HS developer team is famous for being a pretty bad developing team. With every expansion they show that they are not able to foresee problems certain cards will create though many people already criticize these cards when the are get sneak previewed.
Indeed they continue to print bad cards so HS will always be a RNG slotmachine, in which really bad players have same win rates as better player. The usual one out of 2 game HS experience is waiting minutes for someone to react and watching him making mistake over mistake and then having almost lost game, when a super random event makes him win the game. This situation appears so often that it is really hard to play more than a couple of games in HS.
I disagree. Mistakes do get made but they are noteworthy because it's usually one or two cards that are problematical.
Also (and this is just something to consider, not a snide insult), it tends to be the mark of an inexperienced played that they think there was no way they could've won a game. The more experienced you get, the more you're to anticipate and play around the hidden elements your opponent has in their hand / deck. Obviously, there are times when there was nothing you can do to win, but the more you play, the more options you see. Often these are pre-game, when you're building your deck.
HS developer team is famous for being a pretty bad developing team.
Says a representative survey you had with your mirror, backed by research conducted by your cat.
With every expansion they show that they are not able to foresee problems certain cards will create though many people already criticize these cards when the are get sneak previewed.
Constantly complaining people that always say everything is trash or op or both turn out to be right in hindsight, like the broken watch that shows the correct time twice a day. Greater wisdom has never been witnessed!
Indeed they continue to print bad cards so HS will always be a RNG slotmachine,
The bad cards that create all these problems because they are bad, and make the game random because reasons.
really bad players have same win rates as better player
A philosophical question: What makes a player better if they win and lose just as often as everyone else? Perhaps it is the road to a better world where everyone is equally bad and unpleasant people can spend their overflowing testosterone on more useful activities, like chopping wood or beating the crap out of each other, in a little house with a locked door and a lost key.
The usual one out of 2 game HS experience is waiting minutes for someone to react and watching him making mistake over mistake and then having almost lost game, when a super random event makes him win the game. This situation appears so often that it is really hard to play more than a couple of games in HS.
Some poetic justice perhaps? The usual experience reading one out of two Hearthstone related postings/comments/whatevs online is someone rambling for several paragraphs, making one insubstantial claim after another, going on about "balance" and "design" and such with no idea what they are actually talking about, and I have to read it and feel like there really is no hope for humanity. This occurs indeed so often that it is really hard to engage with this game at all. I mean. the game itself can be pretty fun, if it weren't for the people you had to play against and take notice of in online spaces.
These posts are interesting, because they used to be from nostalgia trippers who claimed that Iksar ruined the game or Ben Brode was the only good developer/leader. But here it seems like you never actually liked the game... Or was there one good expansion that got you hooked and now you just hate your life? If the latter, was the expansion named "United in Stormwind"?
“Says a representative survey you had with your mirror, backed by research conducted by your cat.” To be fair, it’s not like this is something which would be proven through a survey or anything. It’s a discussion forum, not an article up for peer review. I doubt anyone would ever run a survey on this topic alone anyway, so it’s fair to speculate about it.
I’m sort of surprised people are coming out to defend the team. I’ve always been under the impression that Team 5’s competence was sort of a running joke with people constantly piling on how bad they are.
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s not a clear cut “good/bad” dichotomy. Some decisions are good (to some) and bad (to others). Snake managing to pass through Q&A is pretty incompetent, there was a lot of backlash about it. Doesn’t mean the team is terrible, but they did drop the ball on this one. I’m saying “they” but it could just be because of one person who made a bad call. I’m 99% certain some people on the team didn’t support this.
“What makes a player better if they win and lose just as often as everyone else?” I think what he meant was that some decks don’t really require a lot of thought process to compete with more complicated ones, ergo bad players holding up their own against “better” players. English isn’t their first language at a glance, so I think that’s what they’re trying to say. I’d argue that’s it arguably true. Not a design flaw, it’s probably meant that way to discourage elitism but it’s certainly true. DK aggro bots reaching plat is solid evidence to back this up.
I personally think they’re more proactive than before at balancing the game since Blizzard was purchased by Microsoft. Also, some problems are unavoidable in competitive card games which the dev can do very little about .
To be fair, it’s not like this is something which would be proven through a survey or anything. It’s a discussion forum, not an article up for peer review. I doubt anyone would ever run a survey on this topic alone anyway, so it’s fair to speculate about it.
It's probably just me, but I think "A is famous for B" goes a wee bit beyond artistic license with reality and deserves some scrutiny, Can't have everyone refer to some ominous grey silent majority and supposed "common knowledge" for whatever bollocks, can we? Surveys rarely prove anything sufficiently, but it's a first step. So, just for funsies, I'd like to have someone go ask 1000 random people "do you see the Hearthstone dev team as bad". If somewhere along the way you struggle with finding and meeting a reasonable threshold for "famous", feel free to specifiy the claim as much as necessary till it feels right. If OP changes his line to "among Hearthstone players that eat popcorn at least three times a day, never watched Seinfeld and hate dogs. the Hearhtstone development team is famous for being pretty bad", I'd be slightly more inclined to play along and take their word for it. If only because the responses would be more entertaining,
I’m sort of surprised people are coming out to defend the team. I’ve always been under the impression that Team 5’s competence was sort of a running joke with people constantly piling on how bad they are.
Calling someone out on talking shit is not the same as defending the dev team. But it is a bit off to complain about some perceived alleged problem and lambasting the collective work and talent of over a hundred people because of it.
I think what he meant was that some decks don’t really require a lot of thought process to compete with more complicated ones, ergo bad players holding up their own against “better” players. [...} DK aggro bots reaching plat is solid evidence to back this up.
Chess computers can beat the best players in the world, so chess does not require much thinking? In what universe is finding the most efficient strategy a sign of poor capability?
That aside, there are a couple flaws with this argument. First of all, every deck has its own challenges. Even a supposedly "easier" aggressive deck can be played poorly (as bots tend to show you). Second, the type of deck you play says nothing about you as a player or as a person, and the same is true of your opponents. Any player can choose to play any deck, for whatever reason. Third, the outcome of a game depends on many more things than expertise, like the matchup for instance. If you really want to see who is the better player, have two players play the exact same deck against each other over 10-20 games. Fourth, whatever level of challenge and complexity you go for is your choice and it's nothing but a choice.
Congrats on playing a complicated 20 turns super combo that requires exact positioning, perfect timing, top of the world apm and expert knowledge in astrophysics, but you are doing this for fun. You can also do 15 push-ups between turns, if it's still too easy. If you end up with a 20% winrate, that's all that your mad skillz get you out of your supreme big brain superdeck. And you can either kiss your own feet and demand to be worshipped, or leave that pretense behind and admit that you go for that extra challenge because that's what you want, knowing full well that it won't score you any bonus points and in fact puts you in a disadvantage.
You could criticise the game for not rewarding your superhuman abilities more, but as you already said, it is probably better that way.
English isn’t their first language
Welcome to the internet. Nobody's is.
Even when you struggle with the language, you can put in some effort to express what you want to say. Obviously this gets harder the further your own language is from English, but that's where translator pages can help out. When I wrote my first lines in English I double checked just about every single word, and when I wrote nonsense I probably would have written nonsense in my native language too.
I would (almost) never be overly critical or mock someone for inaccurate grammar and odd words, but there are rarely profound thoughts behind topics such as this one. So I'll have my snark.
I love how the thread is not going the way OP wanted. And hats off to Dunscot who put it in a very nice way, a bit cheeky, but agreed with everything he said.
The dev team is not perfect, but the communication and speed of rolling nerfs and balance changes is better now that in was any time in the past. You need some guts to try novel game changing effects, and sometimes they are too weak, other times too strong.
This thread is a knee jerk reaction to a bad game streak. I know because I was guilty of it in the past. It feels good to vent once the stress of losing many games in a row, and that's literally the purpose of the vent thread: say horrible stuff, wish chicken pox upon [insert class here] users, etc.
But here's the thing: OP does not hate the game. OP does not actually think the hs devs are incompetent or useless, although he knows they have their flaws. OP knows that he is maybe not playing his deck optimally at all times, but it hurts his pride to admit it.
Mental state is important. I lost 7 games in a row last night, but stuck with the exact same list and played all the way up to legend with almost no losses. Once we all understand variance can mean you chain a lot of losses, and any player of any skill level can, the game becomes less frustrating. A quick tip to not let it get to you is think of the future: ok let's win the next game. It's a simple thing to keep in mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
HS developer team is famous for being a pretty bad developing team. With every expansion they show that they are not able to foresee problems certain cards will create though many people already criticize these cards when the are get sneak previewed.
Indeed they continue to print bad cards so HS will always be a RNG slotmachine, in which really bad players have same win rates as better player. The usual one out of 2 game HS experience is waiting minutes for someone to react and watching him making mistake over mistake and then having almost lost game, when a super random event makes him win the game. This situation appears so often that it is really hard to play more than a couple of games in HS.
I disagree. Mistakes do get made but they are noteworthy because it's usually one or two cards that are problematical.
Also (and this is just something to consider, not a snide insult), it tends to be the mark of an inexperienced played that they think there was no way they could've won a game. The more experienced you get, the more you're to anticipate and play around the hidden elements your opponent has in their hand / deck. Obviously, there are times when there was nothing you can do to win, but the more you play, the more options you see. Often these are pre-game, when you're building your deck.
I disagree. More mistake they make more dust i get. So you know mistake on.
Says a representative survey you had with your mirror, backed by research conducted by your cat.
Constantly complaining people that always say everything is trash or op or both turn out to be right in hindsight, like the broken watch that shows the correct time twice a day. Greater wisdom has never been witnessed!
The bad cards that create all these problems because they are bad, and make the game random because reasons.
A philosophical question: What makes a player better if they win and lose just as often as everyone else? Perhaps it is the road to a better world where everyone is equally bad and unpleasant people can spend their overflowing testosterone on more useful activities, like chopping wood or beating the crap out of each other, in a little house with a locked door and a lost key.
Some poetic justice perhaps? The usual experience reading one out of two Hearthstone related postings/comments/whatevs online is someone rambling for several paragraphs, making one insubstantial claim after another, going on about "balance" and "design" and such with no idea what they are actually talking about, and I have to read it and feel like there really is no hope for humanity. This occurs indeed so often that it is really hard to engage with this game at all. I mean. the game itself can be pretty fun, if it weren't for the people you had to play against and take notice of in online spaces.
You posted this in the wrong section. Try posting it here:
https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/212005-group-therapy-need-to-blow-off-steam-mega-salty
Thank God for the Salt Police!
These posts are interesting, because they used to be from nostalgia trippers who claimed that Iksar ruined the game or Ben Brode was the only good developer/leader. But here it seems like you never actually liked the game... Or was there one good expansion that got you hooked and now you just hate your life? If the latter, was the expansion named "United in Stormwind"?
“Says a representative survey you had with your mirror, backed by research conducted by your cat.”
To be fair, it’s not like this is something which would be proven through a survey or anything. It’s a discussion forum, not an article up for peer review. I doubt anyone would ever run a survey on this topic alone anyway, so it’s fair to speculate about it.
I’m sort of surprised people are coming out to defend the team. I’ve always been under the impression that Team 5’s competence was sort of a running joke with people constantly piling on how bad they are.
I mean, at the end of the day, it’s not a clear cut “good/bad” dichotomy. Some decisions are good (to some) and bad (to others). Snake managing to pass through Q&A is pretty incompetent, there was a lot of backlash about it. Doesn’t mean the team is terrible, but they did drop the ball on this one. I’m saying “they” but it could just be because of one person who made a bad call. I’m 99% certain some people on the team didn’t support this.
“What makes a player better if they win and lose just as often as everyone else?”
I think what he meant was that some decks don’t really require a lot of thought process to compete with more complicated ones, ergo bad players holding up their own against “better” players. English isn’t their first language at a glance, so I think that’s what they’re trying to say. I’d argue that’s it arguably true. Not a design flaw, it’s probably meant that way to discourage elitism but it’s certainly true. DK aggro bots reaching plat is solid evidence to back this up.
I personally think they’re more proactive than before at balancing the game since Blizzard was purchased by Microsoft. Also, some problems are unavoidable in competitive card games which the dev can do very little about .
It's probably just me, but I think "A is famous for B" goes a wee bit beyond artistic license with reality and deserves some scrutiny, Can't have everyone refer to some ominous grey silent majority and supposed "common knowledge" for whatever bollocks, can we? Surveys rarely prove anything sufficiently, but it's a first step. So, just for funsies, I'd like to have someone go ask 1000 random people "do you see the Hearthstone dev team as bad". If somewhere along the way you struggle with finding and meeting a reasonable threshold for "famous", feel free to specifiy the claim as much as necessary till it feels right. If OP changes his line to "among Hearthstone players that eat popcorn at least three times a day, never watched Seinfeld and hate dogs. the Hearhtstone development team is famous for being pretty bad", I'd be slightly more inclined to play along and take their word for it. If only because the responses would be more entertaining,
Calling someone out on talking shit is not the same as defending the dev team. But it is a bit off to complain about some perceived alleged problem and lambasting the collective work and talent of over a hundred people because of it.
Chess computers can beat the best players in the world, so chess does not require much thinking? In what universe is finding the most efficient strategy a sign of poor capability?
That aside, there are a couple flaws with this argument. First of all, every deck has its own challenges. Even a supposedly "easier" aggressive deck can be played poorly (as bots tend to show you). Second, the type of deck you play says nothing about you as a player or as a person, and the same is true of your opponents. Any player can choose to play any deck, for whatever reason. Third, the outcome of a game depends on many more things than expertise, like the matchup for instance. If you really want to see who is the better player, have two players play the exact same deck against each other over 10-20 games. Fourth, whatever level of challenge and complexity you go for is your choice and it's nothing but a choice.
Congrats on playing a complicated 20 turns super combo that requires exact positioning, perfect timing, top of the world apm and expert knowledge in astrophysics, but you are doing this for fun. You can also do 15 push-ups between turns, if it's still too easy. If you end up with a 20% winrate, that's all that your mad skillz get you out of your supreme big brain superdeck. And you can either kiss your own feet and demand to be worshipped, or leave that pretense behind and admit that you go for that extra challenge because that's what you want, knowing full well that it won't score you any bonus points and in fact puts you in a disadvantage.
You could criticise the game for not rewarding your superhuman abilities more, but as you already said, it is probably better that way.
Welcome to the internet. Nobody's is.
Even when you struggle with the language, you can put in some effort to express what you want to say. Obviously this gets harder the further your own language is from English, but that's where translator pages can help out. When I wrote my first lines in English I double checked just about every single word, and when I wrote nonsense I probably would have written nonsense in my native language too.
I would (almost) never be overly critical or mock someone for inaccurate grammar and odd words, but there are rarely profound thoughts behind topics such as this one. So I'll have my snark.
I love how the thread is not going the way OP wanted. And hats off to Dunscot who put it in a very nice way, a bit cheeky, but agreed with everything he said.
The dev team is not perfect, but the communication and speed of rolling nerfs and balance changes is better now that in was any time in the past. You need some guts to try novel game changing effects, and sometimes they are too weak, other times too strong.
This thread is a knee jerk reaction to a bad game streak. I know because I was guilty of it in the past. It feels good to vent once the stress of losing many games in a row, and that's literally the purpose of the vent thread: say horrible stuff, wish chicken pox upon [insert class here] users, etc.
But here's the thing: OP does not hate the game. OP does not actually think the hs devs are incompetent or useless, although he knows they have their flaws. OP knows that he is maybe not playing his deck optimally at all times, but it hurts his pride to admit it.
Mental state is important. I lost 7 games in a row last night, but stuck with the exact same list and played all the way up to legend with almost no losses. Once we all understand variance can mean you chain a lot of losses, and any player of any skill level can, the game becomes less frustrating. A quick tip to not let it get to you is think of the future: ok let's win the next game. It's a simple thing to keep in mind.