Hearthpwn

Quote from TheNameForgotten >>

Also. having just lost to a kingbane rogue that had a fairly ordinary hand when I had prince turn two, it just seems crazy that it can often beat agro decks and also beats nearly 100% of control and midrange decks

 Fairly ordinary hand means 1x Kingsbane 1x Leeching Poison 1x Deadly Poison and 1x Blade Flurry pretty much drawn relatively fast.

Oh and zoo gets outzooed if they Prep Raiding Party into kingsbane deadly and 2 dread corsairs

 

Ask yourself this question:

If you and I enter a matchup, and you have favoured strategy against mine (for example, I'm playing Freeze Mage and you Control Warrior), and we both play this matchup PERFECTLY, and we have no random elements influencing the game, can you give me a reason WHY I should EVER be allowed to beat you?

You have a favoured strategy, you and me played perfectly, why would I ever beat you? It is completely illogical. The problem is this lack of logic is what is driving most of the questioning you speak of, and hence, why it is accurate to state that means they don't understand shit.

Why would i play the game when this is the optimal case you want to achieve?
could just play rock paper scissors in some flash player game instead  then

srsly there would be nothing that'd drive me to play this game if this was the case

^^azalina and drakkari trickster also works well. so no. its not instawin against control.

and azalina, drakkari trickster also playable against various decks too.

Quote from yellowngreen >>

^^azalina and drakkari trickster also works well. so no. its not instawin against control.

and azalina, drakkari trickster also playable against various decks too.

 This is wrong on so many levels....

First , Azalina only copies the cards your opponent is holding!! When will a Kingsbane Rouge ever not equip the Weapon ?? 

Second , Drakkari Trickster doesn’t work. There was a reddit thread ( I posted the link here yesterday) about something like  " Warning to all Control Warrior players: Drakkari Trickster doesn’t copy the buffs of Kingsbane " . They guy even posted a replay.    In response  Blizzards Community Manager Jesse Hill wrote that this is not how it should work, and they will look it up/fix it.  Also as others mentioned,  realistically only Warrior can get to the fatuige stages of the game, were you are able to copy/steal the weapon.  

Third , someone mentioned a combo that would work 100% . Togwaggle into a 2 mana draw.... But then again, how often do you meet Kingsbane and go against it to fatuige, and how much does hurt a dead card in other matchups...

Just play Jaina oder taunt druid. It's almost always auto win versus kingsbane. 

In case you don't want to or don't have the cards just tech in skulking Geist. It removes the poison and the doomerang, both fairly important cards that sustain the deck.

You don't want to tech? Then it's your problem. 

fuck kings bane and quest of rogue they are both fucking up laddering in stadard and in wild kings bane is pure cancer

Kingsbane is not the problem, Raiding Party is. For 3 mana it draws 2 cards, combo it and it draw 3. That is huge value for one card, and the fact that it's effects are tribal make it even more over the top. It thins your deck by 2 each time, it draws almost all of you combo, gives you another card to draw Kingsbane (having in total 4) and also has a chance to draw Captain Greenskin allowing you to waste charges of the weapon more freely. Add to this Doomerang and Leeching Poison and it allows the rogue to not care about trading with the face even on big minions. And guess what? the fast draw is not even punished by fatigue due to Valeera the Hollow.

This card should have been printed in the next expansion when Kingsbane rotates. 

I mean with or without Valeera Kingsbane is by itself an anti-fatigue card as well.

Just chiming in to voice my agreement.  I hate cards like Kingsbane and Shudderwock where you know your opponent has them, you know the game their going to play, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it except hope for card-luck.  

Edit:  Just to add - I have no problems with the cards existing.  They are single cards for a single class and they don't exactly drive an overwhelming win rate.  The fact that it's only a single archetype means it's not worth going crazy with tech cards, so that's why when I do meet them I feel kind of powerless and the game comes down to who draws better.

Heartstone in general has a problem with too many combo decks being top tier now. And current combo decks counter slow midrange decks as well, not just fatigue/control decks because they have way too many survival tools printed.

So as someone who enjoys control+slow midrange decks most, I had to switch to playing only otk decks or demonic project control warlock (or as people call it anti meta lock) exclusively for last 4 months. Combo decks being half the meta now really limits deck choice for people who don't enjoy playing aggro or otk.

Mojomaster Zihi is a step in the right direction, but its too clunky to include for most decks.

I almost wish blizzard reprinted tunnel trogg, totem golem and friends to punish these combo decks.

Quote from taurenchieftain93 >>

Heartstone in general has a problem with too many combo decks being top tier now. And current combo decks counter slow midrange decks as well, not just fatigue/control decks because they have way too many survival tools printed.

So as someone who enjoys control+slow midrange decks most, I had to switch to playing only otk decks or demonic project control warlock (or as people call it anti meta lock) exclusively for last 4 months. Combo decks being half the meta now really limits deck choice for people who don't enjoy playing aggro or otk.

Mojomaster Zihi is a step in the right direction, but its too clunky to include for most decks.

I almost wish blizzard reprinted tunnel trogg, totem golem and friends to punish these combo decks.

 Be careful what you're wishing for. :D

Just buff Mana Wyrm back again. :p

Quote from TardisGreen >>

Control-tard tears make me giggle.

 Haha similar, player-tard tears make me giggle

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

How many control decks are(n't) there because of developers carefully constructed steep polarized meta which, in all wisdom and ' they know what they are doing', allude me and the non-target audience in terms of balance and skill?

I'm sure you as an emissary and ambassador of the design gods will have a perfect explanation why the meta keeps being polarized between low skill aggressive decks and low skill combo/otk on the other hand. It must be this way if you want to serve the target audience - the vulgar crowd looking pack buying easy gratification, even when they lose.

Assigning 'perfect balance' to a game which so plainly focusses on a low skill, low skill floored, easy win condition - demanded by the target audience and denying steepness as a design strategy to achieve that, is reminiscent of Sean Spicer, the former spokesperson of Donald Trump..

Hahahahaha...funny guy.

Assuming a balanced game would exclude overpowered decks demonstrates your lack of understanding the essentials. which is part of overall being uncritical about card design politics, pack selling design, target audience policies, marketing through game gratification mechanics.

Produced by someone really thinking he is knowledgeable of the game. Amazing stupidity. 'How thing really work' is not decided by game design, but by card design politics and certainly not as a result of things balanced. Keeping things deliberately unbalanced, aggressive or OTK is what sell the most packs. There is nothing more to it.

Understanding shit doesn't come by uncritical adoration.

 Since the expansion is too recent, there is not a clearly defined Metagame, I'll just use the previous expansion. You had perfectly usable Control decks, whose obvious strength against Aggro was clear. Unless you don't consider Odd Warrior, Big Spells Mage, Control Warlock, Control Priest, to be Control decks, that being, Control decks whose Win Condition didn't come from a Combo finisher. All extremely good against Aggro, as they are supposed to be.

That said, your second paragraph gives a clear picture on your issue here.

You believe, misguidedly, that Control decks are the only Skill intensive decks, which just to happen to not even be the highest Skill demanding decks on average.

I don't know where that misunderstanding you have came from except likely from you wanting your favouritism to have some positive aspect to justify it.

So I'll just leave you with something you would do well to internalise, but I doubt you will.

On average, the Skill intensity of a deck increases from Left to Right, going from Midrange, to Aggro, to Control and finally Combo. This is likely to not be what you want it to be, but this is easily proven.

All you need is to select two individuals, an extremely skilled player, and a brand newcomer to the game, select any number of decks from each Archtype, and have both players pilot each of those decks in a neutral environment for a significant sample sizes of games (lets say at least 1000 games for each deck).

From this experience, you can identify the most Skill intensive Archtype by visualising which one presents the highest Win-Rate differentials when piloted by each of the players. The Decks with the highest Winrate difference between the Pro and the Noob are the most Skill intensive decks, and the opposite is also the case, the lowest difference tells you the least Skill intensive decks.

You assuming Control is the most Skill intensive because it is what you prefer is just a dumb assumption to make.

This is not about assigning Perfect Balance. It is about designing to emphasise said Perfect Balance. You want the Developers to design with Perfect Balance in mind.

I think you have some really big logic gaps in your brain. By definition, if there is proper balance, there is no such thing as an overpowered deck. It runs contrary to the definition. If there are overpower decks, that, by definition, means there is no proper balance. They are mutually exclusive. If something is overpowered, it breaks balance.

So, the design a game doesn't delimit how that game will work, at least, according to you.

You made it abundantly clear all your lack of knowledge on the subject, I've took the time to try and help you understand, you don't seem to want to understand, but want to blame all your faults in someone or something else. That is not a good life philosophy, but you have all the right to choose it none the less. I however, choose not to waste time engaging with someone with that philosophy, since it doesn't tend to lead anywhere.

So have a nice day, hope you one day change that.

 Pro-Blizzard uncritical punditry and lobbyists on this forum, just to ease the pain of the unfortunate, is hard to battle, so won't try to convince anyone.

Thinking that the state of the game is solely explained bij intra -or inter card relations, is quite naive. In that kind of one-sided thinking the masses find their rest. Because it looks cool to compare cards to mechanics in lenghty debates, just for the pretence of being 'knowledgeable'.

That there are also extra-card relations in term of why certain cards see light; why the meta is steered in a certain direction; why e.g. Sudderwock saw light (remember Brode went crazy over that card, by then abandoning ship); why OTK and agressive decks are so loved by current staff; why Kingsbane seems to be indespensable for the good functioning of the meta.....to name a few... that ladies and gentlemen is beyond forum-punditry horizons.

But here is a thought experiment.

Image one day HQ-Blizzard fires the whole HS-staff and start afresh. The condition for te new staff are set.

1. Raise the skill floor
2. Diversify win conditions
3. Make it harder to win games
4. Curb winning through chargers and burn. 
5. Refrain from a polarized meta.
6. Keep RPS shallow.

Otherwise: no more skill-free, skill-contemptuous card design. No more shudderwocks, Togwaggles and Kingsbanes. Players must win because they show skill and knowledge. No primarely winning because of deck favouritism against an opponent.

What kind of meta would that be. And what would the shift in target audience look like. Will the vulgar crowd leave the game, looking for something that readily suits their easy winfix? Interesting (And don't start with comparing to chess).

I wonder if current fora-punditry would adapt as they defend current design phylosophy. They will, as uncritical means you are a follower and defender of that what is being set for you. No authenticity.

Maybe we will see this meta in April.

Sure we still have Mechathun , and Shudderwock around, but the decks will be significantly weaker/harder to pull off.  Also Blizzard did the right step in my opinion. They introduced a card like DojoMaster Zihi ( who is unfortunately useless against Kingsbane Rouge) , that will make Control Players not feel completely helpless against combo/OTK decks.

Quote from Hooghout >>

 Pro-Blizzard uncritical punditry and lobbyists on this forum, just to ease the pain of the unfortunate, is hard to battle, so won't try to convince anyone.

Thinking that the state of the game is solely explained bij intra -or inter card relations, is quite naive. In that kind of one-sided thinking the masses find their rest. Because it looks cool to compare cards to mechanics in lenghty debates, just for the pretence of being 'knowledgeable'.

That there are also extra-card relations in term of why certain cards see light; why the meta is steered in a certain direction; why e.g. Sudderwock saw light (remember Brode went crazy over that card, by then abandoning ship); why OTK and agressive decks are so loved by current staff; why Kingsbane seems to be indespensable for the good functioning of the meta.....to name a few... that ladies and gentlemen is beyond forum-punditry horizons.

But here is a thought experiment.

Image one day HQ-Blizzard fires the whole HS-staff and start afresh. The condition for te new staff are set.

1. Raise the skill floor
2. Diversify win conditions
3. Make it harder to win games
4. Curb winning through chargers and burn. 
5. Refrain from a polarized meta.
6. Keep RPS shallow.

Otherwise: no more skill-free, skill-contemptuous card design. No more shudderwocks, Togwaggles and Kingsbanes. Players must win because they show skill and knowledge. No primarely winning because of deck favouritism against an opponent.

What kind of meta would that be. And what would the shift in target audience look like. Will the vulgar crowd leave the game, looking for something that readily suits their easy winfix? Interesting (And don't start with comparing to chess).

I wonder if current fora-punditry would adapt as they defend current design phylosophy. They will, as uncritical means you are a follower and defender of that what is being set for you. No authenticity.

 Nice ad hominem

No one for full five pages? Ok:

https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/212005-group-therapy-need-to-blow-off-steam-mega-salty

I have a golden Kingsbane but don't like playing rogue. The struglles I have in my life. tough tough tough!

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Is this the respons you were wating for? So you had a prefix idea what it should be and just waiting for some pro-current-card-design-punditry to confirm it?

The problem with these type of standard responses is that they seem not to cover situations in were referring to RPS has gone too far and are simply incorrect. Scalebane is suppose to curb control. But control is already in check by agressive aggro type of decks or otk/combo-types. So why so many archetypes should be anti-control is a little wierd, don't you think?

So suddenly it boils down to the question of steepness of RPS. If RPS is to be considered an intricate part of CGC's, when is it too steep? A.k.a. why the polarized meta time and again?

That in turn begs the question of card design politics. Why certain archetypes are build or certain cards printed? For what reason? To keep the meta polarized, low skill-floored, with easy and undiversed win conditions?

Do we readily accept that  card designers always do a good job; have a good reason for everything and 'they know what they are doing' - as standard pro-Blizzard pundits want everyone want to believe? 

That everyone asking questions or see imbalances don't understand shit?

Really there is more to it than to accept simplistic answers.

 Aggro doesn't check Control, It's Combo and Midrange that have that role, Aggro's role is to be checked by Control.

And in case it is not obvious enough, Kingsbane, which I assume is what you meant to write, is for all intents and purposes, a Combo. The card is useless on it's own, it is only when combined with a bunch of other cards, the Buff, that it yields out an insane advantage, which is what Combo decks do, they use a combination of cards to yield an insane advantage. If you put Kingsbane in a deck with no Weapon Buffs, all you get is the option add an extra card to your deck every turn preventing natural fatigue damage.

While that is a nice thing on it's own, it is not even remotely enough to consider building a deck around that. What is worth building a deck around is a combination of cards that includes Kingsbane and lots of Buffs, because that does give a massive advantage when played. Which is what makes a Combo deck.

This is no such thing as steepness in Rock Paper Scissors model because Rock Paper Scissors is the actual perfect balance model in Strategy Card games. If Hearthstone was in perfect balance, if there were no random elements that could influence games, and if players were playing in perfect level, you would have a strictly enforced Rock Paper Scissors model, a fully polarised game. This is what actual perfect balance looks like.

The reason it is not the case in Hearthstone, is because not only do random elements influence games, but there's only like 0,001% of the player base playing at anything close to a perfect level.

That is the reason why matchups like Control Warrior V Freeze Mage were never 100%/0% matchups, because both randomness and lack of perfect play.

In reality, polarised metagames just showcase the game is more balanced. There are no decks whose power level is much higher compared to others, which in turn means there is no deck constantly and consistently overcoming it's weaknesses.

When the game is balanced, it is MUCH harder for any player to overcome difficult matchups because they cannot rely on using overpowered decks to powerthrough those matchups, like it used to happen, again, in times like Undertaker Hunter or Aggro Shaman.

That everyone asking questions or see imbalances don't understand shit?

Well, that is for the most part the actual case. Anyone that sees a polarised metagame and attributes that to imbalances is ignoring the true reason why polarisation happens, which means they indeed don't understand shit.

I know everyone want to feel like they have a chance at winning any game they enter, but that is not how reality works, specially when things are balanced.

Ask yourself this question:

If you and I enter a matchup, and you have favoured strategy against mine (for example, I'm playing Freeze Mage and you Control Warrior), and we both play this matchup PERFECTLY, and we have no random elements influencing the game, can you give me a reason WHY I should EVER be allowed to beat you?

You have a favoured strategy, you and me played perfectly, why would I ever beat you? It is completely illogical. The problem is this lack of logic is what is driving most of the questioning you speak of, and hence, why it is accurate to state that means they don't understand shit.

How many control decks are(n't) there because of developers carefully constructed steep polarized meta which, in all wisdom and ' they know what they are doing', allude me and the non-target audience in terms of balance and skill?

I'm sure you as an emissary and ambassador of the design gods will have a perfect explanation why the meta keeps being polarized between low skill aggressive decks and low skill combo/otk on the other hand. It must be this way if you want to serve the target audience - the vulgar crowd looking pack buying easy gratification, even when they lose.

Assigning 'perfect balance' to a game which so plainly focusses on a low skill, low skill floored, easy win condition - demanded by the target audience and denying steepness as a design strategy to achieve that, is reminiscent of Sean Spicer, the former spokesperson of Donald Trump.

In reality, polarised metagames just showcase the game is more balanced.

Hahahahaha...funny guy.

Assuming a balanced game would exclude overpowered decks demonstrates your lack of understanding the essentials. which is part of overall being uncritical about card design politics, pack selling design, target audience policies, marketing through game gratification mechanics.

 I know everyone want to feel like they have a chance at winning any game they enter, but that is not how reality works, specially when things are balanced.

Produced by someone really thinking he is knowledgeable of the game. Amazing stupidity. 'How thing really work' is not decided by game design, but by card design politics and certainly not as a result of things balanced. Keeping things deliberately unbalanced, aggressive or OTK is what sell the most packs. There is nothing more to it.

Understanding shit doesn't come by uncritical adoration.

 

 

 

 

I

Your comment on "low skill aggro deck or low skill combo/oth deck" identifies you as a patron of the "no skill control" decks favored by players such as yourself who have absolutely NO SKILL.  You can't play HS to save your life, so you play your garbage control decks with no win condition, and cry like newborns every time you run into a deck that your crap deck has a 0% chance of beating.

Instead of crying, try learning to play the game.

Quote from TardisGreen >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

Quote from Hooghout >>

Is this the respons you were wating for? So you had a prefix idea what it should be and just waiting for some pro-current-card-design-punditry to confirm it?

The problem with these type of standard responses is that they seem not to cover situations in were referring to RPS has gone too far and are simply incorrect. Scalebane is suppose to curb control. But control is already in check by agressive aggro type of decks or otk/combo-types. So why so many archetypes should be anti-control is a little wierd, don't you think?

So suddenly it boils down to the question of steepness of RPS. If RPS is to be considered an intricate part of CGC's, when is it too steep? A.k.a. why the polarized meta time and again?

That in turn begs the question of card design politics. Why certain archetypes are build or certain cards printed? For what reason? To keep the meta polarized, low skill-floored, with easy and undiversed win conditions?

Do we readily accept that  card designers always do a good job; have a good reason for everything and 'they know what they are doing' - as standard pro-Blizzard pundits want everyone want to believe? 

That everyone asking questions or see imbalances don't understand shit?

Really there is more to it than to accept simplistic answers.

 Aggro doesn't check Control, It's Combo and Midrange that have that role, Aggro's role is to be checked by Control.

And in case it is not obvious enough, Kingsbane, which I assume is what you meant to write, is for all intents and purposes, a Combo. The card is useless on it's own, it is only when combined with a bunch of other cards, the Buff, that it yields out an insane advantage, which is what Combo decks do, they use a combination of cards to yield an insane advantage. If you put Kingsbane in a deck with no Weapon Buffs, all you get is the option add an extra card to your deck every turn preventing natural fatigue damage.

While that is a nice thing on it's own, it is not even remotely enough to consider building a deck around that. What is worth building a deck around is a combination of cards that includes Kingsbane and lots of Buffs, because that does give a massive advantage when played. Which is what makes a Combo deck.

This is no such thing as steepness in Rock Paper Scissors model because Rock Paper Scissors is the actual perfect balance model in Strategy Card games. If Hearthstone was in perfect balance, if there were no random elements that could influence games, and if players were playing in perfect level, you would have a strictly enforced Rock Paper Scissors model, a fully polarised game. This is what actual perfect balance looks like.

The reason it is not the case in Hearthstone, is because not only do random elements influence games, but there's only like 0,001% of the player base playing at anything close to a perfect level.

That is the reason why matchups like Control Warrior V Freeze Mage were never 100%/0% matchups, because both randomness and lack of perfect play.

In reality, polarised metagames just showcase the game is more balanced. There are no decks whose power level is much higher compared to others, which in turn means there is no deck constantly and consistently overcoming it's weaknesses.

When the game is balanced, it is MUCH harder for any player to overcome difficult matchups because they cannot rely on using overpowered decks to powerthrough those matchups, like it used to happen, again, in times like Undertaker Hunter or Aggro Shaman.

That everyone asking questions or see imbalances don't understand shit?

Well, that is for the most part the actual case. Anyone that sees a polarised metagame and attributes that to imbalances is ignoring the true reason why polarisation happens, which means they indeed don't understand shit.

I know everyone want to feel like they have a chance at winning any game they enter, but that is not how reality works, specially when things are balanced.

Ask yourself this question:

If you and I enter a matchup, and you have favoured strategy against mine (for example, I'm playing Freeze Mage and you Control Warrior), and we both play this matchup PERFECTLY, and we have no random elements influencing the game, can you give me a reason WHY I should EVER be allowed to beat you?

You have a favoured strategy, you and me played perfectly, why would I ever beat you? It is completely illogical. The problem is this lack of logic is what is driving most of the questioning you speak of, and hence, why it is accurate to state that means they don't understand shit.

How many control decks are(n't) there because of developers carefully constructed steep polarized meta which, in all wisdom and ' they know what they are doing', allude me and the non-target audience in terms of balance and skill?

I'm sure you as an emissary and ambassador of the design gods will have a perfect explanation why the meta keeps being polarized between low skill aggressive decks and low skill combo/otk on the other hand. It must be this way if you want to serve the target audience - the vulgar crowd looking pack buying easy gratification, even when they lose.

Assigning 'perfect balance' to a game which so plainly focusses on a low skill, low skill floored, easy win condition - demanded by the target audience and denying steepness as a design strategy to achieve that, is reminiscent of Sean Spicer, the former spokesperson of Donald Trump.

In reality, polarised metagames just showcase the game is more balanced.

Hahahahaha...funny guy.

Assuming a balanced game would exclude overpowered decks demonstrates your lack of understanding the essentials. which is part of overall being uncritical about card design politics, pack selling design, target audience policies, marketing through game gratification mechanics.

 I know everyone want to feel like they have a chance at winning any game they enter, but that is not how reality works, specially when things are balanced.

Produced by someone really thinking he is knowledgeable of the game. Amazing stupidity. 'How thing really work' is not decided by game design, but by card design politics and certainly not as a result of things balanced. Keeping things deliberately unbalanced, aggressive or OTK is what sell the most packs. There is nothing more to it.

Understanding shit doesn't come by uncritical adoration.

 

 

 

 

I

Your comment on "low skill aggro deck or low skill combo/oth deck" identifies you as a patron of the "no skill control" decks favored by players such as yourself who have absolutely NO SKILL.  You can't play HS to save your life, so you play your garbage control decks with no win condition, and cry like newborns every time you run into a deck that your crap deck has a 0% chance of beating.

Instead of crying, try learning to play the game.

 well spoken

Quote from Wingdude22 >>

Quote from yellowngreen >>

^^azalina and drakkari trickster also works well. so no. its not instawin against control.

and azalina, drakkari trickster also playable against various decks too.

 This is wrong on so many levels....

First , Azalina only copies the cards your opponent is holding!! When will a Kingsbane Rouge ever not equip the Weapon ?? 

Second , Drakkari Trickster doesn’t work. There was a reddit thread ( I posted the link here yesterday) about something like  " Warning to all Control Warrior players: Drakkari Trickster doesn’t copy the buffs of Kingsbane " . They guy even posted a replay.    In response  Blizzards Community Manager Jesse Hill wrote that this is not how it should work, and they will look it up/fix it.  Also as others mentioned,  realistically only Warrior can get to the fatuige stages of the game, were you are able to copy/steal the weapon.  

Third , someone mentioned a combo that would work 100% . Togwaggle into a 2 mana draw.... But then again, how often do you meet Kingsbane and go against it to fatuige, and how much does hurt a dead card in other matchups...

 Edit: yesterday they hotfixed some bugs, also including  Drakkari Trickster. 

Now he should work as intended.