1
Is there any way to play the old version of Battlegrounds, I mean those times BEFORE Dragons were added and AFTER Nightmare Amalgam was removed?
The thing is I somehow don't like Dragons, Pirates, Elementals and Quillboars.
I somehow don't like this nowadays-version but maybe that's just me.
1
Zoolock back in the day was way harder to play then control in that time
4
its easy to pick up and objectively more fun then MTG online, which means yes it has passed the test of time and HS will be this card game everyone and their dog knows for the next few decades
1
Quote from CrusaderRO >>OP, i think it's all of your options. What i see as balanced:
- every class has at least 2 viable archetypes, with at least 1 deck from each.
- the same player (i.e. same skill) should be able to reach the same rank (e.g. diamond 5) in the same amount of time played or games, + or - a deviation of at most 10%. Maybe 15% for some fringe decks.
- games should very rarely last less than 10-12 turns
- every spell should cost at least 1 mana, except those designed to cost 0.
- the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank (i.e. they should win more, within that standard deviation of 10-15%).
- losing should never feel bad. You should always have something to try, which provides enough satisfaction that you actually PLAYED a game, even if lost.
- swing turns should never be binary, except a few which each class should have access to and with great (and similar) costs. This means that most board clears should only allow you to regain tempo (even in future turns) instead of either making you win right there, or the opponent having OP cards that your board clear is useless anyway.
- this implies that the health of heroes should be (much) larger than 30. Or that each player can choose a card to play from his deck for free, at certain turns, or whatever. Basically allowing a swing turn to happen for the one behind, full knowing that the opponent can do it too afterwards.
- games are way way too binary, instead of actual battles which leave you gasping for air. This needs to change badly.
- the cards' cost should be more or less fixed, and computed automatically. E.g. taunt is valued at 0.5 mana, divine shield at 1 mana, etc. It's much easier to balance something knowing that every other card is in line with the cost. For uneven costs, either start using double of everything (mana cost and available mana crystals) so you always get an integer, or simply make the cost the low/high value depending on projected/tested impact of the card.
- stop making stupid filler cards every expansion. I'd rather have 30 cards with real impact (in standard, wild, arena) than 100 more useless cards. If you want filler for arena, then release separate sets for exactly this!
- start testing your cards before release, in real games. Make a limited access test realm for HS and invite certain players to play and give feedback.
- stop making this game targeted at teenagers. Have some dignity. People want to use their brain. You want to make it accessible? Sure. There's casual mode for you. Or wild. Or any other mode you can think of that would lower the IQ requirements, game duration, strategy, and amount of fun. But please, stop fucking up constructed. Not everyone has to play it! Or i don't know, make an "elite mode". Stop putting all people in the same boat. It's annoying as hell.
- remove or change the game modes that you don't give a shit about or barely do anything to balance them properly.
This is balanced for me. Also the reason i'm not gonna play HS again. Not for stupid hype stuff like the DK. At least i can admit that it's not overpowered and that they did a much better job than with DH. A small step in the right direction. Too bad the impact for arena was missed completely.
You don’t describe a balanced meta.You just describe what you like
-Claiming that an average game length of 10 to 12 turns per player is balanced or healthy: what about aggro decks? You want multiple viable archetypes but at the same time want aggro dead
-your mana pricing rule leads to a game like classic hearthstone. A game I wouldn’t play
-you state that’s why you won’t play hearthstone anymore. Why then bother writing about the game?
3
Quote from TMRobinson >>Quote from TallStranger >>Quote from TMRobinson >>The sad thing is most pros and streamers still dictate the meta and very few players actually spend the time and patience to build a deck of their own that works.Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag here. The reason you see "netdecks" is because the decks they create (which they "actually spend the time and patience to build") ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. Why? Because the current crop of cards in Standard provide sufficient support for said decks. There's a reason you don't see an Undead Hunter or Pirate Shaman. You'd have to be an idiot to try to ladder with it.
I'd venture to bet that most people, if they bothered, could come up with a Quest DH deck that is 95% identical to the "meta" deck that a streamer puts together. It's not that hard. So why waste valuable time reinventing the wheel? I could grow my own food, but I'd rather go to the grocery store.
I swear, some people think it takes some deep brilliance to put together a deck of 30 cards. It's not rocket science.
No it's not rocket science and yet everyone just copies tier 1 and 2 decks from HS replay or any other deck site. I wouldn't call it deep brilliance but yes players need a deeper understanding of the game to build a deck that functions well from top to bottom (early game to late game). I'd say 1 out of every 10 games do i see someone using a meta deck that has a single different card than the net deck version. At a certain point it becomes so easy to counter because every turn is so predictable. Judging by the fact that you've posted no decks on this site and you've been a member since 2016 leads me to believe you've always copied others decks and you're trying to justify not taking the effort to do it yourself.
1) No, actually, you don't need "a deeper understanding of the game" to build a good deck. You need a few functioning brain cells and some experience playing the game. To take a dated example, look at Mech Mage. Do you honestly want to tell me that creating that deck takes a deep understanding of the game? Any idiot could create that deck in 10 minutes. Over time, people realized that certain cards weren't very good in the deck, but that's a change at the margin. The basic wincon and play choices remained pretty steady. I realize some people need to feel like they're special by saying "I create my own decks," but in most cases, they've taken 28 cards shared by all decks of that archetype, tossed in a couple different cards, and walked away telling themselves they're better than everyone else.
2) That said, the very term netdeck is stupid. As an example, I looked up deck lists for the contemporary version of Miracle Rogue. Some of the decks use Necrolord Draka, others use Astalor Bloodsworn. Some use Gone Fishin', some Tooth of Nefarian. So, which one's the netdeck? Look at any of the major archetypes and you'll find the same: 90% identical, with a few differences (often tech cards). When most people complain about netdecks, what they're really complaining about is the fact that the number of high-performing archetypes is too small.
3) As for your snide little deckbuilding comment, here's a news flash for you: One can, in fact, create a deck without posting it here. Those are two separate things. I do, periodically, create decks entirely of my own, mostly to play either in Casual or at a floor in Ladder. If I'm looking to climb the ladder, I'll typically look at 4-5 different version of the deck I'm interested in playing to see what cards are in common and which ones are different. The cards that all the decks have in common are usually going to account for 27 or 28 of the cards in the deck. Then, I'll make a decision about what the final couple of cards will be. That decision will depend on a) what cards I have/ what I'd need to craft and b) what decks I have been seeing on ladder. Does that make me a hated "netdecker?" I don't know and I don't care. I'm having fun and succeeding. In the interest of full disclosure, I will confess that sometimes I find a deck that looks good and fun, so I copy it entirely. I sure hope that doesn't make you lose respect for me. /sarcasm
4) While we're on the subject of people's decks, I took a look at yours. Yeah, I see what you mean. That N'Zoth Deathrattle Hunter was really cutting edge. I'm sure no one else thought of it. Same for your Quest DH. I'm blown away.
2
Quote from TMRobinson >>The sad thing is most pros and streamers still dictate the meta and very few players actually spend the time and patience to build a deck of their own that works.
Sorry, I'm throwing the BS flag here. The reason you see "netdecks" is because the decks they create (which they "actually spend the time and patience to build") ARE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE. Why? Because the current crop of cards in Standard provide sufficient support for said decks. There's a reason you don't see an Undead Hunter or Pirate Shaman. You'd have to be an idiot to try to ladder with it.
I'd venture to bet that most people, if they bothered, could come up with a Quest DH deck that is 95% identical to the "meta" deck that a streamer puts together. It's not that hard. So why waste valuable time reinventing the wheel? I could grow my own food, but I'd rather go to the grocery store.
I swear, some people think it takes some deep brilliance to put together a deck of 30 cards. It's not rocket science.
3
We now know that, later this month, Blizzard will be releasing some balance changes. There have also been countless threads here about the need to nerf this deck/ card. But, what never seems to be addressed is what we mean by a "balanced" meta? In most cases, the poster calling for a nerf completely fails to address what will happen AFTER that nerf takes effect. What will that change do to other decks? What deck will then be the new top dog? (For example, many are calling for nerfs to Miracle Rogue and Quest DH. Will that, as seems likely, make Spitter Hunter the dominant deck?)
So, let me ask you all, is a balanced meta:
a) one in which every class has a viable deck to ladder? If so, how high? Legend? Diamond? Platinum?; OR
b) one in which every type of deck (aggro, midrange, control, combo) has a viable deck?; OR
c) one in which both minion-based and spell-based decks are viable?; OR
d) some other condition I can't think of.
I, speaking for myself, lean towards b), but could be convinced otherwise. Would love to hear some real thoughts and analysis, vice bile. (May be asking too much!)
2
Quote from Krishno_NL >>My take on the point...
Blizzard should create a new format... for people who want to play fundecks... and they can do this by banning certain cards in the format, being wild, or standard... and every month the banlist gets extended with most played cards in this format... and unbanning cards from a class that is very little played... a dynamic banlist so to speak...
I'd never use that mode, though, because when I feel like playing a casual game of Hearthstone with whatever deck I feel like playing and no ranks to be gained or lost there's already a mode for that.
I'm aware that some players have created their own set of informal rules about what I should and shouldn't play in casual, and that those players might be upset when I break their rules. Some might even send me a friend request and try to explain their headcanon to me after the game, and others will just tell me to die of cancer, but I really couldn't care less about that.
To engage with your point a bit more seriously, though, I don't think that would work.
For example, I've mainly played variations of Curse of Agony warlock since that card came out I think during Barrens.
It's a bad deck, the sort that I think no one would disapprove of it I was to play it in Casual, but I just think that card is cool and I've had a lot of fun with it.
Key cards are Brann, School Teacher, Lady Darkvein, Tamsin Roame, Dreadlich Tamsin. Removing any one of those cards would tank its already poor win rate. Those are all super strong cards though, the sort that might get banned under your system.
Even bad, fun, memey strategies need good cards.
So even if I accepted in principle that it's wrong to play whatever deck you want in casual, I wouldn't even be able to play my crappy home-brew decks in your proposed format.
1
People who cry about opponents not playing what they want just because they want an easy time should play vs the ai in practice mode. Do not expect other people to play what you want or expect, grow up. Everyone has the right to play whatever they want.
2
It's amazing how many threads can be created that all have the same basic point: I want other people to play like I want them to.
It's truly mind boggling. All the anti-aggro threads, anti-combo threads, nerf threads, etc. are all saying that same thing. One would think people would pick up on it, but self awareness is very a difficult thing.
1
This is either a low sample size or an example of confirmation bias. I have not noticed such a phenomenon in my 54 successful legend runs. Last fights have not been harder or easier than others.
1
Aggro is absolutely not dead. Renathal is not that good and definitely overplayed.
2
That doesn't mean games are interesting for both players. It means that deck whose goal in a matchup was to survive long enough succeeded.
If a game was short, it was "interesting" for a faster deck's pilot, if it was long, it was "interesting" for a slower deck's pilot.
1
I said nothing related to Russia as a country at all, I said how Blizzard localized name "Y'Shaarj" to another language. It makes absolutely no sense to connect Blizzard's Russian localization of a children's card game to the actions of Russian government. Not every Russian speaker is a Russian government's supporter.
1
Hearthstone doing a good job (well, better than 7 years ago) in terms of diversity of decks (not in the current Aggro DH/CW meta maybe, but on average), but not feels as creative. Why? You're blame netdecking, but it was here forever. In my opinion the problem is that the meta is more and more handcrafted by devs, so you always have a clear direction where your deck should go from build-around cards even if you are building an off-meta deck from scratch. Quests, tribe decks, spell decks, all of them became limited by a couple of tech choices pretty quickly.
Most of the people enjoy actual gameplay, not a deck building part, and don't want to waste 3-4 days to refine something homebrewed. Is it a bad thing? I think it's only a bad thing if you want to be a creative deckbuilder and insist that others for some reason should do the same to begin with. I would rather waste 3-4 hours to make 3-4 perfect builds of 3-4 top meta decks and play. For me it's a sport, not a creativity contest, so all I want is the highest winrate possible. If I want more fun and variety, I would still not invent more archetypes, I would make 15-18 best builds with every class represented and make a "competition" between them by playing normally and removing the worst performing decks after each round (did it several times, very interesting, but also very time-consuming).
If I use an off-meta deck for a legend climb, I use it because I feel it's potentially the highest winrate choice for me. Holy paladin is almost off-meta deck by now, treated as a worse CW, and I climbed with a slightly tweaked build of it to the legend this month. Was it to express my creativity? No, it was because it beats DH and I felt comfortable enough in CW matchup, so it was the most suitable for the pocket meta I faced. If there were more Mech decks, I would just go DH.
8-2 run of your Unicorn Priest is not enough to say that the deck beats DH, Warrior, Hunter, Druid and all the mechs. Even if you actually found a hidden gem here and will get #1 legend with it, it will just become a meta deck very soon. You can't beat the hive mind as a part of it, you can only exploit it for a limited amount of time.
TL;DR: Everyone does what they think is fun for them, if deckbuilding isn't a part of it, netdecking is a rational choice.
23
I'm glad that they are paying attention to the Arena, and announced changes are welcomed, but this is very worrying:
I will never get tired of repeating: the more synergies in the Arena, the worse it is for the Arena. This is the only mode where there are not so many synergies, it's one of its biggest benefits, and yet they try to feed us with synergies again. Can't we leave at least one mode where there are few synergies? Some players (crazy ones, I know) like to see yetis on board eating spider tanks, not a worsened version of constructed, like Duels.
2
People are roping because they don't have enough time? Let's give them even less time!
1
Sid Meier
1
He clearly doesn't need the 11х bonus just to get to the legend as he is capable of doing it without it in a week. It's a matter of time management. It's important for players who don't climb a lot inside the legend, as it allows to play other modes more. I'm not always have 11x bonus and still hit legend regardless, but I obviously have to play less BGs or Arena in months when I only have 10х bonus.
1
> Is getting gold much harder nowadays?
No, there is more gold, but it is positioned on the reward track the way you will get most of it in the end, so at the start it looks like less gold.
> Did the game become even more P2W than it was?
No, and it never was. In terms of being F2P it became worse. There are more nerfs, so there are more decks used, so you need more dust now to keep up.
> Is there any point in buying anything other than the last 3 expansions, assuming I'm only interested in playing Standard?
No.
> So I understand that the expansions released in 2020 (Outland -> Darkmoon) will still be available till the end of the year?
No. After the first expansion of 2022 rotation will happen and 2020 expansions would be removed from Standard.
> Are there any "universal" Legendaries worth to craft that can be used by multiple classes?
No, there are some good neutral legendaries, like Mr. Smite, but nothing at the Boom's level of number of decks interested in it.