Hearthpwn

What? No poll? I was expecting a poll.

I am disappoint

@Hooghout; the point is no one balances around "cancer" because it's a fucking stupid term forum users throw around that's basically lost all meaning at this point. Mechanics are what constitutes game balance, you're arguing something that no one is using to balance a game in a conversation about game balance. I know you think you're being clever but you're not, spouting irrelevant garbage to incite people isn't the same as lodging a credible argument.

This still doesn't detract from the fact at the core of it you're still obnoxiously incorrect; Control has at almost every point in the game been completely viable and players have been rewarded for playing it. The representation of faster decks over slower decks has absolutely nothing to do with their competitive viability, and even in your examples you're not even listing fast decks while making an argument that "aggro" has maintained dominance for the entirety of Hearthstone's lifespan.

So for all your words and condescension at the end of the day Neichus is still correct regarding the idea metas have always been dominated by aggressive lists. I don't think I'm the one who needs to think before they respond.

By reading several comments, I think some people should get a PhD in Hearthstone Mechanics 

Quote from Klyno >>

By reading several comments, I think some people should get a PhD in Hearthstone Mechanics 

I'm confused as to what constitutes problem decks then, is Renolock and Renomage an issue due to leeroy combo and burn spells respectively? 

Does control warrior also present an issue with weapons and charging Hellscream ? 

Obviously we are including the decks that constitute the traditional definition of aggro but I wonder what else fits the category of issue decks.

Finally, what is an example of a good deck?

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Klyno >>

By reading several comments, I think some people should get a PhD in Hearthstone Mechanics 

 I recommend Tze. But if he defends the thesis that metas have always been dominated by aggressive lists, he'll be having a hard time getting that PhD.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Klyno >>

By reading several comments, I think some people should get a PhD in Hearthstone Mechanics 

 I recommend Tze. But if he defends the thesis that metas have always been dominated by aggressive lists, he'll be having a hard time getting that PhD.

Lol which is amusing, because Neichus was stating that aggro absolutely hasn't always dominated the meta. No twisting and turning necessary, and clearly not trying to fool anyone.

So sure, my own words are backing me up on this; it's a stupid argument to state aggro has dominated every single meta, and without defining what it's actually dominating it's stupid to argue it's even been the case for a majority of the metas. If aggro being consistently viable is what's got your panties in a knot, then I'm afraid I'm just never going to feel sympathy for you.

Quote from Hooghout >>

Quote from Tze >>

Lol which is amusing, because Neichus was stating that aggro absolutely hasn't always dominated the meta. No twisting and turning necessary, and clearly not trying to fool anyone.

So sure, my own words are backing me up on this; it's a stupid argument to state aggro has dominated every single meta, and without defining what it's actually dominating it's stupid to argue it's even been the case for a majority of the metas. If aggro being consistently viable is what's got your panties in a knot, then I'm afraid I'm just never going to feel sympathy for you.

 Nobody said aggro dominated every single meta. Twisting and turning.

Well a quick google search for the dictionary definitions;

Rule: "exercise ultimate power or authority over"

Dominate: "have a commanding influence on; exercise control over"

Wow, looks super different. Dominate is also a synonym for rule, as a side note... you're arguing semantics, and not very well it seems.

Like Blizzard has any real reason to give a shit about the professional suckups who run around claiming to be the authorities of the game. When will you people realize that Blizzard can do whatever the hell they want to these easily marketed, lifeless spoilsports and never have to worry about them leaving the game? They all claim they can whenever they want to, and a lot of the time they try, but let's face it, Hearthstone is addictive. And with the gamers of today glossing all over any game that someone gives competitive multiplayer to without a care in the world as to whether or not it's actually good. Besides, they get more than half their card predictions wrong whenever new expansions come out and generally just run around spreading their cancer to the minds of the people in this game who actually want to follow the reason why Hearthstone was created in the first place: to be a game of creative deck building and experimentation, not a pathetic rat-race to the top with no real award in the end. What I still don't understand is why these assholes-no, why anyone thinks that being good at a video game is an actual life skill worth pursuing. These assholes couldn't stop giving Blizzard an infinite revenue stream if Blizzard nerfed every single meta deck in the game-which is something to laugh at, not complain about. So excuse me while I go sipping Lipton on your asses and actually enjoy my time on the game.

I LULed when I read "skill" in the title 

Okay, so now that we've apparently gotten our terms crossed...let's try this again.

@Hooghout, your concern is specifically that decks which have "aggressive" strategies are have held too much influence on the history of Hearthstone.  Furthermore, the reason they have been too common is due to the mismanagement by Team 5.  

And to avoid any confusion:

• Your classification of an "aggressive" deck is one which contains burst damage, in the form of charge minions, weapons, or spells.   
• "Influence" can be generally construed as being played too commonly and being too successful, from your point of view.
• Finally, "mismanagement" can be understood as Team 5 either excessively supporting "aggressive" decks directly, or through incompetence not properly designing "non-aggressive" decks

Did I miss anything?  Specifically, am I misrepresenting your arguments in any way?  Is there anything that you wish to add to clarify on your position?  Am I twisting your words?

Quote from Tze >>

Well a quick google search for the dictionary definitions;

Rule: "exercise ultimate power or authority over"

Dominate: "have a commanding influence on; exercise control over"

Wow, looks super different. Dominate is also a synonym for rule, as a side note... you're arguing semantics, and not very well it seems.

Quote from Neichus >>

I find it so strange that everybody tries to reduce everything to money in video game design.

"They're a company, which means that the only thing they care about is money.  Clearly they'll cut every corner, rip off every sucker, and sell any grandmother needed to improve their profits!"

Executives?  Maybe.  The actual designers?  No.  People don't go into video game design for the money.  They go into it because they LOVE video games.  They loved them so much they want to spend most of their day, day after day, thinking about them and working on them.  These people do not sit around contemplating how to manipulate their own game for money.  Why should there be any incentive on their end to make a bad game when they could make a good one?

"You're missing how companies have expectations, though.  Even if the developers don't endorse these practices they will clearly be coerced by their higher-ups who only care about the bottom line."

On what basis do you make this claim?  Every single thing I have ever watched that has come from Blizzard's developers has them looking engaged and excited about their craft.  They don't look like poor dupes who are being oppressed by the capitalist system to churn out golden eggs for their overlords.  Ben Brode is easily the most visible example: if that man's laugh is fake then he should quit game design now and go earn an Oscar for his acting.  That he would make videos at home, when he is off the clock, should give you some indication of how much he's thinking about this even as he's on paternity leave.

I think it's much simpler to explain it the way it has already been pointed out: this game wasn't designed around perfectionist top players.  It didn't start that way and it never will be that way.  It has huge elements of randomness which ensure that no matter how skilled you are, there is always a reasonable chance that the other guy will win.  This inherent surprise factor in each game is what has made it such a runaway hit with people, both for playing and viewing.  It gives it the broad appeal that it has.

Now, does this mean they don't care at all about top end players?  No.  It just means that they have to weigh the needs of the few versus the needs of the many.  Several of their changes have been specifically targeted at the high-end scene, such as concerns that Patron Warrior was too good at high skill levels or that Yogg was too effective as a tournament tool.  Failing to change the game to fit the vision of a small fraction of its playerbase isn't "ignoring" them for money; it is hearing them, but politely disagreeing with them on what would make the game best for everybody.

Anyway, end rant I guess.  I just get exhausted and a little angry when players denigrate the hard work and excitement by equating it with money.

 

@Falbrogna; I don't think I'm missing any of the context, sorry. Hooghout argued semantics, I responded with the fact trying to say "but but but ruling and dominating mean different things" isn't a legitimate because those words in fact do not mean different things. For all intents and purposes they're interchangeable words.

So in respect to context what that means is that going back to earlier statements, which were that rotation after rotation (which I'm guessing means expansions? we've had a single rotation) aggro has ruled. Ruled what? Certainly not tournament metas. Certainly not tier lists. At most it's arguably been the most common archetype on ladder, but that still doesn't mean it's even been the best deck in those cases in regards to viability.

So once we've removed the discussion on words being right/wrong all that's left is the context to defend.

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Do you ever manage to comprehend the context and point of a post or always stop at the words of it?

Quote from Neichus >>

Quote from Falbrogna >>

Do you ever manage to comprehend the context and point of a post or always stop at the words of it?

 How would you differentiate "rule" and "dominate" in the context of Hearthstone decks, then?  I was also misled by Hooghout's shifting terminology, and committed precisely the same error Tze did when reading his posts.

Quote from Killzun >>

 Well FUK Blizzard. I cancelled my WoW accounts and let them know it was because of Hearthstone. FUK BLIZZ, FUK BLIZZ.

DO NOT SPEND YOUR MONEY ON BLIZZARD.

 This may be of interest to you: http://askghostcrawler.tumblr.com/post/157080214673/unsubbing-is-often-seen-as-the-only-real-way-by

The short version: developers very rarely make changes based on subs because people who stop playing due to specific changes are remarkably small subset.

It's a card game, there will always be a certain amount of luck over one single game. I think the game would be more fun if they didn't give Shaman every single possible tool imaginable to be the best class and Blizzard actually addressed issues quickly instead of taking so long to nerf Bucaneer. If it's a problem, fix it, stop waiting so long. 

Quote from Killzun >>

Quote from Neichus >>

I find it so strange that everybody tries to reduce everything to money in video game design.

"They're a company, which means that the only thing they care about is money.  Clearly they'll cut every corner, rip off every sucker, and sell any grandmother needed to improve their profits!"

Executives?  Maybe.  The actual designers?  No.  People don't go into video game design for the money.  They go into it because they LOVE video games.  They loved them so much they want to spend most of their day, day after day, thinking about them and working on them.  These people do not sit around contemplating how to manipulate their own game for money.  Why should there be any incentive on their end to make a bad game when they could make a good one?

"You're missing how companies have expectations, though.  Even if the developers don't endorse these practices they will clearly be coerced by their higher-ups who only care about the bottom line."

On what basis do you make this claim?  Every single thing I have ever watched that has come from Blizzard's developers has them looking engaged and excited about their craft.  They don't look like poor dupes who are being oppressed by the capitalist system to churn out golden eggs for their overlords.  Ben Brode is easily the most visible example: if that man's laugh is fake then he should quit game design now and go earn an Oscar for his acting.  That he would make videos at home, when he is off the clock, should give you some indication of how much he's thinking about this even as he's on paternity leave.

I think it's much simpler to explain it the way it has already been pointed out: this game wasn't designed around perfectionist top players.  It didn't start that way and it never will be that way.  It has huge elements of randomness which ensure that no matter how skilled you are, there is always a reasonable chance that the other guy will win.  This inherent surprise factor in each game is what has made it such a runaway hit with people, both for playing and viewing.  It gives it the broad appeal that it has.

Now, does this mean they don't care at all about top end players?  No.  It just means that they have to weigh the needs of the few versus the needs of the many.  Several of their changes have been specifically targeted at the high-end scene, such as concerns that Patron Warrior was too good at high skill levels or that Yogg was too effective as a tournament tool.  Failing to change the game to fit the vision of a small fraction of its playerbase isn't "ignoring" them for money; it is hearing them, but politely disagreeing with them on what would make the game best for everybody.

Anyway, end rant I guess.  I just get exhausted and a little angry when players denigrate the hard work and excitement by equating it with money.

 

 

 Hmm Bullcrap.

They nerfed Patron Warrior into oblivion because good players were able to win with it consistently. Now they have effectively made anyone a good player by dumbing down the game, making it faster and narrowing it down to a couple of decks with a higher win rate than all the other ones...And guess what? The masses love that shit, being spoon fed and making things easier for them. So far, the strategy is working. Well FUK Blizzard. I cancelled my WoW accounts and let them know it was because of Hearthstone. FUK BLIZZ, FUK BLIZZ.

DO NOT SPEND YOUR MONEY ON BLIZZARD.