Hearthpwn

I disagree with the sentiment that they're exclusively trying to bolster aggro decks and cater to low rank players. After all, it is the archetype that received most of the nerfs, including the 2 ones announced as well as some degenerate RNG cards like yogg and tuskarr. Also, we had decent, high-skill decks all throughout hearthstone's life, from freeze mage, handlock, malygos decks to control warrior. We could have more of them, that I will agree on. Them being not seen too often is partly accosted to dust requirement as well as skill requirement and ladder design. Patron warrior, worgen otk and old leeroy shadowstep rogue, while being skillful decks, had an over the top win condition that was very hard to counter, that's why they were nerfed. Gadgetzan however, is a big blunder with OP cards in decks that bring aggro/curve onto another level. Hopefully they won't make the same mistake again.

Another theory that I would like to add is that even new players don't like playing against too powerful aggro/curvestone. They would most definitely like to have the opportunity to play fun cards like medivh, prince malchezaar or elise. I remember being a newbie and getting facerolled by hunter and secret pally wasn't the most pleasant starting experience. Not saying all new players will think like that but it's possible. Player's skill also develops over time, even if we constantly have about 50% of the people below rank 18 because of influx of newbies, there are players advancing each day, going over rank 18 and getting shifted from the "casual" bracket to more serious ranks. I don't see a reason why blizzard would not want to get their money all of sudden, just because they progressed away from their "target audience". They will also want to play other kinds of decks other than aggro/curve as they get better/get bored. Even if only 25% of the players go above rank 15, that's still a huge amount of players you want to satisfy.

TL;DR While casuals are most likely blizzard's core audience for this game, I don't believe they're just outright ignoring all of the other players. I would attribute it more to their lacking prediction/designing skills and being too slow to nerf stuff.

Yup, they don't. They cater to the lowest common denominator because that's the cheapest and easiest way to get players. If the extreme slowness of their balancing doesn't already tell you how lazy this team is I don't know what else does.

The other day I watched Kripp streaming a game against a pirate warrior that still went face with his minions despite Kripp clearly having lethal on board next turn. He still didn't trade, just face. That's how stupid the kind of players Team5 is catering to.

I don't know what the intentions of blizzard are for this game, but I do know they dun fkt up. When I watch Savjz play hearthstone he's pretty cool and relaxed, but that changed. He get's really frustrated now, and he is not the only streamer/player. You can defend blizzard or hate them. We can say that aggro must exist to keep jade under control. But we sure as hell can say that blizzard messed up hearthstone. I mean if you have to keep aggro strong because jade exist but that pushes out many other decks, then why create the jade mechanic?

I trust blizzard to fix their game and balance things out, all they need to do is avoid toxic design, like jade or reno. And yes, reno is also toxic design not because it is harmfull to the game as a whole but because it limits how many other neutral anti aggro tools can be available, thus limiting what classes can play control. You could play reno hunter/rogue, but if you don't draw reno you just lose, simple as that.

So no, it's not that blizzard doesn't care about high skill players, they lack the knowhow to stop designing cards that preffend you from having a game where you can show your skill and get rewarded for it. Im pretty sure MtG was in a similar situation at one point as where hearthstone is now, it will pass, the only question is how long that will take and how many people still play the game at that point.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Yup, they don't. They cater to the lowest common denominator because that's the cheapest and easiest way to get players. If the extreme slowness of their balancing doesn't already tell you how lazy this team is I don't know what else does.

The other day I watched Kripp streaming a game against a pirate warrior that still went face with his minions despite Kripp clearly having lethal on board next turn. He still didn't trade, just face. That's how stupid the kind of players Team5 is catering to.

 It is a sad, sad thing. But Brode promised the next rotation the meta will slow down and the skill level will rise. Lets hope for more balance, 9/9/ viability on ladder and a really creative interactive game.

U know whats nice?  It's that now the higher ranked players could possibly grind more on Wild than Standard which lets the lower ranked peeps to grind more efficiently on Standard... especially those high ranked studs  who play Reno decks (Savjz, Thijs, P4wnyhof)

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true aggro-player, defending Brode and consort for carddesign that favours a fast meta, which means cheap, low skill cap, easy winfix/laddering, focussing on expanding the playerbase, ergo increase revenues quickly (20 MILLION A MONTH). You can't deny and not justyfied angry, that carddesign is not focussed on a slower meta as that would mean less income by the very fact of a higher skill cap.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from nevr3000 >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Ever heard of carddesign politics favouring aggro? Most of the community is rank 15 and lower battling each other with low skillcap aggro decks. If you increase the skillcap by slowing down the meta these people are gone. It is exactly what Blizzard wants to avoid. That's why rotation after rotation aggro rules the meta. Do you know what low price multiplied by a hugh aggro volume means? Your respons and ignorance is widespread and typical for aggro-players

 Ignoring that these are the cheapest decks that even recent/new F2P's can piece together, that's still not saying allot. You'd do yourself a favor to respond to people in a more rational manner instead of bashing your keyboard and foaming off the mouth to call people names because they don't agree with your point of view. "Typical for aggro-players..." Give me a break.
If you need to vent, go rattle your keys in the salt thread. This isn't how you behave in discussions.

 Let me give you some homework: https://youtu.be/Wh7XCtjnnDI  Maybe it helps battling your ignorance.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Neichus >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true aggro-player, defending Brode and consort for carddesign that favours a fast meta, which means cheap, low skill cap, easy winfix/laddering, focussing on expanding the playerbase, ergo increase revenues quickly (20 MILLION A MONTH). You can't deny and not justyfied angry, that carddesign is not focussed on a slower meta as that would mean less income by the very fact of a higher skill cap.

However, where I part with his thinking is when he suggests that answers be "equal" to problems.  As he says, Flamewreathed Faceless is always useful, but Shadow Word: Death only sometimes has a target.  Now imagine for a moment that answers were equal to or superior to threats.  There would be all the incentive to play nothing but ultraflexible answer cards, where the first person to play the wrong answer loses. You can argue that such games take far more planning and understanding than face aggro, and you would be right, but for general enjoyment a game like that is more of a disaster than any amount of pirates could ever cause.  It would be the death knell of Hearthstone.

This is why I think he is profoundly wrong that cards like Hex are a good model for future design.  Common, well-rounded, auto-include answer cards completely devalue problems, slowing the game to a critical degree.  Sure, we're burning up right now but living in the Arctic only sounds good until we reach it.

Look at Reno priest now. Exactly reason why it loses to aggro. It depends too much on specific cards to battle aggro pressure. You don't get them....lose in 5 turns. 

Quote from GrillaGamingYT >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Neichus >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true aggro-player, defending Brode and consort for carddesign that favours a fast meta, which means cheap, low skill cap, easy winfix/laddering, focussing on expanding the playerbase, ergo increase revenues quickly (20 MILLION A MONTH). You can't deny and not justyfied angry, that carddesign is not focussed on a slower meta as that would mean less income by the very fact of a higher skill cap.

However, where I part with his thinking is when he suggests that answers be "equal" to problems.  As he says, Flamewreathed Faceless is always useful, but Shadow Word: Death only sometimes has a target.  Now imagine for a moment that answers were equal to or superior to threats.  There would be all the incentive to play nothing but ultraflexible answer cards, where the first person to play the wrong answer loses. You can argue that such games take far more planning and understanding than face aggro, and you would be right, but for general enjoyment a game like that is more of a disaster than any amount of pirates could ever cause.  It would be the death knell of Hearthstone.

This is why I think he is profoundly wrong that cards like Hex are a good model for future design.  Common, well-rounded, auto-include answer cards completely devalue problems, slowing the game to a critical degree.  Sure, we're burning up right now but living in the Arctic only sounds good until we reach it.

Look at Reno priest now. Exactly reason why it loses to aggro. It depends too much on specific cards to battle aggro pressure. You don't get them....lose in 5 turns. 

Sometimes aggro decks need luck to win... same with reno... they have similar winrates against each other... whats ur point?

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Quote from GrillaGamingYT >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Neichus >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Spoken like a true aggro-player, defending Brode and consort for carddesign that favours a fast meta, which means cheap, low skill cap, easy winfix/laddering, focussing on expanding the playerbase, ergo increase revenues quickly (20 MILLION A MONTH). You can't deny and not justyfied angry, that carddesign is not focussed on a slower meta as that would mean less income by the very fact of a higher skill cap.

However, where I part with his thinking is when he suggests that answers be "equal" to problems.  As he says, Flamewreathed Faceless is always useful, but Shadow Word: Death only sometimes has a target.  Now imagine for a moment that answers were equal to or superior to threats.  There would be all the incentive to play nothing but ultraflexible answer cards, where the first person to play the wrong answer loses. You can argue that such games take far more planning and understanding than face aggro, and you would be right, but for general enjoyment a game like that is more of a disaster than any amount of pirates could ever cause.  It would be the death knell of Hearthstone.

This is why I think he is profoundly wrong that cards like Hex are a good model for future design.  Common, well-rounded, auto-include answer cards completely devalue problems, slowing the game to a critical degree.  Sure, we're burning up right now but living in the Arctic only sounds good until we reach it.

Look at Reno priest now. Exactly reason why it loses to aggro. It depends too much on specific cards to battle aggro pressure. You don't get them....lose in 5 turns. 

Sometimes aggro decks need luck to win... same with reno... they have similar winrates against each other... whats ur point?

This is a fallacy. Aggro decks don't need "luck" to win, they need their opponent to be unlucky and not draw answers the first 5 turns else they lose. The two things aren't equivalent. No matter what deck they're facing, the aggro playstyle is to go face the hardest without a care in the world.
Meanwhile it's the control/Reno player who has to mulligan and plan ahead to survive and hope for Reno.

There's nothing wrong with Hex. In fact we need more powerful control/comeback/punish tools like those if we want brainless aggro to stop dominating everything.

Quote from Falbrogna >>

There's nothing wrong with Hex. In fact we need more powerful control/comeback/punish tools like those if we want brainless aggro to stop dominating everything.

I played to legend, wait for it... on my celldary!

Sounds and reads like a thesis arguing to make excuses for salt.

Skill obviously has a huge impact on this game (I will omit private warrior from this statement) overall. People who pilot there hand vs pilot there deck is a gapping chasm and makes a giant difference in WRs.

I disagree with OP that blizzard caters to PC. Just rubbish.

Hearthstone by desin is unable to be a serious competitive game. It is way too simple and not complex at all - you can assume that pretty much everyone in legend does not misplay regularly, and thus all that is left is deck matchup and RNG in card draw and other RNG mechanics. For this reason, constructed bores me, and I don't even find the motivation to play to rank 5 every season anymore. Arena is better, as the skill cap is much higher when you don't know the exact cards in your opponents decks and have to adapt to every deck you get instead of playing the same shit over and over again.

This is why I don't like any streamers - they call themselves "pro" as they gain a shitload of money for playing a simple game correctly, which is not involving enough skill to justify this.

Different story for streamers of games like Smash Bros Melee or Starcraft, where the better player will almost always win over a worse player, because actually skill decides the matches.

Before someone comes with a Poker comparison - Poker takes much more skill, as the decisions are much harder to make, and always are challenging. In constructed Hearthstone, situations where the best play isn't obvious for a skilled player are way to rare.

Quote from Skyi101 >>

I played to legend, wait for it... on my celldary!

Sounds and reads like a thesis arguing to make excuses for salt.

Skill obviously has a huge impact on this game (I will omit private warrior from this statement) overall. People who pilot there hand vs pilot there deck is a gapping chasm and makes a giant difference in WRs.

I disagree with OP that blizzard caters to PC. Just rubbish.

 

 

 

Want to play a game with high skill-cap? Play chess.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Runior1298 >>

Want to play a game with high skill-cap? Play chess.

 Another braindead admirer of Brode with card design skills as an constant insult to my intellect. The likes of you keeps card design repulsively low skill.

Quote from scorpyon >>

 

In Chess, you have literally 1 of 10 pieces that you can move. Each piece has a maximum of 2 possible moves. So that's up to 20 different opening moves you have available. 

 

Quote from scorpyon >>

in any case, the overall point is that Hearthstone is not mechanically as simple as some games (e.g. chess). What makes chess more complicated is the requirement to predict moves and possible outcomes. But ironically, that is required in HS as well - hence why some players are better than others.