Hearthpwn

Quote from jazzwitherspoon >>

Ben Brode is the lead developer. He is in charge of the overall vision and mission of Hearthstone.

Quote from Arebantcor >>

Quote from lullerz >>

Quote from Arebantcor >>

It has been good and has the potential to be good again. But the meta in this expansion is awful. And even then I wouldn't mind since i could just play arena. But arenas not fun atm as well.

 Cause nerfing Jade Druid and Pirate warrior was such a terrible idea right?

I just play wild (the poor man's standard) and right now the meta is pretty great.  there are a buttload of aggro and midrange decks in the mix and a healthy variety of viable archetypes.  Razakus is pretty crushing, but razakus can be beat by lucky aggression or extreme control.  I would rather have a controlly-comboy-late-game deck be the deck to beat than having one or two aggro decks driving all the other aggro and midrange out.  And priest can be teched against with geist, dirty rat, gnomeferatu, mindbreaker or hard countered by certain decks if you just wanna stick it to razakus priest.

Why did you think I thought the nerf was bad? I thought it was a good nerf.  Also I mainly play wild, I don't see how you can call it a "poor mans standard" though, seeing as you need more cards overall, most of which are only craftable (unless you pay with real money). If anything, standard is the poor mans wild. I guess low rank wild meta is alright, but higher ranks are not fun. Highlander priest is the most frustrating deck to play against and jade druid is still strong after the nerf. I don't mind losing to aggro since most times I feel like i could've played differently/better. Against druid and priest I often feel helpless like any of my decisions don't matter. Also, most tech cards are too weak. I've heard similar complaints from standard players (razakus and keleseth rogue).

I know wild isn't meant to be "balanced", but i started playing wild to get more variety, right now it isn't there, and most opressive decks have very few weaknesses. I'm just not having fun right now, just my 5 cents. Agree to disagree and all that...

Quote from jazzwitherspoon >>

The game is *really* NOT good, at the moment. There are several systemic issues with the game, that I - a person who *does not* make games for a living - have noticed, or seen other more notable people mention in streams.

I have tried to bring these issues up with Blizzard/Activision - a corporation THAT DOES work on their games for a living. As mentioned, I have seen streamers bring some of them up. Blizzard currently seems happy to ignore game-ruining customer complaints at this time.

I will address my biggest specific issues shortly, when I have time/a keyboard. But I appreciate you bringing up the topic.

They don't have to. But I'm a 'random' paying customer, and not even the only customer *in this thread* saying the game has multiple core problems not being addressed.

It's good.  But as a longtime Blizzard apologist, I just can't see much evidence they're managing the game well.

Great example -- it's hard to know for sure, but it seems the effort involved in rewarding some new hero pixels for as a reward for having fireside crammed down your throat was not small, and could have been used to work on better game modes.

And by the way that's not necessarily on Team 5, could very possibly be constant corporate meddling making better long-term planning impossible.

Still, it's good.

I personally dislike this meta.  The type of decks I like to play simply does not work when all of the top decks at the moment are either Aggro or I'm going to dark fist you priest (getting killed in one turn with 50 health against priest is extremely gross).  I hate when the game feels like you're playing against a timer, and once that timer is over it's GG HERE COMES MY PIECES OF EXODIA.  Instead, I like it when the meta plays out based on the decisions made over what is actually played on the board.  I love that they started to move away from OTK decks and have made them feel so much worse in ways.