• 2

    posted a message on 19.4.1 Balance Patch Notes - Changes to Hysteria and Duels

    Take a look at DH Hero Power's mana cost :) - that's a pretty massive change. I do agree I'm confused as to why they didn't touch Discolock but felt like Deathrattle Hunter (A deck that in my experience isn't that consistent since it's highly dependent on hitting the correct buckets) needed a change. 

    Posted in: News
  • 1

    posted a message on Turn 1 17/16 in stats.
    Quote from RendInFriend >>
    Quote from BravoTeam >>

     Of course I'm running the removal. The problem is that every game I play against Rogue starts with me mulliganing for removal. That's fine in the short run, but I would like for my interactions with the class to be different in different metas, which Edwin ensures they're not. I've done the scenario where they drop a 12/12 Edwin on 2 and I Silence it and they concede enough times. I've done the scenario where they drop a 12/12 Edwin on 2 and I can't draw removal for the life of me and they hit me for 24 before I can respond enough times. It's a card that creates the same rather shallow play scenario ad nauseam. The decision to keep a big removal VS Rogue isn't an interesting one. As much as I loved playing Handlock, neither was having to keep removal against early Mountain Giant and Molten Giant, so the cards were HoFed and the game is healthier for it. This is the problem with having a non-rotating classic set. Any card in it that can consistently warp the game around itself this much is going to get tiring.

     So you win when they play it, but it should be HoFed because rogue consistently loses with it? You don’t think mulliganing for removal when you play a against class with early minions is exactly how the game should be played? I really don’t see your point. He isn’t warping a meta around him, he is 4 card combo high rolling and is easily removed. The bigger problem for combo rogue is whirlkick, whirlkick becomes free with shadowstep and provides near infinite value.

     No. I'm not bitching about winning to Edwin. I'm not bitching about losing to Edwin. He could be a perfectly balanced 50/50 and I'd have the exact same issue. My problem is that Edwin consistently makes me play the exact same damn game of Hearthstone over and over and over. I don't care whether he's a strong card, nor do I care that there's better things Rogue does at the moment. Whirlkick Master leaves Standard next expansion. Edwin stays in Standard forever. I've been facing early big Edwins since vanilla. It's not about win or lose, it's about having the game be fun.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Turn 1 17/16 in stats.
    Quote from RendInFriend >>
    Quote from BravoTeam >>

    Do you guys not think that the fact there's an evergreen card out there that forces you to always keep hard removal against a class is something that deserves a HoF? HoF isn't about removing cards that are too powerful, it's about keeping the meta fresh. Holding Shadow Word Death or a Silence effect against Rogues (and sometimes just insta-losing if my deck doesn't run it/I don't draw it and they get lucky) isn't an interesting gameplay scenario anymore. If a card is so game winning early that you have to mulligan for it every single game... that can be fine, but only because if that card will rotate. Edwin won't. We'll be keeping big removal against Rogue FOREVER. Unless I'm brainfarting hard, there's currently no other class in the game where you always hold a specific type of card against them just in case they highroll you with an evergreen card early.

     No, I think that is perfectly fine. Shadow word: Death is a great card, why wouldn’t you be running it? Silence is an excellent mechanic that is useful against many decks. There have even been silence metas. If you aren’t running cheap single target removal in any deck, you’re doing it wrong. I’ll repeat that. Every single deck benefits from cheap single target removal. When you face rogue, you know they have a low mana curve and lots of ways to get a big scary out. You absolutely should hard mulligan for removal when you match rogue, more than any other class. I can think of ten cards that would have won the game on the spot.

     Of course I'm running the removal. The problem is that every game I play against Rogue starts with me mulliganing for removal. That's fine in the short run, but I would like for my interactions with the class to be different in different metas, which Edwin ensures they're not. I've done the scenario where they drop a 12/12 Edwin on 2 and I Silence it and they concede enough times. I've done the scenario where they drop a 12/12 Edwin on 2 and I can't draw removal for the life of me and they hit me for 24 before I can respond enough times. It's a card that creates the same rather shallow play scenario ad nauseam. The decision to keep a big removal VS Rogue isn't an interesting one. As much as I loved playing Handlock, neither was having to keep removal against early Mountain Giant and Molten Giant, so the cards were HoFed and the game is healthier for it. This is the problem with having a non-rotating classic set. Any card in it that can consistently warp the game around itself this much is going to get tiring.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Turn 1 17/16 in stats.

    Do you guys not think that the fact there's an evergreen card out there that forces you to always keep hard removal against a class is something that deserves a HoF? HoF isn't about removing cards that are too powerful, it's about keeping the meta fresh. Holding Shadow Word Death or a Silence effect against Rogues (and sometimes just insta-losing if my deck doesn't run it/I don't draw it and they get lucky) isn't an interesting gameplay scenario anymore. If a card is so game winning early that you have to mulligan for it every single game... that can be fine, but only because if that card will rotate. Edwin won't. We'll be keeping big removal against Rogue FOREVER. Unless I'm brainfarting hard, there's currently no other class in the game where you always hold a specific type of card against them just in case they highroll you with an evergreen card early.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Voicing my dissatisfaction
    Quote from HatShapedHat >>

    The complaints in this thread are mostly levied against evolve shamans but they are a symptom, not the disease.  Every expansion brings forth a shiny new set of toys which become the catalyst for hyper aggressive decks.  These decks tend to be the cheapest to craft and allow for the quickest games which is the perfect formula for bringing in and maintaining a newer player base.  

    HS was designed as a PC game which one could play on their mobile device if they so choose but that narrative has flipped because mobile is where the real money comes in and I hate to state the obvious but nothing about what I said above is going to change unless Blizz really makes a concerted effort in balancing the aggro tool set in general (which they most likely won't).  We will undoubtedly see some sort of balance change which affects evolve shaman in the coming weeks but does it really matter?  All that does is pave the way for another aggressive deck to take its place.

    Having said all that, I look forward to all of us complaining about DH again in about 3 weeks time.

     I'm seeing this "HS started as a PC game but the reason aggro is so big is that Blizz has catered to mobile" argument a lot recently, and I don't understand it. Aggro has been dominant in almost every meta since vanilla. It's not like the rise of mobile gaming has changed the way Blizzard's been designing cards: Aggro has always been the favourite strategy among players. To some extent it's because powerful aggro tools are consistently being printed, but the way Hearthstone is designed inherently favours aggro players - the fact that it's a card game where the attacker dictates everything about trades means that tempo is inherently way more important than in a game with reactive blockers, so aggro is just inherently better. This is not to mention the way having a ladder system incentivizes shorter games even at the cost of lower winrates (it's better to play four 5 minute games and lose one than to win one 20 minute game). If anything the way XP works now and the removal of the 10 gold per 3 wins was a move toward making aggro less overwhelmingly appealing. Yes, if Blizzard wanted they could push a Control or Midrange meta, but it's clear they've never ever wanted that, independent of the prevalence of mobile devices. Besides, as much as I love 40 minute long Control vs Control games the sheer level of vitriol that Priest as a class inspires means that players would basically revolt if the meta was dominated by anything other than aggro.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Voicing my dissatisfaction

    Madness at the Darkmoon Faire has been a shitshow of an expansion. None of the big cool new things (the Old Gods coming back!) have made a big impact on the meta, and we've just been flooded with slightly modified Scholomance era Aggro decks. I think the most disappointing thing is it seems like Blizzard has reverted to their old "One set of balance changes halfway through an expansion cycle" philosophy, as opposed to the rapid and constant changes they've been doing for a few sets now. I really don't understand how it's not clear that Evolve Shaman is a problem that needs fixing.

    Honestly, I'm sort of annoyed at how good everything about Scholomance was. If it'd been a less fun expansion I probably would've finally pulled the trigger on leaving the game, since I've not really enjoyed a meta since like... Saviors of Uldum? It seems like every time there's a long enough streak of bad expansions they drop one really good one that gets me hooked for a few more years - I was at the verge of leaving right before Un'Goro, and then that brought about the most fun meta since like... vanilla. I just wish they could consistently do things that good, instead of feeding us crap like Darkmoon Faire and Ashes of Outland most of the time.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Treasures badly needs a rework.

    My first instinct was "Eh, that's not a problem, the fun is seeing how well you can do with a high/low roll", but that's because I've been playing exclusively Casual Duels (spent my two free entry tickets on Heroic just to cash them in and that's about it). The treasures as are I think work really well when you're basically just screwing around and trying wacky builds. I wouldn't want to change them for Casual, since some of the funnest moments I've had were trying to pivot into a Dragon deck after I got a Dragon passive, or stuffing my deck with every Deathrattle I could after picking up a Mummy Magic, stuff like that. In Heroic I can see how it could be way more frustrating. At the very least it should ensure that you're only getting treasures your starting deck could reasonably have been built to support, like only offering Gromm's Gauntlets to Weapon classes, and only offering Tribal support cards to classes that have support for those Tribes (I doubt a Rogue would ever be taking Dragon support, for instance). At that point you're at least giving players the option to build around the possibility you'll be offered the treasure (Yes, Dragon Priest may be suboptimal, but what if you roll Dragon synergy? Do you want to put some Dragon support in your starting deck just in case) rather than including treasures that are effectively a dead option.

    Also, Robes of Shrinking needs to go. It's a worse Scrying Orb and it never doesn't feel awful.

    Posted in: Duels
  • 2

    posted a message on Turn 1 17/16 in stats.
    Quote from Alexandru_91 >>
    Quote from BravoTeam >>
    Quote from thebitterfig >>
    Quote from Star_Forge >>

    HoF him. It's time.

     Yep.

    It's not just about one powerful turn, however.

    It's about the fact that Rogues have been doing essentially the same turn for nearly seven years.

    That's just too dang long, and things should change.

    And yes, Edwin rather than Shadowstep, since Shadowstep does a lot of different things many of them new and interesting as the sets shift, but Edwin only does one boring thing.

     Hey, someone gets it!

    You HoF cards not because they're too powerful, but because they've been keeping the meta samey. Was Acolyte of Pain breaking the meta? No, but it was the staple go-to card draw for so many decks for so many years that it's outlived it being interesting in the meta. Same with cards like Molten Giant and Mountain Giant. None of them were overpowered, nor did you face them in every deck, but they were a consistent part of the meta basically since launch, and seeing the same effects be crucial every game in the same way. Do I get stomped by a big Edwin every game against Rogue? No. Often they don't have it, and when they do sometimes I have an answer and then they're out of gas and I win. The thing is that scenario's been happening to me literally since before the game launched, and every game that involves an early big Edwin plays out the same: Either I have a removal in hand and win against an empty hand, or I don't and get stomped. It's run its course, and neither the win nor lose scenario against the card is interesting anymore. Just get rid of it.

     Rogue had plenty of metas where Edwin wasnt even used. Yes it was used on game launch in a Miracle deck. but expansions changed Rogue decks. Oil Rogue, Quest Rogue, Galakrond Rogue(which was used there), Odd Rogue(saw some experimentation), Water Rogue, Kingsbane Rogue, Mill Rogue (Wild). When it gets support it shines, same with other cards as well and yes i am quite looking at Auctioner too since Druid can abuse it a lot nowadays and is another one of those cards that limit design space.

    There was also plenty of metas where Acolyte of Pain, Mountain Giant and Molten Giant saw no play, and yet they got Hall of Famed, and for good reason. It doesn't have to be a case of Edwin being in every Rogue deck ever (and he's been optimal in far more Rogue decks than not - the fact that we got a reprieve from big Edwins during say, the days of Quest Rogue, doesn't mean he's not a staple of Rogue decks). It has to be that Edwin's a card that's been consistently creating the exact same play scenario since beta and has come up often enough. It's interesting that you bring up Auctioneer as a HoF candidate, since that card's not seen play for ages. That said, I'd be OK with HoFing it too, along with a bunch of other Classic cards. I've played since closed Beta, and as a result there's so many Classic cards that I'm very tired of seeing being central to a game - I just want new scenarios to take the stage, rather than playing the same match I've played a million times for the million and first time.

    I mean, in terms of just card design, I'd like for there to be a rotating Classic set where only certain Classic cards are playable in certain metas (this would massively screw F2P players though, so I wouldn't actually want to see it implemented), so you're not going to see me advocating against HoFing much.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 2

    posted a message on Turn 1 17/16 in stats.
    Quote from thebitterfig >>
    Quote from Star_Forge >>

    HoF him. It's time.

     Yep.

    It's not just about one powerful turn, however.

    It's about the fact that Rogues have been doing essentially the same turn for nearly seven years.

    That's just too dang long, and things should change.

    And yes, Edwin rather than Shadowstep, since Shadowstep does a lot of different things many of them new and interesting as the sets shift, but Edwin only does one boring thing.

     Hey, someone gets it!

    You HoF cards not because they're too powerful, but because they've been keeping the meta samey. Was Acolyte of Pain breaking the meta? No, but it was the staple go-to card draw for so many decks for so many years that it's outlived it being interesting in the meta. Same with cards like Molten Giant and Mountain Giant. None of them were overpowered, nor did you face them in every deck, but they were a consistent part of the meta basically since launch, and seeing the same effects be crucial every game in the same way. Do I get stomped by a big Edwin every game against Rogue? No. Often they don't have it, and when they do sometimes I have an answer and then they're out of gas and I win. The thing is that scenario's been happening to me literally since before the game launched, and every game that involves an early big Edwin plays out the same: Either I have a removal in hand and win against an empty hand, or I don't and get stomped. It's run its course, and neither the win nor lose scenario against the card is interesting anymore. Just get rid of it.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 3

    posted a message on Does Bladestorm has a limit?

    Most spells like this have a hardcoded limit. It's there to prevent infinite loops with Deathspeaker, Commanding Shout and pre-nerf Dreadsteed, where a card could technically never end. It does seem really stupid to have a card like Yogg that can very often get to over 30 HP in the same Standard rotation as Bladestorm and not consider like... doing something more clever with those effects, like coding them to check if they're having some sort of effect, rather than just to not act the way the text says they do.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Imagine a hearthstone without so much aggro

    It's basically what you said: Aggro tends to be the most powerful, cheapest, and fastest deck to climb ladder with. It's also one of the simplest to learn and play efficiently (there's more complexity in Aggro vs Aggro than people tend to give credit for, but it's still undeniably simpler than a Control or Combo deck). During the reign of Pirate Warrior in... Un'Goro? Gadgetzan? one of those two, I introduced one of my uni friends to Hearthstone, and he proceeded to grind Pirate Warrior to Legend in his second month. He agreed with me that the the deck wasn't more fun to play, but he told me he had more fun winning a boring deck than losing with a fun deck. As someone who's stubbornly played Paladin in every expansion cycle because I like how the class feels, (and let me tell you, the class is bad a lot more of the time than people seem to realize) I don't get that, but it's obvious a lot of people do.

    I don't think there's anything wrong with Aggro being dominant in one given meta, but I do wish that we had Control/Combo/Midrange metas more often. There's almost always some ultra-powerful Aggro deck warping the meta, but it's only been one or two expansions for each of the other archetypes, and they tend to get nerfed really fast. As overwhelming as say Cubelock was it was refreshing that you had to spec your deck against something other than early game board flooding.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on priest matchmaking
    Quote from irhmgg1 >>

    another reason they are manipulating RNG is libram pally.

    they have 2×1 drops and 2×FDoS

    these 4 cards are played close to zoo in first turn.

    i actually have hard time playing a 1 drop as zoo in first turn.

    librams are EZ, 

    or first days of evolve shaman they were obviously counter evolving.

    RNG cards are almot highest WR cards in game becuz blizzard really thinks they are fun.

    there are other proofs, dont have time

    -Played another 4 games of Priest to keep up with your incredible data collection. 2 Demon Hunter, 1 Highlander Hunter, 1 Pure Paladin. I don't play Priest either. Once again, I played against classes that are part of the meta. At this rate between the two of us we'll have a useful dataset in a month or so.

    -Assuming a Libram Paladin hard mulligans for Aldor Attendant and First Day of School, going first (ie having less cards in their opening hand) they'll have seen 7 cards by the time they're playing turn 1 (3 pre-mulligan, 3 post-mulligan, 1 draw at the start of turn 1). That means they have a (26/30)*(25/29)*(24/28)*...*(20/24) = 32% chance of NOT drawing any of their turn 1 cards by turn 1. So, them having a play on turn 1 two thirds of the time is expected. Yes, they're probably also holding cards other than their turn 1 plays sometimes (you hold Consecration vs Demon Hunter, and Hand of A'dal against slower decks), but the probability is still somewhere around 60% that they have Aldor or First Day. Once again, you conspiracy types are easily disproven by high-school level maths.

    -I don't know what the hell "obviously counter evolving means.

    -The only cards in the top 20 sorted by Deck Winrate on HSReplay at the moments that feature heavy RNG are Dragonbane, Demon Companion, and Imprisoned Felmaw. These all happen to be cards that are very powerful regardless of whether you get lucky on RNG or not. This is typically the sort of RNG that sees play in Hearthstone, cards where the average RNG on them is strong. If RNG was getting rigged to be positive most of the time Mad Bomber would be dominating the meta right now as a 2 mana 3/2 with a Darkbomb attached to it.

    Posted in: Priest
  • 2

    posted a message on priest matchmaking

    As an experiment, I played 5 games with Priest. 1 Priest, 2 Rogues, 1 Demon Hunter, 1 Paladin. RIGGED! I HAD GAMES! AGAINST CLASSES! IN HEARTHSTONE! RIGGED!

    Bit of light reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    6 games is a pitiful sample size as anyone who's attended a high school maths class can tell you.

    Posted in: Priest
  • 0

    posted a message on A few ideas to improve the game

    1) is a good idea in that the XP given by matches feels quite unrewarding - it's all about quests. To be honest I'd rather they just up the XP per match. I mean, you say that doubling the winner's XP would make losing not feel like a waste of time, but surely it's even more upsetting than before knowing you've halved your XP on top of losing stars?

    2) Yes, yes, yes. Also for casual duels. Duels is funnest at high wins when it's insane deck with crazy treasures vs insane deck with crazy treasures. A system that pulls everyone to a 50% winrate is completely counter to what makes the mode special. Since my MMR's leveled out I've stopped enjoying Duels even though I was in love with it for a while. Just implement the Arena matchmaking system, where you're matched against people with your same winrate. Queue times may get longer, but it'll make the mode actual fun.

    3) People have pointed out why this is a bad idea. I do like the spirit, though. Maybe implement some sort of "rental" system, where you can use X amount of gold/dust to have access to the card for X amount of time, or a certain number of games? They can probably tweak the numbers to where it's unappealing to rent the card over and over, but worth it if you're just doing some testing. People on here would probably get mad and call it a scam to get rid of people's dust though...

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What the fuck is this UI

    The scroll wheel on a mouse seems to be the only way. Most laptop touchpads have some sort of scroll wheel functionality (my current does it if you use two fingers, my previous one if you used the right edge), but it is super shitty that it leaves out the few laptops that don't. 

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