The last six or seven posts in this thread have contained no content - posters have decided that there is more value in aimlessly hurling insults at perfect strangers, anonymously.
Close the thread.
I agree that it doesn't look good but I've also seen worse. I'll let this thread be, for now. But if people continue to insult each other rather that discuss in a constructive manner I will certainly lock this. Quite many people posting here should have visited the salty thread instead of this one, if you ask me.
I find it hilarious, that some people are convinced any serious game developer is unable to build completely fair, skill-based game. Especially in a company that made Starcraft!
Hearthstone is and always will be a casual, randomized clown fiesta, perfect for hilarious YT videos. It's not the matter of developers' skill, but the bussiness model, which is working perfectly.
I find it hilarious but really pittifying that your comments illustrates excactly what developers wants you to think.
The skillcap of hearthstone developers is max aggro/burst oriented.
Looking back they are unable to make a slower, creative game. That is too difficult for them. Their overall skillcap is weak to average at most.
They can't even make 9/9 viable in ranked. Every rotation some class falls from ladder. #fail.
They don't know how to balance the game between fast and slow decks. Understanding of balance means more aggression, more burn, more aggro.
That's why you see rotation after rotation aggro rules.
Making Pirates is proof of complete inadequate design skill. #fail. And true the masses wants fast decks so aggro must rule the meta time and again.
And indeed the largest part of revenues comes from masses wanting aggro. So the bussiness model is aggro oriented.
Control decklists are the neccessary background for aggro to rule.
Look at the current stale meta. It is a result of repulsive card design overstreching their hand to see this game as just an aggro cash cow.
These developers are not worthy of their own game. This game is being aggro-raped over and over again.
That is not good for the game. A rotation of Brode and consort is in order. Fresh blood, new perspectives.
There is no Hearthstone Consumers Protection Act or some consumers organization protecting or otherwise fighting for the interest of players against these card designers. Control players are the ones that suffer the most.
But I'm sure you will not agree with me. You might be a fan. And fans don't think. They just cheer and adore. Like the fans of President Trump don't think but only cheer and adore.
In sum, rotation after rotation card design failure is demonstrated. Salt is the result. Lots of whining. Nobody acts and throw these guys out.
Wow, seems you like conspiracy theories. I, for one really doubt Hearthstone developers want me to think anything, especially since I'm not a whale making it rain with $$$. They have better things to do with their time. My opinion is based on my thirty years of experience with computer (with a dip od board, tabletop and card) games and some basic knowledge of economics.
While I agree with you that aggro is very popular right now, it's nowhere near pre-nerf Undertaker level. Pirates were a flawed design, but they are getting nerfed soon. What really hits me in your post is that according to it, aggro is the only thing Team 5 can create and coincidentally it has great market response. How fortunate!
Another thing is separating the game from its developers. I find it hard to treat a computer game as a separate entity of which someone may or may not be "Worthy". Blizzard has got more data about the meta, the players and the game itself than you can imagine. They can manipulate it as they want and do so to reach financial results. It's just that you don't like the direction they've gone.
Overall, I don't agree with you. Not because I'm a fan, but because you failed to convinced me in your incoherent post (really, adding a number every second sentence doesn't make it more persuasive). I don't even like aggro playstyle, my favourite deck is Renolock.
And please, leave the politics out of it. I live in EU, and really don't give a crap about your presidents.
When you use Starcraft (the "top-down" game that forces you to view the map from 1 foot off the floor...) as a "good example" of literally anything, you automatically lose the argument! XD
"Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point."
Frankly I'm amazed that anyone thinks that's what Copernicus did, lol. If only there was some way to look up information using a computer in this day and age.
Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.
Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.
My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.
Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.
The desperation with which you put on airs is astounding, and also moderately humorous when so completely off base.
In any case, I do not believe that an attempt to exhaustively argue your points would be productive. The problem is your basic premise is incorrect: aggro hasn't always been the #1 in the meta. It is at this time, but certainly not always. Aggro has been favored by players because short games are better than long games for climbing the ladder (and other reasons), but this isn't a balance problem within the game itself. It is reasonably likely that despite this bias we will be seeing a midrange meta after the upcoming nerfs. Aggro will still exist, and many players will still play it, but that doesn't make it an "aggro meta." It means it continues to exist as as an archetype and you can't ignore it as a possibility when queuing up.
Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.
Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.
My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.
Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.
The desperation with which you put on airs is astounding, and also moderately humorous when so completely off base.
In any case, I do not believe that an attempt to exhaustively argue your points would be productive. The problem is your basic premise is incorrect: aggro hasn't always been the #1 in the meta. It is at this time, but certainly not always
When was that? Because the only times when aggro wasn't dominant that I can remember are the Undertaker, Secret Paladin, Midrange Shaman meta, which are just another flavour of incompetence if you ask me.
@Falbrogna; are we talking dominant as in representation or in viability? For those watching and following the competitive circuit I'll be honest, it's laughable to think Aggro has been some kind of insanely dominant force competitively. This is certainly one of the few times where majority-Aggro lineups are actually viable, but in the past you'd be surprised to see someone actually bring in multiple Aggro decks with Control/Midrange/Combo lists just being strictly better in Last Hero Standing or Conquest.
#1 in the ladder meta as well actually doesn't have anything to do with being the most common in the ladder meta. Patron Warrior for instance was brutal in virtually every matchup before nerfs, and still convincingly favored in aggressive matchups post nerf. The point also remains that Secret Paladin and Midrange Shaman aren't aggro either, so it's a completely incorrect statement to say "Aggro is always #1"; especially considering the timeframes both of those metas existed. So either Aggro has always been dominant, or it's time to admit that it's actually not always been dominant; this is a pretty binary thing, waffling isn't really a valid approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
@Falbrogna; are we talking dominant as in representation or in viability? For those watching and following the competitive circuit I'll be honest, it's laughable to think Aggro has been some kind of insanely dominant force competitively. This is certainly one of the few times where majority-Aggro lineups are actually viable, but in the past you'd be surprised to see someone actually bring in multiple Aggro decks with Control/Midrange/Combo lists just being strictly better in Last Hero Standing or Conquest.
#1 in the ladder meta as well actually doesn't have anything to do with being the most common in the ladder meta. Patron Warrior for instance was brutal in virtually every matchup before nerfs, and still convincingly favored in aggressive matchups post nerf. The point also remains that Secret Paladin and Midrange Shaman aren't aggro either, so it's a completely incorrect statement to say "Aggro is always #1"; especially considering the timeframes both of those metas existed. So either Aggro has always been dominant, or it's time to admit that it's actually not always been dominant; this is a pretty binary thing, waffling isn't really a valid approach.
I've already told you this many times before: we're not playing debate here, it's obvious that by saying "aggro has always been dominant" one doesn't mean that aggro has -literally always- been -literally Number#1-.
That kind of super-direct literal and totally missing the point approach is more befitting from Big Bang Theory's Sheldon than an actual honest discussion on the subject, so if your goal was to prove that "aggro hasn't been dominant 100% of the time - I win" than that's really not what everyone else is trying to discuss here.
@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself. So if we're looking for honest discussion, there are very large portions of time where Aggro was neither the most played OR the best; arguing it's always been one of those is still just wrong. So it's cherrypicking used to try and make Control feel like its been victimized somehow.
To have an honest discussion on the subject we're going to need Control players to realize that they're not actually the redheaded stepchild of Hearthstone. The most that can be said is we haven't had a ladder that's been predominantly Control, which has nothing to do with its viability, which is literally the only thing that really matters. Does your deck win? Yes? Does it win a lot against other good decks? Yes? Oh, it appears you have a viable deck. It doesn't matter if it's common, look at Dragon Warrior in Old Gods if you need evidence that idea is easily proven wrong.
Control Warrior and different forms of Control Warlock (Handlock and Renolock) have been top tier for years throughout different metas. Control Priest was actually extremely good in LOE's ladder meta. Freeze Mage is pretty much impossible to kill to the point they had to rotate a spell so it doesn't see play in Standard, and Renomage is actually at the very least objectively one of the BEST decks in the format right now. Save your tears, if you feel like Control decks are truly skillful there hasn't been a lack of promotion or options to play since launch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself.
My opinion is based on my thirty years of experience with computer (with a dip od board, tabletop and card) games and some basic knowledge of economics.
Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.
Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.
My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.
Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.
Oh, so you're the Copernicus now? Sorry, but you post is an opinion just like mine. Sure, it might be popular, but it's not revolutionary in any way. Furthermore, it was presented in a messy and incoherent manner. If you had presented some logical reasoning, I might have changed my mind. And reading your last post I am pretty sure you were able to deliver.
Just to be clear: I think current aggro-meta is an effect of purposeful design by Team 5, not their ignorance or lack of competence. While I don't enjoy it, I don't play the game enough to mind it. If at any point I'll find the game too irritating, I'll just stop playing. But neither this, nor posting on a fan page will affect Blizzard decisions. What might work is lower interests in tournaments showcasing only aggro decks and decided entirely by rng.
Cheers from Poland, the source of cheap, noisy and dirty workforce for your lovely country :D!
The thing about video games is it's the "bad" players who support it. Blizzard cares about the "skilled" players but there would be no game without the "bad" players to support it.
everything I've seen blizzard do is to try and improve the game for all players, including the skilled. 3 full sets will add more cards to the pool. So there should be more drastic changes to the meta. They also said they will be giving out more free packs.
My opinion is based on my thirty years of experience with computer (with a dip od board, tabletop and card) games and some basic knowledge of economics.
Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point.
Saying my observations are "incoherent" is a contradictio in terminis. Observations can be right or wrong, not incoherent. Only analysis can be coherent or incoherent. But I won't go to deep into epistemology.
My observations are widely acclaimed to be the case. Nothing new what I wrote. As I mentioned. You have people who observe and think and you have those who just adore and defend.
Renolock? well then, greetings from Amsterdam.
Oh, so you're the Copernicus now? Sorry, but you post is an opinion just like mine. Sure, it might be popular, but it's not revolutionary in any way. Furthermore, it was presented in a messy and incoherent manner. If you had presented some logical reasoning, I might have changed my mind. And reading your last post I am pretty sure you were able to deliver.
Just to be clear: I think current aggro-meta is an effect of purposeful design by Team 5, not their ignorance or lack of competence. While I don't enjoy it, I don't play the game enough to mind it. If at any point I'll find the game too irritating, I'll just stop playing. But neither this, nor posting on a fan page will affect Blizzard decisions. What might work is lower interests in tournaments showcasing only aggro decks and decided entirely by rng.
Cheers from Poland, the source of cheap, noisy and dirty workforce for your lovely country :D!
:) right I am hearthstones Copernicus and you are one of those Hearthstone clergymen claiming the aggro world is flat. And maybe it is :D I agree with you that the aggro-meta is purposeful, but that I consider from the standpoint of a slower, creative and more skillful meta crappy and incompetent design.
Yah we like the Polish people. They work hard and complain less.
Only if I can be Stephen Frystone and point out the glaring error in your post - mainly the bit where you state that clergyment claimed the earth was flat. I can only assume you didn't know that this is a myth and completely false. Nobody (barring the modern "Flat Earth Society") ever thought the world was flat. Even the ancient Greeks knew it was spherical.
when I first started this game 2+ years ago I kept comparing it to poker but now blizzards made it into something that feels like plain ol war. Blizzards position is that combos are ruining the experience but in my experience not anywhere near as bad as someone who's only strategy is to go face. you wish you never even started on that hour long deck build when you lose to aggro players. combos are necessary for a class like rogue to be viable, not every class needs to be "interactive"
@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself.
So, Sheldon it is. I'm out.
If that response bothered you, then you need to stop joining people in arguing with hyperbole. I literally listed off a number of instances where Control was extremely, extremely good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
Games are made to have fun. They should focus on making it fun, for the majority of players. People who use games as a profession, who go "pro gamer" aren't supposed to be the most important person. It's a game. Balance and all of these things should never be made around high level plays. And it's not only for hearthstone, it's for any single multiplayer game.
I think this is the most concise, sensible post in this thread. Thank you for your common sense and bringing water to this thread of salt.
One game will not address all your needs, if you feel like Hearthstone is not offering you what you want, then leave and play another game. Making an FPS analogy, do you always play Halo when you want to play a shooting game? Or do you play Gears of War when you want 3rd-person and excessive gore, or Call of Duty for fast-paced chaos, or Battlefield for "realistic" cluster@#$& gameplay? Hearthstone is the same, it's meant to be a fun, easily accessible card game that's easy to pickup and hard to master. If you have mastered it and want a challenge? On to the next game, I'm sure Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, etc can provide the extra depth you need to have wih your complicated deck mechanics and synergies.
Personally, I don't like having a paragraph's worth of an effect on each of my cards with three possible effects depending on what cards I have played or can play. So I'll stick with Hearthstone, as I have for years as a happy F2Per.
So... your discussion is about discussing who has the better opinion and why the other one is flawed?
And you call each other names?!
Seems productive! Just learn to accept people can have a different point of view and that's all guys, no need to try to look smarter just to valid your points, in fact that only shows how weak your arguments really are.
It's not about high skills or low skills, Blizzard only care about money. They are pretty good liars, bringing 1000 reason for why they are making 3 expansion next year, but we all know why
@Hooghout; for all of the claims about psuedo-intellectualism, you're the only one making up acronyms and making hilarious grandiose claims. Cancer isn't a game mechanic. Lumping Patron, Midrange Shaman, and Secret Paladin under the label of "aggro" is just idiotic and you should probably just find a new game if your definition of aggressive is "kills you before turn 10". It's also hilarious you use one of the most skill-intensive decks in Patron Warrior as proof that Team 5 only lets dumb people be successful.
None of that is reality. All of that is you being unable to comprehend reality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
Playing Hearthstone in German solely for Garrosh sounds. Sieg oder Tod!
When you use Starcraft (the "top-down" game that forces you to view the map from 1 foot off the floor...) as a "good example" of literally anything, you automatically lose the argument! XD
"Came Copernicus around and said: hey guys the earth is round. No said the church, we have centuries of experience to show that the earth is flat. You might get the point."
Frankly I'm amazed that anyone thinks that's what Copernicus did, lol. If only there was some way to look up information using a computer in this day and age.
@Falbrogna; are we talking dominant as in representation or in viability? For those watching and following the competitive circuit I'll be honest, it's laughable to think Aggro has been some kind of insanely dominant force competitively. This is certainly one of the few times where majority-Aggro lineups are actually viable, but in the past you'd be surprised to see someone actually bring in multiple Aggro decks with Control/Midrange/Combo lists just being strictly better in Last Hero Standing or Conquest.
#1 in the ladder meta as well actually doesn't have anything to do with being the most common in the ladder meta. Patron Warrior for instance was brutal in virtually every matchup before nerfs, and still convincingly favored in aggressive matchups post nerf. The point also remains that Secret Paladin and Midrange Shaman aren't aggro either, so it's a completely incorrect statement to say "Aggro is always #1"; especially considering the timeframes both of those metas existed. So either Aggro has always been dominant, or it's time to admit that it's actually not always been dominant; this is a pretty binary thing, waffling isn't really a valid approach.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
@Falbrogna; the problem is that it's not me attempting to splice hairs here. Either Aggro was dominant the entire time and there's merit to the idea that it's clearly always been the most advantageous to play, or it wasn't... which means that the argument it's dominant falls apart on itself. So if we're looking for honest discussion, there are very large portions of time where Aggro was neither the most played OR the best; arguing it's always been one of those is still just wrong. So it's cherrypicking used to try and make Control feel like its been victimized somehow.
To have an honest discussion on the subject we're going to need Control players to realize that they're not actually the redheaded stepchild of Hearthstone. The most that can be said is we haven't had a ladder that's been predominantly Control, which has nothing to do with its viability, which is literally the only thing that really matters. Does your deck win? Yes? Does it win a lot against other good decks? Yes? Oh, it appears you have a viable deck. It doesn't matter if it's common, look at Dragon Warrior in Old Gods if you need evidence that idea is easily proven wrong.
Control Warrior and different forms of Control Warlock (Handlock and Renolock) have been top tier for years throughout different metas. Control Priest was actually extremely good in LOE's ladder meta. Freeze Mage is pretty much impossible to kill to the point they had to rotate a spell so it doesn't see play in Standard, and Renomage is actually at the very least objectively one of the BEST decks in the format right now. Save your tears, if you feel like Control decks are truly skillful there hasn't been a lack of promotion or options to play since launch.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
So, Sheldon it is. I'm out.
Playing Hearthstone in German solely for Garrosh sounds. Sieg oder Tod!
Egocentristone
The thing about video games is it's the "bad" players who support it. Blizzard cares about the "skilled" players but there would be no game without the "bad" players to support it.
everything I've seen blizzard do is to try and improve the game for all players, including the skilled. 3 full sets will add more cards to the pool. So there should be more drastic changes to the meta. They also said they will be giving out more free packs.
when I first started this game 2+ years ago I kept comparing it to poker but now blizzards made it into something that feels like plain ol war. Blizzards position is that combos are ruining the experience but in my experience not anywhere near as bad as someone who's only strategy is to go face. you wish you never even started on that hour long deck build when you lose to aggro players. combos are necessary for a class like rogue to be viable, not every class needs to be "interactive"
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?
Ok, the game has problems.
Some people like the game as it is.
Some others want the game to change.
So... your discussion is about discussing who has the better opinion and why the other one is flawed?
And you call each other names?!
Seems productive! Just learn to accept people can have a different point of view and that's all guys, no need to try to look smarter just to valid your points, in fact that only shows how weak your arguments really are.
It's not about high skills or low skills, Blizzard only care about money. They are pretty good liars, bringing 1000 reason for why they are making 3 expansion next year, but we all know why
@Hooghout; for all of the claims about psuedo-intellectualism, you're the only one making up acronyms and making hilarious grandiose claims. Cancer isn't a game mechanic. Lumping Patron, Midrange Shaman, and Secret Paladin under the label of "aggro" is just idiotic and you should probably just find a new game if your definition of aggressive is "kills you before turn 10". It's also hilarious you use one of the most skill-intensive decks in Patron Warrior as proof that Team 5 only lets dumb people be successful.
None of that is reality. All of that is you being unable to comprehend reality.
Articles I suggest every player reads to improve at the game;
MTG/Hearthstone biases to avoid
Reframing negative Hearthstone experiences to improve at the game
Who's the Beatdown?