Hearthpwn

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 Horkinger >>

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.

As far as I remember they only nerfed patron because it has such an impact on tournament meta and not because of the winrate of Pros. They even stated that patron had a very average winrate overall. But every tournament people brought patron, combo Druid and handlock. These decks were in every lineup and that made tournaments so boring that they nerfed it. 

Todays tornaments have still much more variety.

Quote from Horkinger >>

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.

As far as I remember they only nerfed patron because it has such an impact on tournament meta and not because of the winrate of Pros. They even stated that patron had a very average winrate overall. But every tournament people brought patron, combo Druid and handlock. These decks were in every lineup and that made tournaments so boring that they nerfed it. 

Todays tornaments have still much more variety.

Quote from lobozer0 >>

EgocentriCstone 

I didn't say we have a great variety, but we have much more than in the patron time. We have  Reno and dragon priest, pirate warrior, Reno mage, Tempo mage, shaman aggro and mid, aggro and miracle rogue, renolock and anyfin paladin. All viable choices. At patron time, 3 decks out of 4 were the same decks. That is simply not the case now.

@Hoothout Okay, now if you will permit me the same courtesy I want to express as clearly as possible my own position.

First, Blizzard's job is to maximize the enjoyment of the game for the most amount of people over a long period of time.  They will certainly try to support many different types of players, but sometimes it is not possible to support them all at once.  It is as the saying goes: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

Second, I would argue (in agreement with Blizzard) that the keys to generating enjoyment are variety and interactivity.  It is important that players experience a variety of games, and that these games involve an active struggle between the two decks for supremacy.  Blizzard has emphasized the importance of the board in this contest, as that is where the action happens.

Now, Blizzard has not been successful with their stated goals.  We have Shamans pushing upward of 30% of the ladder and the pirate package being played in 50%+ of the games at high ranks.  This is the antithesis of variety.  They have clearly made errors, and have owned up to them.  They have explained that they did not anticipate cards such as Jade Lightning and Maelstrom Portal to be used in aggro, and were sorely surprised when they were.  Claims that Blizzard is purposefully creating this situation are baseless conspiracy theories.

So why is it that Blizzard keeps erring on the side of aggression?  Why don't they "learn" from their mistakes?  Why don't they do what Asmodeus recommends and print more powerful, flexible reactionary cards?  I would argue, and this is clearly where we differ, that a "control meta" would be far, far worse than what we have now.

Max McCall recently explained part of this idea in his post about combo decks.  The essence of the problem isn't that Blizzard "hates" control or combo.  They are good, important, and are supported every single expansion.  The issue is that when they make up the majority of the games they are a problem, because even if they are high skill they are low interaction.  

Allow me to use this game as an example.  Are there interesting turns?  Certainly.  But notice how many of them are Hero Power -> Pass, or turns in which StrifeCro purposefully plays nothing because he is trying to force his opponent to cap on cards.  As a one-off, this is interesting.  It is different than normal (variety) and so a unique experience about how to think about the game in a new way, and certainly required a greater degree of skill and understanding than playing his entire hand out by turn 5.  But would you really want a game in which the common strategy is to play nothing for several turns?  To have game after game feel like a Mexican standoff?

This is why I am also very excited about Renomage and Renolock as decks.  They are much more active and dynamic compared to the old school of control decks, and offer the possibility that one day we can have a slower meta which still involves engaging gameplay.  Does this involve making control more "aggressive"?  Yes, it does.  But truly, if the majority of the ladder ever becomes classic Control Warrior the game will suffer.

To be honest, as long as you understand the game mechanics, you're only as good as the cards you draw and the time spent thinking on the appropriate play during that turn. There is skill involved in Hearthstone, the skills are Mathematics and  precise contemplation.

First of all, Neichus I think did an excellent job summing up my viewpoint on the direction the metas have gone as well. From a spectator standpoint as well it should be noted very early into the competitive scene it wasn't that Control Mirrors were even bad to watch, it was that when you saw the 5th or 6th Control Warrior mirror you didn't feel like anything was actually happening. And post LoE this got even worse because it came down to who drew Justicar, who actively drew the least cards, and who got a better Golden Monkey; this is neither fun to watch all the time, or fun to play all the time. Keep in mind I'm saying this as someone who generally really likes slow, methodical deck and wouldn't mind seeing a few more on ladder.

In regards to the semantics, my point still stands; you can use rule and dominate interchangeably for most things, and the wording legitimately doesn't matter in the conversation. Dominate might be a little more dramatic of a word, so I'm happy sticking to "rule" if it progresses the conversation forward. To clarify what I'm trying to convey is that it's legitimately incorrect to view Aggro as being the "winner" of a majority of the metas; it's been a key component, certainly. But so has every other archetype! If Midrange gets popular, Aggro steps in; if Aggro steps in, Control becomes much more attractive. This is a simplification of things, but that's why when I read that it's considered a problem that Aggro has remained relevant in every meta I cringe at the logic behind it.

Pirates in their current state are an indication of problematic Aggro, and that's something I think both sides of the fence in the argument are in agreement of. However what people seem to be forgetting (or possibly not forgetting, since it's apparently being argued that proactive decks are "Aggro") is that cutting viable truly aggressive lists leads to an abundance of Midrange decks, killing off Control's ability to thrive. The actual solution is to actually monitor and adjust so that the self-correcting meta actually has a chance to correct itself; keeping Aggro/Midrange/Control stocked with powerful tools allows for farm more diversity and keeps the meta from slipping into what we previously saw with Midrange Shaman.

And even with that in mind, the point still stands that aside from representation... Aggro (and even Midrange) have rarely ever actually just been the sole legitimate option to compete with. You can call out the Secret Paladin era, but that deck actually performed horribly in tournaments; you could claim "smart" decks haven't had a chance to flourish, but for the life of me I don't recall there ever being a meta where Control Warrior didn't somehow claw its way into viability. Even now with essentially a majority of the meta being extremely good against it, Control Warrior remains a tier 2 deck played competitively. 

The people lodging the complaint that Aggro/Midrange have been too well supported need to actually look at what the reality has been historically; things like the Midrange Shaman meta were an abomination because an archetype (in that case, actual Aggro decks) were essentially absent for months on end. Outside of that however, between ladder meta and tournament metas, every archetype and class has been well represented. I'd work up the actual information for that, but for the hours it would take to compile a high-level overview it's not worth it when you have Hooghout who's going to try and dodge it with another irrelevant post full of ad hominem.

Quote from Killzun >>

Quote from Horkinger >>

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.

As far as I remember they only nerfed patron because it has such an impact on tournament meta and not because of the winrate of Pros. They even stated that patron had a very average winrate overall. But every tournament people brought patron, combo Druid and handlock. These decks were in every lineup and that made tournaments so boring that they nerfed it. 

Todays tornaments have still much more variety.

 Hmm no. MidRange Shaman was present in ALL the players and ALL the players chose that deck as the banned deck for their opponents when MidRange Shaman was at their peak. And Blizz did NOTHING to MidRange Shaman. It actually made it worse with the Pirates...

Quote from Tze >>

In regards to the semantics, my point still stands;

Quote from Horkinger >>

Quote from Killzun >>

Quote from Horkinger >>

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.

As far as I remember they only nerfed patron because it has such an impact on tournament meta and not because of the winrate of Pros. They even stated that patron had a very average winrate overall. But every tournament people brought patron, combo Druid and handlock. These decks were in every lineup and that made tournaments so boring that they nerfed it. 

Todays tornaments have still much more variety.

 Hmm no. MidRange Shaman was present in ALL the players and ALL the players chose that deck as the banned deck for their opponents when MidRange Shaman was at their peak. And Blizz did NOTHING to MidRange Shaman. It actually made it worse with the Pirates...

Okay, I can agree to the fact that midshaman is strong and likely will be. And now compare that one deck in everyone's lineup against the three decks in everyone's lineup. Still more variety now.  

Quote from Killzun >>

There's Pirate _____________ and Reno _____________ And every now and then you see a Jade Druid and a Dragon Priest. That's pretty much it.

Do some research before you post please.

Quote from Killzun >>

Quote from Horkinger >>

Quote from Killzun >>

Quote from Horkinger >>

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.

As far as I remember they only nerfed patron because it has such an impact on tournament meta and not because of the winrate of Pros. They even stated that patron had a very average winrate overall. But every tournament people brought patron, combo Druid and handlock. These decks were in every lineup and that made tournaments so boring that they nerfed it. 

Todays tornaments have still much more variety.

 Hmm no. MidRange Shaman was present in ALL the players and ALL the players chose that deck as the banned deck for their opponents when MidRange Shaman was at their peak. And Blizz did NOTHING to MidRange Shaman. It actually made it worse with the Pirates...

Okay, I can agree to the fact that midshaman is strong and likely will be. And now compare that one deck in everyone's lineup against the three decks in everyone's lineup. Still more variety now.  

 

 Are you getting any incentives from Blizzard to post in public forums?

There's Pirate _____________ and Reno _____________ And every now and then you see a Jade Druid and a Dragon Priest. That's pretty much it.

Do some research before you post please.

Meanwhile our .top players chew through the bulk of the ladder easily every month

They don't do it easily, they take a good 20 hours, which is about the amount it takes everyone going there.

Here is why Blizzard does what it does.... High skilled players have like ALL the good stuff and play the SAME decks (Jades, Reno, Pirates), where as some other people like me try to get some variety in the mix.  I believe that's why but if I'm wrong, then give me a polite reason.

Quote from Horkinger >>

Firstly, you simply gave the wrong reason for the patron nerf back then. It was because of the very stale tournament meta. Admitted, that was a result of the deck being  strong in skilled hands, and therefore everyone and their grandmother brought the 3 same decks in every lineup.

blizzard keep released noob deck

heartpwn player mind set= control is best deck. 20-30 legendary deck = skill. Other type of deck =cancer. Fact: Control deck = RNG feast. Who draw good curve, who run out removal 1st, who have greedy lost etc.

blizzard just wan profits. 136 card per expansion.50% card are useless other 50% is for building noob deck for casual friendly.

useless card =profits. Need open more pack for necessary card.

blizzard excuse some player prefer gimmick & concede deck.

Quote from Hooghout >>

1. A control meta is worse than the current aggressive one? The weirdest thing I've heard in regard to this game. It will need better design skills than there seem to be currently available.

When the biggest skill for most decks is trying to mulligan or find a 6 drop by turn 6 the game is completely broken. 

Quote from steamedmilk >>

When the biggest skill for most decks is trying to mulligan or find a 6 drop by turn 6 the game is completely broken.