This forums are getting pretty funny. Last week I learned that i can't play combo decks w/ low winrates, i cant play aggro smorck, i can play control decks with games that last 10 minutes or more, i cant play hunter, cant play otk and cant play decks that arent interactive with my opponent.
Asking why anyone plays anything in this game is pretty dumb in my brutal opinion. It's an RNG fest in 7/10 games, and EVERY game is just 2 players racing for their specific win condition first.
So i guess you'll just never know and continue to be frustrated. /thread
Hahahahahah! That's awesome. EVERY CCG is a player going for thier win condition first. It's how they win. I know people's opinions can't be wrong, but damn thats close.
/thread? No. Not even close dude...
Everyone plays this game differently, as has been pointed out in more sensible earlier answers. And OP, if you put your Opinion out there on a public forum and ask a question not everyone is going to respond how you would like them to. Sprouting off about "Dunning-Kruger" just makes you come across as arrogant at best. Of course people have competitive bias. It's how all Competition works. If we didn't have that bias there would be no game to play.
I like playing Mecha'thun decks especially when I win in games I'm not supposed to. Like against aggro for example.
I like beating hunters, I literally cannot bring myself to join the sheep mentality and play hunter anymore. I have every card to make every type of hunter deck and I don't want to play any of them as I am a rebel when it comes to flavour of the month classes!
It's nice to queue in to Odd Warrior and know they cannot beat you. I hate decks who's win condition is fatigue.
I still think OTK decks shouldn't exist - Combo decks is fine, but decks that can kill you in one turn no thanks.
Nothing feels worse than to get matched against an OTK deck and know it is an instant loss.
Atleast back in the days you could play priest and heal your way out of combo distance, but not anymore with all these insane and stupid otk decks. Blizzard must have been forced by Activision to make this horrible decision.
What do you mean 'back in the days' you are not an old player i can see.... :)) OTK decks ALWAYS existed... And actually all combo decks are and were OTK, or at least TTK.
Maybe he only joined HSpwn after being a long time player. I can attest, there weren't any good OTKs around the times before and after patron warrior, up until WOG. It was viable to simply attrition out your opponent with warrior or priest and let fatigue deal the damage. Your only counter was Jaraxxus. Those were some good times, not that I'm salty about OTKs nowadays (if you can't beat them, join them ;)
That said, Activision LUL. We all hate Activision and for good reason but I don't think they give a crap about what decks we're playing as long as players keep paying up
Been playing since the game went live - Back then you didn't see those crazy otk decks you see today - I never faced them at least - What you mainly saw was TTK decks which i'm fine with since you could always heal yourself back as priest or armor up as Warrior - With TTK I mainly refer to Freeze mage (Alex first turn, Burst from 15 the next) and Druid with Force of Nature/Savage Roar combo for minimum 14 damage.
A very good question OP. What is willed by developers knowing the psychology of target audience, the fanboy that doesn't want a game of skill and control, but rather either mindless aggression or OTK railroadism?
Although non interactief decks are above average in winrates - as a reason why they are used - it is the uninteractive part that is especially skill-denying and skill-contemptuous. More interested though why you ask then, instead of why developers know the choice psychology of the masses.
A very good question OP. What is willed by developers knowing the psychology of target audience, the fanboy that doesn't want a game of skill and control, but rather either mindless aggression or OTK railroadism?
Although non interactief decks are above average in winrates - as a reason why they are used - it is the uninteractive part that is especially skill-denying and skill-contemptuous. More interested though why you ask then, instead of why developers know the choice psychology of the masses.
Can I ask what kind of decks do you like to play specifically? I know from all your posts you only play control but what flavour? Do I recall you saying you played control priest?
Where do you think the high skill play comes in control?
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
- Not every players have full collections. If you have only 2 to 5 legendary, you'll try to make decks with them. If a new player is given Shirvallah, guess what he will try to play (which would lower the deck tiers since he may be missing other key cards to make the full deck) Got Jan'alai, then he become a Mage player. They play what they get, not what they want.
- Some players have only played one or two classes since they started playing. Always the same one because it does fit their style, or they were lucky with them when they started playing. Let say they are Paladin and Mage players, you can be sure that they'll do whatever they can to build the trendy deck for the classes they play. If it's an OTK deck, then be it. If they were not lucky when opening packs, they will make whatever legendary to play their favorite classes. They may have got all the hunter legendary available, they will still play Paladin if they can.
So because of that, guess what, you'll always see all kind of decks in Hearthstone. And that's what's make the game so fun.
So i rwched legend with mechathun priest in December... And reason for me was the challenge of actually doing it... Proving my worth and i did have 60% winrate with it and i often win on turn 10-11 or get killed before that so games are not long so grind wasn't all that bad too... Not that i always do that, i have reached legend with control, aggro and midrange decks before too... I just like variety so sometimes i reach legend with combo decks...
Honestly, just bring dirty rat back, or some other similar neutral card to interact with decks like this. It wouldn't kill them off entirely because you could always whiff, but it would make it feel less solitaire-y. It would also kind of keep them in check and force them to include some alternate win condition if they don't want to just auto-lose to the rat.
Players may just like the playstyle? Seems like an obvious answer here imo.
I like playing control decks too and even fell in love with a couple midrange decks (including Even Shaman), but many of those decks are predictable. The best plays to make each turn are almost always straightforward and the games are practically scripted. Plus, control is massively carried by their DKs (a single card), how exciting.
And for the millionth time, degress of interactivity are not solely based on minion-on-minion trades or instantly winning/losing a game. That is how control handles much of its game interaction. There's this weird trend that has saturated HS and tries to use the control playstyle for the only goalpost for what interaction looks like. Aggro, midrange, and combo/otk all have interaction, it just looks differently and values things that aren't always the same as the other playstyles.
For example, take the old Freeze Mage, or even some variants of Quest Mage as an example. Sure, they had some single target removal, but much of the value in their removal actually game from things like FS, Blizzard, FN + Doomsayer, etc (ie board clears). The OTK player is interacting with your threats by removing them. That is interaction, otherwise a Control Lock defiling your board in a control match or an Odd Warrior Shield Slamming a threat wouldn't be counted as interaction either. The difference is that OTK players generally value more swing turns when removing threats, more often than slowly removing threats (assuming they are being pressured often of course). Waiting to see if you over commit to get value out of removal isn't non-interaction. It is more like planning around your moves/pressure/tempo because if they don't get explosive value from removal they are less likely to have as much staying power (e.g. Play Odd Rogue or Even Shaman and build tall board with just a couple of minions each turn and see how an OTK deck struggle as they are forced to use removal on just a couple minions as opposed to 3-5 of them and then see they endure the late game).
OTK players can also make a lack of a play on their turn because they are playing around something you have that would otherwise decrease their chances of winning. For example, in wild I play a few different warlock otks. I often face slow priest decks. I have to tap a lot to cycle through my deck to attempt to get my combo. If I see the priest player not playing a bunch of stuff then I have the read my opponent has one of their 2-4 copies of scream. In which case I will interact with their game plan by not playing Gul'Dan so that I don't get a bunch of garbage thrown into my deck on top of giving up my deck cycling. If you were the priest player and saw me do this you might assume that I'm just passing my turn, stalling, and not interacting with you. However, you aren't hearing my thought process of why I am purposefully not using a powerhouse card of mine so that I don't get screwed over by you. Sometimes refraining from a play is also interaction if almost every other situation would normally call for that said play in other games/situations.
Interesting reactions! Obviously, not surprised that some showed evident "signs" of the dunning-kruger effect. Just a few got it and gave me sensible responses and that's exactly what I was looking for so thanks.
You are welcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
A very good question OP. What is willed by developers knowing the psychology of target audience, the fanboy that doesn't want a game of skill and control, but rather either mindless aggression or OTK railroadism?
Although non interactief decks are above average in winrates - as a reason why they are used - it is the uninteractive part that is especially skill-denying and skill-contemptuous. More interested though why you ask then, instead of why developers know the choice psychology of the masses.
Odd Warrior says hello. Since you are talking about mindless polarising matchups. (:
Players may just like the playstyle? Seems like an obvious answer here imo.
I like playing control decks too and even fell in love with a couple midrange decks (including Even Shaman), but many of those decks are predictable. The best plays to make each turn are almost always straightforward and the games are practically scripted. Plus, control is massively carried by their DKs (a single card), how exciting.
And for the millionth time, degress of interactivity are not solely based on minion-on-minion trades or instantly winning/losing a game. That is how control handles much of its game interaction. There's this weird trend that has saturated HS and tries to use the control playstyle for the only goalpost for what interaction looks like. Aggro, midrange, and combo/otk all have interaction, it just looks differently and values things that aren't always the same as the other playstyles.
For example, take the old Freeze Mage, or even some variants of Quest Mage as an example. Sure, they had some single target removal, but much of the value in their removal actually game from things like FS, Blizzard, FN + Doomsayer, etc (ie board clears). The OTK player is interacting with your threats by removing them. That is interaction, otherwise a Control Lock defiling your board in a control match or an Odd Warrior Shield Slamming a threat wouldn't be counted as interaction either. The difference is that OTK players generally value more swing turns when removing threats, more often than slowly removing threats (assuming they are being pressured often of course). Waiting to see if you over commit to get value out of removal isn't non-interaction. It is more like planning around your moves/pressure/tempo because if they don't get explosive value from removal they are less likely to have as much staying power (e.g. Play Odd Rogue or Even Shaman and build tall board with just a couple of minions each turn and see how an OTK deck struggle as they are forced to use removal on just a couple minions as opposed to 3-5 of them and then see they endure the late game).
OTK players can also make a lack of a play on their turn because they are playing around something you have that would otherwise decrease their chances of winning. For example, in wild I play a few different warlock otks. I often face slow priest decks. I have to tap a lot to cycle through my deck to attempt to get my combo. If I see the priest player not playing a bunch of stuff then I have the read my opponent has one of their 2-4 copies of scream. In which case I will interact with their game plan by not playing Gul'Dan so that I don't get a bunch of garbage thrown into my deck on top of giving up my deck cycling. If you were the priest player and saw me do this you might assume that I'm just passing my turn, stalling, and not interacting with you. However, you aren't hearing my thought process of why I am purposefully not using a powerhouse card of mine so that I don't get screwed over by you. Sometimes refraining from a play is also interaction if almost every other situation would normally call for that said play in other games/situations.
I just want to say I really appreciate your contributions to this never ending discussion. You have a lot more patience than I do.
A very good question OP. What is willed by developers knowing the psychology of target audience, the fanboy that doesn't want a game of skill and control, but rather either mindless aggression or OTK railroadism?
Although non interactief decks are above average in winrates - as a reason why they are used - it is the uninteractive part that is especially skill-denying and skill-contemptuous. More interested though why you ask then, instead of why developers know the choice psychology of the masses.
Odd Warrior says hello. Since you are talking about mindless polarising matchups. (:
Odd Warrior? I eat them for desert with my quest priest (not the though with profit Velen or Malygos, as that would be mindless :)
Mindlessness is developers contempt for the fanboy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Decks that are not fun to play against doesn't mean the deck isn't fun to play.
By that definition Blizzard would never nerf/change cards. For some players winning is all that matters and all they have fun in . Maybe some would even consider a Legendary fun that text reads . If drawn you win.
Blizzard, since they seem fine to have otks viable, will always have to look how oppressive or unfun to play against a deck is. It’s a fine line, but the Leeching Poison nerf shows that Blizzard does care how much and maybe how strong those solitaire decks can be. Even if they are fun to play.
Like I wrote in another thread, for me it would feel extremely boring and unsatisfying playing an OTK deck against a OddWarrior for example. But I get that it’s fun for some people, and maybe even important for the game ( if all we had was Warriors with Deadmanshand.. brr) .
The joy of masturbation decks has increased ever since quest rogue. If you're not a good or strategic thinker which the average hs player is not(hence only netdecking and playing the same deck for a month or longer), it's much easier to play yourself than an opponent. Mechacthun, specifically, is bullshit. But even before that, ALL the stupid aviana druid deck were as unbalanced as you can get.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fun > Meta
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This forums are getting pretty funny. Last week I learned that i can't play combo decks w/ low winrates, i cant play aggro smorck, i can play control decks with games that last 10 minutes or more, i cant play hunter, cant play otk and cant play decks that arent interactive with my opponent.
I guess i should quit hearthstone
.
Hahahahahah! That's awesome. EVERY CCG is a player going for thier win condition first. It's how they win. I know people's opinions can't be wrong, but damn thats close.
/thread? No. Not even close dude...
Everyone plays this game differently, as has been pointed out in more sensible earlier answers. And OP, if you put your Opinion out there on a public forum and ask a question not everyone is going to respond how you would like them to. Sprouting off about "Dunning-Kruger" just makes you come across as arrogant at best. Of course people have competitive bias. It's how all Competition works. If we didn't have that bias there would be no game to play.
Fuck me.. .
4/3/19 RIP Keith Flint. 😔
people are topping the legend ladder with clone priest, otk pally, etc. They're great decks and fun to play.
you could make the same generic statements about every archetype being boring. they're all fun for some people and not as much for others.
aggro - wow you flood the board and go face till they die, so fun
control - omg you played dragon's fury into blizzard into flamestrike into coin Jaina, such interactive skill
midrange - nice curvestone
I find them fun.
I like playing Mecha'thun decks especially when I win in games I'm not supposed to. Like against aggro for example.
I like beating hunters, I literally cannot bring myself to join the sheep mentality and play hunter anymore. I have every card to make every type of hunter deck and I don't want to play any of them as I am a rebel when it comes to flavour of the month classes!
It's nice to queue in to Odd Warrior and know they cannot beat you. I hate decks who's win condition is fatigue.
Been playing since the game went live - Back then you didn't see those crazy otk decks you see today - I never faced them at least - What you mainly saw was TTK decks which i'm fine with since you could always heal yourself back as priest or armor up as Warrior - With TTK I mainly refer to Freeze mage (Alex first turn, Burst from 15 the next) and Druid with Force of Nature/Savage Roar combo for minimum 14 damage.
A very good question OP. What is willed by developers knowing the psychology of target audience, the fanboy that doesn't want a game of skill and control, but rather either mindless aggression or OTK railroadism?
Although non interactief decks are above average in winrates - as a reason why they are used - it is the uninteractive part that is especially skill-denying and skill-contemptuous. More interested though why you ask then, instead of why developers know the choice psychology of the masses.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Can I ask what kind of decks do you like to play specifically? I know from all your posts you only play control but what flavour? Do I recall you saying you played control priest?
Where do you think the high skill play comes in control?
Arguing on the internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. You may be good at chess, but the pigeon is just going to knock all the pieces down, take a shit on the table, and strut around like its victorious.
It looks like "smart"(control) players will stop crying only when they will win every game.
You missed two categories I think:
- Not every players have full collections. If you have only 2 to 5 legendary, you'll try to make decks with them. If a new player is given Shirvallah, guess what he will try to play (which would lower the deck tiers since he may be missing other key cards to make the full deck) Got Jan'alai, then he become a Mage player. They play what they get, not what they want.
- Some players have only played one or two classes since they started playing. Always the same one because it does fit their style, or they were lucky with them when they started playing. Let say they are Paladin and Mage players, you can be sure that they'll do whatever they can to build the trendy deck for the classes they play. If it's an OTK deck, then be it. If they were not lucky when opening packs, they will make whatever legendary to play their favorite classes. They may have got all the hunter legendary available, they will still play Paladin if they can.
So because of that, guess what, you'll always see all kind of decks in Hearthstone. And that's what's make the game so fun.
So i rwched legend with mechathun priest in December... And reason for me was the challenge of actually doing it... Proving my worth and i did have 60% winrate with it and i often win on turn 10-11 or get killed before that so games are not long so grind wasn't all that bad too... Not that i always do that, i have reached legend with control, aggro and midrange decks before too... I just like variety so sometimes i reach legend with combo decks...
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist. ©Trimutius
Honestly, just bring dirty rat back, or some other similar neutral card to interact with decks like this. It wouldn't kill them off entirely because you could always whiff, but it would make it feel less solitaire-y. It would also kind of keep them in check and force them to include some alternate win condition if they don't want to just auto-lose to the rat.
Players may just like the playstyle? Seems like an obvious answer here imo.
I like playing control decks too and even fell in love with a couple midrange decks (including Even Shaman), but many of those decks are predictable. The best plays to make each turn are almost always straightforward and the games are practically scripted. Plus, control is massively carried by their DKs (a single card), how exciting.
And for the millionth time, degress of interactivity are not solely based on minion-on-minion trades or instantly winning/losing a game. That is how control handles much of its game interaction. There's this weird trend that has saturated HS and tries to use the control playstyle for the only goalpost for what interaction looks like. Aggro, midrange, and combo/otk all have interaction, it just looks differently and values things that aren't always the same as the other playstyles.
For example, take the old Freeze Mage, or even some variants of Quest Mage as an example. Sure, they had some single target removal, but much of the value in their removal actually game from things like FS, Blizzard, FN + Doomsayer, etc (ie board clears). The OTK player is interacting with your threats by removing them. That is interaction, otherwise a Control Lock defiling your board in a control match or an Odd Warrior Shield Slamming a threat wouldn't be counted as interaction either. The difference is that OTK players generally value more swing turns when removing threats, more often than slowly removing threats (assuming they are being pressured often of course). Waiting to see if you over commit to get value out of removal isn't non-interaction. It is more like planning around your moves/pressure/tempo because if they don't get explosive value from removal they are less likely to have as much staying power (e.g. Play Odd Rogue or Even Shaman and build tall board with just a couple of minions each turn and see how an OTK deck struggle as they are forced to use removal on just a couple minions as opposed to 3-5 of them and then see they endure the late game).
OTK players can also make a lack of a play on their turn because they are playing around something you have that would otherwise decrease their chances of winning. For example, in wild I play a few different warlock otks. I often face slow priest decks. I have to tap a lot to cycle through my deck to attempt to get my combo. If I see the priest player not playing a bunch of stuff then I have the read my opponent has one of their 2-4 copies of scream. In which case I will interact with their game plan by not playing Gul'Dan so that I don't get a bunch of garbage thrown into my deck on top of giving up my deck cycling. If you were the priest player and saw me do this you might assume that I'm just passing my turn, stalling, and not interacting with you. However, you aren't hearing my thought process of why I am purposefully not using a powerhouse card of mine so that I don't get screwed over by you. Sometimes refraining from a play is also interaction if almost every other situation would normally call for that said play in other games/situations.
You are welcome.
Free to try and find a game, dealing cards for sorrow, cards for pain.
Decks that are not fun to play against doesn't mean the deck isn't fun to play.
Odd Warrior says hello. Since you are talking about mindless polarising matchups. (:
I just want to say I really appreciate your contributions to this never ending discussion. You have a lot more patience than I do.
Odd Warrior? I eat them for desert with my quest priest (not the though with profit Velen or Malygos, as that would be mindless :)
Mindlessness is developers contempt for the fanboy.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
By that definition Blizzard would never nerf/change cards. For some players winning is all that matters and all they have fun in . Maybe some would even consider a Legendary fun that text reads . If drawn you win.
Blizzard, since they seem fine to have otks viable, will always have to look how oppressive or unfun to play against a deck is. It’s a fine line, but the Leeching Poison nerf shows that Blizzard does care how much and maybe how strong those solitaire decks can be. Even if they are fun to play.
Like I wrote in another thread, for me it would feel extremely boring and unsatisfying playing an OTK deck against a OddWarrior for example. But I get that it’s fun for some people, and maybe even important for the game ( if all we had was Warriors with Deadmanshand.. brr) .
I play clone priest because it is ceribral. Much more so than odd rogue for example.
It’s not the only deck I play but it’s fun.
The joy of masturbation decks has increased ever since quest rogue. If you're not a good or strategic thinker which the average hs player is not(hence only netdecking and playing the same deck for a month or longer), it's much easier to play yourself than an opponent. Mechacthun, specifically, is bullshit. But even before that, ALL the stupid aviana druid deck were as unbalanced as you can get.
Fun > Meta