This idea came to me after I'd already submitted a card for the current contest but I like it so much thought I'd post it for people to comment on. It's a Rogue class card and the idea is the two players get a chance to screw one another and its a gamble as to who will get screwed more. :)
I think it could work if it would shuffle instead of discarding. Still not something that should be in Hearthstone IMO - I think developers said a few times that they don't like people removing stuff from other player's hand or deck.
What if you just have the rouge look at the other guy, but in return he discards a card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"To Secure Peace is to Prepare for War."
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
"There's many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory but it is all hell."
This idea came to me after I'd already submitted a card for the current contest but I like it so much thought I'd post it for people to comment on. It's a Rogue class card and the idea is the two players get a chance to screw one another and its a gamble as to who will get screwed more. :)
I like the idea, but it seems, bad. It's not really something you can build around as rogue. As zoo for example, losing 2 cards is sort of irrelevant, because the third will likely be on par with the other two, but rogue doesn't have a deck that has that sort of curve.
Additionally, you're opponent nets 1 card, while you just cycle. This could be good in a mill rogue, but generally, you're opponent will have just as much of a chance to screw you as you will them, and since the rogue is the one playing the card, the enemy player will ALWAYS come out ahead in terms of card advantage.
I do like the idea, and the flavor of the card, but I think it might be better as a 1-mana spell, that reads: "Each player views the top three cards of their opponents deck, draws one for their opponents hand and discard the others. Draw a card."
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that losing cards isn't "fun" and perhaps shuffle might be the better mechanic. What about push the other cards to the bottom of your opponent's deck?
Good point on the questionable nature of the value for the Rogue. Perhaps it could be your opponent selects one card to shuffle and you get the other two? That way both players are up a card in their hands.
I think it could work if it would shuffle instead of discarding. Still not something that should be in Hearthstone IMO - I think developers said a few times that they don't like people removing stuff from other player's hand or deck.
On your last point though they seem to be happy with Mill decks which effectively force the destruction of opponent cards.
I think it could work if it would shuffle instead of discarding. Still not something that should be in Hearthstone IMO - I think developers said a few times that they don't like people removing stuff from other player's hand or deck.
On your last point though they seem to be happy with Mill decks which effectively force the destruction of opponent cards.
Mill decks "overflow" your hand, you don't lose what you already have, and you still draw those overflowing cards from your deck. What's more, the hand needs to be full.
I know it's all obvious, but mill is "can't hold them all" rather than simply losing cards.
No - unfortunately, I don't have a special folder where I store all Blizzard quotes I ever read categorized by topic. It could have been an interview on Blizzcon, or some Twitter reply - no, I can't link it.
Goes against Blizxard design philosophy in not one but two ways:
1. opponent has to do something on your turn.
2. discarding cards for your opponent.
Casting a card aside because it introduces new mechanics isn't a valid critique.
I think Blizzard is trying to keep the game more on the casual-ish side and part of how that works is by not interacting on your opponent's turn. In any case, a well-designed card would ideally work within the design space that Blizzard has already established.
Thiron_ is correct on Blizzard's design philosophy. It's something Ben Brode has said already, and it's why they reworked Illidan Stormrage in alpha. Now discarding cards from your opponent's hand is a lot different from discarding from their deck, but it's close.
I think mill decks are a different sort of thing, and in any case while Blizzard doesn't seem to be against mill/fatigue decks I guarantee you if they became popular and ultra-strong, they'd get nerfed like crazy since mill decks usually don't have lots of minion-based combat and Blizzard hates that (e.g. the nerf to Gadgetzan Auctioneer even after miracle rogue wasn't the strongest deck anymore). Mill/fatigue decks can also be frustrating to play against, and I'm sure Blizzard is aware of that as well and wouldn't let that archetype become strong.
This idea came to me after I'd already submitted a card for the current contest but I like it so much thought I'd post it for people to comment on. It's a Rogue class card and the idea is the two players get a chance to screw one another and its a gamble as to who will get screwed more. :)
I think it could work if it would shuffle instead of discarding. Still not something that should be in Hearthstone IMO - I think developers said a few times that they don't like people removing stuff from other player's hand or deck.
What if you just have the rouge look at the other guy, but in return he discards a card.
"To Secure Peace is to Prepare for War."
"They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason."
"There's many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory but it is all hell."
I like the idea, but it seems, bad. It's not really something you can build around as rogue. As zoo for example, losing 2 cards is sort of irrelevant, because the third will likely be on par with the other two, but rogue doesn't have a deck that has that sort of curve.
Additionally, you're opponent nets 1 card, while you just cycle. This could be good in a mill rogue, but generally, you're opponent will have just as much of a chance to screw you as you will them, and since the rogue is the one playing the card, the enemy player will ALWAYS come out ahead in terms of card advantage.
I do like the idea, and the flavor of the card, but I think it might be better as a 1-mana spell, that reads: "Each player views the top three cards of their opponents deck, draws one for their opponents hand and discard the others. Draw a card."
Thanks for the feedback. I agree that losing cards isn't "fun" and perhaps shuffle might be the better mechanic. What about push the other cards to the bottom of your opponent's deck?
Good point on the questionable nature of the value for the Rogue. Perhaps it could be your opponent selects one card to shuffle and you get the other two? That way both players are up a card in their hands.
Thanks for the great comments!
Neat concept! Great name!
Not sure if more rng is wat the game needs brother.
Also, I just thought, asking opponent to chose something on your turn is begging for time-out.
Goes against Blizxard design philosophy in not one but two ways:
1. opponent has to do something on your turn.
2. discarding cards for your opponent.
Great point. You guys are an insightful bunch!
Perhaps there should be a set timer for the selection after which a random selection is made. Let me noodle on this.
On your last point though they seem to be happy with Mill decks which effectively force the destruction of opponent cards.
Mill decks "overflow" your hand, you don't lose what you already have, and you still draw those overflowing cards from your deck. What's more, the hand needs to be full.
I know it's all obvious, but mill is "can't hold them all" rather than simply losing cards.
Casting a card aside because it introduces new mechanics isn't a valid critique.
It's just been said by Blizzard specifically that forced enemy discard won't be introduced.
I've seen a few people claim this. Do you have any direct quotes from Ben Brode or other HS team members to this effect you can link here?
No - unfortunately, I don't have a special folder where I store all Blizzard quotes I ever read categorized by topic. It could have been an interview on Blizzcon, or some Twitter reply - no, I can't link it.
I think Blizzard is trying to keep the game more on the casual-ish side and part of how that works is by not interacting on your opponent's turn. In any case, a well-designed card would ideally work within the design space that Blizzard has already established.
Thiron_ is correct on Blizzard's design philosophy. It's something Ben Brode has said already, and it's why they reworked Illidan Stormrage in alpha. Now discarding cards from your opponent's hand is a lot different from discarding from their deck, but it's close.
I think mill decks are a different sort of thing, and in any case while Blizzard doesn't seem to be against mill/fatigue decks I guarantee you if they became popular and ultra-strong, they'd get nerfed like crazy since mill decks usually don't have lots of minion-based combat and Blizzard hates that (e.g. the nerf to Gadgetzan Auctioneer even after miracle rogue wasn't the strongest deck anymore). Mill/fatigue decks can also be frustrating to play against, and I'm sure Blizzard is aware of that as well and wouldn't let that archetype become strong.