Hearthpwn

What does this powercreep on?

What the fuck do golden cards have to do with p2w

Not edgy enough for you?

There's a huge difference between 5%, 20% and 40% winrate. But the whole concept of win rates is actually misguided - if the mmr system was functional at all, it wouldn't be possible to play with 20% win rate.

Laddering effectively with a bad deck should be impossible, but that doesn't contradict my claims, it supports them. What the community needs to realize is that climbing the ladder isn't by default a positive thing: if someone has a 20% wr, the best thing the game can do for them is drop their rank and fast so that they get matched up with people with equally bad decks (although this contradicts the design of the reward system).

But ok, the meta and balance are linked to the design of the ladder, mmr, and reward systems, but we know none of the latter are getting fixed so let's focus just on the meta. We know there's an ongoing issue where new players get matched up with players with better decks way too fast. As we can assume there are no huge changes coming to the ranking or reward system, is there a fix to that that doesn't involve changing those mechanics? I think heavy rebalancing could achieve that.

Your question, I'd assume, would be why, to which my answer is why not? The top meta can be balanced independent from bad decks, so why not do that in a way that maximizes the fun for players approaching the game from different frameworks? The benefits from a lower power level may be marginal, but the benefits of a higher power level are non-existent.

I'm not sure if you're even referring to my comment with the claim about hating aggro. I don't, and I don't know where you got the impression that I do. All I'm saying about aggro is that while it's approachable to new players for design reasons beyond discussions about balance, it's also the biggest threat to new players playing anything but aggro. A bad deck will probably do a lot worse against a decent aggro deck than a decent control deck. It's not hating on an archetype to aknowledge the positive and negative impacts they have on the game.

Low tiers are a part of the meta, and fundamentally you're right, the meta is about the relationships between decks. But if you make the top aggro and control decks proportionally stronger, the aggro decks gain a bigger advantage over lower tier decks.

Year 8 of Hearthstone release announcements giving zero fucks about well-established and widely accepted standards such as UTC.

Release in 2h from this comment, 17:00 UTC.

Big Priest players are literally bottom feeders

Quote from Teuuun >>

Wait, what does dredge do?

It discovers a card from the bottom of your deck and puts it on the top of your deck, glad I could help :)

This is like Doomsayer in that it doesn't only act as a board clear, but also as a deterrent against the opponent developing a board. What's a Pirate Warrior going to do when you play this on turn 2 and leave the minion up?

Quote from Shipmen >>

I am not complaining because the old deck is getting support. It is questionable the design. I would like to see new ideas, not the same deck of 3 years ago. Big lack of ideas don't you think?

I don't actually. It's unrealistic to expect Blizzard to print 145 cards all only bringing something completely new to the table, and even if they could do that, that'd be questionable design, because old decks need to be supported as well. I'd rather they give tools to a deck from three years ago that is in dire need of support, than what was popular last month, and keep the meta fresh. There needs to be supporting cards like card draw and removal too, which this card achieves, and those don't need to be complicated.

I also don't think Miracle Growth is bad or repetitive design. With Overflow combining card draw and healing, and Ultimate Infestation combining card draw with offensive damage and developing a board, Miracle Growth, combining card draw with a strong defensive body fills an empty space in druid's late game draw options. For what it is, it's an excellently designed card fulfilling a role that nothing else has exactly achieved thus far.

It won't.

To be fair, it’s not like this is something which would be proven through a survey or anything. It’s a discussion forum, not an article up for peer review. I doubt anyone would ever run a survey on this topic alone anyway, so it’s fair to speculate about it.

It's probably just me, but I think "A is famous for B" goes a wee bit beyond artistic license with reality and deserves some scrutiny, Can't have everyone refer to some ominous grey silent majority and supposed "common knowledge" for whatever bollocks, can we? Surveys rarely prove anything sufficiently, but it's a first step. So, just for funsies, I'd like to have someone go ask 1000 random people "do you see the Hearthstone dev team as bad". If somewhere along the way you struggle with finding and meeting a reasonable threshold for "famous", feel free to specifiy the claim as much as necessary till it feels right.  If OP changes his line to "among Hearthstone players that eat popcorn at least three times a day, never watched Seinfeld and hate dogs. the Hearhtstone development team is famous for being pretty bad", I'd be slightly more inclined to play along and take their word for it. If only because the responses would be more entertaining,

I’m sort of surprised people are coming out to defend the team. I’ve always been under the impression that Team 5’s competence was sort of a running joke with people constantly piling on how bad they are.

Calling someone out on talking shit is not the same as defending the dev team. But it is a bit off to complain about some perceived alleged problem and lambasting the collective work and talent of over a hundred people because of it.

I think what he meant was that some decks don’t really require a lot of thought process to compete with more complicated ones, ergo bad players holding up their own against “better” players. [...} DK aggro bots reaching plat is solid evidence to back this up.

Chess computers can beat the best players in the world, so chess does not require much thinking? In what universe is finding the most efficient strategy a sign of poor capability?

That aside, there are a couple flaws with this argument. First of all, every deck has its own challenges. Even a supposedly "easier" aggressive deck can be played poorly (as bots tend to show you). Second, the type of deck you play says nothing about you as a player or as a person, and the same is true of your opponents. Any player can choose to play any deck, for whatever reason. Third, the outcome of a game depends on many more things than expertise, like the matchup for instance. If you really want to see who is the better player, have two players play the exact same deck against each other over 10-20 games. Fourth, whatever level of challenge and complexity you go for is your choice and it's nothing but a choice.

Congrats on playing a complicated 20 turns super combo that requires exact positioning, perfect timing, top of the world apm and expert knowledge in astrophysics, but you are doing this for fun. You can also do 15 push-ups between turns, if it's still too easy. If you end up with a 20% winrate, that's all that your mad skillz get you out of your supreme big brain superdeck. And you can either kiss your own feet and demand to be worshipped, or leave that pretense behind and admit that you go for that extra challenge because that's what you want, knowing full well that it won't score you any bonus points and in fact puts you in a disadvantage.

You could criticise the game for not rewarding your superhuman abilities more, but as you already said, it is probably better that way.

English isn’t their first language

Welcome to the internet. Nobody's is.

Even when you struggle with the language, you can put in some effort to express what you want to say. Obviously this gets harder the further your own language is from English, but that's where translator pages can help out. When I wrote my first lines in English I double checked just about every single word, and when I wrote nonsense I probably would have written nonsense in my native language too.

I would (almost) never be overly critical or mock someone for inaccurate grammar and odd words, but there are rarely profound thoughts behind topics such as this one. So I'll have my snark. 

HS developer team is famous for being a pretty bad developing team.

Says a representative survey you had with your mirror, backed by research conducted by your cat.

With every expansion they show that they are not able to foresee problems certain cards will create though many people already criticize these cards when the are get sneak previewed.

Constantly complaining people that always say everything is trash or op or both turn out to be right in hindsight, like the broken watch that shows the correct time twice a day. Greater wisdom has never been witnessed!

Indeed they continue to print bad cards so HS will always be a RNG slotmachine,

The bad cards that create all these problems because they are bad, and make the game random because reasons.

really bad players have same win rates as better player

A philosophical question: What makes a player better if they win and lose just as often as everyone else? Perhaps it is the road to a better world where everyone is equally bad and unpleasant people can spend their overflowing testosterone on more useful activities, like chopping wood or beating the crap out of each other, in a little house with a locked door and a lost key.

The usual one out of 2 game HS experience is waiting minutes for someone to react and watching him making mistake over mistake and then having almost lost game, when a super random event makes him win the game. This situation appears so often that it is really hard to play more than a couple of games in HS.

Some poetic justice perhaps? The usual experience reading one out of two Hearthstone related postings/comments/whatevs online is someone rambling for several paragraphs, making one insubstantial claim after another, going on about "balance" and "design" and such with no idea what they are actually talking about, and I have to read it and feel like there really is no hope for humanity. This occurs indeed so often that it is really hard to engage with this game at all. I mean. the game itself can be pretty fun, if it weren't for the people you had to play against and take notice of in online spaces.

Quote from Gosphor >>

It was always intended to be a seasonal mode that would deactivate from time to time, kind of like a giant Tavern Brawl.

This is such a bullshit. They said nothing about this when Twist or Caverns of Time was released (only said that CoT set would be usable in at least 3 months for Twist). This is yet another Activision-Blizzard rug pull like Overwatch 2 PvE mode.

 If you go and re-read the initial Twist announcements, they actually did say this.  I personally thought it was pretty clear, but I guess not everyone read through the entire announcement.  Or because they didn't specify exactly what they meant not everyone was able to understand it.  But if you read the first couple paragraphs of the original launch announcement, it states that it may be "deactivated from time to time".

We want Twist to be a sandbox-like mode that lets us experiment with new ideas and makes you think about your collection in new ways [...] kind of like a giant Tavern Brawl

Yes, good!

Now, you just have to actually start doing so. When it's back in February, it will only be about half a year since launch date. About time you start having some good ideas.

So far, the biggest experiment that made me rethink my collection was expanding that collection with a new set of cards, like retroactively adding a mini-set to an old meta, only at a far higher price. And playing Renethal decks without including Renethal.

You know, I am the kind of guy who always orders the same pizza from the same place just about every single time. And I would consider myself more daring, adventurous and creative than their approach to Twist thus far. If you want to make a sandbox mode, rule no. 1 should be to stop playing Ubisoft games! 

On paper, I love the idea of Twist as a giant Tavern Brawl. But when Tavern Brawl has been completely ignored for years, why would Twist end up better? Especially when they obviously don't have the capacities for it? Or is Twist now suddenly getting as big of a Team as Battlegrounds, despite a botched launch that killed most players interest from the start? And despite the original project leader already out of the house?

Speaking of which, I have no idea how long Twist has been in development, but they launched the format with very few ideas, and also repeated several mistakes they already made with Duels and Mecenaries. When they want to take breaks to learn and improve, that's fine. But it will only do good if they actually take this stuff seriously (and no, this has nothing to do with "broken cards" and "the worst meta ever").

In theory, the lousy launch isn't too big of a deal since the mode's DNA is (supposedly) constant change and fresh starts every month. But if the mode cannot excite people, less resources will be there for new developments, and the mode will die. And that'd be a shame, because the idea is really good, I think.

As a European, the US labor laws are batshit crazy for allowing stuff like that. I'm grateful employers aren't able to pull shit like that over here. 

Why do you even play the game when you obviously hate it so much?

I am gonna say it once: just mixing old expansions isn't what I expected of Twist. I was expecting something like the Quests/Anomalies from Battlegrounds applied to the Standard Mode, just mixing them everytime falls short of my expectations, but I guess that's just me.

• [Hearthstone] Fixed a bug where Aman'Thul’s “Vision of Heroes” ability could summon Colossal minions.

Why would this be a bug? It says "minions" and Colossal minions are minions and unlike Titans you can randomly generate, Discover, etc. them. Or did they change that? I guess it's just one card: Crabatoa. I still don't like this direction of "you can't randomly generate the cool stuff" direction they're going. I love the randomness and don't even want to bother swapping stuff out all the time. Not to mention you wouldn't even be able to like put Crabatoa into a Priest deck for example. For some cross-class combinations it also would be really broken of course. So it's good you can't consistently do all of it. But getting it randomly? That's the most fun I have in this game. Well... I guess the only thing I can do is not supporting the game with money anymore. I still like stuff like Yogg and the "allowed" random card generation, etc., but this... is really... just sad. The game could be so much fun, but no it has to be like "competitive" and whatnot. Well, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this seemed such an unwarranted "bug fix". Seriously. I don't get it. 

The reveal is way better than the cards. 

So you're sacrificing your Hero Power and 1 mana each turn... for hand knowledge?

That is horrible. Chameleos was free hand knowledge every single turn, and it never saw play. How is a 5+ mana tax + losing your Hero Power for hand knowledge alone ever going to be good?