What do I think of HS? WHERE HAS ALL MY MONEY GONE
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I think that paladin has the highest chances of dealingwith this meta with auchanai circle, lightbomb, shadow madness and the ability to heal strong taunts" -rabbitme234
They just need to fix the ladder - I don't mind aggro decks existing but I am sick of playing against them. At least 3/4 of my games are against some form of aggro - face hunter, zoo, etc. They need to introduce a system where playing more games doesn't necessarily mean climbing faster even with a worse win rate. I like playing control or fatigue decks but you really get punished for it. I don't have any answers on how to do this but c'mob Blizzard PLZ.
The ladder is ok. You need to fix your perception of what the ladder is and what you want it to be (two distinct things).
Aggro is a pretty sane way for the meta to never let greedy decks out of check. I like this. Deal with it.
Remhouse obviously plays aggro on the ladder. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it in every post. Aggro decks are fine, they exist in all card games. The problem is that as mentioned above, it equals faster games played, more gold, quicker ladder climbing, and ergo 3/4 of players run them. Change the ladder system somehow, or introduce new game modes that encourage variety.
One solution: sideboards and tournaments. Allow a 6-10 card sideboard that you're allowed to switch in and out before a match. Implement this in a new game mode like a tournament mode where the decklist of your opponent is available to see before the match, give a 1 minute timer to sideboard and start the match. I would have absolutely no issues with netdecks and aggro if you can sideboard. It would add another layer of skill in this game.
I think one of the biggest problems for Hearthstone is that the game is limited to 2 card types. When this game was introduced, I was like...really? It's like MTG for noobs. Started playing it, appreciated some of the skill that it does require, but now I'm back to thinking it's just too bare bones. I'm not exactly surprised the game is as simple as it is because obviously Blizzard wants to make money and they don't want difficulty to be an issue to new comers, but there's really so much you can do with a turn based (no instants/response like MTG) card game that has only 2 card types.
They moved the crafting mode button to the bottom. Does that mean they need the space on top to add new classes? MAYBE!
It really is sad that Blizzard immediately went for the Powercreep option without even trying to add new mechanics to the game.
This. They could have explored other options before going straight for the power creep. Less than a year into the game, we're already at 1 mana for a 2/3, granted there's a drawback, but things are only going to get worse. You can't reverse power creep, it only continues to climb. I just don't see how this game will sustain itself for years to come. I suppose they can go the format route like other TCGs and drop the power level in new sets.
how is it sane, the perception before was that control counters aggro, aggro counters mid, mid counters control, now you can't play a real control deck because you can't keep up with aggro, so i don't get how that's sane, there are no more control decks in the game except for control warrior of which you don't see that much anymore, so i'd like to understand how that's healthy. aggro decks are by no means unbeatable but they are overplayed in ladder and they cancel the possibility to make one of the most important archetype of decks.
Exactly. When one archetype has gotten so powerful that it's basically completely eliminated another archetype, there's an issue.
They moved the crafting mode button to the bottom. Does that mean they need the space on top to add new classes? MAYBE!
It really is sad that Blizzard immediately went for the Powercreep option without even trying to add new mechanics to the game.
This. They could have explored other options before going straight for the power creep. Less than a year into the game, we're already at 1 mana for a 2/3, granted there's a drawback, but things are only going to get worse. You can't reverse power creep, it only continues to climb. I just don't see how this game will sustain itself for years to come. I suppose they can go the format route like other TCGs and drop the power level in new sets.
Um, at the beginning of the game there was a 3/2 for 1 mana, granted there's a drawback.
I honestly don't see the power creep argument. If anything, I think in a few places they have set the bar too high and need power creep. For instance, one of the things in MTG that hindered Agro decks was Wrath of God. A 4 mana clear all creatures. The equivalent in HS is Twisting Nether which is unplayable due to the mana cost. If that was available at 4 mana in HS, Control decks would actually have a chance against aggro.
They moved the crafting mode button to the bottom. Does that mean they need the space on top to add new classes? MAYBE!
It really is sad that Blizzard immediately went for the Powercreep option without even trying to add new mechanics to the game.
This. They could have explored other options before going straight for the power creep. Less than a year into the game, we're already at 1 mana for a 2/3, granted there's a drawback, but things are only going to get worse. You can't reverse power creep, it only continues to climb. I just don't see how this game will sustain itself for years to come. I suppose they can go the format route like other TCGs and drop the power level in new sets.
Um, at the beginning of the game there was a 3/2 for 1 mana, granted there's a drawback.
I honestly don't see the power creep argument. If anything, I think in a few places they have set the bar too high and need power creep. For instance, one of the things in MTG that hindered Agro decks was Wrath of God. A 4 mana clear all creatures. The equivalent in HS is Twisting Nether which is unplayable due to the mana cost. If that was available at 4 mana in HS, Control decks would actually have a chance against aggro.
You could run a copy of Doomsayer which fullfills the same kind of role (soft taunt and hard removal / AoE).
Control decks have a good chance against aggro. I played Handlock recently on the ladder and I've beated several aggro decks. Thanks to Zombie Chow, Antique Healbot, some amount of AoE and good taunters... I actually stood a chance against aggro decks each time I manage to outthink their strategy (which is not that hard). Wait for them to put your hero low enough to spam Molten Giant... and then switch the game in your favor.
Of course, if your deck is only good when ahead... you are probably screwed against aggro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I don't think aggro decks are more powerful than other types of decks. It is the ladder system, and win/lose system. The game rewards faster games. The fact that aggro decks are really not the most complex decks out there also helps. That being said, control warrior, druid and such others are not harder than most aggro decks as well. (Just in case you want to create a strawman out of the statement)
Seriously, instead of a climb system that resets every month , why not put a mmr system that is stable for 1 year at least? That way you will be playing versus opponents instead of ladder.
I have to agree, the issue is how rewarding it is to have fast games, even with a lower win rate. You only need a 51% win rate to reach legend, and time. The faster your games, the faster you can achieve legend. Receiving a reward every 3 wins doesn't help either.
And it's not like they do not have alternatives. As a very basic example, without going into it in-depth, they could do it based on EXP, by slightly tweaking the XP system. In the end, the longer the game, the more experience you get, making sure that 2 fast games = 1 slow game.
The meta has already gotten slower – Face Hunter is no longer one of the best decks in the game for laddering – and I'm not happy about it, Oil Rogue and Patron Warrior are my only options for laddering now because I don't have most epics and legendaries. Face Hunter is pretty easy to play, but not that easy. You have to count your damage and make sure you press the hero power button almost every turn past turn 3 (usually), something many people fail to do. It's not just a case of PLAY ALL THE CARDS SwiftRage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
forsenC
dog is my favorite openly gay Hearthstone streamer, please join me in supporting his bravery in defying societal conventions
Hearthstone is not 1/100th as fun as MTG and it makes me sad. I am now poor, and MTG has left a massive hole inside of me. HS cannot fill it. I get bored of HS very quickly. Sometimes i get interested in a deck idea or I'll come up with an idea and I'll want to play. But that's just my inner craving begging me desperately to play some MTG. I like hearthstone and all, to a point, but it's just not good enough...yet. I'm hoping as more expansions come out it will become a more fun game.
I think the game is in a pretty good state right now. The meta is extremely diverse right now because people are experimenting using all the new BRM cards. While, yes, I still have seen Face Cancer, I've also run into all kinds of new decks recently; Mill Rogue, Demon Zoo, Egg Shaman, Flamewaker Mage, Grim Patron Warrior, etc. I've even seen a crazy Token Pally. None of these decks would have been possible pre-adventure.
Also, with two adventures to get cards from, I think life isn't too bad right now for new or budget players. Naxx and BRM both offer some really solid cards that can really give them a fast-track to some better decks.
I personally am really excited to see where Hearthstone goes next.
HS needs new mechanics and more decision points. Plain and simple. I played MtG since Beta/Unlimited and the card pool was limited but the play allowed for many more variations and complexities. I will say that the Internet didn't exist then so there was no real netdecking/meta stuff. It did sort of happen organically but if it had been released today I don't doubt a lot of the decks and play would have quickly settled on just a few top tier decks... however, the ability to play some cards on the opponent's turn and for more decisions to be made at stages of play means it would still have been more varied and "fun."
HS doesn't need more cards. Every new expansion that fails to add new meaningful mechanics and decision points will just shift the "cancer" to a new deck. The only other option are limited formats, which it has been stated are not on the table so outside of that mechanics and play are the only things that can be worked with.
It is a fun and simple game with some glaring flaws in design and at times overly-simplistic play which are very real and valid issues. The upside is that they are easy enough to fix with a little effort.
EDIT: While I think it's a great game, very well balanced, I see so much more potential and it's worrisome given that, outside of adventures and spectator mode, I've been playing nearly an identical game for 2 years.
Typical disappointment with the modern day Blizzard titles, all polish, light on features, snail's pace development.
Game needs more mechanics. MTG basically figured out fairly early in their block development cycle that introducing a new mechanic/theme and running with it was a sure fire way to keep things fresh.
I know hearthstone wants to stay simple and easy to pick up, but after a point it'll just get stale. We need something besides spells and minions. What about more cards like Jaraxass that interact with your hero. Maybe cards that temporarily change/alter your hero power. They could introduce sub classes to each hero giving players a variety of hero powers to choose from. Or give bonuses when you use certain cards/archetypes. Blizz could expand on the weapon slot. More cards that take effect on your opponents turn or play off your opponents actions. What if the game board actually affected the match. Stop Making every legendary 6mana or more. Stop making every "tribe" pool so narrow (mechs/goblins/golems/beasts/dragons/etc).
And don't get me started with basic features. No tournaments? One limited format? No replays? 9 Deck slots? No lobby to find like-minded players? Small scale leagues? Man, it's like they never played another online CCG....
It is excellent. Easy for anyone to get into, yet containing tons of depth and diversity. Polished and friendly, generous rewards. Balance isn't done by rarity, make it feel less pay to win. It also has such an easy to use deckbuilding interface. Devs are also very careful with changing cards (nerf/buff), which is how it should be. They also aren't just releasing tons of cards constantly, and avoid power creep as well. However they are releasing new expansions sets and a nice moderate pace to continue to grow and diversify the game.
The adventures are especially nice, and make it easy for people to gain a lot of powerful cards (since they are guaranteed) for relatively cheap. (Compared to random pack buying).
Just a side note, chess is a thousand times harder than hs. It took me a couple months to become a hs legend and infinite arena player, but took me 6 years to become a chess exper. (I have the actual certified title). I also feel that having a more even balance of decks would actually make this game a lot harder because you would have difficulty teaching ur deck against specific decks without suffering in other matchups
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Time is precious. Waste it wisely. Legend Seasons: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17
Played a lot of MTG in the 90s, so I can relate to the guys saying it was more fun, but I harldy HS personnaly ans I'm in line with DragonConsort statement.
About mechanics, sure instant would be a great thing, but it works against the flow of the game because between each and every action you'll need to check if the other player wants to cast a spell. It's certainly doable but I can easily spot a lot of rage post related to connectivity issues that prevents players to use an instant at the right time, costing them the game.
Hearthstone is not 1/100th as fun as MTG and it makes me sad. I am now poor, and MTG has left a massive hole inside of me. HS cannot fill it. I get bored of HS very quickly. Sometimes i get interested in a deck idea or I'll come up with an idea and I'll want to play. But that's just my inner craving begging me desperately to play some MTG. I like hearthstone and all, to a point, but it's just not good enough...yet. I'm hoping as more expansions come out it will become a more fun game.
Well as a long-time MTG and MTGO player I do agree that MTG itself is an extremely good game. But online, Hearthstone wins hands down. MTGO is an annoying clickfest with a terrible UI.
This game could've been much better but I agree aggro is too strong in this game and is really limiting other deck types.
We need more anti-aggro cards and at the same time Blizz needs to think carefully of creating cards that will help aggro...*looking at you Quick Shot....
And def need more card types and new heros/alt hero powers....I only play the game casually but I am already starting to get bored before GvG came out...and GvG didn't do too much for me at all....I am currently still having bit of fun with Dragon decks & Grim Patron decks but really nothing too re-freshing about BRM. Rogue & Shaman & Priest are still well-underplayed....they have no new deck types (Sorry Mill Rogue is still too inconsistent & dies to aggro; Dragon Priest is very weak compared to Dragon Pally)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What do I think of HS? WHERE HAS ALL MY MONEY GONE
"I think that paladin has the highest chances of dealingwith this meta with auchanai circle, lightbomb, shadow madness and the ability to heal strong taunts" -rabbitme234
But there has only been 1 expansion. Goblins vs Gnomes. The other 2 were adventures which is completely different.
Remhouse obviously plays aggro on the ladder. Otherwise you wouldn't be defending it in every post. Aggro decks are fine, they exist in all card games. The problem is that as mentioned above, it equals faster games played, more gold, quicker ladder climbing, and ergo 3/4 of players run them. Change the ladder system somehow, or introduce new game modes that encourage variety.
One solution: sideboards and tournaments. Allow a 6-10 card sideboard that you're allowed to switch in and out before a match. Implement this in a new game mode like a tournament mode where the decklist of your opponent is available to see before the match, give a 1 minute timer to sideboard and start the match. I would have absolutely no issues with netdecks and aggro if you can sideboard. It would add another layer of skill in this game.
I think one of the biggest problems for Hearthstone is that the game is limited to 2 card types. When this game was introduced, I was like...really? It's like MTG for noobs. Started playing it, appreciated some of the skill that it does require, but now I'm back to thinking it's just too bare bones. I'm not exactly surprised the game is as simple as it is because obviously Blizzard wants to make money and they don't want difficulty to be an issue to new comers, but there's really so much you can do with a turn based (no instants/response like MTG) card game that has only 2 card types.
This. They could have explored other options before going straight for the power creep. Less than a year into the game, we're already at 1 mana for a 2/3, granted there's a drawback, but things are only going to get worse. You can't reverse power creep, it only continues to climb. I just don't see how this game will sustain itself for years to come. I suppose they can go the format route like other TCGs and drop the power level in new sets.
Exactly. When one archetype has gotten so powerful that it's basically completely eliminated another archetype, there's an issue.
Lol... learn to tech your deck against aggro and you'll never face it the same way. Keep netdecking as usual and you'll struggle.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
Um, at the beginning of the game there was a 3/2 for 1 mana, granted there's a drawback.
I honestly don't see the power creep argument. If anything, I think in a few places they have set the bar too high and need power creep. For instance, one of the things in MTG that hindered Agro decks was Wrath of God. A 4 mana clear all creatures. The equivalent in HS is Twisting Nether which is unplayable due to the mana cost. If that was available at 4 mana in HS, Control decks would actually have a chance against aggro.
You could run a copy of Doomsayer which fullfills the same kind of role (soft taunt and hard removal / AoE).
Control decks have a good chance against aggro. I played Handlock recently on the ladder and I've beated several aggro decks. Thanks to Zombie Chow, Antique Healbot, some amount of AoE and good taunters... I actually stood a chance against aggro decks each time I manage to outthink their strategy (which is not that hard). Wait for them to put your hero low enough to spam Molten Giant... and then switch the game in your favor.
Of course, if your deck is only good when ahead... you are probably screwed against aggro.
Used to be a proud Handlock player.
Legend 17 times.
Still flirting with the ladder from times to times with Renolock.
I don't think aggro decks are more powerful than other types of decks. It is the ladder system, and win/lose system. The game rewards faster games. The fact that aggro decks are really not the most complex decks out there also helps. That being said, control warrior, druid and such others are not harder than most aggro decks as well. (Just in case you want to create a strawman out of the statement)
Seriously, instead of a climb system that resets every month , why not put a mmr system that is stable for 1 year at least? That way you will be playing versus opponents instead of ladder.
I have to agree, the issue is how rewarding it is to have fast games, even with a lower win rate. You only need a 51% win rate to reach legend, and time. The faster your games, the faster you can achieve legend. Receiving a reward every 3 wins doesn't help either.
And it's not like they do not have alternatives. As a very basic example, without going into it in-depth, they could do it based on EXP, by slightly tweaking the XP system. In the end, the longer the game, the more experience you get, making sure that 2 fast games = 1 slow game.
The meta has already gotten slower – Face Hunter is no longer one of the best decks in the game for laddering – and I'm not happy about it, Oil Rogue and Patron Warrior are my only options for laddering now because I don't have most epics and legendaries. Face Hunter is pretty easy to play, but not that easy. You have to count your damage and make sure you press the hero power button almost every turn past turn 3 (usually), something many people fail to do. It's not just a case of PLAY ALL THE CARDS SwiftRage.
forsenC
dog is my favorite openly gay Hearthstone streamer, please join me in supporting his bravery in defying societal conventions
Hearthstone is not 1/100th as fun as MTG and it makes me sad. I am now poor, and MTG has left a massive hole inside of me. HS cannot fill it. I get bored of HS very quickly. Sometimes i get interested in a deck idea or I'll come up with an idea and I'll want to play. But that's just my inner craving begging me desperately to play some MTG. I like hearthstone and all, to a point, but it's just not good enough...yet. I'm hoping as more expansions come out it will become a more fun game.
I think the game is in a pretty good state right now. The meta is extremely diverse right now because people are experimenting using all the new BRM cards. While, yes, I still have seen Face Cancer, I've also run into all kinds of new decks recently; Mill Rogue, Demon Zoo, Egg Shaman, Flamewaker Mage, Grim Patron Warrior, etc. I've even seen a crazy Token Pally. None of these decks would have been possible pre-adventure.
Also, with two adventures to get cards from, I think life isn't too bad right now for new or budget players. Naxx and BRM both offer some really solid cards that can really give them a fast-track to some better decks.
I personally am really excited to see where Hearthstone goes next.
HS needs new mechanics and more decision points. Plain and simple. I played MtG since Beta/Unlimited and the card pool was limited but the play allowed for many more variations and complexities. I will say that the Internet didn't exist then so there was no real netdecking/meta stuff. It did sort of happen organically but if it had been released today I don't doubt a lot of the decks and play would have quickly settled on just a few top tier decks... however, the ability to play some cards on the opponent's turn and for more decisions to be made at stages of play means it would still have been more varied and "fun."
HS doesn't need more cards. Every new expansion that fails to add new meaningful mechanics and decision points will just shift the "cancer" to a new deck. The only other option are limited formats, which it has been stated are not on the table so outside of that mechanics and play are the only things that can be worked with.
It is a fun and simple game with some glaring flaws in design and at times overly-simplistic play which are very real and valid issues. The upside is that they are easy enough to fix with a little effort.
EDIT: While I think it's a great game, very well balanced, I see so much more potential and it's worrisome given that, outside of adventures and spectator mode, I've been playing nearly an identical game for 2 years.
Typical disappointment with the modern day Blizzard titles, all polish, light on features, snail's pace development.
Game needs more mechanics. MTG basically figured out fairly early in their block development cycle that introducing a new mechanic/theme and running with it was a sure fire way to keep things fresh.
I know hearthstone wants to stay simple and easy to pick up, but after a point it'll just get stale. We need something besides spells and minions. What about more cards like Jaraxass that interact with your hero. Maybe cards that temporarily change/alter your hero power. They could introduce sub classes to each hero giving players a variety of hero powers to choose from. Or give bonuses when you use certain cards/archetypes. Blizz could expand on the weapon slot. More cards that take effect on your opponents turn or play off your opponents actions. What if the game board actually affected the match. Stop Making every legendary 6mana or more. Stop making every "tribe" pool so narrow (mechs/goblins/golems/beasts/dragons/etc).
And don't get me started with basic features. No tournaments? One limited format? No replays? 9 Deck slots? No lobby to find like-minded players? Small scale leagues? Man, it's like they never played another online CCG....
It is excellent. Easy for anyone to get into, yet containing tons of depth and diversity. Polished and friendly, generous rewards. Balance isn't done by rarity, make it feel less pay to win. It also has such an easy to use deckbuilding interface. Devs are also very careful with changing cards (nerf/buff), which is how it should be. They also aren't just releasing tons of cards constantly, and avoid power creep as well. However they are releasing new expansions sets and a nice moderate pace to continue to grow and diversify the game.
The adventures are especially nice, and make it easy for people to gain a lot of powerful cards (since they are guaranteed) for relatively cheap. (Compared to random pack buying).
Just a side note, chess is a thousand times harder than hs. It took me a couple months to become a hs legend and infinite arena player, but took me 6 years to become a chess exper. (I have the actual certified title). I also feel that having a more even balance of decks would actually make this game a lot harder because you would have difficulty teaching ur deck against specific decks without suffering in other matchups
Time is precious. Waste it wisely. Legend Seasons: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17
Current deck: Not playing much anymore
Highest rank: legend rank 9 Highest finish: legend rank 103 Infinite Arena Player
Played a lot of MTG in the 90s, so I can relate to the guys saying it was more fun, but I harldy HS personnaly ans I'm in line with DragonConsort statement.
About mechanics, sure instant would be a great thing, but it works against the flow of the game because between each and every action you'll need to check if the other player wants to cast a spell. It's certainly doable but I can easily spot a lot of rage post related to connectivity issues that prevents players to use an instant at the right time, costing them the game.
New game modes is the easiest temporary solution to the repetition. Really hoping a tournament mode comes.
Well as a long-time MTG and MTGO player I do agree that MTG itself is an extremely good game. But online, Hearthstone wins hands down. MTGO is an annoying clickfest with a terrible UI.
This game could've been much better but I agree aggro is too strong in this game and is really limiting other deck types.
We need more anti-aggro cards and at the same time Blizz needs to think carefully of creating cards that will help aggro...*looking at you Quick Shot....
And def need more card types and new heros/alt hero powers....I only play the game casually but I am already starting to get bored before GvG came out...and GvG didn't do too much for me at all....I am currently still having bit of fun with Dragon decks & Grim Patron decks but really nothing too re-freshing about BRM. Rogue & Shaman & Priest are still well-underplayed....they have no new deck types (Sorry Mill Rogue is still too inconsistent & dies to aggro; Dragon Priest is very weak compared to Dragon Pally)