I understand the point Brode is trying to make and I think it is a good one, but it is in no way true. No one, not even the best player in the world, could compete at a competitive level with 30 basic cards.
You can definitely do very well at the lower levels with even just the basic cards. My guess is that you might hit a skill cap around rank 15, but that's still plenty good considering.
And by that time, you should really be able to afford better cards, even from just the dailies.
I think Ben is just saying that to mitigate the concerns from casual players/beginners because the game can be quite intimidating if you're lacking some of the new cards going up against all the new decks of the meta. Not saying you won't ever win with decks of vanilla cards, but it can be quite the uphill climb. It is plausible that you can at least Rank 15 with basic decks if you're a decent player. Although to be frankly honest, in order to compete in the more competitive environments like >Rank 5 or tournaments, it is impossible for one to rely on 1 deck because having multiple decks at those stages of the game to counter other matchups is vital to your success.
Dude, anyone can make zoo. Anyone. You can probably make a decent zoo deck on day 2 of playing hearthstone.
You definitely do not need a full collection to make a zoo deck. Zoo decks can be played at all levels of competition, ergo, Brode's statement is factually correct, in letter and spirit.
Dude, anyone can make zoo. Anyone. You can probably make a decent zoo deck on day 2 of playing hearthstone.
You definitely do not need a full collection to make a zoo deck. Zoo decks can be played at all levels of competition, ergo, Brode's statement is factually correct, in letter and spirit.
Very unlikely, decks like Zoo that storm the board with cheap cost minions will always be viable, it's just a matter of their prevalence on the ladder.
Then that's the advantage of having a good collection, to be able to shift with the meta. Doesn't mean that zoo suddenly becomes non-competitive. Ben never said that having a full collection wasn't an advantage. Are you being obtuse?
Are you just raging that this isn't a free level playing field game, or what? This is a CCG. This is how all CCGs have always been. Hearthstone is already far more kind to people that don't buy many cards than many other CCGs.
Then that's the advantage of having a good collection, to be able to shift with the meta. Doesn't mean that zoo suddenly becomes non-competitive. Ben never said that having a full collection wasn't an advantage. Are you being obtuse?
Are you just raging that this isn't a free level playing field game, or what? This is a CCG. This is how all CCGs have always been. Hearthstone is already far more kind to people that don't buy many cards than many other CCGs.
I'm upset about how he says it. Ben Brode has a unique way of responding to questions by giving non-answers. The "just 30 cards" is a deepity, any deck needs 30 cards, it's a gimmick phrase only there to distract people with false meaning. He specifically quotes the "all levels of play" to distance himself from that phrase because he knows it is not true. The problem is that he is using this to argue against a catch up system and I know he will use the same argument indefinitely.
Then say that in the OP and maybe I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your whine. "I'm upset about how he says it" GOD what are you a 12 year old? Grow up, this is a business, this is marketing and PR, look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it (whether in time or money) and grow the f up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can someone explain this to me? Not quite sure what Ben Brode means.
I understand the point Brode is trying to make and I think it is a good one, but it is in no way true. No one, not even the best player in the world, could compete at a competitive level with 30 basic cards.
You can definitely do very well at the lower levels with even just the basic cards. My guess is that you might hit a skill cap around rank 15, but that's still plenty good considering.
And by that time, you should really be able to afford better cards, even from just the dailies.
The "all levels of play" part.
Casual, Hardcore, Dedicated player etc
Hell, you can be a tournament player with 3 working decks, most of which, probably share cards.
I think Ben is just saying that to mitigate the concerns from casual players/beginners because the game can be quite intimidating if you're lacking some of the new cards going up against all the new decks of the meta. Not saying you won't ever win with decks of vanilla cards, but it can be quite the uphill climb. It is plausible that you can at least Rank 15 with basic decks if you're a decent player. Although to be frankly honest, in order to compete in the more competitive environments like >Rank 5 or tournaments, it is impossible for one to rely on 1 deck because having multiple decks at those stages of the game to counter other matchups is vital to your success.
Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't sure if I misread it or if he was just BSing. Now I know it's the latter.
Give it a week, there will be another very cheap cancer deck that will compete at "all levels of play".
Come to think of it, wasn't zoo being played in tournaments?
It definitely was. What I'm confused about is the "only 30 cards" part.
How many cards are in zoo amigo?
How many cards are in any deck amigo? It's just a deepity that does nothing to prove his point.
Dude, anyone can make zoo. Anyone. You can probably make a decent zoo deck on day 2 of playing hearthstone.
You definitely do not need a full collection to make a zoo deck. Zoo decks can be played at all levels of competition, ergo, Brode's statement is factually correct, in letter and spirit.
What's your problem with it?
And when the meta shifts and Zoo is trash?
Very unlikely, decks like Zoo that storm the board with cheap cost minions will always be viable, it's just a matter of their prevalence on the ladder.
Then that's the advantage of having a good collection, to be able to shift with the meta. Doesn't mean that zoo suddenly becomes non-competitive. Ben never said that having a full collection wasn't an advantage. Are you being obtuse?
Are you just raging that this isn't a free level playing field game, or what? This is a CCG. This is how all CCGs have always been. Hearthstone is already far more kind to people that don't buy many cards than many other CCGs.
That's great news Ben. I guess I don't need to buy packs ever again.
Because that happend so many times in last year huh ? (only now, after soulfire nerf and what not)
There will always be deck like that.
There is always 30 cards in one deck and thats how he meant it.
Mystery solved, you are welcome.
I'm upset about how he says it. Ben Brode has a unique way of responding to questions by giving non-answers. The "just 30 cards" is a deepity, any deck needs 30 cards, it's a gimmick phrase only there to distract people with false meaning. He specifically quotes the "all levels of play" to distance himself from that phrase because he knows it is not true. The problem is that he is using this to argue against a catch up system and I know he will use the same argument indefinitely.
Case in point, I don't like Ben Brode.
Then say that in the OP and maybe I wouldn't have wasted my time responding to your whine. "I'm upset about how he says it" GOD what are you a 12 year old? Grow up, this is a business, this is marketing and PR, look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it (whether in time or money) and grow the f up.