Hearthpwn

Oh my... As I wrote 3 times already, I'm not after shaman. I'm discussing how easy it is to reach legend with OP decks. And I think Blizzard is making it more and more easy to reach legend with the cards they make. They want to make the meta more controlish, but at each expansion they fail. They make a class OP, then they nerf it, and then another class gets OP. I want Blizzard to make cards that bring balance to the game.

I made this thread because I want people who deserve it and the skills to make it to legend, get rewarded for their skills. But now it's far too easy to reach legend. I just wanted to hear your opinions.. But I got mistaken, and people though of it like a "I LOST TO SHAMAN, I MUST CRY" thread. well well..

Glhf.

Shaman is not op it can be beaten very easily with zoo , pirate warrior or even nzoth priest but why you dont wanna play aggro ? The meta is like that , you cant change it playmg a control deck , if you want easy fast climbing (if you got skills ) is playng fucking aggro. Its funny winning why you prefear playng at low ranks with a cw and got rekt by everyone (also becouse yo are worst that you think). 

So yeah there are decks that make reaching legnd easy .. instead of complaining about that you should play them (im sure that most pf the people here that says to have skill didnt go trough rank 6 ..)

The only thing isuppose is that most of you are frustrated ''shopped'' players who cant even reach rank 5 and have all golden collection

Quote from lorfn >>

Shaman is not op it can be beaten very easily with zoo , pirate warrior or even nzoth priest but why you dont wanna play aggro ? The meta is like that , you cant change it playmg a control deck , if you want easy fast climbing (if you got skills ) is playng fucking aggro. Its funny winning why you prefear playng at low ranks with a cw and got rekt by everyone (also becouse yo are worst that you think). 

So yeah there are decks that make reaching legnd easy .. instead of complaining about that you should play them (im sure that most pf the people here that says to have skill didnt go trough rank 6 ..)

The only thing isuppose is that most of you are frustrated ''shopped'' players who cant even reach rank 5 and have all golden collection

Quote from itforwait >>

Quote from lorfn >>

Shaman is not op it can be beaten very easily with zoo , pirate warrior or even nzoth priest but why you dont wanna play aggro ? The meta is like that , you cant change it playmg a control deck , if you want easy fast climbing (if you got skills ) is playng fucking aggro. Its funny winning why you prefear playng at low ranks with a cw and got rekt by everyone (also becouse yo are worst that you think). 

So yeah there are decks that make reaching legnd easy .. instead of complaining about that you should play them (im sure that most pf the people here that says to have skill didnt go trough rank 6 ..)

The only thing isuppose is that most of you are frustrated ''shopped'' players who cant even reach rank 5 and have all golden collection

 I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I started taking grinding seriously in November, been 2 x legend and got 5 golden heroes since January. Always ended up at least at rank 5 since November. If you think I'm playing at low ranks with Control Warrior.. You're wrong.

 

Quote from nagashbg >>

everyone knows that skill doesn't play a major role in HS, the best players have like what, 60% winrate in tournaments? The best player in a skill game could reach 100%, but that will never be the case in HS. A game winnner is then decided by a deck/RNG 80% of times, and 20% of times by players' skills

"Hearthstone and chess actually have much more in common than many people think."

Quote from Praise_YoggSaron >>

Praise Yogg!

Sounds like mad because bad to me.

Unless you've reached legend, please refrain yourself for commenting about the difficulty of the climb and the skill needed to achieve it, k? Ty

Old patron wasn't a "brainless deck"

It took the most skill out of any deck in the game....

Quote from crazyferrari >>

Old patron wasn't a "brainless deck"

 

It took the most skill out of any deck in the game....

Quote from DerivativePox >>

Quote from Killzun >>

"Hearthstone and chess actually have much more in common than many people think."

Funny how Kiyomizu made a compelling argument detailing why this is the case, and you flat out rejected it, basing you conclusion on some pissy memes.

I wonder who deserves to be taken seriously.

Quote from Kiyomizu >>

To elaborate on the chess thing..

Hearthstone and chess actually have much more in common than many people think. The game plays out in the way that one side has the initiative (usually white) and builds up threats, the other side tries to parry those threats and potentially gain enough tempo (same central term for Hearthstone and chess) to launch a counterattack. And sometimes fancy combos happen. What decks are to Hearthstone, openings are to chess, with an entire "metagame" around them and even some "tech" moves that aim to counter specific strategies of the opponent. These openings are much more researched and refined than Hearthstone's metagame, and if both players play according to the "meta" and make no single mistake in the mid and late game, the game ends in a draw (has led to some bad reputation of chess being "boring"). Which is why it is really hard even for the top 100 to maintain a high winrate. They have to wait for the tiniest of mistakes from their opponent and snowball it into a bigger lead. One oftentimes decisive mistake could be to pick the wrong opening. It is no surprise that before bigger tournaments / world champion matches, the players will dig through literally thousands of previous games and study their openings in detail.

Picking the right opening (incl. "tech moves") is an essential skill of a good chess player (and just like in Hearthstone there are people who complain about it. Good old times when everyone could play weird gambits and still win).

Picking the right deck (incl. tech cards) is an essential skill of a good Hearthstone player. To me, everyone complaining about losing to "op decks" might contemplate if the reason might be that the other guy was just better at picking the right choices in the current meta.

 

PS: No mention of RNG at all? Well, statistics are a fickle thing. Turns out that if you just play enough matches, RNG will balance out at fifty-fifty. In fact, part of the skill of the top 100 Hearthstone players is likely that they are just better at utilizing RNG to their advantage. Is it better to play the Mad Bomber and hope that he kills the 10/1 and finishes your opponent next turn or to play the Novice Engineer and draw lethal for this turn? Happy calculating. This is the skill that allows professional poker player Lifecoach to also be really good at Hearthstone.

Quote from vikan >>

Quote from silvsilvsilv >>

Quote from nagashbg >>

everyone knows that skill doesn't play a major role in HS, the best players have like what, 60% winrate in tournaments? The best player in a skill game could reach 100%, but that will never be the case in HS. The game winrate is then decided by a deck/RNG 80% of times, and 20% of times by players' skills

 How come the top ranked chess player in the world only has a win rating of just over 60%? 

 Thats interesting. Sauce? Oo

knowing what deck to play is a large part of skill. 

Quote from Kiyomizu >>

If I say "..have much more in common than people think", I obviously don't mean ".. are almost equal".  WutFace

It's just funny to see kinda similar types of behaviour in another game  *that doesn't even have rng*. The whole "dislike people who play certain openings" thing does not apply that much to professional chess, I was actually more thinking about casual chess, in a school club for example. Same as in Hearthstone, you can find people that try to "cheese" their opponent with weird aggressive openings (similar to aggro decks in HS) and people who get tilted by it, and you can find people who will claim that their opponent is a tryhard when they see a "professional" opening played against them instead of the usual e2 e4 (like the Indian stuff). It's less pronounced than in Hearthstone for sure, before someone tries to misread me again, but the same tendencies are there.

Basically, in every game that has a competitive aspect, there are a lot of people that think of themselves as Jonnys/Timmys but in reality act like Spikes. If your Inner Timmy/Jonny makes you play Control Hunter or Combo Priest on ladder, your Inner Spike has to accept that you will most likely not get to legend with it and not come up with crazy conspiracy theories.

(Maybe I should have written "sucessfull player" instead of "good player" in my last post . )

 

Quote from itforwait >>

To reach legend, a person should have played enough games of Hearthstone to understand the game. To actually be good at it, and play like that. So why have Blizzard made cards since the beginning of hearthstone, that is extremely over powered? Why not try to make the game a little more balanced? 

For example, I just met a Totem shaman that had a argent squire on the board, and I had Kings Elekk. The argent squire goes face, before he plays Tuskarr Totemic and gets Flametongue from it. He could have cleared the board, but misplays, and go face. Could I punish him? No because he played a 7/7 for 4 mana the turn after, followed up with a mana tide totem and 0 mana 5/5 taunt a couple of turns after that. After that it was GG. A noobish player can easily reach legend with a card draw like that, but why have Blizzard made it like that? So that everyone can reach legend? No, it shouldn't be like that. 

Legend should be a reward for being good in the game, not something everyone can get by flooding the board.

And no, I'm not after Shaman. Other examples are Combo druid, the old Patron, Secret Paladin etc. 

What do you think?

Discuss.

Patron was most fun deck so far in game, by my opinion. And deck that needed skill to play with. SP and this horrible meta now with 80% of shamans....man...boring as hell.

Its not that they are OP sooo much, its the fact, that u only face shamans now, thats the boring part

Quote from TianZi >>

Quote from itforwait >>

To reach legend, a person should have played enough games of Hearthstone to understand the game. To actually be good at it, and play like that. So why have Blizzard made cards since the beginning of hearthstone, that is extremely over powered? Why not try to make the game a little more balanced? 

For example, I just met a Totem shaman that had a argent squire on the board, and I had Kings Elekk. The argent squire goes face, before he plays Tuskarr Totemic and gets Flametongue from it. He could have cleared the board, but misplays, and go face. Could I punish him? No because he played a 7/7 for 4 mana the turn after, followed up with a mana tide totem and 0 mana 5/5 taunt a couple of turns after that. After that it was GG. A noobish player can easily reach legend with a card draw like that, but why have Blizzard made it like that? So that everyone can reach legend? No, it shouldn't be like that. 

Legend should be a reward for being good in the game, not something everyone can get by flooding the board.

And no, I'm not after Shaman. Other examples are Combo druid, the old Patron, Secret Paladin etc. 

What do you think?

Discuss.

 Don't see why it even matters. All legend even gets over rank 5 is like 45 more dust, which is pretty much an insult for the difference in time needed. You could go from rank 5 to legend with a 100% win rate and the time difference would still be a disappointment for only receiving 45 more dust. Legend would already be significantly more challenging to get if rewards were structured in a way so many of the good players actually continued to go for legend every season.

If legend had like a new legend card back each season, getting legend would already end up significantly harder without needing any changes to the cards themselves because there would be actual competition for the rank. Right now legend really isn't challenging because many of the skilled players just do rank 16 to 5 early each month and are 'done' with ranked. Play a week or 2 after the season starts and competition is already heavily watered down in any brackets aside from the higher parts of legend. 

 

Quote from vikan >>

Quote from silvsilvsilv >>

Quote from vikan >>

Quote from silvsilvsilv >>

Quote from nagashbg >>

everyone knows that skill doesn't play a major role in HS, the best players have like what, 60% winrate in tournaments? The best player in a skill game could reach 100%, but that will never be the case in HS. The game winrate is then decided by a deck/RNG 80% of times, and 20% of times by players' skills

 How come the top ranked chess player in the world only has a win rating of just over 60%? 

 Thats interesting. Sauce? Oo

 Look up "Magnus Carlsen FIDE rating"

 Alright the comparrisson is very strange anyway. Sure its reasonable that both chess masters and HS pros have 60% win rate in tournaments but then HS pros should have 99% win rate on ladders when not facing pro players.. which they dont all the time. Why? If Magnus Carlsen played alot of matches against "normal" chess players that were not pros, I am sure he would have close to 100% win rate. How high win rate does HS pros have on ladder? 70% at best?

Quote from silvsilvsilv >>

The point of the ladder system is that you continually face people about the same skill level as you. That's why most legend players breeze through ranks 18-5 at the start of the season. If your winrate is high, it simply means you are not at your skill level yet, which point of the ladder system is that you continually face people about the same skill level as you. That's why most legend players breeze through ranks 18-5 at the start of the season. If your winrate is high, it simply means you are not at your skill level yet, which is why you will advance through the ranks quickly.is why you will advance through the ranks quickly.

Quote from NeedsFoodBadly >>

Quote from silvsilvsilv >>

The point of the ladder system is that you continually face people about the same skill level as you. That's why most legend players breeze through ranks 18-5 at the start of the season. If your winrate is high, it simply means you are not at your skill level yet, which point of the ladder system is that you continually face people about the same skill level as you. That's why most legend players breeze through ranks 18-5 at the start of the season. If your winrate is high, it simply means you are not at your skill level yet, which is why you will advance through the ranks quickly.is why you will advance through the ranks quickly.

 As a fairly new player, I repeatedly face decks chock full of legendaries, ranked, casual it doesn't matter. I've had half a dozen back to back games, where my opponent throws out 5 or more legendaries in a single game.

Skill isn't a factor when my only options are to sacrifice my board or lose and then after I sacrifice my board...he pulls out another legendary and my only options are sacrifice whatever I have left or lose...and then...ANOTHER legendary. I'm a new player and this isn't a common occurrence.

And these decks aren't even original, because I see the exact same ones over and over again. The problem is I have no counter to a netdeck full of legendaries, when dusting my entire collection wouldn't even be enough for a single legendary.

And I'm not even trying to get legendary rank...much less rank 15. Hell, I'm just trying to do my quests.

Edit: Wow, speaking of which...I just described my current game. 5 legendaries on the board. Please...do go on about this "skill" you speak of.

Not saying there's no skill in HS, just saying it doesn't matter when you're playing against an opponent with half to full deck of legendaries, epics and rares.