You know, Dracossack, if you feel you're incapable of taking up your side of the argument in a productive fashion, you could always ask for help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see a post that you find objectionable, report it, it helps keep the forum clean. But be aware people are allowed a lot of latitude.
If you find my posts to be rude, objectionable, or whatever, well, I got tired of writing polite TL; DR (Too Long, Didn't Read) posts at crybaby whiners. So now I just make it short and nasty.
If you find that funny, well and good. If you find that sad, that's even better.
Never said you did. It was suggested by someone else on the thread. Its a public forum. Lots of people here.
Twas my suggestion from my napkin. The idea was purely to add consistancy to the card, not balance it, which is what the OP is asking for, and what I would like to see more of from blizzard. As a card game, we get plenty of RNG elements out right... Why not reduce it some else where..
I still think that the randomness is the only thing that keeps people from playing Tink. If it was just a static hex, it would be even more prevalent. It seems that the RNG element isnt going anywhere in Hearthstone, so it may just be up to tourney organizers to decide if they want these cards banned or not. I still dont think any of them are "game-breaking", but I can understand in a high stakes situation wanting them out.
Also, chillwind yeti is a common card, so the text you gave as an example would be odd to see. However, if a later card was added that was a 4/5 and had that text, i would be fine with it. It would be another option for players to consider.
That's not what I said though. Rarity does not come into the equation, in a competitive mindset we assume players have access to every card they could need. I specifically chose another minion that is widely used and has no real replacement. What's your answer for the actual hypothetical I proposed?
The game does not exist in your ultra-competitive bubble. Rarity does matter in this situation. That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change. It would not make any sense. It also doesnt have anything to do with the original thread.
Rarity does matter in this situation. That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change. It would not make any sense. It also doesnt have anything to do with the original thread.
It does matter with the original thread. Dracossack is trying to use an example to demonstrate his thoughts on the matter in hopefully a clearer way. He is not suggesting anything beyond trying to make an example purely for discussion's sake.
Rarity CAN matter in how cards are designed I agree, but that's not the point here. The point is that is it okay for cards to have effects which have potentially extremely large swings in two directions based off of RNG?
That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change.
Why would it be terrible?
Come on dude.....If you're as "competitive" as you say, I dont have to explain to you why that would be a bad change to a common card like Chillwind Yeti. If you honestly want thoughts on that topic, create a thread, title it "Imaginary RNG Chillwind Yeti change", and see what kind of feedback you get. As it is, I've said about all I can about the old Tinkmaster....
Rarity does matter in this situation. That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change. It would not make any sense. It also doesnt have anything to do with the original thread.
The point is that is it okay for cards to have effects which have potentially extremely large swings in two directions based off of RNG?
I agree that this is the heart of the discussion. And my answer is yes. And it would seem that at least up to this point Blizzard agrees. However, I do think that cards with greater potential to do this (Tink, Pagle, Rag, Imaginary Chillwind Yeti, etc.) should be much rarer. And if they could sometimes have a "negative" affect, like getting a 5/5 with Tink could potentially be a negative, or the Imaginary Chillwind scenario discussed above, I think that is just fine to. More options for deck building. Again, People have the option to leave these cards out of their decks, and tourney organizers have the option t allow them or not. But none of them are "game-breaking" IMO and therefore dont need to be changed or removed.
Rarity does matter in this situation. That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change. It would not make any sense. It also doesnt have anything to do with the original thread.
The point is that is it okay for cards to have effects which have potentially extremely large swings in two directions based off of RNG?
More options for deck building. Again, People have the option to leave these cards out of their decks
This is not a real point. I shouldn't have to keep making this clear but we are talking from a competitive viewpoint. That's all we're interested in for this discussion. Tinkmaster and Pagle are incredibly strong cards that should be run in almost any non-aggro/rush deck. Deliberately excluding them when you know they're optimal and thus handicapping yourself because you "don't like the idea" is the standard scrub mentality that has no place among competitive discussion.
Tinkmaster is pretty much a polymorph. Just this time it can be a 1/1 or a 5/5. So because you're no wizard, it's offering the same ability but with the chance of a draw back. Myself I don't like pagle or tink at all simply cause I prefer consistent results over 50/50.
How would you like Tinkmaster to work, Dracossack?
Right now Tinkmaster can be used as an inexpensive but unreliable early game buff, or as a mid-late game counter to big scary things. How would you adjust the Battlecry so that both the early game and late game options are viable without overpowering the ability or incorporating any random element?
I suppose you could turn him into a 3 cost 2/2 with Silence. That would fit him nicely between the Owl and the Spellbreaker - and leave everyone wondering why he's a Legendary.
You could fix the size of the minion created, but as people have already mentioned, that would OP the card. If it always makes Devilsaurs, it becomes a super rush card. If it always makes squirrels, it's a cheaper polymorph that also leaves a 2/2 on the table. Anything in between those two extremes still makes it into more reliable removal than it already is.
It might be possible to come up with a tiered system - but that seems to be far greater complexity than the devs are going for.
The nearest thing I can think of to what you're interested that would still preserve some semblance of the two uses would go something like this:
Battlecry: Target a minion. If it is friendly turn it into a 2/3 Ratatoskr (or Deer or Whatever), otherwise turn it into a 5/5 Devilsaur.
RNG in this game, as well as in many others, is essential to not only the game's popularity, but the diversity in its meta as well. The OP argues that with zero variance (or zero RNG) players would have no choice but to play the best cards in the best decks so as not to "nerf" themselves out of competition. I believe this true, having played MTG competitively in the past where the only RNG is its resource management. Nothing sucked more than being locked out of a game, with your finely tuned deck, because your draw produced far too many or far too few land. The best decks were those which manipulated draw steps on both sides of the table in the attempts to control the sole source of RNG, lands.
Imagine if the same were true in this game. Imagine they release a card that allows your opponent to look at the top card of your deck, of which you can not see, and either let you keep it or send it to the bottom of your deck. Now imagine they can do this every turn until you expend resources to destroy it. Now imagine they still have three of these cards left in their deck. This card was Magic: The Gathering's Jace, The Mind Sculpter. He allowed players to manipulate their opponent's RNG and was infuriating to play against. His aftermarket value was no less than $400 for a full set of four, which completely barred the majority of players from owning copies. This resulted in a steep decline in player base and the game suffered. The developers had no choice but to ban him from just about every competitive format.
So why is RNG like Tinkmaster Overspark and Nat Pagle essential to Hearhtstone? Because they give everyone a chance to play, whether they have them or not. It forces players who list other legendaries to consider synergy over sheer power. Have a look at deck lists from six months ago. They were jam packed with every legendary they could afford and boasted high win percentages. Now players are making legendary with F2P decks. I don't personally have Pagle, but I very much enjoy answering him with Crazed Alchemist, Ironbeak Owl, Ancient Watcher, etc.
No, I believe 'luck' in this game is what GUARANTEES its appeal and playability. It is only the "Jace, The Mindsculpters" who want to eliminate RNG.
Remember that "Pros" like Artosis support banning these cards because it helps them. If a Pro believes they are better than their opponent, they don't want their opponent to have tools that let pull out a lucky win. But the reality is that without a chance at luck then Hearthstone won't have enough players to support future development, and the game will die off.
The thing I find the most funny about this, username, is that it was "pro" players such as Artosis that made this card popular in the first place... Also, I have to agree with what you posted, and that Reddit link was very clear in it's reasoning as to why this type of card should exist...
Yeah always getting devilsaurs when your opponent always gets squirrels, or your opponent always making his one drop a relevant 5/5 can be pretty frustrating, but that element is in all games with RNG. I know this has been beat to death but if the card had a constant effect then there would be something else wrong with it like "it's always on the bottom of my deck and yours is always in hand when I play my threat" This game is a pretty consistent one with only 30 card decks and no need to supply resources from your deck. Without reactionary cards you can be fairly certain on the outcome of your plays on your turn (visible secrets from a limited pool aren't that secret). All in all there isn't that much RNG as compared to other competitive CCGs. I understand the frustration from years of playing magic. You would beat some one and they would flop out their hand full of land , or they would paw through their decks for the 2 wrath of gods they had in that would have saved them. Part of the solution was to play more games so those random occurrences would be lessened and take some responsibility by tweaking the deck and looking at plays that you made or didn't make that should have been different. To boil a game loss down to one event is taking the easy way out.
You would beat some one and they would flop out their hand full of land
So, I know this is off topic, but this^ is one of the things I'd love to see added to the game.
One of my favorite moments playing CCGs in person is seeing how close my opponent was to winning (and/or how many other ways they could have beaten me).
that argument has nothing to do with tinkmaster?? it would be awesome if there was no rng involved but even if theres rng involved does it mean you shouldnt use the card? the rng kinda suck but if it suck so much then dont use it and if you do use it then you realize the fact that turning something into a 5/5 is better then dealing with a tirion ysera rag and etc
Wait, wait, wait, username. So you're telling me that MtG was as RNG-heavy as Hearthstone?
This is simply not true, in MtG the ultimate goal of a skilled deckbuilder is to ELIMINATE RNG.
I've been playing MtG since my childhood, since 1995. I started out playing casual games with my friends, but I really got into it and started to play competetively. Not that I ever attended a world cup, but I won a lot of local tournaments back in the days when physical TCGs were popular and people would actually meet to play and trade. Good old times... :(
Back to topic: Of course there's always a certain amount of draw luck you needed to get the right amount of lands and spells to start with. But the tournament design always favored smart deck construction by allowing to mulligan several times and drawing 1 card less each time, as well as a best of 3 system and a sideboard (you could adjust your deck with a sideboard of 15 cards after each match against another player).
Now the smart deck builder always had a way to get the right starting hand, because you calculated the likelyhood to draw each card on your starting hand when you built the deck. If you were smart all you needed to start the game was a card draw (Brainstorm to name the most notorious card draw for ages) and a land. Now all you do is draw through your deck and spam cheap counterspells you draw along with your other card draws to maintain board control until you have enough mana to safely drop a big creature or spell while still having a counter for their counters in hand. That is how magic works. When I stopped playing MtG this was the dominant style of deck building and most decks ran Blue just for the card draw and counterspells to eliminate RNG. Another factor is that you didn't need many lands at all, because almost every mage, no matter which color, had access to mana acceleration, may it be mono color cards like Dark Ritual or artifacts like Lotus Blossom. My decks generally didn't ever need more than 2 mana to stabilize and maintain control, so all I had to do is to put enough lands into the deck to get at least 1 land for my start hand and that's it.
Now, you claim this was an environment that allowed new players to compete? What if I tell you that my competetive reanimator deck cost $600+? What if I tell you that most decks you see at the world championships cost way more than $600?
There are core cards in MtG you have to play to be efficient, because they eliminate RNG or give another incredibly huge advantage over cheaper cards. Force of Will is a perfect example. This card has to be in any professional counter-deck (and yup, it was core in my reanimator deck). It allows you to counter an enemy spell even before your first turn, before you even have any accessible mana, or it allows you to counter an enemy spell after you already used all your mana. You can also use it without having drawn any land yet, just for paying 1 life and exiling a blue card from your hand. This card costs $50 a piece, because it's old as fuck and has never been reprinted and you need 4 copies in your deck.
Another example are dual lands. Those lands combine two colors in a single card and you can choose which color it will produce when you tap it. These lands are a MUST HAVE in any dual color deck to go competetive. No problem, right? Oh buy, these cards are stone-old too and haven't been reprinted. Price a piece? $50-60, tendecy rising. There have been similar dual lands being released in later sets, but all with some kind of downside: Entering the battlefield tapped, dealing 1 damage to you for being tapped, stuff like this. New players can't run these dual lands, even the new, "nerfed" versions of those dual lands cost some bucks. Running basic lands or common replacements for those dual lands puts you at a HUGE disadvantage.
Not enough elimination of RNG? Okay, how about tutors? Tutors are cards that let you search another card and put it on top of your deck or into your hand. These cards are not cheap either.
But this is what got people so excited about MtG, the struggle to ultimately beat your own luck. With the right set of cards and enough cash you could play really tricky and reliable, so that RNG was not a huge factor. And that's what I'm missing in Hearthstone, a way to eliminate RNG from my card draw and stuff. I want to have more control over what I do to beat my opponent and not just pray for the next draw step.
I also think that veterans should have a significant advantage over newbs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never suggested that :S
Never said you did. It was suggested by someone else on the thread. Its a public forum. Lots of people here.
You know, Dracossack, if you feel you're incapable of taking up your side of the argument in a productive fashion, you could always ask for help.
If you see a post that you find objectionable, report it, it helps keep the forum clean. But be aware people are allowed a lot of latitude.
If you find my posts to be rude, objectionable, or whatever, well, I got tired of writing polite TL; DR (Too Long, Didn't Read) posts at crybaby whiners. So now I just make it short and nasty.
If you find that funny, well and good. If you find that sad, that's even better.
Twas my suggestion from my napkin. The idea was purely to add consistancy to the card, not balance it, which is what the OP is asking for, and what I would like to see more of from blizzard. As a card game, we get plenty of RNG elements out right... Why not reduce it some else where..
I still think that the randomness is the only thing that keeps people from playing Tink. If it was just a static hex, it would be even more prevalent. It seems that the RNG element isnt going anywhere in Hearthstone, so it may just be up to tourney organizers to decide if they want these cards banned or not. I still dont think any of them are "game-breaking", but I can understand in a high stakes situation wanting them out.
That's not what I said though. Rarity does not come into the equation, in a competitive mindset we assume players have access to every card they could need. I specifically chose another minion that is widely used and has no real replacement. What's your answer for the actual hypothetical I proposed?
The game does not exist in your ultra-competitive bubble. Rarity does matter in this situation. That text added to a common card would be a terrible asinine change. It would not make any sense. It also doesnt have anything to do with the original thread.
It does matter with the original thread. Dracossack is trying to use an example to demonstrate his thoughts on the matter in hopefully a clearer way. He is not suggesting anything beyond trying to make an example purely for discussion's sake.
Rarity CAN matter in how cards are designed I agree, but that's not the point here. The point is that is it okay for cards to have effects which have potentially extremely large swings in two directions based off of RNG?
Kreek's Fast/Control Zoo [GUIDE] [ASIA Server High Ranking Deck, Highest Rank 1 with 3 Stars]
Why would it be terrible?
Come on dude.....If you're as "competitive" as you say, I dont have to explain to you why that would be a bad change to a common card like Chillwind Yeti. If you honestly want thoughts on that topic, create a thread, title it "Imaginary RNG Chillwind Yeti change", and see what kind of feedback you get. As it is, I've said about all I can about the old Tinkmaster....
I agree that this is the heart of the discussion. And my answer is yes. And it would seem that at least up to this point Blizzard agrees. However, I do think that cards with greater potential to do this (Tink, Pagle, Rag, Imaginary Chillwind Yeti, etc.) should be much rarer. And if they could sometimes have a "negative" affect, like getting a 5/5 with Tink could potentially be a negative, or the Imaginary Chillwind scenario discussed above, I think that is just fine to. More options for deck building. Again, People have the option to leave these cards out of their decks, and tourney organizers have the option t allow them or not. But none of them are "game-breaking" IMO and therefore dont need to be changed or removed.
This is not a real point. I shouldn't have to keep making this clear but we are talking from a competitive viewpoint. That's all we're interested in for this discussion. Tinkmaster and Pagle are incredibly strong cards that should be run in almost any non-aggro/rush deck. Deliberately excluding them when you know they're optimal and thus handicapping yourself because you "don't like the idea" is the standard scrub mentality that has no place among competitive discussion.
Tinkmaster is pretty much a polymorph. Just this time it can be a 1/1 or a 5/5. So because you're no wizard, it's offering the same ability but with the chance of a draw back. Myself I don't like pagle or tink at all simply cause I prefer consistent results over 50/50.
How would you like Tinkmaster to work, Dracossack?
Right now Tinkmaster can be used as an inexpensive but unreliable early game buff, or as a mid-late game counter to big scary things. How would you adjust the Battlecry so that both the early game and late game options are viable without overpowering the ability or incorporating any random element?
I suppose you could turn him into a 3 cost 2/2 with Silence. That would fit him nicely between the Owl and the Spellbreaker - and leave everyone wondering why he's a Legendary.
You could fix the size of the minion created, but as people have already mentioned, that would OP the card. If it always makes Devilsaurs, it becomes a super rush card. If it always makes squirrels, it's a cheaper polymorph that also leaves a 2/2 on the table. Anything in between those two extremes still makes it into more reliable removal than it already is.
It might be possible to come up with a tiered system - but that seems to be far greater complexity than the devs are going for.
The nearest thing I can think of to what you're interested that would still preserve some semblance of the two uses would go something like this:
Battlecry: Target a minion. If it is friendly turn it into a 2/3 Ratatoskr (or Deer or Whatever), otherwise turn it into a 5/5 Devilsaur.
Someone posted a great comment on <p>http://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/1y0qi7/loss_aversion_and_why_pagle_feels_so_bad_but_is/<.p> not too long ago addressing RNG in card games. I highly suggest everyone read it as it speaks directly about the topic.
RNG in this game, as well as in many others, is essential to not only the game's popularity, but the diversity in its meta as well. The OP argues that with zero variance (or zero RNG) players would have no choice but to play the best cards in the best decks so as not to "nerf" themselves out of competition. I believe this true, having played MTG competitively in the past where the only RNG is its resource management. Nothing sucked more than being locked out of a game, with your finely tuned deck, because your draw produced far too many or far too few land. The best decks were those which manipulated draw steps on both sides of the table in the attempts to control the sole source of RNG, lands.
Imagine if the same were true in this game. Imagine they release a card that allows your opponent to look at the top card of your deck, of which you can not see, and either let you keep it or send it to the bottom of your deck. Now imagine they can do this every turn until you expend resources to destroy it. Now imagine they still have three of these cards left in their deck. This card was Magic: The Gathering's Jace, The Mind Sculpter. He allowed players to manipulate their opponent's RNG and was infuriating to play against. His aftermarket value was no less than $400 for a full set of four, which completely barred the majority of players from owning copies. This resulted in a steep decline in player base and the game suffered. The developers had no choice but to ban him from just about every competitive format.
So why is RNG like Tinkmaster Overspark and Nat Pagle essential to Hearhtstone? Because they give everyone a chance to play, whether they have them or not. It forces players who list other legendaries to consider synergy over sheer power. Have a look at deck lists from six months ago. They were jam packed with every legendary they could afford and boasted high win percentages. Now players are making legendary with F2P decks. I don't personally have Pagle, but I very much enjoy answering him with Crazed Alchemist, Ironbeak Owl, Ancient Watcher, etc.
No, I believe 'luck' in this game is what GUARANTEES its appeal and playability. It is only the "Jace, The Mindsculpters" who want to eliminate RNG.
The thing I find the most funny about this, username, is that it was "pro" players such as Artosis that made this card popular in the first place... Also, I have to agree with what you posted, and that Reddit link was very clear in it's reasoning as to why this type of card should exist...
Yeah always getting devilsaurs when your opponent always gets squirrels, or your opponent always making his one drop a relevant 5/5 can be pretty frustrating, but that element is in all games with RNG. I know this has been beat to death but if the card had a constant effect then there would be something else wrong with it like "it's always on the bottom of my deck and yours is always in hand when I play my threat" This game is a pretty consistent one with only 30 card decks and no need to supply resources from your deck. Without reactionary cards you can be fairly certain on the outcome of your plays on your turn (visible secrets from a limited pool aren't that secret). All in all there isn't that much RNG as compared to other competitive CCGs. I understand the frustration from years of playing magic. You would beat some one and they would flop out their hand full of land , or they would paw through their decks for the 2 wrath of gods they had in that would have saved them. Part of the solution was to play more games so those random occurrences would be lessened and take some responsibility by tweaking the deck and looking at plays that you made or didn't make that should have been different. To boil a game loss down to one event is taking the easy way out.
So, I know this is off topic, but this^ is one of the things I'd love to see added to the game.
One of my favorite moments playing CCGs in person is seeing how close my opponent was to winning (and/or how many other ways they could have beaten me).
that argument has nothing to do with tinkmaster?? it would be awesome if there was no rng involved but even if theres rng involved does it mean you shouldnt use the card? the rng kinda suck but if it suck so much then dont use it and if you do use it then you realize the fact that turning something into a 5/5 is better then dealing with a tirion ysera rag and etc
Wait, wait, wait, username. So you're telling me that MtG was as RNG-heavy as Hearthstone?
This is simply not true, in MtG the ultimate goal of a skilled deckbuilder is to ELIMINATE RNG.
I've been playing MtG since my childhood, since 1995. I started out playing casual games with my friends, but I really got into it and started to play competetively. Not that I ever attended a world cup, but I won a lot of local tournaments back in the days when physical TCGs were popular and people would actually meet to play and trade. Good old times... :(
Back to topic: Of course there's always a certain amount of draw luck you needed to get the right amount of lands and spells to start with. But the tournament design always favored smart deck construction by allowing to mulligan several times and drawing 1 card less each time, as well as a best of 3 system and a sideboard (you could adjust your deck with a sideboard of 15 cards after each match against another player).
Now the smart deck builder always had a way to get the right starting hand, because you calculated the likelyhood to draw each card on your starting hand when you built the deck. If you were smart all you needed to start the game was a card draw (Brainstorm to name the most notorious card draw for ages) and a land. Now all you do is draw through your deck and spam cheap counterspells you draw along with your other card draws to maintain board control until you have enough mana to safely drop a big creature or spell while still having a counter for their counters in hand. That is how magic works. When I stopped playing MtG this was the dominant style of deck building and most decks ran Blue just for the card draw and counterspells to eliminate RNG. Another factor is that you didn't need many lands at all, because almost every mage, no matter which color, had access to mana acceleration, may it be mono color cards like Dark Ritual or artifacts like Lotus Blossom. My decks generally didn't ever need more than 2 mana to stabilize and maintain control, so all I had to do is to put enough lands into the deck to get at least 1 land for my start hand and that's it.
Now, you claim this was an environment that allowed new players to compete? What if I tell you that my competetive reanimator deck cost $600+? What if I tell you that most decks you see at the world championships cost way more than $600?
There are core cards in MtG you have to play to be efficient, because they eliminate RNG or give another incredibly huge advantage over cheaper cards. Force of Will is a perfect example. This card has to be in any professional counter-deck (and yup, it was core in my reanimator deck). It allows you to counter an enemy spell even before your first turn, before you even have any accessible mana, or it allows you to counter an enemy spell after you already used all your mana. You can also use it without having drawn any land yet, just for paying 1 life and exiling a blue card from your hand. This card costs $50 a piece, because it's old as fuck and has never been reprinted and you need 4 copies in your deck.
Another example are dual lands. Those lands combine two colors in a single card and you can choose which color it will produce when you tap it. These lands are a MUST HAVE in any dual color deck to go competetive. No problem, right? Oh buy, these cards are stone-old too and haven't been reprinted. Price a piece? $50-60, tendecy rising. There have been similar dual lands being released in later sets, but all with some kind of downside: Entering the battlefield tapped, dealing 1 damage to you for being tapped, stuff like this. New players can't run these dual lands, even the new, "nerfed" versions of those dual lands cost some bucks. Running basic lands or common replacements for those dual lands puts you at a HUGE disadvantage.
Not enough elimination of RNG? Okay, how about tutors? Tutors are cards that let you search another card and put it on top of your deck or into your hand. These cards are not cheap either.
But this is what got people so excited about MtG, the struggle to ultimately beat your own luck. With the right set of cards and enough cash you could play really tricky and reliable, so that RNG was not a huge factor. And that's what I'm missing in Hearthstone, a way to eliminate RNG from my card draw and stuff. I want to have more control over what I do to beat my opponent and not just pray for the next draw step.
I also think that veterans should have a significant advantage over newbs.