• 0

    posted a message on Opinion on book of heroes

    have not even played the last 2 cuz the first was such a slog. I love free cards but 40 dust just aint worth it. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on So What's the Complaint This Time?
    Quote from P4dge >>
    Quote from Pr1ncipe4i20 >>
    Quote from Arcengal >>

    100% going to be complaints about how the new Core Set sticks the finger up at anyone who collected the full classic set and crafted golden versions of legendaries. Which includes me, but I still get to play them in Wild so idgaf.

     

     And we are wrong to complain? We crafted golden copies...they will give us golden copies too? hmmm...
    When I say this is some sort of criminal practice many say it isn't cause it's a children's game, but u know what? The owners of the game are not children, so, lets think about it a second. Some ppl just like to be screwed and others doesn't even have anything to be screwed but are happy anyway to see other people screwed...but anyway, let's focus on what matters - Criminal Practices, u pay, they change, u paid for nothing, now they take it and now u have nothing.

     Criminal practice? You don't own these cards, they could shut down the game tomorrow and you would lose all of your cards, golden and all.

     The fact that you think this is an argument shows how ridiculous you are. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why is Antonidas leaving Standard? And Frostbolt?
    Quote from Dunscot >>
    Quote from ShadowAldrius >>

    Nobody said there's no more burst anymore, but it is evident, that burst is clearly and severely reduced across all classes, to a level where most classes get significantly slower, and some might even give up on aggressive strategies altogether. It's not impossible to die to an empty or small board, but it will be a whole lot less common.

    What classes are going to give up their aggressive strategies? Demon Hunter? Hunter? Rogue? Mage? Rogue, Demon Hunter and Hunter still have weapons, Hunter still has it's hero power. They're not going to stop being aggressive.

    Mage has less burn (for now) but it has a lot of spell damage cards to make that burn go far. And Ras Frostwhisper is still an incredibly strong card for face damage.

    Warlock and Druid will no longer be spell damage classes I suppose. But Druid actually has more ways to go face now with feral attacks than it did with a lot of it's burn spells. And they're far more efficient. Double moonlit amulet with solar eclipse is 12 face damage. Feral Rage is another 4 each. Pounce is 2 for 0.

    Also removing burn cards from core means there's room to print new ones in new sets.

    Alexstrasza is also basically a new Ragnaros really. Giving a lot of decks that haven't had that extra little damage push to end games what they need to finish off a struggling opponent. But it won't be from getting double Eviscerate off of a secret passage on turn 6. It'll be from an expensive card on turn 9.

     I didn't want to go too far into individual class discussion since it would be deserving its own topic, and it is a bit of speculation since we don't know what the next expansion looks like, and would likely predict the meta wrongly if we knew anyway, but fine...

    I certainly did not talk about Demon Hunter and Rogue. When I say "most classes", I obviously don't mean "all classes", and "some" only "might" give up playing aggressive. I would have assumed it goes without saying that Rogue and Demon Hunter have enough tools to remain as aggressive as they are now. I even mentioned DH specifically having a good amount of burst left. It honestly feels a bit like you are playing dumb here, just for the sake of it, but perhaps you felt like I'm overlooking something. So, if you want me to say that DH and Rogue are still aggressive classes, sure, consider it said. Moving on. 

    I think Hunter will be one of the classes that slows down. When the best weapon hits for 2, and there's nothing like Toxic Reinforcements, Dragonbane, Unleash, KC etc., there isn't much hope in closing games before your opponent can stabilize. The hero power pushes the class to play aggressively, so any Midranger Hunter is still more about sustained pressure, but I think the "Face Hunter" thing might actually disappear.

    Same with Shaman: Because of Inara Stormcrash and Doomhammer, the class might actually be in a good position to pursue an aggressive playstyle, and (nature) spell damage + Lightning Bolt is perhaps enough to close games out after weapon damage, but without Lava Burst and the Wrath of Air Totem, you have less reach and need more (expensive) cards for lots of damage. The Token playstyle is pretty much dead with every (temporary) board buff rotating out.

    Paladin isn't changing much, and actually gets stronger. But I can't take it seriously, when someone claims that Libram or Pure Paladin is an "aggressive" deck, lest they want to declare anything aggressive that summons minions before turn 6. The deck is as Midrange as it can get, in my opinion.

    Druid, I think will actually stop being aggressive. Maybe the Token playstyle does survive, but with Savage Roar being the main finisher, and Blessing of the Ancients rotating as well, I feel Power of the Wild and Arbor Up just isn't good enough to keep it alive, but I might be wrong there.
    The "feral" attacks in Druid could potentially be used for face damage, but here I go with history: Druid had these kind of cards very often, for long periods of time, and never used them this way. I think the only time when Druid hero attacks were somewhat scary was during the time of Malfurion the Pestilent. Slamming a bunch of one-time attacks at the face doesn't seem like a good win condition to me, especially in a class that already lacks good removal. And I definitely wouldn't go so far to rate them superior to Malygos combos.

    I am not certain about Mage and Warlock. Warlock has some wide-board synergy left, but no Sea Giant. Some discard stuff, but can they really get enough pressure on the board? Without Soulfire, there's essentially no way to win without board advantage, and Zoo isn't particularly good (or rather: not outstanding) already.

    Mage, on the other hand, has some burst damage left, but way less overall, requiring more of a build-up than pushing damage whenever it's possible or convenient. Even if a focus on Spell Damage remains a good strategy, I think it will slow down as well. Aegwynn, the Guardian will help significantly with consistency, though.

    Finally, I think Warrior is gonna drop any aggressive style for the time being. What is left for face damage can not be utilized like explosive Pirate builds of previous metas, and the Enrage deck is dropping out as well. Maybe a midrange Warrior is possible, more like new Hunter decks, perhaps with a bigger emphasis on Weapon buffs (Nitroboost, Krastinov), but even that I struggle imagining. Again, kind of like Zoolock, it's not a great build now, with more useful cards still around.

     

    Now, I can't predict the future, so I admit: Yes, sure they can release new burst cards as well. I don't think they will, or else they could have just left these cards in the Core set. I take the Core set as a statement that they wanted less and more expensive burst in the next year of Standard. For the time being, I assume that Barrens won't give us many unconditional damage spells for less than 4 or 5 mana, if any. And a 9 mana "basically Ragnaros" has to be viewed in context: Ragnaros was, at times, actually good enough in some decks with all the old burst options. Now, those options are (mostly) gone, and your opponent might have 5-10 more health on average in such situations. And decks relying on a 8, 9 or 10 mana finisher to win are on a different level than decks with Leeroy being the most expensive card, and can hardly be called "aggressive".

    In case I haven't made it clear enough already, I think there will still be aggressive decks. But under these circumstances, and unless Barrens just adds all the stuff again that was just tossed out, I think many (but not all) classes will shift more to a midrange style, as they need to rely more on board advantage than burst.

     

     I am glad there is someone here who understands gameplay. Thank you. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on So What's the Complaint This Time?

    you know how to spot a shill? It is the person who thinks you should not be allowed to say the word. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on So What's the Complaint This Time?

    So no acknowledgement that the rewards track was complete fuckery and it took a large part of the community rising up to get blizzard to fix it. All the while the shills here kept saying it was fine in it's first iteration. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on My honest opinion why duels is a failed gamemode currently

    High RNG plus High P2W means most players will avoid it like the plague it is. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I just wanted to thank Blizzard for their recent decisions regarding hearthstone

    If any of you know my posts here, I am usually extremely critical of Blizzard. But I have to acknowledge that the improvements to the rewards track and even more importantly the choice to sell the mini expansion for 2000 gold are very friendly to free to play players.

    I had almost given up hearthstone entirely. I have only been playing the minimum to complete my quests while I waited to see what Blizzard would do next with their game. So I thought I would stop by and say thank you for the recent decisions. Do something about the weighted RNG and I might consider advocating for this game. 

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 6

    posted a message on The experience of playing HS sometimes....
    Quote from Anomaly98 >>

    Lovely soliloquy...but nobody cares.

    This post belongs in the salt thread.

     

     your post should not even exist,

    a guy points out problems with the game and wants to share his experience and you want to shut him down. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Voicing my dissatisfaction
    Quote from Leifster >>
     
    Quote from Krewger >>
    Quote from BravoTeam >

    The fact that the battlepass system was a fiasco, the pure and utter greed of the cost of buying packs with such poor legendary rates and even worse dust system has pushed the meta to be stale simple because people can’t afford to have a full collection.

     This combined with huge F2P community is the death of the game. These players all gravitate towards the same lowcost decks making the game stale and repetitive. Blizzard should make every player contribute by making season pass obligatory. You don’t pay? You don’t play! 

    More income from subscriptions would facilitate cheaper/better packs with a more diversed and interesting meta as the result.

     lol, I dare them to do this. Hope you spenders enjoy playing against bots. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 14

    posted a message on Option to ban a class

    Do it in wild and priests will have 11 hour waits. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why matchups FEEL rigged
    Quote from SlydE >>
    Quote from 3nnu1 >>

    The goal is not balance, it is player engagement. That means they want a mediocre player to be able to climb with the same 50 percent win rate that a good player does. That way he can think he is good and keeps playing. They even want to bad players to be able to climb and win half their games. That is why they introduce so much 'weighted RNG' into the game. So they can control the outcomes, maintain player engagement and stimulate spending with progress gates. This is common practice in video games. Blizzard holds patents in the stimulating spending. They acquired KING which is mostly known for making a fake rigged game that stimulates spending. 

    Hearthstone is rigged, from the matchmaking, to the RNG, to the card draw......if you look into the question on your own, you will reach no other conclusion. On sites like this there are blizzard community managers whose actual job is to make you think this is an actual game and encourage you to spend money on it. Don't be taken in by the shillary. 

    I have to ask you: why are you chasing those debunked conspiracy theories when how Blizzard is working to achieve their goal of "player engagement" is right there in the open and can't even be argued against?

    Have you ever considered the math of bonus stars?  Even without calculating it, they ensure that every season, you WILL climb the ladder even with an absolutely abyssmal winrate of 30% or lower, as even at that rate, those stupidly dispropotionately rewarding win-streaks will eventually happen.

    And what about lowering the amount of stars to reach legend from 25 to 15? It is a much bigger difference than it seems, and that also rewards bad players more.

    Rank floors? Same thing. I went to a website running "reaching legend" simluations, and if you play enough games, you can reach it with a sub-50% winrate. However, if your losing streaks will be canceled out by a rank floor, it will be a lot easier.

    There is seriosly no reason to argue that the game itself is rigged. As a Starcraft 2 player, the MMR experience is pretty similar, although how easy it is to reach legend in Hearthstone is nowhere comparable to the difficulty of reaching masters in SC2.

    Actually, there are quite some similarities to the SC2 ladder. There, you have 3 very different races, and usually, players are stronger in some matchups than in others. Even so, I have not ever seen mentioned that Blizzard is "rigging" the game to pick your bad matchups. Then, there is the choice of build, which the players do themselves ingame, and there is an extremely complicated metagame where players counter and decieve eachoter. It can be compared to teching and choosing your deck in hearthstone, but if you lose, you should really be mad at yourself and your opponents, not the game.

     If you did research on blizzard you would find videos all over you tube where they promote the matchmaking rigging in SC as a positive for player engagement. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why matchups FEEL rigged

    The goal is not balance, it is player engagement. That means they want a mediocre player to be able to climb with the same 50 percent win rate that a good player does. That way he can think he is good and keeps playing. They even want to bad players to be able to climb and win half their games. That is why they introduce so much 'weighted RNG' into the game. So they can control the outcomes, maintain player engagement and stimulate spending with progress gates. This is common practice in video games. Blizzard holds patents in the stimulating spending. They acquired KING which is mostly known for making a fake rigged game that stimulates spending. 

     

    Hearthstone is rigged, from the matchmaking, to the RNG, to the card draw......if you look into the question on your own, you will reach no other conclusion. On sites like this there are blizzard community managers whose actual job is to make you think this is an actual game and encourage you to spend money on it. Don't be taken in by the shillary. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Why matchups FEEL rigged

    lol, anyone with a brain who is not shilling knows its rigged

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on We are likely to see a renerf to Raza in Renopriest in the near future!

    Further evidence that blizzard has no  clue what they are doing. i said at the time they unnerfed him that it was a stupid move. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Do you have a personal Goal in HS you strive towards?

    I play runeterra now, Way more fun. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.