Its much much harder to make great high cost cards. Its way easier to make great cheap ones cuz their impact doesnt have to be game-ending for them to be playable. If I spend 7+ mana on a single card its impact needs to at least have the potential of winning me the game when played, thats VERY hard to balance. The only ways Team 5 have tried to answer this problem is by:
-Make high cost stuff less powerful but allowing you to cheat it out for less mana;
-Force you to build your deck around that card to bring out its game-ending power (making the whole deck less efficient);
-Force you to play specific cards first before you can end the game with that high cost card (making your draws less efficient);
Aggro doesnt have to care about any of that shit, its efficiency at its best, you draw it you play it, you get great benefit for its cost, its all peachy.
You have a valid point. I don't think you have any problem getting good or whatever that troll wants you to think.
The issue is we don't get to enjoy the game to its full potential when the meta doesn't let you compete with big decks unless there is mana cheating involved. For some, the game's thrill comes from bypassing the long term work and just throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opponent. Others enjoy the risk but look for mana cheats to gain absurd advantages at unreasonable states of the game. Then some want to be challenged and not only take risks but run decks that force them to be resourceful, creative, anticipatory, and manipulative. However, those decks require time for the users to be rewarded, and the game isn't favorable for those who have time on their hands.
Blizzard doesn't care about a balanced meta. They want to make us feel good with new cards and awesome designs with new or endless possibilities so we can pay up and then just let the rest work itself out. Our best hope is that they accidentally stumble upon an expansion/rotation that magically produces a healthy meta that requires little to no work on their end.
Zeddy is one of the few streamers who recognize this flaw of the developer side. They don't beta test thoroughly enough, they ignore user warnings of imbalance, and they don't acknowledge any part of the base with negative criticisms of HS.
You're right; big cards aren't efficient unless there are absurd benefits to them. That's probably why we don't run Archwitch Willow. It's no cheaty enough at a low enough cost, so it makes you go cheaper.
Dude i got legend with Duel Paladin, plenty of card +5 mana cost...
Thats the worst example you could bring up LOL, the point of Duel is to summon 8+ cost minions for 5 mana, cuz no one would ever play those minions in their deck w/o a way to cheat them out.
There are approximately 21 separate cards that are both over 4 mana and non-discountable (by regular mechanics like librams and such) in the tier 1 and 2 decks on the current meta snapshot at TS.
However, I learned my lesson from the Tickatus threads. Facts are subjective and evidence only counts when it supports your feels. So no, there is absolutely no point in playing anything over 4 mana. All your feelings are valid.
EDIT: It's especially valid to point out what a horrible example duel paladin is, as is done in the post above this one, despite the fact that Duel (the mana cheating mechanic itself) is over 4 mana, and that was the threshold established by the OP. Facts like this should be ignored, as they do not support the OP's feelings.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
There are approximately 21 separate cards that are both over 4 mana and non-discountable (by regular mechanics like librams and such) in the tier 1 and 2 decks on the current meta snapshot at TS.
However, I learned my lesson from the Tickatus threads. Facts are subjective and evidence only counts when it supports your feels. So no, there is absolutely no point in playing anything over 4 mana. All your feelings are valid.
EDIT: It's especially valid to point out what a horrible example duel paladin is, as is done in the post above this one, despite the fact that Duel (the mana cheating mechanic itself) is over 4 mana, and that was the threshold established by the OP. Facts like this should be ignored, as they do not support the OP's feelings.
I like to troll ppl as much as the next internet user man, but could you please try not trolling EVERY thread on this forum? :)
Some threads are asking for it, I get it, but others can actually spark interesting discussion, like this one (the OP is certainly exaggerating as theres plenty of great non-cheatable 5 mana cards in the meta, but when it comes to 6+ mana cards, I get the sentiment), and this kind of trolling is only taking the focus away from the topic. Try engaging the topic, see where it takes you.
There are approximately 21 separate cards that are both over 4 mana and non-discountable (by regular mechanics like librams and such) in the tier 1 and 2 decks on the current meta snapshot at TS.
However, I learned my lesson from the Tickatus threads. Facts are subjective and evidence only counts when it supports your feels. So no, there is absolutely no point in playing anything over 4 mana. All your feelings are valid.
EDIT: It's especially valid to point out what a horrible example duel paladin is, as is done in the post above this one, despite the fact that Duel (the mana cheating mechanic itself) is over 4 mana, and that was the threshold established by the OP. Facts like this should be ignored, as they do not support the OP's feelings.
to be fair in the opening post the OP admitted that some cards that cheat mana are played although they cost 5+ mana (he took jandice and skull as examples)
And to be fairer, I included none of those in my count. I mentioned Duel paladin specifically because it was mentioned before my post, but Duel Paladin is certainly not in t1 or t2.
Btw, not everything one doesn't like or finds flippant is trolling. If you read my posts, you will be hard pressed to find a single one of them that doesn't have a point related to the discussion at hand (regardless of whether that discussion is related to the OP, it isn't my fault that other people want to talk about my avatar and other irrelevant shit). Trolling actually has a definition, and I very rarely engage in it. The only time I remember specifically going into troll mode on this forum was in response to a guy who was incredibly rude, but failed to get most of his insults to land because English was not his first language. Not my proudest moment, in all honesty, but it was enjoyable to frustrate such a person.
Even the post you just quoted was not trolling. It was sarcastic, to be sure, but the sarcasm was related to the topic at hand and quite clearly had an intended message behind it. By contrast, trolling would be making a post prodding the OP into a response by suggesting that he doesn't have the skill to play with control decks that use higher costing cards, or for that matter, just suggesting that his fear of high-cost cards stems from his lack of ability to count. That would be goading a response without having a point as to the discussion, or "trolling".
Here endeth the lesson.
EDIT: BTW, if you agree some posts are asking for trolling, then how could this thread possibly not be one of those when the original point is so obviously incorrect? If others want to get into a discussion about the merits of a heavily aggro meta or whatever else has developed as posts have continued, that's one thing, but that in no way addresses the sarcastic and unfounded question asked by the OP. Again, my post was not a troll, it was mere sarcasm, but if ever a post was asking for it . . .
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
There are approximately 21 separate cards that are both over 4 mana and non-discountable (by regular mechanics like librams and such) in the tier 1 and 2 decks on the current meta snapshot at TS.
However, I learned my lesson from the Tickatus threads. Facts are subjective and evidence only counts when it supports your feels. So no, there is absolutely no point in playing anything over 4 mana. All your feelings are valid.
EDIT: It's especially valid to point out what a horrible example duel paladin is, as is done in the post above this one, despite the fact that Duel (the mana cheating mechanic itself) is over 4 mana, and that was the threshold established by the OP. Facts like this should be ignored, as they do not support the OP's feelings.
I like to troll ppl as much as the next internet user man, but could you please try not trolling EVERY thread on this forum? :)
Some threads are asking for it, I get it, but others can actually spark interesting discussion, like this one (the OP is certainly exaggerating as theres plenty of great non-cheatable 5 mana cards in the meta, but when it comes to 6+ mana cards, I get the sentiment), and this kind of trolling is only taking the focus away from the topic. Try engaging the topic, see where it takes you.
Honestly, he's not trolling bro. Did you read his post?
"troll" has joined the ranks of -ists, -phobes, and a few others that will probably get me warned as terms with actual meanings that people feel justified to use in place of "people I don't like".
I understand sarcasm isn't some folks' cup of tea. Personally, I never liked onomatopoeia in comic books. But then again, we can't always get what we want, particularly in writing and speech devices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
"troll" has joined the ranks of -ists, -phobes, and a few others that will probably get me warned as terms with actual meanings that people feel justified to use in place of "people I don't like".
I understand sarcasm isn't some folks' cup of tea. Personally, I never liked onomatopoeia in comic books. But then again, we can't always get what we want, particularly in writing and speech devices.
It's a shame you keep the Trump icon because your posts are usually of a high standard. Your reasons for keeping it are lame at best, it's far easier for one person to change their avatar to be taken more seriously than it is for a whole bunch of people to "just stop getting offended" by being reminded of someone most of the world is tired of seeing.
If my daughter's life depended on it, I'm not sure I could manage to care less about whether someone finds a credible argument less convincing because of the picture next to it. The stats I quote will still be as accurate or inaccurate. The logic will still be as tight or flawed. If you can't get past a pic, the posts aren't for you anyway. That's why I wrote what I did about trolling. Trolling requires intent, and regardless of what intent others will attribute to me, the fact is I didn't pick the pic to troll and I'm not going to change it as a response to troll accusations. I already offered to change it when someone suggested that this particular pic was somehow even more inflammatory based on facial expression or somesuch, but of course, that just turned out to be the red herring we all knew it was to start with.
The world is pretty much done with Trump anyway. I'd be willing to have a discussion about it, but I seriously doubt anyone has a credible story as to why his image should still bother them in the least. All the reasons given so far are thinly veiled partisan hackery. I in no way mean to suggest I've heard all arguments, but certainl the ones I have heard don't remotely come close to passing the smell test.
And to the person who accused me of trolling in the first place, please note, I'll respond to these posts as long as someone feels it necessary to make them, but again, unless you're really willing to embrace the notion that posters just can't help themselves, I didn't start this.
Come to think of it, since people posting about my avatar are posting off topic to provoke a prescribed response . . . isn't there a word for that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
If my daughter's life depended on it, I'm not sure I could manage to care less about whether someone finds a credible argument less convincing because of the picture next to it. The stats I quote will still be as accurate or inaccurate. The logic will still be as tight or flawed. If you can't get past a pic, the posts aren't for you anyway. That's why I wrote what I did about trolling. Trolling requires intent, and regardless of what intent others will attribute to me, the fact is I didn't pick the pic to troll and I'm not going to change it as a response to troll accusations. I already offered to change it when someone suggested that this particular pic was somehow even more inflammatory based on facial expression or somesuch, but of course, that just turned out to be the red herring we all knew it was to start with.
The world is pretty much done with Trump anyway. I'd be willing to have a discussion about it, but I seriously doubt anyone has a credible story as to why his image should still bother them in the least. All the reasons given so far are thinly veiled partisan hackery. I in no way mean to suggest I've heard all arguments, but certainl the ones I have heard don't remotely come close to passing the smell test.
And to the person who accused me of trolling in the first place, please note, I'll respond to these posts as long as someone feels it necessary to make them, but again, unless you're really willing to embrace the notion that posters just can't help themselves, I didn't start this.
Come to think of it, since people posting about my avatar are posting off topic to provoke a prescribed response . . . isn't there a word for that?
Sorry, why is your avatar trump? Is it because you are a Trump supporter and proud of it, or you think it's funny? I just don't really understand. If Trump is done, then why do you want to remind everyone of him.
Like just about every American politician, there are plenty of things he did I support and plenty he did that I don't. More relevant than anything he DID are the things he could have done and DIDN'T do that I find heart breaking. If it is somehow relevant to a discussion of a picture on a game forum, I didn't vote for the man either time.
None of the above played any part in picking that particular shot as an avatar, as I don't find it necessary to wear politics on my sleeve. If you were to look back at my first posts, I seem to recall I saw a particular thread that finally convinced me to register for Hearthpwn, and I completed the setup of an account in approximately sixty seconds, complete with grabbing said pic from a folder of random memery and gifs on my computer because I wanted to be the next person to post on the thread so I would appear directly after the post to which I wanted to respond.
So, having once again responded to this tangent, I will repeat . . . I seriously doubt anyone has a convincing story that substantiates the notion that my avatar is traumatizing him/her/zim/zer to the point where they are no longer able to talk about anything else. For that matter, I seriously doubt anyone can name something of which the pic reminds them that wouldn't be equally true of dozens of other politicians from both parties. And yet somehow, I doubt that a pic of most of them would spark such ire, despite the similarities.
That inconsistency is the reason I resist changing the pic. That and the unending abuse and rudeness heaped on me by just about everyone suggesting the change (present company mostly excluded). I try hard to make it a point to not reward that sort of behavior in any area of life.
EDIT: I also found it somewhat instructive that one of the people who took issue with the pic listed a bald eagle as another avatar that had somehow become objectionable.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Like just about every American politician, there are plenty of things he did I support and plenty he did that I don't. More relevant than anything he DID are the things he could have done and DIDN'T do that I find heart breaking. If it is somehow relevant to a discussion of a picture on a game forum, I didn't vote for the man either time.
None of the above played any part in picking that particular shot as an avatar, as I don't find it necessary to wear politics on my sleeve. If you were to look back at my first posts, I seem to recall I saw a particular thread that finally convinced me to register for Hearthpwn, and I completed the setup of an account in approximately sixty seconds, complete with grabbing said pic from a folder of random memery and gifs on my computer because I wanted to be the next person to post on the thread so I would appear directly after the post to which I wanted to respond.
So, having once again responded to this tangent, I will repeat . . . I seriously doubt anyone has a convincing story that substantiates the notion that my avatar is traumatizing him/her/zim/zer to the point where they are no longer able to talk about anything else. For that matter, I seriously doubt anyone can name something of which the pic reminds them that wouldn't be equally true of dozens of other politicians from both parties. And yet somehow, I doubt that a pic of most of them would spark such ire, despite the similarities.
That inconsistency is the reason I resist changing the pic. That and the unending abuse and rudeness heaped on me by just about everyone suggesting the change (present company mostly excluded). I try hard to make it a point to not reward that sort of behavior in any area of life.
EDIT: I also found it somewhat instructive that one of the people who took issue with the pic listed a bald eagle as another avatar that had somehow become objectionable.
Ok, so if I'm reading this correctly, it was... convenient? And you don't want to change it because of a mixture of stubbornness and making a point? Here's the thing, I'm not traumatized, but I am fucking tired of seeing Trump. No world figure in recent history has been more in the news cycle, in comedy shows, in conversation. I find seeing Trump very depressing and frustrating. I want him to drop out of the news cycle. Is this realistic at the moment? No. Do you have the right to use the avatar? Certainly. I just wish you wouldn't because I think your posts are interesting and informative, but anyone seeing them with no context is probably getting understandably annoyed when you are sporting a picture of one of the most prominent enemies of critical thinking in recent memory. And someone I'd rather not think about when enjoying my past time of arguing in forums about a digital card game, which is silly but harmless. You're clearly really smart, I just don't like that you obviously enjoy generating more contention than is necessary, it makes me think you have a low EQ even if that isn't the case
Dude, if you don’t want to be in this thread then don’t come and use comments like “salt” and “Git Gud”. Just don’t comment at all. Paladins can discount their librams. I mentioned this already. I already argued that the only reason you’d make your deck mana curve higher is for the fact that you can cheat mana. If your class/deck can’t cheat mana then you can’t compete against aggro and even have to play aggro yourself.
It's interesting how you casually stroll past the fact that four of the most important cards in this midrange deck cost 5 or more and cannot be discounted. It's obvious to me that you're not looking for a discussion. You want to vent your frustration and only read supportive comments. Hence, salt thread.
And to be fairer, I included none of those in my count. I mentioned Duel paladin specifically because it was mentioned before my post, but Duel Paladin is certainly not in t1 or t2.
Btw, not everything one doesn't like or finds flippant is trolling. If you read my posts, you will be hard pressed to find a single one of them that doesn't have a point related to the discussion at hand (regardless of whether that discussion is related to the OP, it isn't my fault that other people want to talk about my avatar and other irrelevant shit). Trolling actually has a definition, and I very rarely engage in it. The only time I remember specifically going into troll mode on this forum was in response to a guy who was incredibly rude, but failed to get most of his insults to land because English was not his first language. Not my proudest moment, in all honesty, but it was enjoyable to frustrate such a person.
Even the post you just quoted was not trolling. It was sarcastic, to be sure, but the sarcasm was related to the topic at hand and quite clearly had an intended message behind it. By contrast, trolling would be making a post prodding the OP into a response by suggesting that he doesn't have the skill to play with control decks that use higher costing cards, or for that matter, just suggesting that his fear of high-cost cards stems from his lack of ability to count. That would be goading a response without having a point as to the discussion, or "trolling".
Here endeth the lesson.
EDIT: BTW, if you agree some posts are asking for trolling, then how could this thread possibly not be one of those when the original point is so obviously incorrect? If others want to get into a discussion about the merits of a heavily aggro meta or whatever else has developed as posts have continued, that's one thing, but that in no way addresses the sarcastic and unfounded question asked by the OP. Again, my post was not a troll, it was mere sarcasm, but if ever a post was asking for it . . .
You should know very well by now the thread has a high chance to derail into personal insults when you sarcastically make fun of someones feelings, which you did a lot on your first post. Why risk spoiling the whole thing like this?
Whether thats exactly what you were aiming for (trolling) or its just your way to convey your points (which is easy for most ppl to consider rude), I'm not sure, but considering things went south on BOTH threads about Tickatus (srsly wtf), I just didnt want another thread with a topic I find relevant to be spoiled by you wrestling with someone, thats all.
And yes, I find this thread not troll worthy, cuz it brings up discussion on why Team 5 seems to have so much trouble making great high cost cards. Would like to see your opinion on that if you're up for it.
Well Mr. Fog, I don't consider going out of my way to withhold rewards from openly antagonistic actors stubbornness, but I suppose a corollary of that rule is to attempt to reward the opposite type of behavior, particularly when it comes at no cost to myself. And as much as I enjoy the whining from certain other posters, faced with another seemingly-rational human being who is making an overt request, I suppose it's not worthy behavior to ignore said request.
The "enemy of critical thinking" comment almost had me going the other way, as something tells me most folks wouldn't voice that objection to any number of other pics of people far more antagonistic to fact and reason, but since I don't know that for sure, I won't act on a guess.
As for you OOzu, all I can say is the victim is still not at fault, even if she wears the same outfit twice more after something awful happens the first time. Is that a facile analogy? Only in the degree of the offense.
The difference between this thread and the Tickatus thread is I chose to make my point with sarcasm here. I was well-behaved and completely on-topic in both Tickatus threads until trolls came my way. That isn't my fault no matter how predictable it is. I worded my first post here precisely because I'm jaded that nothing is ever done when shit comes my way, but if I use a term like "mouth breather" in response to those posts, it's warning time every time. If that comes from a perception that I share in the fault because of a picture choice, all I can say is . . . it wasn't the outfit's fault.
But now that the avatar issue is put to bed (until someone brings it up again regardless of me removing it, at which point I'm sure all of you will be the first to my defense) my opinion of the threads in question is frankly somewhere between frustration and contempt. Discussing any card or mana cost of card in a vacuum is a waste of time. Tickatus the card is a meaningless subject, and Control Warlock (across the two winningest versions) has single handedly removed me from the top #500 in legend with a whopping 12-29 record. The deck is not worthy of a nerf discussion, by any objective standard.
And finally, returning to this thread once and for all (I swear), the concept of a "quality problem" in mana-expensive cards is as meaningless as discussing a card like Tickatus out of the context of a meta. Which is why I attempted to come at the Tick Lock problem by pointing out how few decks currently carried a losing record against it. Likewise, it obviously has definitive relevance to the topic to point out the 20 or so cards in high-level decks that fly in the face of the "4 mana or less" rule put forward by the OP. If you extend the scope to encompass all of the meta snapshot, you add 40-50 more cards in the >4 and not discounted category.
One could go down several different avenues to extend the more general topic. Not every card is meant to be tournament or high-legend competitive, some cards clearly exist simply to interact with existing mechanics, etc. The biggest cringe moment of the whole Darkmoon set reveal was when people actually tried to argue that the 10mana 1/1 rabbit was a good card to include in a deck when in reality, anyone can clearly see it was printed to interact with the evolve mechanic and dilute the pool of 10-costs without being completely useless to the evolving player. The earliest examples of Ramp Paladin actually tried to use the rabbit until that player base collectively hit themselves in the head with something heavy and remembered ten cost 1/1s don't go in decks unless they have "battlecry: win the game" somewhere in their text.
As for the idea that I'm too literal with the OP, I don't give much credence to the "OP might be full of it, but he spawned a good convo". If any of the other participants wanted the general convo, they could write a thread not based on such a facially absurd premise. I tend to respond to the OP specifically unless something down the thread is particularly of interest, and in this case, the OP deserved . . . and continues to deserve . . . a response reflective of the absurdity of the beginning point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This one is a very good post.
Is there a reason to put any card that cost more than 4 in todays meta?
If you wanna lose, yeah, why not? XD
Standard meta is too aggro, take the wildpill.
You have a valid point. I don't think you have any problem getting good or whatever that troll wants you to think.
The issue is we don't get to enjoy the game to its full potential when the meta doesn't let you compete with big decks unless there is mana cheating involved. For some, the game's thrill comes from bypassing the long term work and just throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opponent. Others enjoy the risk but look for mana cheats to gain absurd advantages at unreasonable states of the game. Then some want to be challenged and not only take risks but run decks that force them to be resourceful, creative, anticipatory, and manipulative. However, those decks require time for the users to be rewarded, and the game isn't favorable for those who have time on their hands.
Blizzard doesn't care about a balanced meta. They want to make us feel good with new cards and awesome designs with new or endless possibilities so we can pay up and then just let the rest work itself out. Our best hope is that they accidentally stumble upon an expansion/rotation that magically produces a healthy meta that requires little to no work on their end.
Zeddy is one of the few streamers who recognize this flaw of the developer side. They don't beta test thoroughly enough, they ignore user warnings of imbalance, and they don't acknowledge any part of the base with negative criticisms of HS.
You're right; big cards aren't efficient unless there are absurd benefits to them. That's probably why we don't run Archwitch Willow. It's no cheaty enough at a low enough cost, so it makes you go cheaper.
Dude i got legend with Duel Paladin, plenty of card +5 mana cost...
Thats the worst example you could bring up LOL, the point of Duel is to summon 8+ cost minions for 5 mana, cuz no one would ever play those minions in their deck w/o a way to cheat them out.
There are approximately 21 separate cards that are both over 4 mana and non-discountable (by regular mechanics like librams and such) in the tier 1 and 2 decks on the current meta snapshot at TS.
However, I learned my lesson from the Tickatus threads. Facts are subjective and evidence only counts when it supports your feels. So no, there is absolutely no point in playing anything over 4 mana. All your feelings are valid.
EDIT: It's especially valid to point out what a horrible example duel paladin is, as is done in the post above this one, despite the fact that Duel (the mana cheating mechanic itself) is over 4 mana, and that was the threshold established by the OP. Facts like this should be ignored, as they do not support the OP's feelings.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I like to troll ppl as much as the next internet user man, but could you please try not trolling EVERY thread on this forum? :)
Some threads are asking for it, I get it, but others can actually spark interesting discussion, like this one (the OP is certainly exaggerating as theres plenty of great non-cheatable 5 mana cards in the meta, but when it comes to 6+ mana cards, I get the sentiment), and this kind of trolling is only taking the focus away from the topic. Try engaging the topic, see where it takes you.
to be fair in the opening post the OP admitted that some cards that cheat mana are played although they cost 5+ mana (he took jandice and skull as examples)
And to be fairer, I included none of those in my count. I mentioned Duel paladin specifically because it was mentioned before my post, but Duel Paladin is certainly not in t1 or t2.
Btw, not everything one doesn't like or finds flippant is trolling. If you read my posts, you will be hard pressed to find a single one of them that doesn't have a point related to the discussion at hand (regardless of whether that discussion is related to the OP, it isn't my fault that other people want to talk about my avatar and other irrelevant shit). Trolling actually has a definition, and I very rarely engage in it. The only time I remember specifically going into troll mode on this forum was in response to a guy who was incredibly rude, but failed to get most of his insults to land because English was not his first language. Not my proudest moment, in all honesty, but it was enjoyable to frustrate such a person.
Even the post you just quoted was not trolling. It was sarcastic, to be sure, but the sarcasm was related to the topic at hand and quite clearly had an intended message behind it. By contrast, trolling would be making a post prodding the OP into a response by suggesting that he doesn't have the skill to play with control decks that use higher costing cards, or for that matter, just suggesting that his fear of high-cost cards stems from his lack of ability to count. That would be goading a response without having a point as to the discussion, or "trolling".
Here endeth the lesson.
EDIT: BTW, if you agree some posts are asking for trolling, then how could this thread possibly not be one of those when the original point is so obviously incorrect? If others want to get into a discussion about the merits of a heavily aggro meta or whatever else has developed as posts have continued, that's one thing, but that in no way addresses the sarcastic and unfounded question asked by the OP. Again, my post was not a troll, it was mere sarcasm, but if ever a post was asking for it . . .
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Honestly, he's not trolling bro. Did you read his post?
"troll" has joined the ranks of -ists, -phobes, and a few others that will probably get me warned as terms with actual meanings that people feel justified to use in place of "people I don't like".
I understand sarcasm isn't some folks' cup of tea. Personally, I never liked onomatopoeia in comic books. But then again, we can't always get what we want, particularly in writing and speech devices.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
It's a shame you keep the Trump icon because your posts are usually of a high standard. Your reasons for keeping it are lame at best, it's far easier for one person to change their avatar to be taken more seriously than it is for a whole bunch of people to "just stop getting offended" by being reminded of someone most of the world is tired of seeing.
If my daughter's life depended on it, I'm not sure I could manage to care less about whether someone finds a credible argument less convincing because of the picture next to it. The stats I quote will still be as accurate or inaccurate. The logic will still be as tight or flawed. If you can't get past a pic, the posts aren't for you anyway. That's why I wrote what I did about trolling. Trolling requires intent, and regardless of what intent others will attribute to me, the fact is I didn't pick the pic to troll and I'm not going to change it as a response to troll accusations. I already offered to change it when someone suggested that this particular pic was somehow even more inflammatory based on facial expression or somesuch, but of course, that just turned out to be the red herring we all knew it was to start with.
The world is pretty much done with Trump anyway. I'd be willing to have a discussion about it, but I seriously doubt anyone has a credible story as to why his image should still bother them in the least. All the reasons given so far are thinly veiled partisan hackery. I in no way mean to suggest I've heard all arguments, but certainl the ones I have heard don't remotely come close to passing the smell test.
And to the person who accused me of trolling in the first place, please note, I'll respond to these posts as long as someone feels it necessary to make them, but again, unless you're really willing to embrace the notion that posters just can't help themselves, I didn't start this.
Come to think of it, since people posting about my avatar are posting off topic to provoke a prescribed response . . . isn't there a word for that?
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Sorry, why is your avatar trump? Is it because you are a Trump supporter and proud of it, or you think it's funny? I just don't really understand. If Trump is done, then why do you want to remind everyone of him.
Like just about every American politician, there are plenty of things he did I support and plenty he did that I don't. More relevant than anything he DID are the things he could have done and DIDN'T do that I find heart breaking. If it is somehow relevant to a discussion of a picture on a game forum, I didn't vote for the man either time.
None of the above played any part in picking that particular shot as an avatar, as I don't find it necessary to wear politics on my sleeve. If you were to look back at my first posts, I seem to recall I saw a particular thread that finally convinced me to register for Hearthpwn, and I completed the setup of an account in approximately sixty seconds, complete with grabbing said pic from a folder of random memery and gifs on my computer because I wanted to be the next person to post on the thread so I would appear directly after the post to which I wanted to respond.
So, having once again responded to this tangent, I will repeat . . . I seriously doubt anyone has a convincing story that substantiates the notion that my avatar is traumatizing him/her/zim/zer to the point where they are no longer able to talk about anything else. For that matter, I seriously doubt anyone can name something of which the pic reminds them that wouldn't be equally true of dozens of other politicians from both parties. And yet somehow, I doubt that a pic of most of them would spark such ire, despite the similarities.
That inconsistency is the reason I resist changing the pic. That and the unending abuse and rudeness heaped on me by just about everyone suggesting the change (present company mostly excluded). I try hard to make it a point to not reward that sort of behavior in any area of life.
EDIT: I also found it somewhat instructive that one of the people who took issue with the pic listed a bald eagle as another avatar that had somehow become objectionable.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Ok, so if I'm reading this correctly, it was... convenient? And you don't want to change it because of a mixture of stubbornness and making a point? Here's the thing, I'm not traumatized, but I am fucking tired of seeing Trump. No world figure in recent history has been more in the news cycle, in comedy shows, in conversation. I find seeing Trump very depressing and frustrating. I want him to drop out of the news cycle. Is this realistic at the moment? No. Do you have the right to use the avatar? Certainly. I just wish you wouldn't because I think your posts are interesting and informative, but anyone seeing them with no context is probably getting understandably annoyed when you are sporting a picture of one of the most prominent enemies of critical thinking in recent memory. And someone I'd rather not think about when enjoying my past time of arguing in forums about a digital card game, which is silly but harmless. You're clearly really smart, I just don't like that you obviously enjoy generating more contention than is necessary, it makes me think you have a low EQ even if that isn't the case
It's interesting how you casually stroll past the fact that four of the most important cards in this midrange deck cost 5 or more and cannot be discounted. It's obvious to me that you're not looking for a discussion. You want to vent your frustration and only read supportive comments. Hence, salt thread.
You should know very well by now the thread has a high chance to derail into personal insults when you sarcastically make fun of someones feelings, which you did a lot on your first post. Why risk spoiling the whole thing like this?
Whether thats exactly what you were aiming for (trolling) or its just your way to convey your points (which is easy for most ppl to consider rude), I'm not sure, but considering things went south on BOTH threads about Tickatus (srsly wtf), I just didnt want another thread with a topic I find relevant to be spoiled by you wrestling with someone, thats all.
And yes, I find this thread not troll worthy, cuz it brings up discussion on why Team 5 seems to have so much trouble making great high cost cards. Would like to see your opinion on that if you're up for it.
Well Mr. Fog, I don't consider going out of my way to withhold rewards from openly antagonistic actors stubbornness, but I suppose a corollary of that rule is to attempt to reward the opposite type of behavior, particularly when it comes at no cost to myself. And as much as I enjoy the whining from certain other posters, faced with another seemingly-rational human being who is making an overt request, I suppose it's not worthy behavior to ignore said request.
The "enemy of critical thinking" comment almost had me going the other way, as something tells me most folks wouldn't voice that objection to any number of other pics of people far more antagonistic to fact and reason, but since I don't know that for sure, I won't act on a guess.
As for you OOzu, all I can say is the victim is still not at fault, even if she wears the same outfit twice more after something awful happens the first time. Is that a facile analogy? Only in the degree of the offense.
The difference between this thread and the Tickatus thread is I chose to make my point with sarcasm here. I was well-behaved and completely on-topic in both Tickatus threads until trolls came my way. That isn't my fault no matter how predictable it is. I worded my first post here precisely because I'm jaded that nothing is ever done when shit comes my way, but if I use a term like "mouth breather" in response to those posts, it's warning time every time. If that comes from a perception that I share in the fault because of a picture choice, all I can say is . . . it wasn't the outfit's fault.
But now that the avatar issue is put to bed (until someone brings it up again regardless of me removing it, at which point I'm sure all of you will be the first to my defense) my opinion of the threads in question is frankly somewhere between frustration and contempt. Discussing any card or mana cost of card in a vacuum is a waste of time. Tickatus the card is a meaningless subject, and Control Warlock (across the two winningest versions) has single handedly removed me from the top #500 in legend with a whopping 12-29 record. The deck is not worthy of a nerf discussion, by any objective standard.
And finally, returning to this thread once and for all (I swear), the concept of a "quality problem" in mana-expensive cards is as meaningless as discussing a card like Tickatus out of the context of a meta. Which is why I attempted to come at the Tick Lock problem by pointing out how few decks currently carried a losing record against it. Likewise, it obviously has definitive relevance to the topic to point out the 20 or so cards in high-level decks that fly in the face of the "4 mana or less" rule put forward by the OP. If you extend the scope to encompass all of the meta snapshot, you add 40-50 more cards in the >4 and not discounted category.
One could go down several different avenues to extend the more general topic. Not every card is meant to be tournament or high-legend competitive, some cards clearly exist simply to interact with existing mechanics, etc. The biggest cringe moment of the whole Darkmoon set reveal was when people actually tried to argue that the 10mana 1/1 rabbit was a good card to include in a deck when in reality, anyone can clearly see it was printed to interact with the evolve mechanic and dilute the pool of 10-costs without being completely useless to the evolving player. The earliest examples of Ramp Paladin actually tried to use the rabbit until that player base collectively hit themselves in the head with something heavy and remembered ten cost 1/1s don't go in decks unless they have "battlecry: win the game" somewhere in their text.
As for the idea that I'm too literal with the OP, I don't give much credence to the "OP might be full of it, but he spawned a good convo". If any of the other participants wanted the general convo, they could write a thread not based on such a facially absurd premise. I tend to respond to the OP specifically unless something down the thread is particularly of interest, and in this case, the OP deserved . . . and continues to deserve . . . a response reflective of the absurdity of the beginning point.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.