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.
Actually I'm not F2P so your ad hominems are of little worth. I've used money acquired through TF2 to fuel my paypal account to pay for this game. I'm disgusted by Ben Brode's lack of sincerity. He knows what he is saying is not true but he refuses to give any room on the issue. He doesn't say "in the future" or "maybe someday". He circumvents the question. If this is Blizzard's best PR, then it's in need of more help than their servers.
In tcg games, there is a meta. And within this meta, there will be one or two or even three decks that are so good that they basically define the meta.
so, at any point of time, if you want to be competitive, all you need is a single meta-defining deck (30 cards).
there is a catch though: it is ridiculously expensive in terms of real money/in game currency to have a full collection of cards. However, trying to construct a deck of 30 cards that can remain competitive is also not cheap. Your only ways to get cards in this game are by opening packs and hitting the card you need or turn them to dust to craft what you need. As you noticed, the gold to desired card conversion rate is not exactly cheap.
ben's statement is true. You only need 30 cards. But bear in mind that 30 specific cards are not exactly easy to obtain. Currently, the meta has hunter and zoolock, so we are lucky as these cards are relatively easy to obtain. Can you imagine if the meta shifts away from aggro and towards control? Imagine a meta defined by 5000-dust control warrior decks, it's still 30 cards needed to be competitive, but good luck grinding those as a budget player.
one more thing, while you only need one deck at any point of time to compete, that deck might not be relevant after 3 months, due to meta shift and new releases. So you need 30 cards, you spend 2 months grinding to complete it, then play it competitively for 1 month and a new meta hits causing that deck to be irrelevant. So you find another deck as your new grinding target, rinse, repeat.
you only need 30 cards. What cards? Definitely not argent squire quality. How to get those 30 cards? 20 packs gives one legendary, that's the rate. By right, it should be "You ONLY need 30 cards".
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.
Actually I'm not F2P so your ad hominems are of little worth. I've used money acquired through TF2 to fuel my paypal account to pay for this game. I'm disgusted by Ben Brode's lack of sincerity. He knows what he is saying is not true but he refuses to give any room on the issue. He doesn't say "in the future" or "maybe someday". He circumvents the question. If this is Blizzard's best PR, then it's in need of more help than their servers.
What does F2P have to do with it? He is saying to state your point rather than being cryptic. It took you until page 2 before you said what you meant. Quit pussyfooting around it and post what you mean in your first post. Thats how conversations happen rather than an entire page of people misunderstanding your point that you never made.
As for your actual point, Brode wasnt being disingenuous or insincere; he was being hyperbolic. Clearly you can't disenchant everything except 30 cards and never grab anything else and play in tournaments but you still only need 30 cards at a time to be competitive regardless of what level you are playing. The point is those 30 cards dont have to be selected from every card in existence. Its meant to inspire people to be innovative with what they have rather than complaining that they dont have everything. Quit trying to read between the lines and assuming that everyone has a dark purpose. The world isnt that Machiavellian. Brode is hyperbolic and bombastic and that was a hyperbolic and bombastic statement. Just because you disagree with his defense of not having a "catch up mechanism" doesnt mean that he is out to lie. It just means you disagree with him.
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?
This quote really gets into the topic of whether Hearthstone is F2P, or P2W. While I'm not here to argue this topic, I'm just here to state that it's not impossible to play at high level F2P. Many legend players have done this by taking a single class to legend. As a result, the players had an idea what type of deck they wished to play, which may have inspired this quote.
While I didn't take the time to really read this thread, what I felt Ben Brode was trying to say with this quote was simply this.
If you know what type of deck you're going to play, then you know what kind of cards you need. As a result, you only need those cards in your collection. As for meta shifts, that depends on any cards that you could tech out to make your match ups better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A deck is successful not when it wins, but when it does what you built it to do.
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.
Actually I'm not F2P so your ad hominems are of little worth. I've used money acquired through TF2 to fuel my paypal account to pay for this game. I'm disgusted by Ben Brode's lack of sincerity. He knows what he is saying is not true but he refuses to give any room on the issue. He doesn't say "in the future" or "maybe someday". He circumvents the question. If this is Blizzard's best PR, then it's in need of more help than their servers.
What does F2P have to do with it? He is saying to state your point rather than being cryptic. It took you until page 2 before you said what you meant. Quit pussyfooting around it and post what you mean in your first post. Thats how conversations happen rather than an entire page of people misunderstanding your point that you never made.
As for your actual point, Brode wasnt being disingenuous or insincere; he was being hyperbolic. Clearly you can't disenchant everything except 30 cards and never grab anything else and play in tournaments but you still only need 30 cards at a time to be competitive regardless of what level you are playing. The point is those 30 cards dont have to be selected from every card in existence. Its meant to inspire people to be innovative with what they have rather than complaining that they dont have everything. Quit trying to read between the lines and assuming that everyone has a dark purpose. The world isnt that Machiavellian. Brode is hyperbolic and bombastic and that was a hyperbolic and bombastic statement. Just because you disagree with his defense of not having a "catch up mechanism" doesnt mean that he is out to lie. It just means you disagree with him.
"look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it"
That was the ad hominem I was referring to. He's trying to shift the argument over to me instead of being about Brode's claim. That's what an ad hominem is. You're trying to shade Brode's statements like he's a child. "Of course he's not being serious" "Of course you shouldn't take his point seriously" which is exactly why I started this thread with a question. I wanted to see to what extent people actually agree with the comment. It's quite obvious that most people see the flaw here, yet several still get unnecessarily defensive about it, Tabbynat for example.
The point is that Brode's statement was DIRECT response to the question of a catch up system, instead of giving a relevant answer he side steps it by being "bombastic", which is just a euphemism for de-emphasizing the point. If you think Brode actually had that response just because he is some sort of silly goose you might have some sort of problem. I'm not disagreeing with his "defense" I'm arguing that he never employed a defense because he dodged the question. You even admit to his answer being a red herring. Why are you defending him without agreeing to any of his points?
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
There are a couple of ways to take his statement. One is that it requires more skill rather than the actual cards to compete. Obviously the quality of your cards matter too, but give a complete novice a deck like handlock or the old miracle, and they would most likely lose to an expert with a f2p deck.
Another way to take his statement is that anyone can compete in ARENA, as you don't need a collection to make a great deck there. The more you play Arena, the more you fill up your missing card collection, and the more "competitive" you'll get on ladder.
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
If I posted that I would have shown my hand too early. I want people to analyze what Ben Brode said and come to the conclusion themselves that he is not being truthful. Look at how many people are backed into a corner now that they defined what he said before taking a stance. If I didn't ask the question first, people would hop to their positions before even examining the source material.
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Feel free to add me if you play on NA! iMPose#1429
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
If I posted that I would have shown my hand too early. I want people to analyze what Ben Brode said and come to the conclusion themselves that he is not being truthful. Look at how many people are backed into a corner now that they defined what he said before taking a stance. If I didn't ask the question first, people would hop to their positions before even examining the source material.
So, when will you reveal the actual context of the discussion, oh mighty quizmaster?
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.
The problem is that you added that one word..
Ben didn't say '30 basic cards'. he said '30 cards'.
Aka you don't need Handlock, AND control warrior, AND control paladin, AND full control priest, AND...to be competitive.
To win you just need ONE high end deck. That's not even GETTING to the fact that there's high end decks that don't have a single legendary or epic in it.
If I posted that I would have shown my hand too early. I want people to analyze what Ben Brode said and come to the conclusion themselves that he is not being truthful. Look at how many people are backed into a corner now that they defined what he said before taking a stance. If I didn't ask the question first, people would hop to their positions before even examining the source material.
In other words, you weren't interested in debating about the subject and hearing other people's viewpoints. You already felt that what you believed was true and wanted to logically 'trap' your opponents. You're not interested in information. You want a fight and opponents that you can beat.
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
quite the contrary! this thread is quite humorous and i needed a good laugh today.
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
If I posted that I would have shown my hand too early. I want people to analyze what Ben Brode said and come to the conclusion themselves that he is not being truthful. Look at how many people are backed into a corner now that they defined what he said before taking a stance. If I didn't ask the question first, people would hop to their positions before even examining the source material.
This is the most telling statement I've ever seen in any thread. You think you're masterminding something and you backed people into a corner because they gave honest answers.
I repeat, the world is not that Machiavellian. You're projecting a lot on the situation right now.
The fact of the matter is people dont find what Brode said all that insulting or that far off the mark. People aren't backed into a corner. They just are totally fine with his "red herring" because they view it more as totally in his character to try to overstate an idea like this.
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.
You know what. I'll bite and go into the defense.
Ben's statement is that in order to compete in this game, you just need 30 cards. According to that, I should be able to craft just 30 cards then beat anyone in any spot of the ladder at any point in time.
As far as how accurate, I will note that he did not put a time period. He never said that you could win everything forever with 30 cards. In fact, that works against HS's design as , say, expansions will eventually break old metas. Thus you could assume that he means at one particular point.
And, at least up until GvG he has been accurate. Once the game hit release there has been one deck that has consistently beaten all others: Miracle Rogue. You could, and many have, crafted those 30 cards and competed from rank 20 to #1 legendary from May until Leeroy was Nerfed. You did not need any other deck.
Now is there a critique that can be done? Yes due to the lack of a time period. Technically, it should be "you can compete at any particular time with 30 cards." Thus it's noted that, eventually, you will need more cards.
HOWEVER, we do need to note the context behind his statement since, sadly, Blizzard does tend to simplify things to 'cute statements'. The context is that he's talking about folks who judge how well they can do based on how many legendaries they have or how big their collection is. They talk about how many cards there are and how impossible it is to get a full collection and then use that for the basis as to why they can't compete in the ladder. "I can't fight against the top? They have all of the cards!"
Within that context, the '30 cards' statement is really this: "You don't need every single legendary and every single deck in the game to compete. You don't need all of GvG. You don't even need HALF of it. All you need is the right deck for the meta and the skill to use it. If the #1 deck turns out to be amaz's control Priest, well. you don't need Rag or Ysera or Alexstransa or Trogz or KT or any of that mess. All you need is his deck.
And do note that picking apart someone's specific wording is rather dishonest even if it's a bad on them for not being accurate. Once you know the context behind his words, you argue with THAT and not that he phrased it wrong. And his context is that you don't need a full collection to play: just enough cards to make the decks that win which is a VERY small number compared to the entire list.
And in that, he's right. he's also a better laugher than a debater, but he's right.
There is an in-built catch-up mechanism in Hearthstone - spending cash to buy cards. Just like how in WOW you can spend cash to boost your level 90.
Oh, you meant a free catch-up mechanism? But why should new players be immediately able to compete on the same level of veteran players who have put years of effort into the game?
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.
You know what. I'll bite and go into the defense.
Ben's statement is that in order to compete in this game, you just need 30 cards. According to that, I should be able to craft just 30 cards then beat anyone in any spot of the ladder at any point in time.
As far as how accurate, I will note that he did not put a time period. He never said that you could win everything forever with 30 cards. In fact, that works against HS's design as , say, expansions will eventually break old metas. Thus you could assume that he means at one particular point.
And, at least up until GvG he has been accurate. Once the game hit release there has been one deck that has consistently beaten all others: Miracle Rogue. You could, and many have, crafted those 30 cards and competed from rank 20 to #1 legendary from May until Leeroy was Nerfed. You did not need any other deck.
Now is there a critique that can be done? Yes due to the lack of a time period. Technically, it should be "you can compete at any particular time with 30 cards." Thus it's noted that, eventually, you will need more cards.
HOWEVER, we do need to note the context behind his statement since, sadly, Blizzard does tend to simplify things to 'cute statements'. The context is that he's talking about folks who judge how well they can do based on how many legendaries they have or how big their collection is. They talk about how many cards there are and how impossible it is to get a full collection and then use that for the basis as to why they can't compete in the ladder. "I can't fight against the top? They have all of the cards!"
Within that context, the '30 cards' statement is really this: "You don't need every single legendary and every single deck in the game to compete. You don't need all of GvG. You don't even need HALF of it. All you need is the right deck for the meta and the skill to use it. If the #1 deck turns out to be amaz's control Priest, well. you don't need Rag or Ysera or Alexstransa or Trogz or KT or any of that mess. All you need is his deck.
And do note that picking apart someone's specific wording is rather dishonest even if it's a bad on them for not being accurate. Once you know the context behind his words, you argue with THAT and not that he phrased it wrong. And his context is that you don't need a full collection to play: just enough cards to make the decks that win which is a VERY small number compared to the entire list.
And in that, he's right. he's also a better laugher than a debater, but he's right.
This argument fails when you bring in the "all levels of play" statement he made. The problem is that this theoretically deck that "beats all others" is not sustainable. It may work at some points in ladder, but players are constantly developing counters to the current meta. Only using a single superior deck to climb means you are probably netdecking. This is exactly what has happened in the past with Zoo and Hunter. Cheap easy to play netdecks with low play times and high win rates. The problem is that people adapt to these decks. Counters are constantly being made. At high levels this deck are far less successful than in low tier ladder. Your magical "beat all" superior deck will only get you as far until someone decides to counter it.
Now in the past, people have been slow to build counters to these decks because of mainly 2 reasons:
1) Most people on ladder are not innovators. Either because they lack the means to adapt because of lack of cards or because they see no need to.
2) There is a lack of cards in Hearthstone. Compared to other games, Hearthstone has a very low card count meaning players are much more constrained when seeking to create new decks.
The problem is that as more cards are released, people will be able to deal with 2 better. There will be more possible cards to experiment and counter with. But for people stuck with 1, the problem will get worse. As Hearthstone becomes more about building decks based on the state of ladder, and not finding an unfair netdeck, they will be disadvantaged due to the lack of access to cards.
As I have mentioned in the past, the current state of Hearthstone is perfectly fine, it is not that difficult for new players to have access to a variety of decks. But as expansions keep coming out, this will become increasingly more difficult. And THAT was the context of the question Ben Brode sought to avoid. He wanted to plant an absolute instead of addressing legitimate worries or a plan for the future.
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.
You know what. I'll bite and go into the defense.
Ben's statement is that in order to compete in this game, you just need 30 cards. According to that, I should be able to craft just 30 cards then beat anyone in any spot of the ladder at any point in time.
As far as how accurate, I will note that he did not put a time period. He never said that you could win everything forever with 30 cards. In fact, that works against HS's design as , say, expansions will eventually break old metas. Thus you could assume that he means at one particular point.
And, at least up until GvG he has been accurate. Once the game hit release there has been one deck that has consistently beaten all others: Miracle Rogue. You could, and many have, crafted those 30 cards and competed from rank 20 to #1 legendary from May until Leeroy was Nerfed. You did not need any other deck.
Now is there a critique that can be done? Yes due to the lack of a time period. Technically, it should be "you can compete at any particular time with 30 cards." Thus it's noted that, eventually, you will need more cards.
HOWEVER, we do need to note the context behind his statement since, sadly, Blizzard does tend to simplify things to 'cute statements'. The context is that he's talking about folks who judge how well they can do based on how many legendaries they have or how big their collection is. They talk about how many cards there are and how impossible it is to get a full collection and then use that for the basis as to why they can't compete in the ladder. "I can't fight against the top? They have all of the cards!"
Within that context, the '30 cards' statement is really this: "You don't need every single legendary and every single deck in the game to compete. You don't need all of GvG. You don't even need HALF of it. All you need is the right deck for the meta and the skill to use it. If the #1 deck turns out to be amaz's control Priest, well. you don't need Rag or Ysera or Alexstransa or Trogz or KT or any of that mess. All you need is his deck.
And do note that picking apart someone's specific wording is rather dishonest even if it's a bad on them for not being accurate. Once you know the context behind his words, you argue with THAT and not that he phrased it wrong. And his context is that you don't need a full collection to play: just enough cards to make the decks that win which is a VERY small number compared to the entire list.
And in that, he's right. he's also a better laugher than a debater, but he's right.
This argument fails when you bring in the "all levels of play" statement he made. The problem is that this theoretically deck that "beats all others" is not sustainable. It may work at some points in ladder, but players are constantly developing counters to the current meta. Only using a single superior deck to climb means you are probably netdecking. This is exactly what has happened in the past with Zoo and Hunter. Cheap easy to play netdecks with low play times and high win rates. The problem is that people adapt to these decks. Counters are constantly being made. At high levels this deck are far less successful than in low tier ladder. Your magical "beat all" superior deck will only get you as far until someone decides to counter it.
Now in the past, people have been slow to build counters to these decks because of mainly 2 reasons:
1) Most people on ladder are not innovators. Either because they lack the means to adapt because of lack of cards or because they see no need to.
2) There is a lack of cards in Hearthstone. Compared to other games, Hearthstone has a very low card count meaning players are much more constrained when seeking to create new decks.
The problem is that as more cards are released, people will be able to deal with 2 better. There will be more possible cards to experiment and counter with. But for people stuck with 1, the problem will get worse. As Hearthstone becomes more about building decks based on the state of ladder, and not finding an unfair netdeck, they will be disadvantaged due to the lack of access to cards.
As I have mentioned in the past, the current state of Hearthstone is perfectly fine, it is not that difficult for new players to have access to a variety of decks. But as expansions keep coming out, this will become increasingly more difficult. And THAT was the context of the question Ben Brode sought to avoid. He wanted to plant an absolute instead of addressing legitimate worries or a plan for the future.
You're just having your own little argument, aren't you? Did you even read iandakar's post? He very clearly and deliberately says that it ISNT one certain deck. And undercut your points before you even made them. You are trying to put a far stricter definition on Brode's words than what was intended by Brode or has been explained by anyone in these forums yet you keep acting like what Brode meant, and what we think, is that there is one magic bullet deck.
Lets be clear, HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT YOU ARE INTERPRETING. It really comes down to that simple of a statement. You can keep arguing against this laughable concept that YOU (not Brode) have concocted and that literally no one has been arguing for or you can acknowledge that his statement was meant as something else. Something that almost every post in this thread that does not have "kahgro" in the header is saying. That something is that a full card collection is completely unnecessary. As future expansions come out, it will still only be 30 cards that you need to craft to create a competitive deck. It does not matter how many expansions or from what sets you're getting those 30 cards. It still is only 30 cards that are needed at a time.
Those last three sentences are what I would like to highlight so I will say them again. "As future expansions come out, it will still only be 30 cards that you need to craft to create a competitive deck. It does not matter how many expansions or from what sets you're getting those 30 cards. It still is only 30 cards that are needed at a time." This was how his response pertains to the question of whether or not a new player will need a catch up mechanic. He was not avoiding the question. He was saying that no matter what, at any point in time, a catch up mechanic wont be necessary because a full collection won't be necessary. If new players want all the cards, then too bad. But if they consolidate their efforts and craft the 30 cards that they need for a competitive deck, then they will have a competitive deck. No catch up mechanic required.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually I'm not F2P so your ad hominems are of little worth. I've used money acquired through TF2 to fuel my paypal account to pay for this game. I'm disgusted by Ben Brode's lack of sincerity. He knows what he is saying is not true but he refuses to give any room on the issue. He doesn't say "in the future" or "maybe someday". He circumvents the question. If this is Blizzard's best PR, then it's in need of more help than their servers.
In tcg games, there is a meta. And within this meta, there will be one or two or even three decks that are so good that they basically define the meta.
so, at any point of time, if you want to be competitive, all you need is a single meta-defining deck (30 cards).
there is a catch though: it is ridiculously expensive in terms of real money/in game currency to have a full collection of cards. However, trying to construct a deck of 30 cards that can remain competitive is also not cheap. Your only ways to get cards in this game are by opening packs and hitting the card you need or turn them to dust to craft what you need. As you noticed, the gold to desired card conversion rate is not exactly cheap.
ben's statement is true. You only need 30 cards. But bear in mind that 30 specific cards are not exactly easy to obtain. Currently, the meta has hunter and zoolock, so we are lucky as these cards are relatively easy to obtain. Can you imagine if the meta shifts away from aggro and towards control? Imagine a meta defined by 5000-dust control warrior decks, it's still 30 cards needed to be competitive, but good luck grinding those as a budget player.
one more thing, while you only need one deck at any point of time to compete, that deck might not be relevant after 3 months, due to meta shift and new releases. So you need 30 cards, you spend 2 months grinding to complete it, then play it competitively for 1 month and a new meta hits causing that deck to be irrelevant. So you find another deck as your new grinding target, rinse, repeat.
you only need 30 cards. What cards? Definitely not argent squire quality. How to get those 30 cards? 20 packs gives one legendary, that's the rate. By right, it should be "You ONLY need 30 cards".
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
What does F2P have to do with it? He is saying to state your point rather than being cryptic. It took you until page 2 before you said what you meant. Quit pussyfooting around it and post what you mean in your first post. Thats how conversations happen rather than an entire page of people misunderstanding your point that you never made.
As for your actual point, Brode wasnt being disingenuous or insincere; he was being hyperbolic. Clearly you can't disenchant everything except 30 cards and never grab anything else and play in tournaments but you still only need 30 cards at a time to be competitive regardless of what level you are playing. The point is those 30 cards dont have to be selected from every card in existence. Its meant to inspire people to be innovative with what they have rather than complaining that they dont have everything. Quit trying to read between the lines and assuming that everyone has a dark purpose. The world isnt that Machiavellian. Brode is hyperbolic and bombastic and that was a hyperbolic and bombastic statement. Just because you disagree with his defense of not having a "catch up mechanism" doesnt mean that he is out to lie. It just means you disagree with him.
Okay, that's a hilarious put-down If I must say.
Thanks FOO(The Banner God)!
This quote really gets into the topic of whether Hearthstone is F2P, or P2W. While I'm not here to argue this topic, I'm just here to state that it's not impossible to play at high level F2P. Many legend players have done this by taking a single class to legend. As a result, the players had an idea what type of deck they wished to play, which may have inspired this quote.
While I didn't take the time to really read this thread, what I felt Ben Brode was trying to say with this quote was simply this.
If you know what type of deck you're going to play, then you know what kind of cards you need. As a result, you only need those cards in your collection. As for meta shifts, that depends on any cards that you could tech out to make your match ups better.
A deck is successful not when it wins, but when it does what you built it to do.
"look at what you get and think about what you're willing to pay for it"
That was the ad hominem I was referring to. He's trying to shift the argument over to me instead of being about Brode's claim. That's what an ad hominem is. You're trying to shade Brode's statements like he's a child. "Of course he's not being serious" "Of course you shouldn't take his point seriously" which is exactly why I started this thread with a question. I wanted to see to what extent people actually agree with the comment. It's quite obvious that most people see the flaw here, yet several still get unnecessarily defensive about it, Tabbynat for example.
The point is that Brode's statement was DIRECT response to the question of a catch up system, instead of giving a relevant answer he side steps it by being "bombastic", which is just a euphemism for de-emphasizing the point. If you think Brode actually had that response just because he is some sort of silly goose you might have some sort of problem. I'm not disagreeing with his "defense" I'm arguing that he never employed a defense because he dodged the question. You even admit to his answer being a red herring. Why are you defending him without agreeing to any of his points?
Can you post the link to the conversation?
This thread's title should be "I don't like Ben Brode" or "Should Hearthstone have a catch-up mechanism for new players?" Your initial post should stick to one (or both) of those themes.
Instead, you are trading insults. In its current state, this thread is useful to nobody.
Feel free to add me if you play on NA! iMPose#1429
There are a couple of ways to take his statement. One is that it requires more skill rather than the actual cards to compete. Obviously the quality of your cards matter too, but give a complete novice a deck like handlock or the old miracle, and they would most likely lose to an expert with a f2p deck.
Another way to take his statement is that anyone can compete in ARENA, as you don't need a collection to make a great deck there. The more you play Arena, the more you fill up your missing card collection, and the more "competitive" you'll get on ladder.
If I posted that I would have shown my hand too early. I want people to analyze what Ben Brode said and come to the conclusion themselves that he is not being truthful. Look at how many people are backed into a corner now that they defined what he said before taking a stance. If I didn't ask the question first, people would hop to their positions before even examining the source material.
Shown your hand? Backed into a corner?
This isn't a competition. You aren't trying to "defeat" the other commenters.
Present information, share your opinion, and invite others to do the same. Friendly debate is fine. But don't take your frustrations with Brode or Hearthstone out on members of the community.
I've said my piece. But please keep the mood welcoming and respectful.
Feel free to add me if you play on NA! iMPose#1429
So, when will you reveal the actual context of the discussion, oh mighty quizmaster?
"Put your face in the light!" - Tirion Fordring
The problem is that you added that one word..
Ben didn't say '30 basic cards'. he said '30 cards'.
Aka you don't need Handlock, AND control warrior, AND control paladin, AND full control priest, AND...to be competitive.
To win you just need ONE high end deck. That's not even GETTING to the fact that there's high end decks that don't have a single legendary or epic in it.
In other words, you weren't interested in debating about the subject and hearing other people's viewpoints. You already felt that what you believed was true and wanted to logically 'trap' your opponents. You're not interested in information. You want a fight and opponents that you can beat.
Well, have fun with that.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
I'm not trying to defeat anyone, I'm trying to persuade. People have intrinsic bias towards certain issues, such as the amount to which Hearthstone is F2P. A lot of people would automatically argue against the existence of a catch up mechanism for new players. By first asking people about Ben Brode's defense to this question is without any sort of argument, I get honest answers about the source material. Most of the people in this thread have NOT defended his answer, only when they arrived at the main discussion did they try to salvage his response, but it fell apart. My purpose was to get Ben Brode's useless comment out of the way, to stop anyone from attempting to use it and to show their bias. Notice how most of the people that were overly aggressive on page 1 have not returned to defend his initial statement.
quite the contrary! this thread is quite humorous and i needed a good laugh today.
watch my arena runs on Mr Shrumpert Presents
This is the most telling statement I've ever seen in any thread. You think you're masterminding something and you backed people into a corner because they gave honest answers.
I repeat, the world is not that Machiavellian. You're projecting a lot on the situation right now.
The fact of the matter is people dont find what Brode said all that insulting or that far off the mark. People aren't backed into a corner. They just are totally fine with his "red herring" because they view it more as totally in his character to try to overstate an idea like this.
You know what. I'll bite and go into the defense.
Ben's statement is that in order to compete in this game, you just need 30 cards. According to that, I should be able to craft just 30 cards then beat anyone in any spot of the ladder at any point in time.
As far as how accurate, I will note that he did not put a time period. He never said that you could win everything forever with 30 cards. In fact, that works against HS's design as , say, expansions will eventually break old metas. Thus you could assume that he means at one particular point.
And, at least up until GvG he has been accurate. Once the game hit release there has been one deck that has consistently beaten all others: Miracle Rogue. You could, and many have, crafted those 30 cards and competed from rank 20 to #1 legendary from May until Leeroy was Nerfed. You did not need any other deck.
Now is there a critique that can be done? Yes due to the lack of a time period. Technically, it should be "you can compete at any particular time with 30 cards." Thus it's noted that, eventually, you will need more cards.
HOWEVER, we do need to note the context behind his statement since, sadly, Blizzard does tend to simplify things to 'cute statements'. The context is that he's talking about folks who judge how well they can do based on how many legendaries they have or how big their collection is. They talk about how many cards there are and how impossible it is to get a full collection and then use that for the basis as to why they can't compete in the ladder. "I can't fight against the top? They have all of the cards!"
Within that context, the '30 cards' statement is really this: "You don't need every single legendary and every single deck in the game to compete. You don't need all of GvG. You don't even need HALF of it. All you need is the right deck for the meta and the skill to use it. If the #1 deck turns out to be amaz's control Priest, well. you don't need Rag or Ysera or Alexstransa or Trogz or KT or any of that mess. All you need is his deck.
And do note that picking apart someone's specific wording is rather dishonest even if it's a bad on them for not being accurate. Once you know the context behind his words, you argue with THAT and not that he phrased it wrong. And his context is that you don't need a full collection to play: just enough cards to make the decks that win which is a VERY small number compared to the entire list.
And in that, he's right. he's also a better laugher than a debater, but he's right.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
There is an in-built catch-up mechanism in Hearthstone - spending cash to buy cards. Just like how in WOW you can spend cash to boost your level 90.
Oh, you meant a free catch-up mechanism? But why should new players be immediately able to compete on the same level of veteran players who have put years of effort into the game?
This argument fails when you bring in the "all levels of play" statement he made. The problem is that this theoretically deck that "beats all others" is not sustainable. It may work at some points in ladder, but players are constantly developing counters to the current meta. Only using a single superior deck to climb means you are probably netdecking. This is exactly what has happened in the past with Zoo and Hunter. Cheap easy to play netdecks with low play times and high win rates. The problem is that people adapt to these decks. Counters are constantly being made. At high levels this deck are far less successful than in low tier ladder. Your magical "beat all" superior deck will only get you as far until someone decides to counter it.
Now in the past, people have been slow to build counters to these decks because of mainly 2 reasons:
1) Most people on ladder are not innovators. Either because they lack the means to adapt because of lack of cards or because they see no need to.
2) There is a lack of cards in Hearthstone. Compared to other games, Hearthstone has a very low card count meaning players are much more constrained when seeking to create new decks.
The problem is that as more cards are released, people will be able to deal with 2 better. There will be more possible cards to experiment and counter with. But for people stuck with 1, the problem will get worse. As Hearthstone becomes more about building decks based on the state of ladder, and not finding an unfair netdeck, they will be disadvantaged due to the lack of access to cards.
As I have mentioned in the past, the current state of Hearthstone is perfectly fine, it is not that difficult for new players to have access to a variety of decks. But as expansions keep coming out, this will become increasingly more difficult. And THAT was the context of the question Ben Brode sought to avoid. He wanted to plant an absolute instead of addressing legitimate worries or a plan for the future.
You're just having your own little argument, aren't you? Did you even read iandakar's post? He very clearly and deliberately says that it ISNT one certain deck. And undercut your points before you even made them. You are trying to put a far stricter definition on Brode's words than what was intended by Brode or has been explained by anyone in these forums yet you keep acting like what Brode meant, and what we think, is that there is one magic bullet deck.
Lets be clear, HE DID NOT MEAN WHAT YOU ARE INTERPRETING. It really comes down to that simple of a statement. You can keep arguing against this laughable concept that YOU (not Brode) have concocted and that literally no one has been arguing for or you can acknowledge that his statement was meant as something else. Something that almost every post in this thread that does not have "kahgro" in the header is saying. That something is that a full card collection is completely unnecessary. As future expansions come out, it will still only be 30 cards that you need to craft to create a competitive deck. It does not matter how many expansions or from what sets you're getting those 30 cards. It still is only 30 cards that are needed at a time.
Those last three sentences are what I would like to highlight so I will say them again. "As future expansions come out, it will still only be 30 cards that you need to craft to create a competitive deck. It does not matter how many expansions or from what sets you're getting those 30 cards. It still is only 30 cards that are needed at a time." This was how his response pertains to the question of whether or not a new player will need a catch up mechanic. He was not avoiding the question. He was saying that no matter what, at any point in time, a catch up mechanic wont be necessary because a full collection won't be necessary. If new players want all the cards, then too bad. But if they consolidate their efforts and craft the 30 cards that they need for a competitive deck, then they will have a competitive deck. No catch up mechanic required.