players are the ones that suffer the most.
13. But I'm sure you will not agree with me. You might be a fan. And fans don't think. They just cheer and adore. Like the fans of President Trump don't think but only cheer and adore.
14. In sum, rotation after rotation card design failure is demonstrated. Salt is the result. Lots of whining. Nobody acts and throw these guys out.

"Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point."

Frankly I'm amazed that anyone thinks that's what Copernicus did, lol. If only there was some way to look up information using a computer in this day and age.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.

Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.

My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.

Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.

Quote from Neichus >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.

Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.

My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.

Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.

 The desperation with which you put on airs is astounding, and also moderately humorous when so completely off base.

In any case, I do not believe that an attempt to exhaustively argue your points would be productive.  The problem is your basic premise is incorrect: aggro hasn't always been the #1 in the meta.  It is at this time, but certainly not always

 

@Falbrogna; are we talking dominant as in representation or in viability? For those watching and following the competitive circuit I'll be honest, it's laughable to think Aggro has been some kind of insanely dominant force competitively. This is certainly one of the few times where majority-Aggro lineups are actually viable, but in the past you'd be surprised to see someone actually bring in multiple Aggro decks with Control/Midrange/Combo lists just being strictly better in Last Hero Standing or Conquest. 

#1 in the ladder meta as well actually doesn't have anything to do with being the most common in the ladder meta. Patron Warrior for instance was brutal in virtually every matchup before nerfs, and still convincingly favored in aggressive matchups post nerf. The point also remains that Secret Paladin and Midrange Shaman aren't aggro either, so it's a completely incorrect statement to say "Aggro is always #1"; especially considering the timeframes both of those metas existed. So either Aggro has always been dominant, or it's time to admit that it's actually not always been dominant; this is a pretty binary thing, waffling isn't really a valid approach.

Quote from Tze >>

@Falbrogna; are we talking dominant as in representation or in viability? For those watching and following the competitive circuit I'll be honest, it's laughable to think Aggro has been some kind of insanely dominant force competitively. This is certainly one of the few times where majority-Aggro lineups are actually viable, but in the past you'd be surprised to see someone actually bring in multiple Aggro decks with Control/Midrange/Combo lists just being strictly better in Last Hero Standing or Conquest. 

#1 in the ladder meta as well actually doesn't have anything to do with being the most common in the ladder meta. Patron Warrior for instance was brutal in virtually every matchup before nerfs, and still convincingly favored in aggressive matchups post nerf. The point also remains that Secret Paladin and Midrange Shaman aren't aggro either, so it's a completely incorrect statement to say "Aggro is always #1"; especially considering the timeframes both of those metas existed. So either Aggro has always been dominant, or it's time to admit that it's actually not always been dominant; this is a pretty binary thing, waffling isn't really a valid approach.

@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself. So if we're looking for honest discussion, there are very large portions of time where Aggro was neither the most played OR the best; arguing it's always been one of those is still just wrong. So it's cherrypicking used to try and make Control feel like its been victimized somehow.

To have an honest discussion on the subject we're going to need Control players to realize that they're not actually the redheaded stepchild of Hearthstone. The most that can be said is we haven't had a ladder that's been predominantly Control, which has nothing to do with its viability, which is literally the only thing that really matters. Does your deck win? Yes? Does it win a lot against other good decks? Yes? Oh, it appears you have a viable deck. It doesn't matter if it's common, look at Dragon Warrior in Old Gods if you need evidence that idea is easily proven wrong.

Control Warrior and different forms of Control Warlock (Handlock and Renolock) have been top tier for years throughout different metas. Control Priest was actually extremely good in LOE's ladder meta. Freeze Mage is pretty much impossible to kill to the point they had to rotate a spell so it doesn't see play in Standard, and Renomage is actually at the very least objectively one of the BEST decks in the format right now. Save your tears, if you feel like Control decks are truly skillful there hasn't been a lack of promotion or options to play since launch.

Quote from Tze>>

@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself.

So, Sheldon it is. I'm out.

Quote from Hooghout >>

 My opinion is based on my thirty years of experience with computer (with a dip od board, tabletop and card) games and some basic knowledge of economics.

 

 

Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.

Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.

My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.

Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.

Egocentristone 

The thing about video games is it's the "bad" players who support it. Blizzard cares about the "skilled" players but there would be no game without the "bad" players to support it.

everything I've seen blizzard do is to try and improve the game for all players, including the skilled. 3 full sets will add more cards to the pool. So there should be more drastic changes to the meta. They also said they will be giving out more free packs.

when I first started this game 2+ years ago I kept comparing it to poker but now blizzards made it into something that feels like plain ol war.  Blizzards position is that combos are ruining the experience but in my experience not anywhere near as bad as someone who's only strategy is to go face.  you wish you never even started on that hour long deck build when you lose to aggro players. combos are necessary for a class like rogue to be viable, not every class needs to be "interactive"

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Quote from Tze>>

@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself.

So, Sheldon it is. I'm out.

Quote from jklmp06 >>

Games are made to have fun. They should focus on making it fun, for the majority of players. People who use games as a profession, who go "pro gamer" aren't supposed to be the most important person. It's a game. Balance and all of these things should never be made around high level plays. And it's not only for hearthstone, it's for any single multiplayer game.

Ok, the game has problems.

Some people like the game as it is.

Some others want the game to change.

So... your discussion is about discussing who has the better opinion and why the other one is flawed?

And you call each other names?!

Seems productive!  Just learn to accept people can have a different point of view and that's all guys, no need to try to look smarter just to valid your points, in fact that only shows how weak your arguments really are.

It's not about high skills or low skills, Blizzard only care about money. They are pretty good liars, bringing 1000 reason for why they are making 3 expansion next year, but we all know why

@Hooghout; for all of the claims about psuedo-intellectualism, you're the only one making up acronyms and making hilarious grandiose claims. Cancer isn't a game mechanic. Lumping Patron, Midrange Shaman, and Secret Paladin under the label of "aggro" is just idiotic and you should probably just find a new game if your definition of aggressive is "kills you before turn 10". It's also hilarious you use one of the most skill-intensive decks in Patron Warrior as proof that Team 5 only lets dumb people be successful.

None of that is reality. All of that is you being unable to comprehend reality.