Hearthpwn

Quote from Deduqzaru >>

Flavor: Tricking everyone gives You an edge. A sharp, pointy edge.

Opinions? I would like to get better at this.

As another said, it needs to say "double this weapon's attack"; because right it reads that it only doubles when attacking the hero.

Quote from Deduqzaru>>

@DestroyeR thanks for your opinion. I was debating 2 or 3 durability. I'm still not sure what is the correct number. I don't think there are to many buffs for weapons over all that made me go to 3 durability. And yeah I know kingsbane can go to 20+ attack but that weapon can't be destroyed. Additionally You can easily buff it over the time of playing it 3-5 times.
Trickster weapon has only 3 charges. That's it. You have to use all buffs between playing and attacking for 3rd time. Weapon destruction will make this weapon useless. Especially Gluttonous Ooze. You can get back all that health in armor.

Another part of this is the weapon only doubles when attacking a hero, and as a clearing tool it's garbage (especially by turn 5), so this is exclusively a face-hitting tool or a really inefficient emergency removal one. I kinda doubt this would get played without the exact right cards to fit with it, so you don't need to nerf it, but I'm not sure you can lower its mana cost either. You could consider making it cost 4 but I'm pretty sure the durability is fine.

Important thing to keep in mind is just how much support this card needs to be strong. And you already only get two attacks with enhanced stats; the first will be un-doubled. It would be useless at 2 durability unless it tripled its attack or something.

Quote from linkblade91 >>

Quote from AxletheBeast >>

...

Dunno what you guys think but I'm mostly happy with the design

 *awkward cough* Legendary cards are not allowed for this particular competition :/

 Oop, missed that. Sorry. Thanks. xP Will post some kind of nonlegendary revision or something else later.

Quote from RazorOfArtorias >>

Quote from Zoralink >>

Quote from RazorOfArtorias >>

My last take. Which one looks better?

 Grammar change, Unexpected heroes should be " For the rest of this game, the attack of your textless minions is doubled."

 The idea is to buff only the minions on the board. I don't know how to write it correctly... I'll check some related cards.

 Your wording is fine then to the best of my knowledge. I was just making sure myself. I think your wording does mean the minions on-board. You may want to post clarification of this when you submit it though.

Quote from Zoralink >>

Quote from RazorOfArtorias >>

My last take. Which one looks better?

 Grammar change, Unexpected heroes should be " For the rest of this game, the attack of your textless minions is doubled."

 Oof, if that's the intent instead of the ones on-board, then the cost is either fair or too cheap. xP

Dunno if anyone remembers me; haven't posted in a while. Had stuff going on in my life. xP

My favorite thing about Warlock is risk vs reward and highrolling, and this fits in well with that. I doubt it could push an archetype on its own but it would be a powerful fit in certain decks, ones that don't care about health and might want to buff minions. A minion-centric control deck would be an obvious pick, but there's also potential applications as a second (kind of) Keleseth.

Dunno what you guys think but I'm mostly happy with the design, just not sure about the cost. Keleseth's effect is a lot weaker and only costs 2, but you get a minion and the drawback is a lot milder I feel. The drawback here is potentially huge, so I'm both worried 4 would be too much but also that 2 would be too little. So I went for 3. Any thoughts? Feel free to point me to your card and I'll do what I can to return the favor. xP

Quote from Kovachut >>

Quote from RazorOfArtorias >>

 ^^^^ Definitely this one. Only thing about it is this supposed to only affect ones on-board? Just making sure because that's how it reads. I would argue you could justify this at 3 mana. Attack buffs are usually weaker than health buffs (even though they're exactly what aggro decks want), and textless minions -- literally not even keyword abilities -- are by and large complete garbage. To even consider running them the support cards would have to kick ass, and I'm not sure Silver Hand Recruits will be enough except in a few situations that wouldn't be consistent. At 3 mana even, this might not be played, so you could consider 2, although 3 is probably the best bet considering how much this could spin out of control. I think at 4 it would be unplayable.

The actual entry phase doesn't begin until this poll is decided, correct? That was my assumption but when I see people posting their classes ahead of time I get paranoid. @_@ I assume they're just like me though and know their class will fit any of these criteria.

Quote from LarryMoments >>

Quote from Zukuu >>

How many cards total will this encompass?

 79 cards in total, including quests, Death Knights and gangs at Standard Format

AND NOT A SINGLE OPTION PREVENTS ME FROM MAKING THE CLASS I'VE BEEN DREAMING UP THE WHOLE TIME I'VE BEEN ON THIS FORUM

HUZZAH!

Quote from YogoWafelPL >>

I hate the Eater of Secrets replies - this card is trash, it's not even good against mage, let alone any other classes. 4 mana is WAY too much for this card.

Quote from Dr_Scaphandre >>

 

Wow you're having fun with this Cogito. =P

Quote from nurgling13 >>

 That's not a good example. Blonde and red hair are both recessive genes. And your friend can have blue eyes if both parents had one blue eyes gene and one brown eyes gene, since they both would then have brown eyes, but their kids would have a 25% chance of having blue eyes. Those are also White people examples. Asian people don't have blonde hair genes, or blue eye genes, so there's no chance of getting those from an Asian parent. And the genes express differently when combined. I know plenty of half-Asian people. They all have dark brown hair and brown eyes. Which is why I'm incredulous, unless it's dyed.

Quote from Cogito_Ergo_Sum>>

• Because the Frenchies colonized the Vietnam a few centuries ago, one of my Vietnamese ancestors must've married a Blond(e) French guy/gal who immigrated to Vietnam.
• Never say never! Although it's highly improbable for a person of half-Asian descent to have blonde hair, it's not entirely impossible. Remember that mutations can happen and with such a large population in Southeastern Asia, there's statistically going to be at least a few people with blonde hair. There are also some Asian people with blue eyes and blonde hair (albeit very few). I'm sure you could find some with a quick Google search. For example, this Uyghur girl from China is blonde!

Blonde ancestry in both sides would increase the likelihood, but it's not needed for it to be possible, as I've been saying. =P

Quote from GMAlon >>

Let's look for a second at the definition of Randomness: (Source)

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.

So by saying that the game is not random you actually saying it has patterns and it is predictable.

In this case, all you have to do if you want to prove you're right is predict something about your next match based on the what happened in past matches more accurately than a random guess.

More specifically, play a series of hearthstone matches, and before you're hitting the "play" button try to predict who will be your next opponent based on your past results.

In the end check what's your prediction success rate (number of right predictions divided by the number of matches), for example if you played 54 matches and predicted successfully 13 of your opponents, your success rate is  0.24 = 24%.

Your goal is to have better success rate than the naive prediction of picking the same class every time, for example if paladin was the most common opponent in your sample (let's say 18 out of 54 matches), than the naive prediction of guessing your next opponent will be paladin every time will have a success rate of 0.33 = 33%.

 If you can consistently do better than the naive predictor, not only you prove your claims are true, but you also can benefit from the rigging system by exploiting it's predictability.

Quote from Caesar_NL >>

Quote from StoutYeoman >>

Quote from Lightspoon >>

Were you boicoting Warrior during the Pirate Warrior meta's day (MSoG)? Or Midrange Shaman? You may not like the actual meta, but the cycle of some Classes be more dominant than others is just natural in HS.

 neither of those were ever as dominant as priest is right now.

 This is just a bullshit statement.

Quote from StoutYeoman >>

Quote from Tad30s >>

2. The ladder system is built to be intentionally frustrating.

By having you lose stars upon dying?

 Yes. It's a bad system. In a game where chance and chaos are major factors in the outcome of any given matchup, success or failure is not always determined by the actions of either player, a binary win/loss rating system is meaningless and artificial. 

Puzzle Fighter has a much better ranking system that makes a lot more sense.