I was just playing a control warrior vs. control warrior matchup. He was on his 7th turn of fatigue and I was still drawing cards. I was going to win in a few more turns due to fatigue when the timer hit and called the game a draw. It was sad to lose a game I was eventually going to win, but that's not the point.
This will probably happen in big time tournaments. Some game is going to be decided due to some rather unnecessary turn clock. And even if not unnecessary, by far to early. I was still drawing cards for hell's sake. And no, I wasn't going unlimited. I had 2 uses of the archivist and had taken 3 turns of fatigue damage early in the match. Neither of us had any more cards coming.
So, I petition Blizz to give us another 10 turns at a minimum to avoid the embarrassment of games being decided for no good reason in the tournaments.
There is actually a tournament ruling for this. Per the HCT rules, if a game ends at the turn limit (45 turns per player, 90 total), then the winner is decided by whoever had the highest combined total of health and armor. So if your match had been a tournament match you would have won since the person deeper in fatigue typically has less health. 90 turns is usually plenty enough to decide a control matchup and Blizzard doesn't want games going longer then that.
Additionally some other tournaments count a tie as both a win and a loss for both players. i.e. both players match score is increased by one and and both decks are retired from the rest of the series. They then continue the series with their remaining decks. So in the case of a draw when both players are tied at match point, the game must be replayed, or another decision must be made.
Sometimes these decisions are settled by a referee . For example, if a game is ended by the turn limit, they may decide to give the win to the player with more minions on board, under the assumption that that player would win given a few more turns.
Ohhhhh. I didn't know any of this. Makes me feel a lot better knowing that games are just draws in tournaments. I think games ending in a draw is pretty unsatisfying in general. I guess if you were going to lose and forced a draw instead that feels good, but in a perfect world I'd rather there always be a victor.
I didn't say it Never HAPPENED. I said it never HAPPENS.
And yes, I saw that eye-bleedingly boring game, but in all seriousness, the bet was it doesn't happen going forward.
Just going to save this quote for posterity so the next time it EVER happens in the next two years (you know, for as long as Elysiana is in standard) we can come back here and demand our 100 packs + preorder.
:P
Does that mean you're taking the bet? Because that means that if it doesn't, you get to buy them for me come 2021 rotation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
Is this a joke, lol? Turn limit too small? With the current limit, one game lasts almost an hour...
Maybe you should consider not playing borewarrior, if turn limit has become an issue for you.
I always have to laugh so hard at these kinds of comments.
So many control mains that hate having games end so early due to aggro/midrange deciding games for them. Then when control actually gets the epitome of a long attrition control card via Elysiana they whine that games are now too long & too controlly.
What they need to do is fix Elysiana so decks won't be reaching the turn limit.
I'm fine with decks having fatigue is a win condition, Elysian is just unhealthy for the game and unfun. I don't like the card in general, but I can accept one play of the card, but when you start playing it more than once that is just toxic.
I can outlast a fatigue warrior with a little known hunter deck I'm playing at the minute, and the mid range hunters can do exactly the same thing as well (although the rest of the deck doesn't work as well at beating control warrior, so they might not get to this stage of the fight sometimes)
what my point is though is that I can add 6 more cards to my deck with dire frenzy, and then if I can get a decent roll from Zul'jin (which it's pretty hard to mess up if the deck is built right) to then get 6 x 8/8 rush minions into your deck, as well as all the stuff you've been doing with nine lives (for me it's using spider bombs and rotten applebaum for healing if it's needed, but it mostly isn't as the deck has a lot of heal) as well as filling my board full of big tokens again. (I can add 12 cards to my deck with hunter, rogue can add astronomical levels of cards to their decks as well)
Elysiana isn't as oppressive as some people think. Yes she is a great fatigue tool, but there are decks that can win the fatigue game without her, and against her.
I think the Turn timer should be most likely added to, personally. Control is a thing, fatigue gameplay is a thing and when it's as flavourful as it is right now, they should lean into it let us do more. The game has been based around aggressive and fast gameplay at the forefront for a very long time now (well always really), and TBH it wouldn't even really affect that side of it, we're talking about the complete other end of the spectrum here, games that last up to an hour. So if the game can maintain it's fast paced gameplay, but also harbour fatigue gameplay at the same time, then wouldn't it be better to have both?
EDIT: to add on rogue a little. this fatigue style gameplay we're seeing right now is perfect for tesspionage rogue to shine as well. I think if that deck eventually gets a shot then that's just another great positive to this.
Playing a fatigue deck when you run into an espionage rogue you know it's pretty much game over if they start doing things.
So again, there are huge counters to playing a slow decks, so I don't see any problem with having more turns.
Is this a joke, lol? Turn limit too small? With the current limit, one game lasts almost an hour...
Maybe you should consider not playing borewarrior, if turn limit has become an issue for you.
I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't dare say it. If I said it, I'd be reported for trolling. You must have bribed a moderator. LOL. But seriously, you're right on. It's a game with anonymous people. If I am willing to give an hour of my time to some unknown person on a game, I must be super leisurely and have nothing to do. I should spend my time looking for a job or maybe try my hand at learning a trade or apply myself more at my university studies. Or just do something productive for the benefit of society.
I also want to take this opportunity to make a public service announcement: If you have this much time to play a card game on your computer, let's say an hour or more, you are a socially unaware person who should be doing more for your community, maybe volunteering to help the homeless or finding ways to donate your time to good causes and working for the greater good. I mean, where is your threat complaining about how unfair world poverty or unfair wages can be? Nope. You took your extra time to have a Control Warrior match go into super mega awesome beyond the imagination of overtime and you even had more extra time to whine about it on here.
Take your self-righteous bullshit somewhere productive, not a site devoted to a video game. You picked literally the stupidest battlefield to have this debate. Who the fuck are you to tell people they're wasting their time? Seriously, you wanna talk about wasting time, typing that shit thinking people are going to agree with you seems much more pedantic...and wholly pointless.
I'm not entering a debate. A debate is when there are two sides to an argument and two people or groups of people defend a side of an argument. I'm not defending a point of view. I was just explaining why I don't see the point of playing a game endlessly and turn limits are reasonable if it's possible to endlessly churn. At some point, it's time to move on, either to another match or another aspect of your life. There is no self-righteous attitude from me. You're quite the genious for pointing out I'm here talking about a video game! Stating the obvious is your special gift, I guess. I must like playing the game. My only deal is that I'm mystified as to why anyone would want to churn out a match endlessly (or almost endlessly). There are aspects of the game that are making people reach the turn limit which I don't think the developers wanted. Humans don't usually want these things because they have other things to do or usually want to do other things apart from playing a video game in the same P2P match. That was my point.
Havent read through the whole topic, so it might have been said already, but i think that being able to make decisions in a stressful situations and being able to evaluate plays quickly is part of the skillset of a better player. I know its easier to say than do it, but you should learn that skill and use your time properly in all turns to evaluate the game state and think over scenarios in your head beforehand so when you get to that crucial turn, you can act in time.
de·bate /dəˈbāt/ noun 1. a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward. synonyms: discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley; verb 1. argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner. "the community debated his rebuttal via the forums" synonyms: discuss, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot;
The idea that: someone wants to spend the time to play a game fully from beginning to end is nothing more than a testament to their need to find an alternate source of activity that is 'productive to society', is a personal view and subject to debate. There are those that are playing this game for a living meaning that they are contributing to society via playing games. Directly by giving entertainment to viewers (much like theater/movies/concerts) and indirectly by spending their earned money at other businesses, thus perpetuating the economic cycle. If they were also ask for the ability to play the game without a time limit would you propose they also do something else with their time?
Though you are not coming from a place of self-righteousness, there is a rather palpable amount of sarcasm and personal view projection. I appreciate multiple view points, but I also appreciate open-mindedness and a freely flowing interaction within a community.
That being said, the idea that a player in a game wanst the potential to play a game through from beginning to end without an arbitrary function in the game preventing this is not an unwarranted request.
If the function in the game were to actually set up a condition to decide a winner in a fashion similar to what was posted by @RevenantSC
There is actually a tournament ruling for this. Per the HCT rules, if a game ends at the turn limit (45 turns per player, 90 total), then the winner is decided by whoever had the highest combined total of health and armor. So if your match had been a tournament match you would have won since the person deeper in fatigue typically has less health.
This would potentially fix the situation. People like to have verification of success or failure, thus making a function to decide a winner based on current life total+armor allows that to happen. Also a draw would be just that, an ending where both players have equal totals. There is also the fact that allowing a game to play fully through can sometimes elicit a poor response from a player thus turning the game around so there can be a potential reversal of fortune.
Growth in a video game is a good thing, and even better when it's prompted by the player base, asking for adjustments while bringing them to the rest of the community openly is a good idea. Toxicity, judgmental opinions, trolling and negativity towards new ideas should be eliminated for they cause more problems than they help.
Is this a joke, lol? Turn limit too small? With the current limit, one game lasts almost an hour...
Maybe you should consider not playing borewarrior, if turn limit has become an issue for you.
I always have to laugh so hard at these kinds of comments.
So many control mains that hate having games end so early due to aggro/midrange deciding games for them. Then when control actually gets the epitome of a long attrition control card via Elysiana they whine that games are now too long & too controlly.
Lul, never change community never change.
I mean,I love Long and super grindy games that push both players to their very last card BUT the amount of cards you have to draw Needs to be limited by the Number of cards you are allowed to put in your deck (aka 30,+ 1 or 2 cards like elise from un'goro),no archbishop/archivist nonsense otherwise you lose the point of having that limit in the First Place
As a sidenote I'm willing to bet that the guy you replied to Is surely not One of those that complain about matches being too short (you can see It Simply from "borewarrior" that he isn't exactly a fan of Long games)
Is this a joke, lol? Turn limit too small? With the current limit, one game lasts almost an hour...
Maybe you should consider not playing borewarrior, if turn limit has become an issue for you.
I always have to laugh so hard at these kinds of comments.
So many control mains that hate having games end so early due to aggro/midrange deciding games for them. Then when control actually gets the epitome of a long attrition control card via Elysiana they whine that games are now too long & too controlly.
Lul, never change community never change.
I mean,I love Long and super grindy games that push both players to their very last card BUT the amount of cards you have to draw Needs to be limited by the Number of cards you are allowed to put in your deck (aka 30,+ 1 or 2 cards like elise from un'goro),no archbishop/archivist nonsense otherwise you lose the point of having that limit in the First Place
As a sidenote I'm willing to bet that the guy you replied to Is surely not One of those that complain about matches being too short (you can see It Simply from "borewarrior" that he isn't exactly a fan of Long games)
I simply don't like the current Control Warrior. Hell, I prefer control over any non-meme playstyle myself, but there should be a limit. The current borewarrior is just boring both playing as and playing against. They have thousands of removals, gain hundreds of armor, have Dr. Boom, Mad Genius/Omega Assembly to make more cards and give minions rush, and on top of that they prolong fatigue and gain 10/20 more cards. That's not even mentioning that some minions they have are simply broken
And with all these tools, a turn limit is an issue... So yes, does sound like a joke to me
Since decks have the opportunity to go infinite, i think there should definitely be a turn limit. Imagine two DMH-Warriors just shuffling cards and gaining armor with "Bring it on!", is that supposed to end, when one of them concedes?
But I agree, that if people reach that limit very often, they should increase it. Maybe they shouldn't even make the cards for that in the first place.
Ohhhhh. I didn't know any of this. Makes me feel a lot better knowing that games are just draws in tournaments. I think games ending in a draw is pretty unsatisfying in general. I guess if you were going to lose and forced a draw instead that feels good, but in a perfect world I'd rather there always be a victor.
Galavant Animation
Does that mean you're taking the bet? Because that means that if it doesn't, you get to buy them for me come 2021 rotation.
Helpful Clarification on Forbidden Topics for Hearthstone Forums:
Enjoying Americans winning in the Olympics is forbidden because it is political. A 14 plus page discussion of state-sponsored lawsuits against a multi-national corporation based on harassment, discrimination, and wrongful death allegations is apparently not political enough to raise an issue.
I always have to laugh so hard at these kinds of comments.
So many control mains that hate having games end so early due to aggro/midrange deciding games for them. Then when control actually gets the epitome of a long attrition control card via Elysiana they whine that games are now too long & too controlly.
Lul, never change community never change.
I can outlast a fatigue warrior with a little known hunter deck I'm playing at the minute, and the mid range hunters can do exactly the same thing as well (although the rest of the deck doesn't work as well at beating control warrior, so they might not get to this stage of the fight sometimes)
what my point is though is that I can add 6 more cards to my deck with dire frenzy, and then if I can get a decent roll from Zul'jin (which it's pretty hard to mess up if the deck is built right) to then get 6 x 8/8 rush minions into your deck, as well as all the stuff you've been doing with nine lives (for me it's using spider bombs and rotten applebaum for healing if it's needed, but it mostly isn't as the deck has a lot of heal) as well as filling my board full of big tokens again. (I can add 12 cards to my deck with hunter, rogue can add astronomical levels of cards to their decks as well)
Elysiana isn't as oppressive as some people think. Yes she is a great fatigue tool, but there are decks that can win the fatigue game without her, and against her.
I think the Turn timer should be most likely added to, personally. Control is a thing, fatigue gameplay is a thing and when it's as flavourful as it is right now, they should lean into it let us do more. The game has been based around aggressive and fast gameplay at the forefront for a very long time now (well always really), and TBH it wouldn't even really affect that side of it, we're talking about the complete other end of the spectrum here, games that last up to an hour. So if the game can maintain it's fast paced gameplay, but also harbour fatigue gameplay at the same time, then wouldn't it be better to have both?
EDIT: to add on rogue a little. this fatigue style gameplay we're seeing right now is perfect for tesspionage rogue to shine as well. I think if that deck eventually gets a shot then that's just another great positive to this.
Playing a fatigue deck when you run into an espionage rogue you know it's pretty much game over if they start doing things.
So again, there are huge counters to playing a slow decks, so I don't see any problem with having more turns.
I'm not entering a debate. A debate is when there are two sides to an argument and two people or groups of people defend a side of an argument. I'm not defending a point of view. I was just explaining why I don't see the point of playing a game endlessly and turn limits are reasonable if it's possible to endlessly churn. At some point, it's time to move on, either to another match or another aspect of your life. There is no self-righteous attitude from me. You're quite the genious for pointing out I'm here talking about a video game! Stating the obvious is your special gift, I guess. I must like playing the game. My only deal is that I'm mystified as to why anyone would want to churn out a match endlessly (or almost endlessly). There are aspects of the game that are making people reach the turn limit which I don't think the developers wanted. Humans don't usually want these things because they have other things to do or usually want to do other things apart from playing a video game in the same P2P match. That was my point.
Havent read through the whole topic, so it might have been said already, but i think that being able to make decisions in a stressful situations and being able to evaluate plays quickly is part of the skillset of a better player. I know its easier to say than do it, but you should learn that skill and use your time properly in all turns to evaluate the game state and think over scenarios in your head beforehand so when you get to that crucial turn, you can act in time.
- Click Here To Join Us On Discord! -
@LameMeElC
de·bate
/dəˈbāt/
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
synonyms: discussion, exchange of views, discourse, parley;
verb
1.
argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
"the community debated his rebuttal via the forums"
synonyms: discuss, confer about, talk over, talk through, talk about, exchange views on, exchange views about, thrash out, argue, argue about, argue the pros and cons of, dispute, wrangle over, bandy words concerning, contend over, contest, controvert, moot;
The idea that: someone wants to spend the time to play a game fully from beginning to end is nothing more than a testament to their need to find an alternate source of activity that is 'productive to society', is a personal view and subject to debate.
There are those that are playing this game for a living meaning that they are contributing to society via playing games. Directly by giving entertainment to viewers (much like theater/movies/concerts) and indirectly by spending their earned money at other businesses, thus perpetuating the economic cycle.
If they were also ask for the ability to play the game without a time limit would you propose they also do something else with their time?
Though you are not coming from a place of self-righteousness, there is a rather palpable amount of sarcasm and personal view projection. I appreciate multiple view points, but I also appreciate open-mindedness and a freely flowing interaction within a community.
That being said, the idea that a player in a game wanst the potential to play a game through from beginning to end without an arbitrary function in the game preventing this is not an unwarranted request.
If the function in the game were to actually set up a condition to decide a winner in a fashion similar to what was posted by @RevenantSC
There is actually a tournament ruling for this. Per the HCT rules, if a game ends at the turn limit (45 turns per player, 90 total), then the winner is decided by whoever had the highest combined total of health and armor. So if your match had been a tournament match you would have won since the person deeper in fatigue typically has less health.
This would potentially fix the situation. People like to have verification of success or failure, thus making a function to decide a winner based on current life total+armor allows that to happen. Also a draw would be just that, an ending where both players have equal totals.
There is also the fact that allowing a game to play fully through can sometimes elicit a poor response from a player thus turning the game around so there can be a potential reversal of fortune.
Growth in a video game is a good thing, and even better when it's prompted by the player base, asking for adjustments while bringing them to the rest of the community openly is a good idea. Toxicity, judgmental opinions, trolling and negativity towards new ideas should be eliminated for they cause more problems than they help.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
I mean,I love Long and super grindy games that push both players to their very last card BUT the amount of cards you have to draw Needs to be limited by the Number of cards you are allowed to put in your deck (aka 30,+ 1 or 2 cards like elise from un'goro),no archbishop/archivist nonsense otherwise you lose the point of having that limit in the First Place
As a sidenote I'm willing to bet that the guy you replied to Is surely not One of those that complain about matches being too short (you can see It Simply from "borewarrior" that he isn't exactly a fan of Long games)
I simply don't like the current Control Warrior. Hell, I prefer control over any non-meme playstyle myself, but there should be a limit. The current borewarrior is just boring both playing as and playing against. They have thousands of removals, gain hundreds of armor, have Dr. Boom, Mad Genius/Omega Assembly to make more cards and give minions rush, and on top of that they prolong fatigue and gain 10/20 more cards. That's not even mentioning that some minions they have are simply broken
And with all these tools, a turn limit is an issue... So yes, does sound like a joke to me
The problem is not the turn limit, but elysiana.
Since decks have the opportunity to go infinite, i think there should definitely be a turn limit. Imagine two DMH-Warriors just shuffling cards and gaining armor with "Bring it on!", is that supposed to end, when one of them concedes?
But I agree, that if people reach that limit very often, they should increase it. Maybe they shouldn't even make the cards for that in the first place.
This is so much fun! Archivist Elysiana is actualy an issue and some players on the other way are looking for more turns :))) LOL