In all of our playtest, we have never complained of losing a game because of going first or second.
To me, that's not evidence that there isn't a problem (causality =/= correlation), but it is an empirical argument that if there is a problem there, it really is a very niche problem.
As far as I'm concerned, the coin is well balanced, and a very good solution to the problem it attempts to solve. Well done Hearthstone design team! Much better job that your "we don't like Europe" beta release team ;)
I still don't see why people think the coin is really good (beyond the fact that is counts as casting a spell). On ONE turn you get to have the mana advantage, on the other turns (until turn 10) you are always 1 mana behind.
Obviously it feels better because it feels like a tangible benefit, but in reality I don't see how it can work out as a much better option. I personally think the extra card is the better part of going second.
I still don't see why people think the coin is really good (beyond the fact that is counts as casting a spell). On ONE turn you get to have the mana advantage, on the other turns (until turn 10) you are always 1 mana behind.
Obviously it feels better because it feels like a tangible benefit, but in reality I don't see how it can work out as a much better option. I personally think the extra card is the better part of going second.
The coin may only give you mana advantage one turn but, if played correctly can create some devastating combos.
Yeah, mostly because of the fact that you're playing a spell, not because you have 1 more mana.
I agree with everyone else that it should be a button, but having 1 more mana once isn't particularly massive.
No, it isn't massive at all. You are up against being behind on the mana spending every turn. Your opponent will be the first to spend more mana each turn, being able to play more cards or bigger cards before you get a chance to answer. Having 1 card and 1 flex mana to balance it seems to not be too much.
It's mostly the benefit of synergy with spell procing cards and rogue combos that seem unfair, possibly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
In my opinion, to make the coin more balanced they need to do:
1.- Coin + Extra card, yes, its very OP in my opinion, this way you have more options than player 1, you have "the same mana", but MORE options !
3.- If you go second, you should be able to choose between, getting "the coin", or getting 1 extra card, but not BOTH.
Why?, ive played the game a lot before the beta, with that manual program for play magic, and yeah, going second its way better, i think having coin plus card is just too much, you should be able to pick just 1 of them, and of course, the coin needs to be just mana, not a spell, and not a combo.
Yeah, mostly because of the fact that you're playing a spell, not because you have 1 more mana.
I agree with everyone else that it should be a button, but having 1 more mana once isn't particularly massive.
No, it isn't massive at all. You are up against being behind on the mana spending every turn. Your opponent will be the first to spend more mana each turn, being able to play more cards or bigger cards before you get a chance to answer. Having 1 card and 1 flex mana to balance it seems to not be too much.
It's mostly the benefit of synergy with spell procing cards and rogue combos that seem unfair, possibly.
In my opinion, to make the coin more balanced they need to do:
1.- Coin + Extra card, yes, its very OP in my opinion, this way you have more options than player 1, you have "the same mana", but MORE options !
3.- If you go second, you should be able to choose between, getting "the coin", or getting 1 extra card, but not BOTH.
Why?, ive played the game a lot before the beta, with that manual program for play magic, and yeah, going second its way better, i think having coin plus card is just too much, you should be able to pick just 1 of them, and of course, the coin needs to be just mana, not a spell, and not a combo.
Just coin (and no benefit from it being a spell) would be severely underpowered.
I personally think the player who goes 2nd has an IMMENSE advantage over the first player. The Coin/Extra Card are too much.
And the fact that The Coin triggers cards like Questing Adventurer/Mana Addict/Mana Wyrm, and also Combos just makes it ridiculously powerful.
I think both players should be given The Coin, and just leave the Extra Card for the second player. That way both players can make the strategic decision of powering up for an early advantage, or making some bigger plays later on. Or just remove The Coin, even though it is my favorite thing... It may have to go. >_<
Going second seems to be giving a decent advantage if the player has quite a few Taunts and good "reactionary" (counter) cards. Going first seems to favor decks that have cards with Charge, and give an advantage later on in terms of hero power usage (a Hunter deck will always be ahead 2 HP with its power), from what I've seen so far.
How correct is that? Still learning the basics, so bear with me.
Playing second has an innate disadvantage. Almost everyone agrees on this, which is why so many games try to counter balance the issue. Personally, I think the coin + the card may be a little too strong of a counter balancing, however it never seems game breaking. Maybe rogues get a really good deal out of it for combo's and huge early plays. Usually, a game is more down to luck of a draw and the mana curve, not being one mana ahead. Having a taunt minion or spell out one round early can really help you out, but usually it lets you respond to the pressure that your opponent just put out. Its a love-hate relationship. You love the coin when you use it, but hate it when your enemy uses it.
I think it's almost balanced. I haven't read many of the comments in this thread, but The Coin is pretty close to balanced, but I will say it leans toward granting a better advantage than the first player gets. It could be improved by adding a restriction as to when you can use it, such as allowing the player who played The Coin to only play one additional card after The Coin to prevent some of the powerful combos I've seen out there.
Another idea is to restrict the player who has The Coin from playing it during turns 1 and 2. These are just suggestions, I haven't done any hard math on the issue. Blizzard knows balance. I'm not Blizzard. I don't know balance.
Why doesn't player 2 just start with 2/2 mana crystals? Player 1 gets first turn advantage and early board presence but is always catching up with player 2's mana crystals.
IMO player two can have the coin, but the coin AND an extra card is too much. I feel when I'm first I'm instantly in a MASSIVE disadvantage. =/ Extra card + 5 hp, or Coin. Not Coin+extra card.
I think this is a bad idea. Player 2 will always have a way larger advantage than the coin is giving. Basically, you don't have to worry about getting a 1 cost minion to start the game off in order to fully take advantage of turn 1, instead, you just hero power and laugh at player one when they didn't play a 1 cost minion the turn prior.
My problem with the coin is the Questing Adventurer. EVerytime I go second, I just hold my coin til I get my adventurer. I had a game earlier where I dropped a 6/6 on turn 3. That's ridiculous. (Drop Adventurer, Coin - 3/3, 1 mana minion - 4/4, two 0 mana spells - 6/6) As warrior this thing can instantly attack. As a Shaman if this thing makes it til turn 4 you're looking at a 8/8 or 9/9 Windfury .
I totally agree that it shouldn´t be a card that count as a spell, for the reason already mentioned. It shouldn´t trigger combos, neither count as a card, otherwhise you can easily summon a 8/8 in round 3-4
My problem with the coin is the Questing Adventurer. EVerytime I go second, I just hold my coin til I get my adventurer. I had a game earlier where I dropped a 6/6 on turn 3. That's ridiculous. (Drop Adventurer, Coin - 3/3, 1 mana minion - 4/4, two 0 mana spells - 6/6) As warrior this thing can instantly attack. As a Shaman if this thing makes it til turn 4 you're looking at a 8/8 or 9/9 Windfury .
Then I silence it the next turn. I honestly think the coin is pretty balanced. The worse abuse the coin has is with the druid comboing it with wild growth, nourish, and innervate.
I've been watching quite a bit of streaming lately, and the coin does look like it is a bit too strong. The streamers I've watched have been saving them for larger board clearers or to augment twilight drakes.
My problem with the coin is the Questing Adventurer. EVerytime I go second, I just hold my coin til I get my adventurer. I had a game earlier where I dropped a 6/6 on turn 3. That's ridiculous. (Drop Adventurer, Coin - 3/3, 1 mana minion - 4/4, two 0 mana spells - 6/6) As warrior this thing can instantly attack. As a Shaman if this thing makes it til turn 4 you're looking at a 8/8 or 9/9 Windfury .
Then I silence it the next turn. I honestly think the coin is pretty balanced. The worse abuse the coin has is with the druid comboing it with wild growth, nourish, and innervate.
There's literally counters to everything. That doesn't mean you'll always have the counter readily available. It's simply not balanced to have a 9/9 windfury minion on turn 4.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In all of our playtest, we have never complained of losing a game because of going first or second.
To me, that's not evidence that there isn't a problem (causality =/= correlation), but it is an empirical argument that if there is a problem there, it really is a very niche problem.
As far as I'm concerned, the coin is well balanced, and a very good solution to the problem it attempts to solve. Well done Hearthstone design team! Much better job that your "we don't like Europe" beta release team ;)
I still don't see why people think the coin is really good (beyond the fact that is counts as casting a spell). On ONE turn you get to have the mana advantage, on the other turns (until turn 10) you are always 1 mana behind.
Obviously it feels better because it feels like a tangible benefit, but in reality I don't see how it can work out as a much better option. I personally think the extra card is the better part of going second.
The coin may only give you mana advantage one turn but, if played correctly can create some devastating combos.
Yeah, mostly because of the fact that you're playing a spell, not because you have 1 more mana.
I agree with everyone else that it should be a button, but having 1 more mana once isn't particularly massive.
No, it isn't massive at all. You are up against being behind on the mana spending every turn. Your opponent will be the first to spend more mana each turn, being able to play more cards or bigger cards before you get a chance to answer. Having 1 card and 1 flex mana to balance it seems to not be too much.
It's mostly the benefit of synergy with spell procing cards and rogue combos that seem unfair, possibly.
If you see a bad post on the forum use the report function under it, so I or someone else of the moderation team can take care of it!
In my opinion, to make the coin more balanced they need to do:
1.- Coin + Extra card, yes, its very OP in my opinion, this way you have more options than player 1, you have "the same mana", but MORE options !
3.- If you go second, you should be able to choose between, getting "the coin", or getting 1 extra card, but not BOTH.
Why?, ive played the game a lot before the beta, with that manual program for play magic, and yeah, going second its way better, i think having coin plus card is just too much, you should be able to pick just 1 of them, and of course, the coin needs to be just mana, not a spell, and not a combo.
Exactly, that's what I agree with.
Just coin (and no benefit from it being a spell) would be severely underpowered.
I personally think the player who goes 2nd has an IMMENSE advantage over the first player. The Coin/Extra Card are too much.
And the fact that The Coin triggers cards like Questing Adventurer/Mana Addict/Mana Wyrm, and also Combos just makes it ridiculously powerful.
I think both players should be given The Coin, and just leave the Extra Card for the second player. That way both players can make the strategic decision of powering up for an early advantage, or making some bigger plays later on. Or just remove The Coin, even though it is my favorite thing... It may have to go. >_<
Going second seems to be giving a decent advantage if the player has quite a few Taunts and good "reactionary" (counter) cards. Going first seems to favor decks that have cards with Charge, and give an advantage later on in terms of hero power usage (a Hunter deck will always be ahead 2 HP with its power), from what I've seen so far.
How correct is that? Still learning the basics, so bear with me.
Playing second has an innate disadvantage. Almost everyone agrees on this, which is why so many games try to counter balance the issue. Personally, I think the coin + the card may be a little too strong of a counter balancing, however it never seems game breaking. Maybe rogues get a really good deal out of it for combo's and huge early plays. Usually, a game is more down to luck of a draw and the mana curve, not being one mana ahead. Having a taunt minion or spell out one round early can really help you out, but usually it lets you respond to the pressure that your opponent just put out. Its a love-hate relationship. You love the coin when you use it, but hate it when your enemy uses it.
I think it's almost balanced. I haven't read many of the comments in this thread, but The Coin is pretty close to balanced, but I will say it leans toward granting a better advantage than the first player gets. It could be improved by adding a restriction as to when you can use it, such as allowing the player who played The Coin to only play one additional card after The Coin to prevent some of the powerful combos I've seen out there.
Another idea is to restrict the player who has The Coin from playing it during turns 1 and 2. These are just suggestions, I haven't done any hard math on the issue. Blizzard knows balance. I'm not Blizzard. I don't know balance.
Why doesn't player 2 just start with 2/2 mana crystals? Player 1 gets first turn advantage and early board presence but is always catching up with player 2's mana crystals.
IMO player two can have the coin, but the coin AND an extra card is too much. I feel when I'm first I'm instantly in a MASSIVE disadvantage. =/ Extra card + 5 hp, or Coin. Not Coin+extra card.
I think this is a bad idea. Player 2 will always have a way larger advantage than the coin is giving. Basically, you don't have to worry about getting a 1 cost minion to start the game off in order to fully take advantage of turn 1, instead, you just hero power and laugh at player one when they didn't play a 1 cost minion the turn prior.
My problem with the coin is the Questing Adventurer. EVerytime I go second, I just hold my coin til I get my adventurer. I had a game earlier where I dropped a 6/6 on turn 3. That's ridiculous. (Drop Adventurer, Coin - 3/3, 1 mana minion - 4/4, two 0 mana spells - 6/6) As warrior this thing can instantly attack. As a Shaman if this thing makes it til turn 4 you're looking at a 8/8 or 9/9 Windfury .
I totally agree that it shouldn´t be a card that count as a spell, for the reason already mentioned. It shouldn´t trigger combos, neither count as a card, otherwhise you can easily summon a 8/8 in round 3-4
Then I silence it the next turn. I honestly think the coin is pretty balanced. The worse abuse the coin has is with the druid comboing it with wild growth, nourish, and innervate.
I've been watching quite a bit of streaming lately, and the coin does look like it is a bit too strong. The streamers I've watched have been saving them for larger board clearers or to augment twilight drakes.
There's literally counters to everything. That doesn't mean you'll always have the counter readily available. It's simply not balanced to have a 9/9 windfury minion on turn 4.