allrdy 3 have said it in this post so not only hes opinions... its like 50% of the forum who thing you only he for your post count and posting lots of useless post
If you have a personal problem with my persona (which is pretty obvious), send me a PM, people. Stop derailing this thread with your random off-topic opinions about me.
You should take your own advice then and stop fueling the derailing. Otherwise you're just as much in the wrong and only validating what people say about your main purpose being to increase your post count.
Yeah, I know, dude, but that is such a low move to make. Also, it's so nerdy, c'mon, you know it!
Not trying to offend anyone, seriously, but it is not reliable at all.
I honestly have no idea what you mean with it's such at low move to make. Also don't know why it's nerdy, I think what is described is really accurate.
Are you seriously asking me why a Magic: the Gathering article about deck types and personalities is nerdy stuff? Doesn't matter if you think it is accurate or not, it's just an old theory for fun. Also, at the end of the day, everyone is a Timmy/Johnny/Spike player, regardless of what the article say and what they want make you believe.
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost by pseudo denying balance to be vital to the game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
Yeah, I know, dude, but that is such a low move to make. Also, it's so nerdy, c'mon, you know it!
Not trying to offend anyone, seriously, but it is not reliable at all.
I honestly have no idea what you mean with it's such at low move to make. Also don't know why it's nerdy, I think what is described is really accurate.
Are you seriously asking me why a Magic: the Gathering article about deck types and personalities is nerdy stuff? Doesn't matter if you think it is accurate or not, it's just an old theory for fun. Also, at the end of the day, everyone is a Timmy/Johnny/Spike player, regardless of what the article say and what they want make you believe.
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost be pseudo denying balance to be vital to he game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
Well said, Hooghout! Thanks for your contribution! :)
If they make this game more and more expensive and start leaving casuals slowly apart, the game experience for many of us will improve a lot, but only time will tell if Blizzard truly wants to take Hearthstone in that direction (trying to add the battle pass system into the game should be a hint, but truth is no one really knows yet, except Blizzard).
No one mentioned absolutely nothing about this yet. People, what are you waiting for? I want to know your opinion on the matter, seriously! :)
I'm part of the group that thinks you post too many useless threads.
agree this guy make like 100 post per week where 95% of them is just useless post just to get +1 for hes post count
Agree completely, I haven't seen a post that this guy hasn't created/commented on.
What can I say? I always love to have the last word in every debate! :P
I can see that - you certainly post a lot of nonsense (i.e. this post).
"Nonsense"? Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Stay on topic.
allrdy 3 have said it in this post so not only hes opinions... its like 50% of the forum who thing you only he for your post count and posting lots of useless post
You can find him in the internet and social media pretty easy. This guy is a loner. It's probably his only way of communication.
Yeah, I know, dude, but that is such a low move to make. Also, it's so nerdy, c'mon, you know it!
Not trying to offend anyone, seriously, but it is not reliable at all.
I honestly have no idea what you mean with it's such at low move to make. Also don't know why it's nerdy, I think what is described is really accurate.
Are you seriously asking me why a Magic: the Gathering article about deck types and personalities is nerdy stuff? Doesn't matter if you think it is accurate or not, it's just an old theory for fun. Also, at the end of the day, everyone is a Timmy/Johnny/Spike player, regardless of what the article say and what they want make you believe.
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost be pseudo denying balance to be vital to he game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
Well said, Hooghout! Thanks for your contribution! :)
We secretly and hush hush agree on a lot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Yeah, I know, dude, but that is such a low move to make. Also, it's so nerdy, c'mon, you know it!
Not trying to offend anyone, seriously, but it is not reliable at all.
I honestly have no idea what you mean with it's such at low move to make. Also don't know why it's nerdy, I think what is described is really accurate.
Are you seriously asking me why a Magic: the Gathering article about deck types and personalities is nerdy stuff? Doesn't matter if you think it is accurate or not, it's just an old theory for fun. Also, at the end of the day, everyone is a Timmy/Johnny/Spike player, regardless of what the article say and what they want make you believe.
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost be pseudo denying balance to be vital to he game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
Well said, Hooghout! Thanks for your contribution! :)
Are you seriously asking me why a Magic: the Gathering article about deck types and personalities is nerdy stuff? Doesn't matter if you think it is accurate or not, it's just an old theory for fun. Also, at the end of the day, everyone is a Timmy/Johnny/Spike player, regardless of what the article say and what they want make you believe.
We are in a Hearthstone Forum. A Forum for a card game. This is already nerdy, if you want to go for classifying anything as nerdy, a forum dedicate to discussing a card game is nerdy.
Actually, that is all that matters, if it is accurate or not. I don't care if it is old or from a different card game. Should we not be allowed to use terms like Aggro, Midrange, Tempo, Control, Combo, OTK, and so on, just because they come from other older card games?
Actually, no, not everyone is a mix of all types of players. There is quite a large amount of Spike only players, and a large amount of Timmy/Johnny Hybrids.
There aren't that many three way hybrids. How many people do you see tryharding on Diamond Ranks with gimmick Combo decks?
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost by pseudo denying balance to be vital to the game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
Balance is indeed vital to the game, but it is also something Blizzard cannot achieve, due to their own decisions, that have been made for years on end.
Just because balance is important, doesn't mean it is possible to achieve. Or rather, doesn't mean that is what Blizzard desires to achieve.
I may have read that incorrectly, but it seemed you were saying I believe what you wrote. If that was the case, you are incorrect.
Maybe I agree with you on Blizzards decision part but not therefore that balance is impossible. Balance is a choice as unbalance is. Since the latter has been 'standard' for years at hand, meaning the continuous proactive aggressive card design leading up to a low skill floor, one must conclude deliberate action. Blizzards doesn't desire balance as that would alienate its low skill demanding massive target audience. Those who will shout in your face: get gut as they mean: win game by being better mindless than others. Skill on the other hand begins and ends by knowing how to outwith, outpace, outclass and outmaneuvring your opponent. Having consistenly ample opportunity qua time to make that happen is deeply vulgar and morally corrupt. And to this day I simply cannot understand why people want to be part of that audience. By the same token I cannot grasp why the American voter ever voted for its current president. Apparently being mindless is a thing.
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone? Is it that all cards have a positive playable nature? Is it that each class has the same power curve? Is it that there should be a rock/scissors/paper style of game play?
Even the idea of balance is a bit arbitrary.
I want to win at all costs, well simply put, everyone wants to win. But what does “at all costs” mean? Is it P2W? Is it net decking? Is it playing the flavor of the month?
Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Personally, I copied the most recent Galapriest deck so I had a chance in standard, but I play an OTK priest deck in wild.
I play on both sides of the coin, but I choose to do so on different battlefields.
The game is not balanced, there should be more of a mix for aggro/tempo/control in the game, and each class should have the same power curve and access to each of those play styles. (imo)
The players who are here to push through with the highest win ratio and “best deck” play should see the benefits of going meta, compared to off-meta decks.
Off meta decks shouldn’t see such a disparity of success in comparison though.
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, whereas it’s easier to piss off a lot of people every day. Welcome to the human race.
I voted “Other” because of the previous comments: The idea of Balance is arbitrary and Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Firstly, I don't see how players who want to win at all costs are generally Blizzard supporters. I don't think you can definitely say those things correlate. People who change a few cards in tier 1 - 3 meta decks are still by and large netdeckers. The original post has a lot of thinly veiled vitriol aimed at netdecking. Personally, I like to play, not build decks. So I try out the meta decks until one is enjoyable to play. Maybe I'll switch up the odd card. I don't think there's anything wrong with netdecks. As far as I can tell, there are very few genuine home brew decks out there. I'll see one in like 30+ games. I have occasionally built a deck but I find Magic a more fun game to deck build in. HS seems fairly rigid, like there is a "best card" in each mana slot depending on what you are doing with the deck.
I like to win, who doesn't? Having said that, I seldom play the obviously busted deck (like gala shaman on release). I think I'd like less blowout games, like when you know you've probably lost (or won) in the first 3 - 5 turns. Not sure if that equates to balance. I think game closers for slower decks are often too powerful, and game openers for faster decks are the same. But this is the game as it stands, it's hard to satisfy everyone.
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone?
A game state where if you provide average draw order (or even optimal) and you perfect technical play, you have a strictly enforced Rock-Paper-Scissors model.
If the game is correctly balanced, and you remove any element that the player cannot control, or in the case of draw order, you actively rig it for optimal draw order, what you get is a game in which, if both players play perfectly, the strategy that has an advantage in the matchup will win every single time.
This happens because using these conditions, you remove any variable that would deliver outcomes based on anything except the strategies being played, so what you get is a state where the strategy that has an advantage in the matchup always win.
Obviously, even if you remove all randomness from Hearthstone, you will still have variance because of draw order and improper technical play, this is where the matchups lose the strict RPS model.
Anyway, it is not subjective.
Bleh.
I consider this an altogether poor answer to a pretty open ended question. Without getting too into this, the structure of your post should be something like "balance in hearthstone means ___, because ___".
Instead we get into a rabbit hole of assuming perfect play and rigged draw order in an attempt to reduce variance or something.
To try and be constructive, I like to define balance in hearthstone as occurring when a) all or at least most classes have at least one deck at tier 2 or higher, b) there is a level of parity in the frequency that you play against each class, and c) there is a level of parity in the frequency of aggro, midrange, control, and combo.
I just wanna have fun damnit. Winning is nice, but at the end of the day, I want to enjoy playing games. Ranked or not, fun is the reason games were originally made.
I want any game i play to be balanced because then i win 100% of time. There is no way for mongrels to defeat a supreme being like me in an even field.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You should take your own advice then and stop fueling the derailing. Otherwise you're just as much in the wrong and only validating what people say about your main purpose being to increase your post count.
Six users voted for "Other" so far. Care to share?
This little debate shows what it means to defend Blizzard at all cost by pseudo denying balance to be vital to the game. Nobody is interested in true balance is a phrase of a fellow traveller, a mandarin, a person who firmly debieve that if you defend hard enough somehow you are part of the inner circle of those you adore. If balance is not important, there is no possibility of skill.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Well said, Hooghout! Thanks for your contribution! :)
No one mentioned absolutely nothing about this yet. People, what are you waiting for? I want to know your opinion on the matter, seriously! :)
False dichotomy presented
You can find him in the internet and social media pretty easy. This guy is a loner.
It's probably his only way of communication.
We secretly and hush hush agree on a lot.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Haha, yeah, I know. But don't tell anyone! XD
what's the point of this thread? Worst poll ever.
So far, 71 people disagree with you. :)
Stay on topic, everyone. OP included.
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
Maybe I agree with you on Blizzards decision part but not therefore that balance is impossible. Balance is a choice as unbalance is. Since the latter has been 'standard' for years at hand, meaning the continuous proactive aggressive card design leading up to a low skill floor, one must conclude deliberate action. Blizzards doesn't desire balance as that would alienate its low skill demanding massive target audience. Those who will shout in your face: get gut as they mean: win game by being better mindless than others. Skill on the other hand begins and ends by knowing how to outwith, outpace, outclass and outmaneuvring your opponent. Having consistenly ample opportunity qua time to make that happen is deeply vulgar and morally corrupt. And to this day I simply cannot understand why people want to be part of that audience. By the same token I cannot grasp why the American voter ever voted for its current president. Apparently being mindless is a thing.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Indeed. Further political remarks will lead to warnings. This thread has had enough leeway.
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
Congratulations you all just wasted hours of your life bantering while accomplishing nothing. I’m going to just vote lol
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone?
Is it that all cards have a positive playable nature?
Is it that each class has the same power curve?
Is it that there should be a rock/scissors/paper style of game play?
Even the idea of balance is a bit arbitrary.
I want to win at all costs, well simply put, everyone wants to win. But what does “at all costs” mean?
Is it P2W?
Is it net decking?
Is it playing the flavor of the month?
Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Personally, I copied the most recent Galapriest deck so I had a chance in standard, but I play an OTK priest deck in wild.
I play on both sides of the coin, but I choose to do so on different battlefields.
The game is not balanced, there should be more of a mix for aggro/tempo/control in the game, and each class should have the same power curve and access to each of those play styles. (imo)
The players who are here to push through with the highest win ratio and “best deck” play should see the benefits of going meta, compared to off-meta decks.
Off meta decks shouldn’t see such a disparity of success in comparison though.
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, whereas it’s easier to piss off a lot of people every day. Welcome to the human race.
I voted “Other” because of the previous comments:
The idea of Balance is arbitrary and Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Cute, ineffective, but cute.
Firstly, I don't see how players who want to win at all costs are generally Blizzard supporters. I don't think you can definitely say those things correlate. People who change a few cards in tier 1 - 3 meta decks are still by and large netdeckers. The original post has a lot of thinly veiled vitriol aimed at netdecking. Personally, I like to play, not build decks. So I try out the meta decks until one is enjoyable to play. Maybe I'll switch up the odd card. I don't think there's anything wrong with netdecks. As far as I can tell, there are very few genuine home brew decks out there. I'll see one in like 30+ games. I have occasionally built a deck but I find Magic a more fun game to deck build in. HS seems fairly rigid, like there is a "best card" in each mana slot depending on what you are doing with the deck.
I like to win, who doesn't? Having said that, I seldom play the obviously busted deck (like gala shaman on release). I think I'd like less blowout games, like when you know you've probably lost (or won) in the first 3 - 5 turns. Not sure if that equates to balance. I think game closers for slower decks are often too powerful, and game openers for faster decks are the same. But this is the game as it stands, it's hard to satisfy everyone.
Bleh.
I consider this an altogether poor answer to a pretty open ended question. Without getting too into this, the structure of your post should be something like "balance in hearthstone means ___, because ___".
Instead we get into a rabbit hole of assuming perfect play and rigged draw order in an attempt to reduce variance or something.
To try and be constructive, I like to define balance in hearthstone as occurring when a) all or at least most classes have at least one deck at tier 2 or higher, b) there is a level of parity in the frequency that you play against each class, and c) there is a level of parity in the frequency of aggro, midrange, control, and combo.
I just wanna have fun damnit. Winning is nice, but at the end of the day, I want to enjoy playing games. Ranked or not, fun is the reason games were originally made.
please don't bully my son
I want any game i play to be balanced because then i win 100% of time. There is no way for mongrels to defeat a supreme being like me in an even field.