I remember few years ago during one of my firsts visitis at hearthpwn. People were shit talking about cards liek sludge beltcher, piloted shredder, dr boom, Grim Patron decks. As a new player, I did not really understand the frustration. For me it was - you pay more money for a game so you want to have stronger cards. Youre more skilled - you can use more skilfull decks and win more often.
Nowadays I see that it isnt the case anymore because it seems that everyone can afford them and its never fun to play against such cards or their combinations (ultimate infestations, raza + anduin).
I dislike strategies which are easy to maneuver such as playing strongest cards each turn or when control deck allows for many mistakes to be made despite winning.
Do you like playing the strongest cards and strategies for easy win? Or maybe if each class were represented broken cards then it would all have been fair? What is your opinion about nerfing, should more testing before releasing be made.
I'm missing an option here: "I'm fine with OP cards, but I don't like using them" - or in a little bit greater detail, I don't mind OP cards (or OP decks for that matter) being around, however, I usually tend to enjoy playing the "underdog" decks a lot more, even if the winrate isn't that great.
Also, I'm against nerfing or generally adjusting cards after they have been released, it just feels bad. Moving cards to the Hall of Fame from the classic set because they limit design space and would make certain card combinations (with yet to be released cards, that is) way too powerful? - That's perfectly fine in my opinion, I'm used to similar procedure from MTG ... but actually changing cards? Nyeeh! xD
It doesn't care if I like or dislike OP cards, Blizzard's HS Team is not good enough to balance the game, they've demostrated it tons of times.... they can't remember to play 0 mana quests LOL
The awful balance and the extreme randomness with no skill involved are the keys that are killing the game, we are now in the point where new players don't want to get in touch with the game, this is the first step. Expansion's meta get stalled in one or two weeks due to the terrible balance..... If they keep Ben Brode, the game is going to fall soon.
Neither extreme "randomness" nor stupid balance are good or funny....
The problem with it is, that there are a lot of cards in the game, which are extremely good by themselves. This makes the game less skillful and more rng based, whether you are able to draw them, and play them on curve... Topdeck rng was made to be the most significant aspect in the game by cards like Reno or dr6 etc. before, and now there is Keleseth in tempo rogue, or turn4 Barnes in big priest...
The game could be a lot more skillbased if there were less OP cards by itself, and more skillful and good card combinations and interactions with other cards (like gwent, but there you can draw a lot more consistent, and execute your gameplan 9/10 times).
Also, you often have higher winrate if you play cards which are good if you just play them, no thinking, just have them in your hand and play them on curve (bonemare, scalebane, shredder, totem golem)... The best decks imo should be the ones which requires the most skillful gameplay, decks that are the hardest to pilot but gives huge reward when played perfectly... Not the decks which just simply contains broken on curve cards...
So no, i dont like OP cards, I would prefer good interactions and combos which required SKILL to be OP... But thats just never gonna happen due to bad design choices and balancing issues...
The problem is not with cards being OP, that always happens, its the nature of card games. There will always be top tier decks built around unfair interactions/cards. Thats why they are top tier after all.
The problem lies with the HUGE variance in power level based on draw RNG. Patches is OP, until you draw it. Keleseth on 2-4 is OP, but a vanilla 2/2 from that point onwards. Raza+Anduid is OP, until one of them is bottom 3. Barnes is OP, but only on 4-5.
Every top tier deck feels like full-on highroll or has an incorporated highroll (which is just that, nothing to do will player skill) that makes games horrendously one-sided when hit by one of the players.
Absolutely agreed... And if people look at the game and say 'well yea its a card game, you just cant avoid topdeck rng', well look at Gwent than... A lot of decks are able to draw their entire deck by round3, and almost always can execute the decks big combos, but it still requires skill to play well, and interact with the board correctly...
The meta was the worst around msg imo... Classic renolock - pw matchup... If you draw reno by turn6 you win gg...
I think you are forced to use them because your winrate is astronomically small if you dont, but I personally hate broken combos that are easy to pull off, or just super strong cards in general. They really ruin the game, because when you are forced to play specific cards then every single archetype that doesnt use those cards is unviable.
I think you are forced to use them because your winrate is astronomically small if you dont, but I personally hate broken combos that are easy to pull off, or just super strong cards in general. They really ruin the game, because when you are forced to play specific cards then every single archetype that doesnt use those cards is unviable.
The thing is your WR doesnt drop drastically when using weaker decks. For instance how much is 5% WR difference? Out of 100 games played, your going to win 5 more. And then ask yourself? Would you rather play deck you enjoy more or youre just gridning ladder to prove to whole world you were able to get legend with easiest and strongest decks?
I just dont get it. I dont fucking get it why people chose to play whats the strongest instead chosing sth A BIT weaker and have more fun. But this is basically what I asked for - if winning is all that matters to someone.
The problem is that the term "Broken" gets thrown around a lot these days and is becoming incredibly over/misused.
Most decks that some people decry as being "broken" are often not even slightly the case (see decks like Razakus Priest, etc). They may be very strong decks that synergise well, but to label them as broken is a misnomer.
If they were broken then we would see winrates in the 80-100% mark, since they would be essentially unstoppable. As it is, most of the Tier 1 decks currently barely top the 60s most of the time.
The problem is that the term "Broken" gets thrown around a lot these days and is becoming incredibly over/misused.
Most decks that some people decry as being "broken" are often not even slightly the case (see decks like Razakus Priest, etc). They may be very strong decks that synergise well, but to label them as broken is a misnomer.
If they were broken then we would see winrates in the 80-100% mark, since they would be essentially unstoppable. As it is, most of the Tier 1 decks currently barely top the 60s most of the time.
Raza Priest is broken. The only counter is aggro. I do not believe any deck should ONLY be countered by a different archetype. Essentially, control decks should be able to compete with other control decks. Either way, it doesn't matter, because there is another king of the broken. Bonemare Hunter is crushing everything. Bonemare has fixed aggro's major weakness.
I think you are forced to use them because your winrate is astronomically small if you dont, but I personally hate broken combos that are easy to pull off, or just super strong cards in general. They really ruin the game, because when you are forced to play specific cards then every single archetype that doesnt use those cards is unviable.
The thing is your WR doesnt drop drastically when using weaker decks. For instance how much is 5% WR difference? Out of 100 games played, your going to win 5 more. And then ask yourself? Would you rather play deck you enjoy more or youre just gridning ladder to prove to whole world you were able to get legend with easiest and strongest decks?
I just dont get it. I dont fucking get it why people chose to play whats the strongest instead chosing sth A BIT weaker and have more fun. But this is basically what I asked for - if winning is all that matters to someone.
Winning is very fun. For me at least.
You also underestimate how much 5% winrate means when climbing ladder, even if you do it just for the R5 chest. 55% is twice the games 60% is. 50% to 55% is the difference between dwelling rank 15 and possibly getting legend.
How on earth 55% is twice the games 60%? Even if you include win streaks I still dont get it. And lets talk about rank 5 to legend here. I dont see any point in measuring decks WR from 20-10 as a very good player can easily get 80% WR with tier 1 decks.
Except for Dr Boom. That shizzle was wrong! How it never got a solid nerf is beyond me...
With all the hand/deck buffs, steeds, bonemares, ultimate skillfestation etc. good old dr.7 is a joke these days, same goes for those shredders some pooplz stil seem to hate for some perverted reason.
Except for Dr Boom. That shizzle was wrong! How it never got a solid nerf is beyond me...
With all the hand/deck buffs, steeds, bonemares, ultimate skillfestation etc. good old dr.7 is a joke these days, same goes for those shredders some pooplz stil seem to hate for some perverted reason.
How on earth is dr boom a joke? I mean I de him once standard was introduced but still... 7 mana 9/9 + 1-4 dmg? He was used in every kind of a deck. Has sth changed? I just cant imagine this card being weak unless youre one of those players who usually have bad luck (because it is statistically possible - just like my life FeelsBadMan).
I think you are forced to use them because your winrate is astronomically small if you dont, but I personally hate broken combos that are easy to pull off, or just super strong cards in general. They really ruin the game, because when you are forced to play specific cards then every single archetype that doesnt use those cards is unviable.
The thing is your WR doesnt drop drastically when using weaker decks. For instance how much is 5% WR difference? Out of 100 games played, your going to win 5 more. And then ask yourself? Would you rather play deck you enjoy more or youre just gridning ladder to prove to whole world you were able to get legend with easiest and strongest decks?
I just dont get it. I dont fucking get it why people chose to play whats the strongest instead chosing sth A BIT weaker and have more fun. But this is basically what I asked for - if winning is all that matters to someone.
Winning is very fun. For me at least.
You also underestimate how much 5% winrate means when climbing ladder, even if you do it just for the R5 chest. 55% is twice the games 60% is. 50% to 55% is the difference between dwelling rank 15 and possibly getting legend.
How on earth 55% is twice the games 60%? Even if you include win streaks I still dont get it. And lets talk about rank 5 to legend here. I dont see any point in measuring decks WR from 20-10 as a very good player can easily get 80% WR with tier 1 decks.
Found this table, based on data produced by some redditor:
HTH
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I remember few years ago during one of my firsts visitis at hearthpwn. People were shit talking about cards liek sludge beltcher, piloted shredder, dr boom, Grim Patron decks. As a new player, I did not really understand the frustration. For me it was - you pay more money for a game so you want to have stronger cards. Youre more skilled - you can use more skilfull decks and win more often.
Nowadays I see that it isnt the case anymore because it seems that everyone can afford them and its never fun to play against such cards or their combinations (ultimate infestations, raza + anduin).
I dislike strategies which are easy to maneuver such as playing strongest cards each turn or when control deck allows for many mistakes to be made despite winning.
Do you like playing the strongest cards and strategies for easy win? Or maybe if each class were represented broken cards then it would all have been fair? What is your opinion about nerfing, should more testing before releasing be made.
I'm missing an option here: "I'm fine with OP cards, but I don't like using them" - or in a little bit greater detail, I don't mind OP cards (or OP decks for that matter) being around, however, I usually tend to enjoy playing the "underdog" decks a lot more, even if the winrate isn't that great.
Also, I'm against nerfing or generally adjusting cards after they have been released, it just feels bad. Moving cards to the Hall of Fame from the classic set because they limit design space and would make certain card combinations (with yet to be released cards, that is) way too powerful? - That's perfectly fine in my opinion, I'm used to similar procedure from MTG ... but actually changing cards? Nyeeh! xD
OP interactions are the pepper of the game - crucially, as long as they happen in later turns. Eg Shadow Essence on Y'shaarj is fine, Barnes is not.
OP cards are not, ever. Eg. Reno.
I never played Reno decks, I never played Patches. I even don't play Bonemare, tho I don't think it's OP ^^
So you’re suggesting to reach legend while not using the same good cards that every opponent that you face uses? I guess...
It doesn't care if I like or dislike OP cards, Blizzard's HS Team is not good enough to balance the game, they've demostrated it tons of times.... they can't remember to play 0 mana quests LOL
The awful balance and the extreme randomness with no skill involved are the keys that are killing the game, we are now in the point where new players don't want to get in touch with the game, this is the first step. Expansion's meta get stalled in one or two weeks due to the terrible balance..... If they keep Ben Brode, the game is going to fall soon.
Neither extreme "randomness" nor stupid balance are good or funny....
The problem with it is, that there are a lot of cards in the game, which are extremely good by themselves. This makes the game less skillful and more rng based, whether you are able to draw them, and play them on curve... Topdeck rng was made to be the most significant aspect in the game by cards like Reno or dr6 etc. before, and now there is Keleseth in tempo rogue, or turn4 Barnes in big priest...
The game could be a lot more skillbased if there were less OP cards by itself, and more skillful and good card combinations and interactions with other cards (like gwent, but there you can draw a lot more consistent, and execute your gameplan 9/10 times).
Also, you often have higher winrate if you play cards which are good if you just play them, no thinking, just have them in your hand and play them on curve (bonemare, scalebane, shredder, totem golem)... The best decks imo should be the ones which requires the most skillful gameplay, decks that are the hardest to pilot but gives huge reward when played perfectly... Not the decks which just simply contains broken on curve cards...
So no, i dont like OP cards, I would prefer good interactions and combos which required SKILL to be OP... But thats just never gonna happen due to bad design choices and balancing issues...
-
There are no OP cards. Only OP synergies.
Except for Dr Boom. That shizzle was wrong! How it never got a solid nerf is beyond me...
Absolutely agreed... And if people look at the game and say 'well yea its a card game, you just cant avoid topdeck rng', well look at Gwent than... A lot of decks are able to draw their entire deck by round3, and almost always can execute the decks big combos, but it still requires skill to play well, and interact with the board correctly...
The meta was the worst around msg imo... Classic renolock - pw matchup... If you draw reno by turn6 you win gg...
I think you are forced to use them because your winrate is astronomically small if you dont, but I personally hate broken combos that are easy to pull off, or just super strong cards in general. They really ruin the game, because when you are forced to play specific cards then every single archetype that doesnt use those cards is unviable.
That's Incredible!
The thing is your WR doesnt drop drastically when using weaker decks. For instance how much is 5% WR difference? Out of 100 games played, your going to win 5 more. And then ask yourself? Would you rather play deck you enjoy more or youre just gridning ladder to prove to whole world you were able to get legend with easiest and strongest decks?
I just dont get it. I dont fucking get it why people chose to play whats the strongest instead chosing sth A BIT weaker and have more fun. But this is basically what I asked for - if winning is all that matters to someone.
If you dont use stongest cards, you will loose against someone who is using them. You cannot go around it.
The problem is that the term "Broken" gets thrown around a lot these days and is becoming incredibly over/misused.
Most decks that some people decry as being "broken" are often not even slightly the case (see decks like Razakus Priest, etc). They may be very strong decks that synergise well, but to label them as broken is a misnomer.
If they were broken then we would see winrates in the 80-100% mark, since they would be essentially unstoppable.
As it is, most of the Tier 1 decks currently barely top the 60s most of the time.
I do not enjoy "play this card and you win" card strengths.
Kaladin's RoS Set Review
Join me at Out of Cards!