Hearthpwn

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Well, in keeping with that incredibly problematic analogy, as far as I'm aware no fighting game has ever managed to make 100% . . . or 50% . . . or even 30% at the higher levels of play . . . of the characters viable for competition.

Given that, perhaps it's up to the low IQ peasant (your words, not mine) to come up with a way to do so, rather than the folks who aren't complaining.

Any response relating back to Hearthstone will surely start pointing out the myriad of problems with this analogy to fighting games, but I didn't come up with it to start with.

 Again, more waffle with the intent of trying to come across as clever rather than actually addressing any point.

I never said Heartstone will ever (or should ever) be 100% balanced across the board. I never said that about fighting games either. You’ve misunderstood me, maybe due to being half cut and full of pills. 

I’m pointing out two methods of balancing a game, one in which a developer purposefully creates a division between overpowered and underpowered effects (only giving certain fighters super punches in the analogy), and one where they attempt viability across the board (something being viable doesn’t mean it is competitive), usually by ensuring each card/move etc sticks to certain perimeters. Neither of these situations are going to ensure exact 100% balance, or even 50%, or 30%, or whatever, and neither of these solutions to balance are necessarily wrong or right. I haven’t claimed otherwise, I just prefer one method over the other.

The purpose of the analogy was very clear, deviate from the point and try to pick holes with it all you like, it achieves nothing. In an ideal world I would want the power level of many cards to come down, but the game is probably too far down the road for that now.

The problem people are experiencing is that cards like refreshing spring water put all of the deck's power onto a couple of cards. It feels as if they draw that card, you lose the game.

He asked for Celestial alignment druid list, not for an auctioneer list

Ok dude, you're just making shit up now.  "Waffle" has a meaning, and it doesn't apply to the post you quoted.

No clue what "half cut" means, and the best opiates aren't pills, but regardless, the English language is still pretty straightforward.

 If I had to hang my hat on whether fellow denizens of this forum found me clever . . . well, it would probably be time to get "full cut" (just guessing from context)

EDIT:  Direct quote

"Meanwhile me and the rest of the low IQ peasants long for a game where all 20 characters are viable, we want the super punches removed and more effort put into balancing a character’s toolset across the board, this is no small indie company after all. We would call the 5 competitive characters and their super punches OP."

We've gone from lies to mistakes to calling me out for walls of text but apparently including three lines of text that have no bearing on your own point.  I don't think I did that anywhere in my "wall".

The quote clearly indicates that since this isn't a "small indie company", 20 viable characters, or 100% of options, should be viable.  Presumably that translates to ten viable classes in Hearthstone.

Quote from Ravzar >>

The problem people are experiencing is that cards like refreshing spring water put all of the deck's power onto a couple of cards. It feels as if they draw that card, you lose the game.

 Yeah, this is a huge reason why I dislike the current method of balancing. Don’t get me wrong, I never thought classic was perfect either, I think back then the game was too forgiving to the player taking the lead.

Nowadays though too often a card is played and the majority of the game before it is irrelevant. 

Quote from PetiteMouche >>

Quote from Pherosizm >>

 When everyone is a super hero, nobody is. That's how Wild works.

Blizzard does care about Wild balance, but in a different way than Standard. It's more polarized, but not more unbalanced. Standard decks are pretty much incomplete decks, while Wild decks achieved critical mass. Standard balance specifically aims to prevent the critical mass, while Wild balance only aims to prevent early game OTKs with no counterplay. And to be honest not every viable wild deck is a broken overtuned mess, not every game ends on turn 5, actually I feel like games last longer in Wild than Standard on average. Stuff like Odd warrior is running pretty "fair" card, nothing to generate entire boards or hands out of nowhere, just pretty good control cards.

And even the completely degenerate control decks that generate absurd amounts of value and tempo like say Renolock, or the crazy combo decks that go off as soon as turn 7-8, they still have plenty of weaknesses to some archetypes, some tech cards, something.

Blizzard always react quickly when a new combo appears that has nearly no counterplay, like Wretched Tiller OTK or when they nerfed the echo keyword. They couldn't balance Wild like they balance Standard even if they wanted anyway. They'd need to butcher hundreds of cards.

Consider that Wild has endless deck building possibilies, and I truly mean endless, there are hundreds of viable decks, some of them that have never been seen in a standard format, and for any given deck there are thousands of possible variations, you can even turn an archetype into another with the right changes... Knowing that, it's pretty impressive that the Wild format is still viable.

What is most funny to me is the decks people complain the most about, like spell mage, secret mage, rez priest.. are nowhere near the most OP decks you can encounter. They just have weak matchups and think it's because of a state of imbalance, they don't realize most matchups are extremely polarized by design. Odd mage for example, it's a total meme, pretty weak deck overall you will lose to even shit standard decks, yet it's a good matchup against secret mage.

When we get to yu-gi-oh levels of bullshit and turn 1 OTKs, I will agree, Blizzard doesn't care about Wild. But to this day they still care, it's still very much playable and enjoyable, if you have a good collection of cards and know what you're doing in the deck builder.

"meta" truly means nothing in Wild, you can take new powercreeped cards and build an old deck out of nowhere that has not been seen in years, or make crazy variations of known meta decks, and get legend with that because it's going to be good against one of the meta decks, due to the very polarized nature of the format. It's a deck builders dream.

By the way, if you enjoy mage, you should ABSOLUTELY play Wild. The things mage can do in wild... It's just endless. I think mage and warlock are the classes that benefit the most from the huge pool of cards, especially the reno archetype. I can literally build 5 different renomage decks that don't share a single card besides Reno Zephrys and Kazakus. And they will all be strong enough to climb the ladder.

 You said what I have wanted to chime in with but just don't have the energy to haha. Mainly because I don't play wild but having read through your post, you've inspired me to give it a go later. I think I've always assumed it would be a case of seeing 3 or 4 hyper busted decks and that being it, it's never really appealed. I did have a blast a while back because I was missing playing with DK Guldan. 

Any specific cards that you would recommend to craft? Reno seems an obvious one and a card I've never used but he seems to fit into many decks, across classes. 

One can make anything work with some attention and tuning.  I alternated between Celestial Druid and Reno Shudderwock Shaman to get to Wild Legend this month.

But if you're crafting a bunch of stuff from scratch, the basics of mage, warlock, and priest are some of the more stable meta choices.

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

One can make anything work with some attention and tuning.  I alternated between Celestial Druid and Reno Shudderwock Shaman to get to Wild Legend this month.

But if you're crafting a bunch of stuff from scratch, the basics of mage, warlock, and priest are some of the more stable meta choices.

 Cool, thank you. I stopped dusting cards following rotation a couple of years ago now, so I don't have a completely empty set. It will just be those common big boy cards that gesture in a few decks that I'll get crafting, like Reno. The 3 classes you mention are the 3 I typically play the most of, as well as warrior, so they seem a good place to pick up from. 

Dirty Rat, Deathlord, Loatheb, Cult Neophyte. I can go on. Flamewalker mage can be easily crushed with tech cards that are actually good on other matchups. 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Ok dude, you're just making shit up now.  "Waffle" has a meaning, and it doesn't apply to the post you quoted.

No clue what "half cut" means, and the best opiates aren't pills, but regardless, the English language is still pretty straightforward.

 If I had to hang my hat on whether fellow denizens of this forum found me clever . . . well, it would probably be time to get "full cut" (just guessing from context)

EDIT:  Direct quote

"Meanwhile me and the rest of the low IQ peasants long for a game where all 20 characters are viable, we want the super punches removed and more effort put into balancing a character’s toolset across the board, this is no small indie company after all. We would call the 5 competitive characters and their super punches OP."

 

We've gone from lies to mistakes to calling me out for walls of text but apparently including three lines of text that have no bearing on your own point.  I don't think I did that anywhere in my "wall".

The quote clearly indicates that since this isn't a "small indie company", 20 viable characters, or 100% of options, should be viable.  Presumably that translates to ten viable classes in Hearthstone.

 

All you are interested in is point scoring and I’m posting these replies on my phone when I have a spare minute. Of course there will be slight mistakes here and there - despite this you’re still failing even at that. 

I’m using analogies as they are useful for conveying a point to a mixed audience, some people here are probably pretty young, some maybe don’t have much experience with the game, many don’t speak English as their first language, and some are drunk and full of opiates. 

I haven’t put a great deal of effort or thought into these analogies as they aren’t meant to be bulletproof, they aren’t meant to be scrutinised or discussed more than necessary.

You’re choosing to do this as you aren’t bothered about discussing card balance, you entered an argument and now all you care about is scoring points. Deviating from the point and attacking an analogy which is obviously never going to be a direct comparison is an easy way of doing that.

My actual point regarding RSW has remained the same however.

It’s not hard to do what you are doing btw. It’s very easy to confuse and over complicate a discussion and then pick holes in it. I mean it’s pointless and I can see it from a mile off but I bet it makes you feel incredible. In your mind you’re sailing across the forums putting halfwits to the sword with you stunning prose.

It’s all excellent stuff, but once you’ve finished destroying me with that massive brain of yours I would greatly appreciate it if you would answer this question:

I believe RSW is OP for two main reasons:

1.  It, along with other overpowered cards, reduces the viability of the creative side of Hearthstone.

2.  These kind of cards increase the rate in which matchups are won by the player who plays their broken stuff first.

Because of this I would prefer cards like RSW to be reduced in power in order to minimise those effects on the game. 

Please explain what it is about this opinion that is incorrect?

Well, as for #1, balance and design space are not synonymous, so the first point might have a home in a design space argument (and we might actually find some common ground there), but it's not the same thing as being overpowered.

And that's not "over complicating a subject and poking holes", it's a relevant distinction.  The people who complain about Tickatus can't seem to decide whether they're arguing about power or design space either, and if you just dance back and forth between the two without making a serious argument to either, it's impossible to respond (not saying YOU did that, but a lot of the Tick threads go that way).

As for #2, I'm not really sure that's falsifiable.  What I mean is, regardless of the deck, regardless of the power level, if there's a coherent design to the deck, there will be some key cards and if you manage to get your plan off before the opponent, you'll likely win the game.  I'm not sure if it was you or another poster, but someone said something that suggested RSW was a card that if played, felt like what happened in the game before that was irrelevant.  That struck me as odd, because RSW itself is never a win condition under any circumstances, it's just a deck filter.

Removed from #1 and #2 and speaking in general for a moment, I think it's important to clarify the scope of the argument.  Some folks just want to talk about Wild, and I'm not up for that.  In my opinion, Wild should require a MUCH higher standard of proof as to balance problems before a nerf is initiated, and with the one exception of Naga Sea Witch, I've never seen something rise to that standard.

So, that leaves Standard.  I was skeptical that the Lunacy cost nerf would be enough to knock Spell Mage off the top of the meta, but it objectively did.  Mage is not played as much, does not have as high a win rate, and most of the mage decks I see in standard now are not pure Spell Mage any longer.  RSW is therefore no longer guaranteed to be a free 2 cards, and the potential for it to cost more than zero is a gigantic pseudo-nerf resulting from the deck designs themselves.

For the record, the reason I don't wade into specific balance arguments is because it usually ends up becoming an opinion.  Even when people bring stats to the argument, there's no universally agreed-upon win rate at which point something is definitionally OP.  It all comes down to FEELS.

Having said that, the only way to keep the threads honest is to call out relevant mistakes.  Perhaps I am guilty of stepping over the line in implying intent by calling them lies or knowing misstatements, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it for self-fellation purposes.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but they aren't entitled to create a false sense of what the facts are.  That other thread where someone said there was a 75% win rate going around was the same problem, just to a greater extent.

One other thing.  Despite my innate hostility towards people who do the wall of text or "you think you're clever" schtick, make no mistake.  I'm only continuing this conversation because I assume you are dealing in good faith and am trying to do the same.

You'll notice I no longer reply to Hoogout or yepapapa (misspellings likely).  Hoog went off the deepend into full-fledged racism and yep exposed himself as an unabashed troll after I tried to engage with them repeatedly.  It may not feel like a compliment when I reply to you, but I mean it as one.

Mage is RNG.

RNG can be fun but also frustrating.

Mage is fun & frustrating. 

RNG is not fun.

Quote from Kinkyjohnfowler >>

It’s a swing card because it gives you an extra card in hand and pushes you 2 cards deeper into your deck for no mana. Combine it with other mana cheating cards and it can get silly.

Card advantage, health, board state, mana, and probably a few things I’ve missed all contribute to being ahead in a game. And if a card does something to affect those things well enough it can often swing the game in your favour. Secret Passage is an extreme example of how drawing cards alone can swing a game.

As for the rest, I’m not sure what you’re directing it at, but deck building themes/archetypes should be rewarded, Blizzard go so far over the top though. RSW would be a great card if it refreshed 1 mana per spell, it would be a 2-mana Arcane Intellect in Spell Mage, but maybe that wouldn’t have been strong enough to push the archetype so lets just make it a draw 2 for 0-mana to make sure.

@shadow

Another wall of text and still no argument. I’ve mentioned that the card isn’t free until turn 4, so I’m not sure how I’m lying there, or mistaken, or whatever else. As I’ve said, I’m trying to give a layman's explanation for how the card works in Spell Mage decks and that’s an easy way for people to conceptualise it. You’ll also notice that I have barely mentioned the broken combination it has with Enchanters Flow? I’m not just listing strengths and ignoring weaknesses here, just trying to distill the effect of the card into something that is easy to understand without getting into every nuance.

This all could have been hashed out and explained had you just posted your reasons why you thought I was wrong and you were right, you could have pointed out the 4-mana cost and I could have explained clearer, you could have asked me why I neglected to repeat the broken EF interaction, I would have told you. Instead we’re about 5 posts in and no further forwards. You do write well, but if you could just cut to the chase and layout the reasons why you consider the card balanced then that would be grand.

 We've had our differences but on the subject of balance I concur. As for the pseudo-intellectual of the moment on this forum trashtalking whomever don't agree with him, producing wall of text as a way of hearing himself speak, I've seen the likes of him come and go over the years on this forum. Don't be bothered. 

The amusing part is that anything he isn't interested in is coined 'FEELS'. Balance, not interesting: 'FEELS' And for the trolling aspect and racism he is accusing me of, I'm the only on here consequently talking about ethics, balance, skill....o wait these are all 'FEELS' 

I enjoy walls of text, I enjoy reading about things like this and often find discussions of card balance interesting. It’s just frustrating getting caught up on semantics and then the debate devolving into multiple walls of text trying to outdo each other. I played my part in that so hands up.

The design space vs balance argument is fine. I’m happy to drop the semantics, my only intention is to get my point across regarding RSW. It’s just hard to do that when it feels like I’m randomly being gaslit.

To add though I’m not asking for RSW to be nerfed as it would be pointless by itself, there are probably 50 other cards that would have to go with it.

if you play mage in any capacity right now you're a degenerate and your parents don't love you

Quote from StonedSaiyan >>

if you play mage in any capacity right now you're a degenerate and your parents don't love you

 Tell 'em Vegeta!

Quote from StonedSaiyan >>

if you play mage in any capacity right now you're a degenerate and your parents don't love you

 I'm enjoying mage. In standard, duels and tonight, wild. 

Quote from StonedSaiyan >>

if you play mage in any capacity right now you're a degenerate and your parents don't love you

 Sure better to play homebrew deck and enjoy 20% winrate.... looks like you didnt get much love

Ontopic yes, its OP af.