Its probably worth mentioning that many (including myself) play constructed for the season rewards which are ultra valuable to us F2P / low-spend players
I have always been f2p in HS and I used to think that way too. HS put a couple packs in front of me each month and a couple extra cards and I was like "yeah, I have to reach at least rank XY". At some point I realised though that constructed formats have always been boring to me. And now that I can get a lot of wins in Duels or Arena, I realised that I earn a lot more resources (or pay very little gold per pack) just from playing these modes, which is a lot more valuable than what I would get from Ranked. BG, Mercenaries, and Duels also give xp for the rewards tracks, so it feels unnecessary for me to grind constructed anymore. It's also worth noting that I can play Arena, Duels, and BG with rather low dust investment (even after a 1.5 years break), so I kinda don't even need the pack rewards anymore anyway. But it's everyone's decision what mode they prefer. I just don't get the "every card is so broken" mentality when people continue to play. It sounds like people want to be frustrated by their game. A break can really work wonders
Its probably worth mentioning that many (including myself) play constructed for the season rewards which are ultra valuable to us F2P / low-spend players
I have always been f2p in HS and I used to think that way too. HS put a couple packs in front of me each month and a couple extra cards and I was like "yeah, I have to reach at least rank XY". At some point I realised though that constructed formats have always been boring to me. And now that I can get a lot of wins in Duels or Arena, I realised that I earn a lot more resources (or pay very little gold per pack) just from playing these modes, which is a lot more valuable than what I would get from Ranked. BG, Mercenaries, and Duels also give xp for the rewards tracks, so it feels unnecessary for me to grind constructed anymore. It's also worth noting that I can play Arena, Duels, and BG with rather low dust investment (even after a 1.5 years break), so I kinda don't even need the pack rewards anymore anyway. But it's everyone's decision what mode they prefer. I just don't get the "every card is so broken" mentality when people continue to play. It sounds like people want to be frustrated by their game. A break can really work wonders
Arena rewards are certainly much higher (and more frequent) than the seasonal ones, but I do find Arena to be something of a gamble and can end up being just as (if not more) frustrating, mostly because its the game mode with the highest feeling of unfairness when you get offered absolute dross and then repeatedly face people with multiple legendaries in your matches. Heh.
As a seasoned F2P player since beta i always recommend to get resources from arena to new players. But i really like standard and when i got enough resources to take me through expansions i find myself not playing arena anymore. Everyone prefer different playstyles. Back in the days getting 3 fireball in a arena deck is something huge which makes your deck even stronger than standard. Now arena is completely different.
Yeah, I used to play Arena a lot back in the old days, but then moved onto the other modes as more to my taste. I went back to Arena again this expansion as I had about a dozen tickets to use and needed to up my card collection a little. But arena doesnt feel like it used to, to me. It seems super-dominated by Paladins and DKs now and the other classes feel like they have little chance.
Just stop cards from hitting face. Nerf astalor and shockspitter and other cards to hit enemy minions .
But then you will have the problem that the only ways of winning feasibly are board damage from minions or possibly fatigue, which then makes the whole game become stale and less fun for everyone. Having unexpected and surprising ways to win a game is what makes the game fun and more interactive and immersive.
Unexpected and surprising 40 dmg from shockspitters or lets say our beloved Denathrius back then, way more interactive than board trading.
You are literally interacting with the opposing player rather than ignoring them and only attacking minions. Its the very definition of “interactivity”. Not sure what more you want. Lol
??? So by ,,opponent" u mean their ONLY their face? Their board is not ,,opposing player" Damn, that's next lvl. So if 2 burn decks match, and noone is gonna play ANY minion, both just cast spells at enemy face, that's the most interaction you can get in hearthstone?
So are you saying BOTH are in actual fact, versions of “interaction” then? Just so we’re clear…
Interaction in card games traditionally means you go back and forth in terms of power, which generally means board presence. It's a constant battle to get an edge over the other player until one overwhelms the other. The least amount of interactivity comes from combos that bypass all interaction by just winning the game outright.
An uninteractive combo sometimes only materializes after interaction. Luckily there's no card in the game that just wins you the game by drawing it, without any prerequisites. But the road towards finalizing a combo can be highly uninteractive as well. For example, Shockspitter Hunter cares very little about what it hits with its weapons. Hit stuff, discover Shockspitters, win. Quest Priest cares very little about which cards it plays. Play cards with right mana cost, draw/discover/clear, win with a 99% uninteractive card.
When there's barely any interaction between players, each player is just playing their own minigame against the clock. They're barely countering each other's plays. They're just fishing for their own cards and trying to complete their own quest. And then, frustratingly, one player just wins before the other does. Hurrah.
Interaction in card games traditionally means you go back and forth in terms of power, which generally means board presence. It's a constant battle to get an edge over the other player until one overwhelms the other. The least amount of interactivity comes from combos that bypass all interaction by just winning the game outright.
I think thats possibly a somewhat loose interpretation. You "could" suggest that firing from hand is basically one big back and forth of power. For most of the game you are at a disadvantage while the other player tries to attack your and defeat you and you are defending until you get a chance to swing the game around. But as I say, it feels like this is a general difference in subjective opinion about what interaction should be, as opposed to what it is from a literal meaning sense.
Hearthstone has historically always had ways of winning the game outright from your hand, and I dont think there is necessarily anything wrong with it.
But you raise a key point here:
When there's barely any interaction between players, each player is just playing their own minigame against the clock. They're barely countering each other's plays. They're just fishing for their own cards and trying to complete their own quest. And then, frustratingly, one player just wins before the other does. Hurrah.
That's what (non-)interaction is.
And I think we can actually formulate a more specific definition of what a truly non-interactive deck would be. If two players sat opposite, not attacking the other player, and playing only minions on the board or drawing cards with no player taking any damage until one of the players draws all pieces of a combo or set they need to win from their hand, then yes, this would be truly non-interactive. The only interaction either player had with the other was to shout "Bingo!" and play their winning hand.
However, if one player was attacking the other with direct damage or minions and the other player was defending by interacting with those minions and removing them or blocking them until they could find the cards they needed to win, then this is a prime example of actual "interactive" play.
After actually looking at stuff; I think could fix a lot of current issues with 3 moves. 1.) is the obvious explorers go wild. 2.) The removal of legendary cards through discover pools or a massively nerfed pull rate. 3.) the current aggro decks get 1-3 minor nerfs to slow it down a turn or two.
Not necessarily a prediction, since blizz just likes to adjust numbers with their nerfs, but I would like to see shockspitter change to:
"Deal 1 damage for each time your hero attacked while this card was in hand."
That way the card doesn't start charging up until drawn or generated, meaning they have to choose between keeping shockspitters in their opening hand, and thus not being able to discover more later, or not being able to build up their damage for a while. Makes it so they can't use devouring swarm to generate another burst, as well. Might kill the card completely though, outside of a dedicated combo deck, so maybe put it back down to 2 mana?
Might kill the card completely though, outside of a dedicated combo deck, so maybe put it back down to 2 mana?
I think another nerf to Shockspitter probably kills the card. My fear, then, is what's hunter left with? Big beast? Questline? The arcane archetype is stillborn, and the new weapon is a laugh. The class would probably be left with one playable card from this expansion, which is sad.
Something definitely needs to happen with Discover; it's like 2/3 Rogue games they're getting Mi'Da and whatever else. It's not unbeatable but it's like bro this is stupid.
I think the better question is can you even balance the meta in 1-2 patches; I think they're going to fail. If it's just slowed down Druid will pop back up, Blood DK will be very strong, Unholy should be usable , Mage will probably still have the aggro/bsm doing better then they are now, I don't see Warlock or Priest competing without buffs and aggro Paladin idk.
I have always been f2p in HS and I used to think that way too. HS put a couple packs in front of me each month and a couple extra cards and I was like "yeah, I have to reach at least rank XY". At some point I realised though that constructed formats have always been boring to me. And now that I can get a lot of wins in Duels or Arena, I realised that I earn a lot more resources (or pay very little gold per pack) just from playing these modes, which is a lot more valuable than what I would get from Ranked. BG, Mercenaries, and Duels also give xp for the rewards tracks, so it feels unnecessary for me to grind constructed anymore. It's also worth noting that I can play Arena, Duels, and BG with rather low dust investment (even after a 1.5 years break), so I kinda don't even need the pack rewards anymore anyway. But it's everyone's decision what mode they prefer. I just don't get the "every card is so broken" mentality when people continue to play. It sounds like people want to be frustrated by their game. A break can really work wonders
Arena rewards are certainly much higher (and more frequent) than the seasonal ones, but I do find Arena to be something of a gamble and can end up being just as (if not more) frustrating, mostly because its the game mode with the highest feeling of unfairness when you get offered absolute dross and then repeatedly face people with multiple legendaries in your matches. Heh.
.
As a seasoned F2P player since beta i always recommend to get resources from arena to new players. But i really like standard and when i got enough resources to take me through expansions i find myself not playing arena anymore. Everyone prefer different playstyles. Back in the days getting 3 fireball in a arena deck is something huge which makes your deck even stronger than standard. Now arena is completely different.
Yeah, I used to play Arena a lot back in the old days, but then moved onto the other modes as more to my taste.
I went back to Arena again this expansion as I had about a dozen tickets to use and needed to up my card collection a little. But arena doesnt feel like it used to, to me. It seems super-dominated by Paladins and DKs now and the other classes feel like they have little chance.
Interaction in card games traditionally means you go back and forth in terms of power, which generally means board presence. It's a constant battle to get an edge over the other player until one overwhelms the other. The least amount of interactivity comes from combos that bypass all interaction by just winning the game outright.
An uninteractive combo sometimes only materializes after interaction. Luckily there's no card in the game that just wins you the game by drawing it, without any prerequisites. But the road towards finalizing a combo can be highly uninteractive as well. For example, Shockspitter Hunter cares very little about what it hits with its weapons. Hit stuff, discover Shockspitters, win. Quest Priest cares very little about which cards it plays. Play cards with right mana cost, draw/discover/clear, win with a 99% uninteractive card.
When there's barely any interaction between players, each player is just playing their own minigame against the clock. They're barely countering each other's plays. They're just fishing for their own cards and trying to complete their own quest. And then, frustratingly, one player just wins before the other does. Hurrah.
That's what (non-)interaction is.
I think thats possibly a somewhat loose interpretation. You "could" suggest that firing from hand is basically one big back and forth of power. For most of the game you are at a disadvantage while the other player tries to attack your and defeat you and you are defending until you get a chance to swing the game around. But as I say, it feels like this is a general difference in subjective opinion about what interaction should be, as opposed to what it is from a literal meaning sense.
Hearthstone has historically always had ways of winning the game outright from your hand, and I dont think there is necessarily anything wrong with it.
But you raise a key point here:
And I think we can actually formulate a more specific definition of what a truly non-interactive deck would be.
If two players sat opposite, not attacking the other player, and playing only minions on the board or drawing cards with no player taking any damage until one of the players draws all pieces of a combo or set they need to win from their hand, then yes, this would be truly non-interactive. The only interaction either player had with the other was to shout "Bingo!" and play their winning hand.
However, if one player was attacking the other with direct damage or minions and the other player was defending by interacting with those minions and removing them or blocking them until they could find the cards they needed to win, then this is a prime example of actual "interactive" play.
After actually looking at stuff; I think could fix a lot of current issues with 3 moves. 1.) is the obvious explorers go wild. 2.) The removal of legendary cards through discover pools or a massively nerfed pull rate. 3.) the current aggro decks get 1-3 minor nerfs to slow it down a turn or two.
Here are my nerf predictions. What do you think about them?
1. Astalor Bloodsworn to 3/6/9 mana cost
2. Sinstone Graveyard loses stealth, Wildpaw Gnoll to 6 mana, Swiftscale Trickster to 5 mana 3/3 (maybe)
3. Shockspitter to 4 mana 3/3
4. Sinful Brand to 2 mana, Unleash Fel doesn't go face
5.Runed Mithril Rod to 6 mana (maybe)
6.Glacial Advance to your next spell cost 1 less (maybe)
My nerf prediction and hopes:
Maestra of the Masquerade
- You start the game as a different class until you play or reveal a Rogue card.
Card effects process after the hero transformation.
Wildpaw Gnoll will be fine after the Maestra changes :)
Sinstone Graveyard
- ghost loses stealth
Ghoulish Alchemist
- cost (0). -> cost (2) less.
Astalor Bloodsworn
- battlecry -> deathrattle
Swiftscale Trickster
- up to 5 mana
Unleash Fel
- hit only minions
Shockspitter
- up to 4 mana 3/3
Not necessarily a prediction, since blizz just likes to adjust numbers with their nerfs, but I would like to see shockspitter change to:
"Deal 1 damage for each time your hero attacked while this card was in hand."
That way the card doesn't start charging up until drawn or generated, meaning they have to choose between keeping shockspitters in their opening hand, and thus not being able to discover more later, or not being able to build up their damage for a while. Makes it so they can't use devouring swarm to generate another burst, as well. Might kill the card completely though, outside of a dedicated combo deck, so maybe put it back down to 2 mana?
I think another nerf to Shockspitter probably kills the card. My fear, then, is what's hunter left with? Big beast? Questline? The arcane archetype is stillborn, and the new weapon is a laugh. The class would probably be left with one playable card from this expansion, which is sad.
This is a good list. The game is better without these four things.
Something definitely needs to happen with Discover; it's like 2/3 Rogue games they're getting Mi'Da and whatever else. It's not unbeatable but it's like bro this is stupid.
I think the better question is can you even balance the meta in 1-2 patches; I think they're going to fail. If it's just slowed down Druid will pop back up, Blood DK will be very strong, Unholy should be usable , Mage will probably still have the aggro/bsm doing better then they are now, I don't see Warlock or Priest competing without buffs and aggro Paladin idk.
getting rid of the potion belt + gnoll combo is good enough