Hearthpwn

Quote from Danthemedman »

Then save a BGH. And you dont have every right to complain. Its a part of the game. They put the three giants in there for exactly that reason. And again there is a long list of other cheap ways to get beaten. but to each his own.

I said I would have every right to complain because a 1 mana Mountain Giant would literally be hax, not in the sense that it's OP, but because it can't actually happen (without something like Pint-Sized Summoner).

Paying 1 mana rather than 0 wouldn't make a difference after you hit turn 6. So you ran into an "unfair" strategy and lost to it. Not every deck is trade-off and value up, some attack from different angles and you have to beat them on the axis that they're aiming to win on or beat them via your own win-condition first. I have to warn you though that managing a handlock's health so they can't molten giant and taunt on the same turn will require math.

Not a big deal, and I totally agree this whole complaining about moltens is stupid, but assassinate is 5 mana :) .

Quote from FamousBenDavis »

Not a big deal, and I totally agree this whole complaining about moltens is stupid, but assassinate is 5 mana :) .

Complaining about moltens isn't stupid. It's a legit complaint that you disagree with but it's far from stupid. 

Sooo tired of the "qq more l2p" crowd showing up every time there is balance feedback on this forum. It's ridiculous and juvenile. Make a damn argument don't just say "lol stop whining" and that's it.

A zero cost 8/8 that you can throw two of and still play with all your mana because your opponent made the "mistake" of trying to kill you is a valid concern. There should be a minimum cost to this creature, even if that cost is a cheap one, so that you have to actually calculate your turn for sufficient playable mana.

That isn't a stupid argument so actually debate it for once.

Quote from Disasterrific »

Paying 1 mana rather than 0 wouldn't make a difference after you hit turn 6.

It's the difference between being able to do a double molten + flamestrike + iceblock on turn 10 or not. That is just to give one of numerous examples. That is a difference and it isn't a negligible one. Every mana counts.

Quote from Wargasmbrandon »

Quote from FamousBenDavis »

Not a big deal, and I totally agree this whole complaining about moltens is stupid, but assassinate is 5 mana :) .

Complaining about moltens isn't stupid. It's a legit complaint that you disagree with but it's far from stupid. 

Sooo tired of the "qq more l2p" crowd showing up every time there is balance feedback on this forum. It's ridiculous and juvenile. Make a damn argument don't just say "lol stop whining" and that's it.

A zero cost 8/8 that you can throw two of and still play with all your mana because your opponent made the "mistake" of trying to kill you is a valid concern. There should be a minimum cost to this creature, even if that cost is a cheap one, so that you have to actually calculate your turn for sufficient playable mana.

That isn't a stupid argument so actually debate it for once.

It's "ridiculous and juvenile" to suggest that a card that clearly isn't warping the meta at all (isn't played in every deck, doesn't win the game by itself, etc.) is overpowered, and that the suggestion is "balance feedback" as opposed to "QQing", for lack of a better word. 

Quote from pilantra »

I think Ice block is stupid, it should prevent a killing blow and not a whole turn of immunity. How about that?

While I don't think that Ice Block is inherently broken, it does present design constraints for future card design, and is a much more reasonable thing to label as OP than what is actually labeled in the OP.

A guaranteed extra turn is a ridiculously powerful thing, and can only get better over time. Ice Block can easily be argued as one of the best cards in the game, the only reason it doesn't necessarily dominate it because of the other 28 cards in a Mage deck.

Quote from Disasterrific »

Paying 1 mana rather than 0 wouldn't make a difference after you hit turn 6. So you ran into an "unfair" strategy and lost to it. Not every deck is trade-off and value up, some attack from different angles and you have to beat them on the axis that they're aiming to win on or beat them via your own win-condition first. I have to warn you though that managing a handlock's health so they can't molten giant and taunt on the same turn will require math.

+1

Quote from pilantra »

I can give you a list of removals at turn 5:

Hunter: Hunter's mark + stupid boar = 1 mana

Mage: Polymorph / Vaporize = 4 / 3 mana

Priest: SW:D = 3 mana

Paladin: Equality + whatever attack between Pyromancer and HoW: 5 / 6 mana

Warlock: Syphon = 6 mana

Warrior: Shield Slam + Execute = 2 mana

Rogue: Sap / Assassinate = 2 /4 mana

Druid: Naturalize = 1 mana

Sir your QQ is not valid.

The feeling you get when your giants bait removal: priceless.

There are some threats removal can't void, for everything else, there's Naturalize.

Quote from pilantra »

Weren't ppl whinning about miracle rogues? What? Now the giants? Innervate? Ice Blocks? Gee... deal with it and stop complaining. This is becoming boring to assist on a daily basis.

What he said. This community won't be happy until every card has vanilla stats.

I'm surprised one mana is your issue with it. I think it should be a minimum of 3 mana so the double molten-argus combo is 10 mana instead of 4. An 18-18 firewall for 10 mana is an incredible value.

I think it's just a question of Hearthstone having little to no interaction compared to Magic, even tho' the combat system is more interactive the stack is not and that lets a lot of non interactive strategies like Magma Giant, Gadgetzaan Auctioneer, Force of Nature/Savage Roar and Unleash the Hounds just dominate the metagame because in any card game the meta game should iterate towards strategic non interaction and I think Hearthstone's combat system was designed expressly to avoid that i.e. the only permanets are minions and the minions can attack each other directly.

Personally I didn't/don't think any of those mechanics are really "healthy" for the game, and even tho' most metagames form around the most degenerate mechanics and Miracle Rogue, Handlock, Freeze Mage, Face Hunter, Roar Druid may not be dominating one or the other if you take into consideration the casual/fun factor of the game instead of the "play to win" factor I really don't think it's any surprise to see people bitch about these cards or expect them to be nerfed at some point considering the design restraints of a relatively uninteractive game.

I think the game is going to be unchanged until Naxx has a chance to address the metagame, stuff like Poison Seeds seems like a clear attempt to address Giants for example, and introduce new strategies but some mechanics at their core are just degenerate as shit and will have to be addressed at some point, even if they just get the Unleash the Hounds treatment of increasing the man cost of Gadgetzaan Auctioneer, Savage Roar and Magma Gaint by 1, or in the case of Magma Giant X, to give casuals a better play experience on ladder. Because frankly as far as they company is concerned, all of the Legendary hawks don't really drive their sales.

Yes, you can always stand to play better, play another archetype, metagame slots etc. but I think it has become pretty clear what strategies are "the bull shit over powered" offenders to people's sense of fairness even tho' they may not necessarily be imbalanced. I mean compared to the Pagle and Tinkmaster nerfs, it's kind of a fucking joke what they've left unnerfed and Magma Giant falls into a very similar category as Unleash the Hounds in the sense that it aggrivates people that generating what should be an advantage, i.e. doing damage or gaining board control, can be abused by their opponent to power a degenerate combo.

I don't think I would've ever let that card out of design myself, mainly because even if it is balanced (and that's a stretch) it's infuriating.

Quote from FinalFortune »

I think it's just a question of Hearthstone having little to no interaction compared to Magic, even tho' the combat system is more interactive the stack is not and that lets a lot of non interactive strategies like Magma Giant, Gadgetzaan Auctioneer, Force of Nature/Savage Roar and Unleash the Hounds just dominate the metagame because in any card game the meta game should iterate towards strategic non interaction and I think Hearthstone's combat system was designed expressly to avoid that i.e. the only permanets are minions and the minions can attack each other directly.

Personally I didn't/don't think any of those mechanics are really "healthy" for the game, and even tho' most metagames form around the most degenerate mechanics and Miracle Rogue, Handlock, Freeze Mage, Face Hunter, Roar Druid may not be dominating one or the other if you take into consideration the casual/fun factor of the game instead of the "play to win" factor I really don't think it's any surprise to see people bitch about these cards or expect them to be nerfed at some point considering the design restraints of a relatively uninteractive game.

I think the game is going to be unchanged until Naxx has a chance to address the metagame, stuff like Poison Seeds seems like a clear attempt to address Giants for example, and introduce new strategies but some mechanics at their core are just degenerate as shit and will have to be addressed at some point, even if they just get the Unleash the Hounds treatment of increasing the man cost of Gadgetzaan Auctioneer, Savage Roar and Magma Gaint by 1, or in the case of Magma Giant X, to give casuals a better play experience on ladder. Because frankly as far as they company is concerned, all of the Legendary hawks don't really drive their sales.

Yes, you can always stand to play better, play another archetype, metagame slots etc. but I think it has become pretty clear what strategies are "the bull shit over powered" offenders to people's sense of fairness even tho' they may not necessarily be imbalanced. I mean compared to the Pagle and Tinkmaster nerfs, it's kind of a fucking joke what they've left unnerfed and Magma Giant falls into a very similar category as Unleash the Hounds in the sense that it aggrivates people that generating what should be an advantage, i.e. doing damage or gaining board control, can be abused by their opponent to power a degenerate combo.

I don't think I would've ever let that card out of design myself, mainly because even if it is balanced (and that's a stretch) it's infuriating.

It's called reconsider your win condition. Molten Giants are not played in very many decks. If you are playing a deck that frequently does, not being able to deal with Molten Giants when they come out on the board means you DON'T REALLY HAVE BOARD CONTROL.

And people's "sense of fairness" doesn't matter. A lot of whiners just want to play their own poorly constructed deck and beat everyone by just placing vanilla minions and trading minions. It's not fair to them that people can win by going to the face all the time or comboing them out or flamestriking their board, etc.

Also, Molten Giants are sort of a "Rope a Dope" kind of strategy. Is that unfair in boxing?

I'm not arguing that the metagame doesn't have answers to Handlock or Freeze Mage or that either deck is imbalanced, I'm saying from a design and casual stand point, which are the stand points that matter to the company and the majority of the player base, there are certain strategies and cards that will always be considered "unfair," "overpowered," or "uninteractive" and cards that punish people for mounting an advantage like Unleash the Hounds or Magma Gaint are probably the worst cards fit that description.

I'm not saying anyone should be able to build any deck and compete with it, but they should feel as tho' they have a chance with it, and cards and strategies like Miracle Rogue and double Magma Giant into Sunfury Protector literally just end games immediately. Sense of fairness and fun absolutely does matter, if you take a game like Magic for example and compare the extended card pool to the Standard card pool you can see how many strategies and mechanics R&D have eliminated from design over the years or printed hate expressly for because they're degenerate and best not repeated. That's because the majority of their playerbase don't respond well to things of those nature, 2 card win conditions like Illusions/Donate, the Storm mechanic etc take away from the impression the casual playerbase is suppose to have, you play minions, you attack with minions and support them with powerful spells etc.

Complaining about "damage to face" or "board wipe" is an entirely different issue, because neither "damage to face or "board wipe" represent a degenerate mechanic, some deck has to define the fundamental turn of the game and "board wipe" is just an aspect of extending that fundamental turn for the decks that aren't setting it. Something like Magma Giant or Unleash the Hounds is manipulating a resource mechanic, by reducing costs, drawing cards or creating a win condition and those are usually the mechanics that cause the most trouble.

I don't think a comparison to boxing is relevant, card games have a rich enough history to be compared to other card games and what is considered fair in a sport isn't necessarily considered fair in a card game, I could just as easily make some inane analogy to Miracle Rogue being the equivalent to kicking in boxing. But like I said, a lot of these things depend on your perspective, if you're a serious hobbyist or "professional gamer" then you follow the "play to win" mentality and do or play anything in order to win and not care about what is or isn't deemed fair play within the rules of the game, if you're the average recreational player that just wants to play on ladder with your Priest deck or a company responsible for managing the play experience of the game "sense of fairness" absolutely matters. There will always be strategies or card interactions that irritate people, as anything that stops you from executing your strategy tends to have that affect, but there's a difference between your opponent interacting with you or your preferring one strategy over another and things that make the game seem "unfair" by abusing resource mechanics.

You're all going to give Pilantra a heart attack haha :)

I think a majority of the player base sees no problem with this card.  Let's move on to nerfing more important stuff.  Like that OP Kidnapper card.

Agree, let's just buff everything instead.

Quote from FinalFortune »

I don't think a comparison to boxing is relevant, card games have a rich enough history to be compared to other card games and what is considered fair in a sport isn't necessarily considered fair in a card game, I could just as easily make some inane analogy to Miracle Rogue being the equivalent to kicking in boxing. But like I said, a lot of these things depend on your perspective, if you're a serious hobbyist or "professional gamer" then you follow the "play to win" mentality and do or play anything in order to win and not care about what is or isn't deemed fair play within the rules of the game, if you're the average recreational player that just wants to play on ladder with your Priest deck or a company responsible for managing the play experience of the game "sense of fairness" absolutely matters. There will always be strategies or card interactions that irritate people, as anything that stops you from executing your strategy tends to have that affect, but there's a difference between your opponent interacting with you or your preferring one strategy over another and things that make the game seem "unfair" by abusing resource mechanics.

My boxing analogy isn't inane (although Miracle Rogue = kicking is).

Endurance- "Card/Board advantage". It doesn't matter who lands the most punches. It doesn't matter if your opponent had 1 hp and beat you or 30. If you run out of steam and can't take down the Molten Giants, that's no different than getting exhausted and being unable to finish your opponent.

I also don't see why you are trying to make this out that a play to win mentality is bad. I play Priest in ranked because I like Priest, even though it's probably the least competitively viable right now. I still play the deck to win though. Your "sense of fairness" is completely arbitrary. You could very easily find people on this forum who think that Thoughsteal and Mind Control are unfair. These are cards that are played by the LEAST VIABLE class, yet people will complain and complain about how unfair it is.

Is "Divine Favor" a degenerate mechanic since it punishes people for holding cards in hand? Milling in MTG is a legitimate strategy. But usually people would view having lots of cards as a good thing. How is milling legitimate, but building a deck around cards that punish the opponent for doing damage?

Is asking to have an 8/8 cost 1 mana really too much for you people? It MUST be free? Otherwise what?

There is this fallacy that Molten Giant can cost 0 mana. You're forgetting about the blood price they have to pay to do that. It's a pretty big gamble.

Not only Molten Giants but Sea Giants and Mountain Giants too. They are fun but are also a punishment for your good job in taking

the enemy down.