only retard or newbie believe this games need a lot of skill. Only 10% skill in this games. Don't tell me control vs control =skill. Yes, some extend of skill compare to aggro but outcome of the games decide by RNG. ie:good kazakus RNG, cabal tome into cabal tome, draw leeroy combo in turn 10 have exact lethal when.opponent left 20hp etc.
You talk like 10% skill is nothing. Thats the difference between a 40 and 60 percent winrate.
Yep, like every card game... Ever play poker? How the hell do the same players make it to the final table all the time in a game of 90% luck? That 10% skill goes a long long long way in success in card based games.
Because, after seeing their initial hand -- poker players can go "Screw this." and fold -- losing only 0.1 game, while the other player only wins 0.1 game from beating the player who folded.
The only way to win the equivalent of 1 game is if both players like their mulligans, and like their turns 3-5, losing only 0.1 game if they accept their mulligan and don't like how the game has played on turn 3, if the other player didn't try to force them to bet more towards the maximum of 1 win possible: The player with the best hand may have to hold back, no matter how good their hand is, until at least turn 4 -- to force the other player to invest as much of the 1 win maximum as possible at that point, and then try to make the other player invest the remaining win before the game is decided.
Aggro players are the equivalent of "All in!" on the pre-flop. ...
I'd love if Hearthstone allowed you to say "screw you; I'm not going to give you a win!" to aggro players, and leave them with only 0.01 win for you conceding to their cancer decks, EXCEPT when you have the hand to match them.
"Hearthstone is set up like a microtransaction mobile game. If 2 players start at the exact same time but one decides to drop $100 and the other is f2p the one who payed will win almost 100% of the time they play each other."
I don't think the focus on mobile gaming and the aggro based metagame have much to do with one another in Hearthstone, before Hearthstone moved from computer to phone Hunter was dominating the game so the focus on aggro has more to do with creating inexpensive, competitive and defining decks for the rest of the metagame to base itself upon. From a design standpoint I don't see a better alternative than Aggro as the crux of the game, Combo isn't interactive with the game's turn structure, Control is either a result of aggro itself or devolves into a game of greedier decks and Midrange is a kissing cousin of Aggro.
Where I think Blizzard has gone wrong with Hearthstone is 1) Card rarity should be based on the spells function instead of "insert Blizzard's reason here" so that removal and healing are more accessible, I have never understood why the best removal, healing and taunts in the game always seem to come in adventures or have Rare and Epic rarities, it really does a diservice to people trying to "graduate" from aggro and makes Arena overly minion focused. 2) No neutral "spells" so that classes who weren't designed for a particular archetype could have access to that archetype at a cost of efficiency, Warcraft has so many wearables, consumables and craftables in the game that can't be represented by the card pool it's a shame. 3) Class identity has really prevented some classes from ever developing out of their stereotype, Rogue is still playing the same deck now as it was at launch. 4) Paperback mentality that mistakingly believes the game wouldn't benefit from more aggressive intervention. 5) Standard has arguably done more to make the game stale than make it interesting as Wild is a much better format that has only suffered from card printings for Standard ironically (Pirates)
The last Q/A Brode promised that the next rotation will be about skillful gameplay.
[...]
Now it is time for change.
Yeah sure bro, next expansion 1 mana charge 5/1 pirate "shuffle 6 copies of this into deck, play all the copies of this card from your deck, can only attack face"
Are you skillful enough to go first and draw it on turn one?
I think OP is right, and people will stop playing soon if veterans stop. I think kripp is no longer interested in HS, you can see it on his face, he is just doing the videos because he is paid to do so,as soon as he leaves HS, it's over for HS. Veterans want complex mechanics, but blizzard just refuses to give it to us ,they even thought mode deck slots are too complicated for a player forget about complicated mechanics
Yep, like every card game... Ever play poker? How the hell do the same players make it to the final table all the time in a game of 90% luck? That 10% skill goes a long long long way in success in card based games.
Well, why would they? Catering to casual players and giving idiots "good feelings" nets much more money and success than striving to make a game that rewards an intelligent few.
Why do you think aggro cards always have a magnitude of power far superior to comeback and healing cards? They want the game to be fast and reward speed and brainless plays rather than longer 1v1 matches.
The ranking system represents players badly. Those who rank up high every month feel like its the norm, however the most are at ranks 15+ and even there the meta is mostly aggro
They can't get past that without going aggro themselves...
Most players do not have the amount of time it takes to grind the ladder. So they must play fast decks to succeed. I think a real solution should involve both making aggro weaker and improve the ranking system.
Guys we all know this it's not like that's gonna change if you copy-paste more posts about this shit. That's how this game works if you are tired of netdecking just abandon it and do us a pleasure
blizzard cares about everyone, but they just want the lower skilled players to get better. The thing is though that some of the lower skilled players will play aggro to "get better" just like the high-skilled players. But the reason blizzard gives an edge to lower ranked players is so they can get better with not only conservative decks but also aggressive decks. I see no problem with Blizzard at this point.
Since when does 99% says it's good? Every single friend I have in real life or in battle.net isn't satifyed with the game now but keeps playing because it is addictive. The "top 1000" is BULLSHIT, there is no such thing as being a top player in hearthstone, this is a lame RNG game, if you get to rank 5 you are just as good as anyone, if you want to get legend you just have to waste your time. I've hit legend 3 times but most of the seasons I hit rank 10 or something because I there is no real benefit to wasting my time every season.
How many people are there like me? Who are "good" at the game but low rank at most seasons? The most stupid thing is, I'll be used in the percentage of players who is casual and happy with the game even though I think this game is the worst it has ever been and need some serious changes.
The game at it's core is silly and whimsical. The art, the voice lines, the characters, the boards are all fairly simple and childish. I think this is Blizzard realizing people are starting to play video games earlier and earlier so they are moving away from the Diablo style and more toward Overwatch/Hearthstone style.
They continually nerf long combo decks and push curvestone decks. Long combo decks are the only decks that play different on mobile than they do on computers just due to the amount of time they take to pull off the combo. I usually wind up roping when trying to win with miracle rogue or patron warrior and if I was trying to do this on my phone I probably would never be able to pull it off.A powerful deck that can only really be done on a computer isn't what Blizzard wants.
Hearthstone is set up like a microtransaction mobile game. If 2 players start at the exact same time but one decides to drop $100 and the other is f2p the one who payed will win almost 100% of the time they play each other.
Arena in my opinion is harder to play on a phone than casual or ranked on a phone and Blizzard has shown they really don't care about arena balance at all in the last few expansions.
According to Blizzard themselves 75% of the player base is below rank 15. Anyone that even plays 2 or 3 ranked games a day can probably climb higher than that meaning probably around 50% of all players just play a game or two in casual probably at work or on the bus or something.
Blizzard announced more expansions per year which also means more money per year in case you had forgotten they're a business.
The Hearthstone FAQ section on their actual site has 20 questions, 12 of which are just about playing on a phone or tablet.
Pro players, streamers, legend players and most high level players are not particularly fond of the last 2-3 metas and are souring on the game as a whole but profits are continuing to go up and Blizzard has been pumping out aggro curvestone every expansion for over a year now.
Doesn't correlate with competitiveness.
Most nerfs are done to change the meta, which affects the better players more.
Not necessarily. A while ago I faced a player in Arena who used cone of cold on my left most minion while I had 3 minions. No matter how new you are to the game, just reading the card text should be enough to tell you that hey, this is a bad play, don't do it. Yet these players exist. I doubt they stand a chance against a better player with no cards even if they had a full collection.
?
Ladder anxiety might explain that as well.
Expansions change the meta (see point 2). Also, changing meta and pushing decks out of it might turn new players away from the game if their only good deck is no longer good.
New and casual players need the FAQ, and they're also the players who play on mobile devices.
High skill players almost universally want a game that is less random, where they can exercise their skills and be rewarded for same. However, if the skill cap is too high, newer, lesser skilled players are often lost, which stunts the game's overall growth. Moreover, the more rigid the skill requirements, the more rigid the game's patterns, until the game becomes more of a memorization/technical exercise like chess.
This sums it up well. There is an inherent tradeoff in games between randomness and skill. But the higher the skill component of the game the less friendly it is to a casual player. I'd point at StarCraft 2 as a fine example of a game which does cater heavily to a small, highly-skilled group of people and it has stagnated. Hearthstone has massively more appeal to a broad swath of players.
The last Q/A Brode promised that the next rotation will be about skillful gameplay. What that means is to be seen as the year of the Kraken has ended, without announcing to my knowledge this years theme.
Do you have a source on this? I ask because I don't recall any claim of that sort and a brief scan of the recent Q&As doesn't bring anything up regarding skill. I did not, however, watch the full video so if it was something said in passing then I did miss it.
The idea that "the nature of cardgame" automatically comes down to aggro hegemony is preposterous.
You're completely right. There is nothing at all that inherently makes Hearthstone an aggro-favored game. I think the structure of ladder makes it an aggro-favored game. I also think that aggro is inherently more pleasurable to a lot of people because you are "winning" most of the time. I don't mean winning games. I mean you have the feeling that it is YOU that is on the offensive. It is YOU that is pressuring the opponent. It is YOU that is threatening lethal.
There was a great article linked in somebody's post about common psychological fallacies in card games. I'm not on my main computer so I don't have it on hand, but one of the points it touches on is how people judge whether they have been successful during a session. Part of it is how much time they felt they were doing well. Aggro decks do well until they hit a wall and promptly lose, meaning most of the time spent playing is "winning" time.
I also think it is a completely accurate criticism to say that Pirates are too good right now. The deck investment is low and the pay out is high. They are high tempo and have synergy with high tempo weapons, culminating in the decks having explosive openings game after game. It even manages to thin out the deck, making good top decks more likely. If it were slightly less strong I'd consider it a total success, because it managed to bring Pirates into playability, created a very thematic Warrior deck that uses weapons rather than spells to finish the opponent, and serves as a great example of a modular package that could be considered for weapon-wielding classes.
I urge the masses to stop whining and take action. To begin with: march upon the headquarters of Blizzard and demand change. As we have seen yesterday after inauguration of a guy.
You have the strangest conflation of political activism and video game balance I have ever seen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only way to win the equivalent of 1 game is if both players like their mulligans, and like their turns 3-5, losing only 0.1 game if they accept their mulligan and don't like how the game has played on turn 3, if the other player didn't try to force them to bet more towards the maximum of 1 win possible:
The player with the best hand may have to hold back, no matter how good their hand is, until at least turn 4 -- to force the other player to invest as much of the 1 win maximum as possible at that point, and then try to make the other player invest the remaining win before the game is decided.
Aggro players are the equivalent of "All in!" on the pre-flop.
...
I'd love if Hearthstone allowed you to say "screw you; I'm not going to give you a win!" to aggro players, and leave them with only 0.01 win for you conceding to their cancer decks, EXCEPT when you have the hand to match them.
I agree. I am starting to think it is more for players to play while taking a shit than competitively.
"Hearthstone is set up like a microtransaction mobile game. If 2 players start at the exact same time but one decides to drop $100 and the other is f2p the one who payed will win almost 100% of the time they play each other."
Orly?
needs to be moved this to salt thread.
I don't think the focus on mobile gaming and the aggro based metagame have much to do with one another in Hearthstone, before Hearthstone moved from computer to phone Hunter was dominating the game so the focus on aggro has more to do with creating inexpensive, competitive and defining decks for the rest of the metagame to base itself upon. From a design standpoint I don't see a better alternative than Aggro as the crux of the game, Combo isn't interactive with the game's turn structure, Control is either a result of aggro itself or devolves into a game of greedier decks and Midrange is a kissing cousin of Aggro.
Where I think Blizzard has gone wrong with Hearthstone is 1) Card rarity should be based on the spells function instead of "insert Blizzard's reason here" so that removal and healing are more accessible, I have never understood why the best removal, healing and taunts in the game always seem to come in adventures or have Rare and Epic rarities, it really does a diservice to people trying to "graduate" from aggro and makes Arena overly minion focused. 2) No neutral "spells" so that classes who weren't designed for a particular archetype could have access to that archetype at a cost of efficiency, Warcraft has so many wearables, consumables and craftables in the game that can't be represented by the card pool it's a shame. 3) Class identity has really prevented some classes from ever developing out of their stereotype, Rogue is still playing the same deck now as it was at launch. 4) Paperback mentality that mistakingly believes the game wouldn't benefit from more aggressive intervention. 5) Standard has arguably done more to make the game stale than make it interesting as Wild is a much better format that has only suffered from card printings for Standard ironically (Pirates)
Top deck is cheat
I think OP is right, and people will stop playing soon if veterans stop. I think kripp is no longer interested in HS, you can see it on his face, he is just doing the videos because he is paid to do so,as soon as he leaves HS, it's over for HS. Veterans want complex mechanics, but blizzard just refuses to give it to us ,they even thought mode deck slots are too complicated for a player forget about complicated mechanics
Yea, Blizzard doesn't care about the 'high-skill' rank 15 players that get salty all the time on forums
LOL, quoting Mat Damon from Rounders.
Poker =\= Hearthstone.
Take a seat.
Considering players till rank 15 are maybe more than 80% of the player base I think they do care
Top deck is cheat
Well, why would they? Catering to casual players and giving idiots "good feelings" nets much more money and success than striving to make a game that rewards an intelligent few.
Why do you think aggro cards always have a magnitude of power far superior to comeback and healing cards? They want the game to be fast and reward speed and brainless plays rather than longer 1v1 matches.
The ranking system represents players badly. Those who rank up high every month feel like its the norm, however the most are at ranks 15+ and even there the meta is mostly aggro
They can't get past that without going aggro themselves...
Most players do not have the amount of time it takes to grind the ladder. So they must play fast decks to succeed. I think a real solution should involve both making aggro weaker and improve the ranking system.
By the way, despite some dislike towards Reno by certain players, the Reno vs Reno matches are the best matches of Hearthstone.
They should delve down that path.
Guys we all know this it's not like that's gonna change if you copy-paste more posts about this shit. That's how this game works if you are tired of netdecking just abandon it and do us a pleasure
Top deck is cheat
ITT: People complaining that Hearthstone is Hearthstone instead of Chess.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.
blizzard cares about everyone, but they just want the lower skilled players to get better. The thing is though that some of the lower skilled players will play aggro to "get better" just like the high-skilled players. But the reason blizzard gives an edge to lower ranked players is so they can get better with not only conservative decks but also aggressive decks. I see no problem with Blizzard at this point.
Since when does 99% says it's good? Every single friend I have in real life or in battle.net isn't satifyed with the game now but keeps playing because it is addictive. The "top 1000" is BULLSHIT, there is no such thing as being a top player in hearthstone, this is a lame RNG game, if you get to rank 5 you are just as good as anyone, if you want to get legend you just have to waste your time. I've hit legend 3 times but most of the seasons I hit rank 10 or something because I there is no real benefit to wasting my time every season.
How many people are there like me? Who are "good" at the game but low rank at most seasons? The most stupid thing is, I'll be used in the percentage of players who is casual and happy with the game even though I think this game is the worst it has ever been and need some serious changes.
This sums it up well. There is an inherent tradeoff in games between randomness and skill. But the higher the skill component of the game the less friendly it is to a casual player. I'd point at StarCraft 2 as a fine example of a game which does cater heavily to a small, highly-skilled group of people and it has stagnated. Hearthstone has massively more appeal to a broad swath of players.