Hearthpwn

No. There needs to be one mode where you can play with any cards you want.

If you want another mode, that is what you should argue for; don't change Wild.

I dislike the constant butchering of Basic/Classic as well, but I don't think the best solution is to unnerf the cards and go back to evergreen Basic/Classic sets.

F2P or people who can't spend $150+ on the game each year also wants to play with the new cards. Change is good. Most of the changes are just too inaccessible to players who don't spend a lot. If having strong Basic/Classic cards prevents change ("limiting design space"), they should not be evergreen.

However, there needs to be cards that can be played for free. A free rotating Core set sort of like how there are free champions in Mobas could be one solution. With every expansion, some of the cards could come in packs, while some would be free cards for everyone to play (these could be new cards as well as already existing cards from Wild). Every card could then rotate to make Standard new every year. They wouldn't need to power creep so much anymore, and they would have much more control over how classes evolve over the years.

Quote from Draco_Cracona >>

Quote from Builder_Bob >>

Quote from Draco_Cracona >>

Counterexample: Marin the Fox, transform removal, and similar. Particularly Psychic Scream, which is extremely good against it. Also if Blizz make more strong cards like Bomb Squad that have the deathrattle as a downside, they're effectively weakening N'zoth.

 As long as you have the option to not include Bomb Squad in your list, how does it in any way weaken N'Zoth, the Corruptor? You'd need ways to give terrible deathrattle minions to your opponent to make N'Zoth, the Corruptor weaker. Marin the Fox as you mentioned could work if it was played.

 Assuming that a very strong variant of Bomb squad was printed/played, then by playing N'zoth you're forgoing the option to use that card, effectively weakening N'zoth. AM I making sense here? You'll always have the option to use it, but if you're forgoing an even more powerful effect that's stapled to a painful deathrattle, that effectively weakens N'zoth.

Quote from Draco_Cracona >>

Counterexample: Marin the Fox, transform removal, and similar. Particularly Psychic Scream, which is extremely good against it. Also if Blizz make more strong cards like Bomb Squad that have the deathrattle as a downside, they're effectively weakening N'zoth.

Quote from Slain >>

(...)

Your not supposed to have all the cards, your supposed to have some cards and build 1 deck which is best for you. On that regard Corridor Creeper is pretty good for free2plays because they can put him in almost all decks thus saving you dust when you craft him.

(...)

Quote from Liam3Bucks >>

Blizzard makes good Legendaries and Epics: "BAAAH DEATH OF F2P. Blizz is bunch of fat greedy corporate jerks."

Blizzard makes bad Legendaries and Epics: "lul Blizz hates x class. Yet another useless epic."

Quote from Warnerve75 >>

then don't play ....what is your argument? You can't afford to sit at the $100 dollar blackjack table so go sit at the $1 one son.....

Quote from DoubleSummon >>

Quote from NightCrawl3r >>

VS snapshots is based wholly on stats.  The stats tell us how good decks are when piloted by an average player. Meanwhile, you see pro players and streamers telling us that different decks are good.  This is because these people are playing HS at the highest level of skill.  IE, Aggro pally is the highest winrate deck for you if you play like an average guy; Controlock or whatever is the best if you play perfectly

As for tempostorm snapshot ... just say no to that garbage. I stopped following them since they posted "Malygos Druid" was tier S back in KFT

 this was a troll they wanted to show how good druid was.. made some people who didn't understood it craft the deck though..

 

If a country or system wants to disallow sale of loot boxes (even conditionally); offering loot boxes for "free" along side super expensive dust seems extremely scummy to me. I hope they don't get away with it.

Release the information of how the chance of opening legendaries depends on how long since you opened your last legendary. I will be a somewhat mathy article, but I don't see the reason to hide it, seeing as it basically has been reversed engineered already.

It sure would be nice to simply buy the full expansion for 50$ instead though, like any other sane game on the market. People give this game so much leeway because it looks so much like a physical CCG, even though it is just a digital game.

Quote from AkiraTerion >>

From what I've seen, Blizzard has pointedly avoided making shitty 10 drops for a few reasons, and this may be one of them.  Hopefully that pattern will hold.  The 8-drop spot is a little less reliable.  I've been toying with that Grand Archivist Priest archetype that leverages Free From Amber and Mind Control. 

The number of times that the 8-pick has pulled Lynessa Sunsorrow has been infuriating.  It's enough to make me consider yanking all but the Mind Controls.  But a timely Tirion Fordring or The Lich King has been funny as hell.

I think that new set support will continue to make it viable.

Quote from definitelynotsalty>>

(...)

In the case of archivist, the archivist is casting the spell NOT the PLAYER.  Therefore the player check fails and the darkness is not awakened.  You will, however, still draw a card because that portion of the effect does not have a conditional.

While strange, this is actually consistent with what we already know about the game.  There are other case studies that show how cards count as the casting entity and not the player.  For example, spells casted by minions do not trigger mana wyrm or reduce the cost of arcane giant.

 

(...)

Quote from RoccoLaRochelle >>

Quote from Builder_Bob >>

Quote from foldymoreskin>>

(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)

Proof would be nice.

Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?

If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.

 I think he's referring to this: https://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288 (1 minute search on google btw).

Still, it's a new patent (october 2017) and anyway still no proof that it's implemented. So far EVERY existing statistic proofs the opposite so... bring those counterproofs on, guys!

Quote from foldymoreskin>>

(...), but someone on these forums posted a link to rolling Stone article about a very real algorithm Activision has that purposefully puts players in unfavorable matchups to encourage spending money. (...)

Proof would be nice.

Just a question though, if one player is put in an unfavorable matchup to encourage spending money, who is the other player that is given the free win?

If losing encourages people to spend money, wouldn't it be simpler to just do nothing. As we know, one of the players inevitably has to lose.

Quote from Anyammis >>

Quote from Builder_Bob >>

Here's a different untested theory, based on two assumptions:[deck]Deck ID or Code[/deck]

• Candles are player specific. E.g. Player 1's The Darkness is activated by Player 2 drawing Darkness Candles, and visa versa.
• Playing the 4 cost spell Darkness Candle is a positive thing (why else would you ever play it). E.g. Player 1 playing a stolen copy of a Darkness Candle will help activate Player 1's The Darkness faster.

If these two points are true, then drawing and playing a Darkness Candle has the opposite effect. Drawing them hurts you. Playing them helps you.

If Grand Archivist would cast a Darkness Candle under these rules, it would not help awake your opponent's The Darkness, but instead advance your own. This would also leave your deck with too few Darkness Candles to activate your opponent's The Darkness, without them playing additional stolen Darkness Candles.

 Bullet two is false. Casting from hand awakens the other player's darkness if they have one, not your own. I am convinced by now though that the Archivist decides whether the candle goes to player one or two and that's why it ometimes wont awaken.

Here's a different untested theory, based on two assumptions:[deck]Deck ID or Code[/deck]

• Candles are player specific. E.g. Player 1's The Darkness is activated by Player 2 drawing Darkness Candles, and visa versa.
• Playing the 4 cost spell Darkness Candle is a positive thing (why else would you ever play it). E.g. Player 1 playing a stolen copy of a Darkness Candle will help activate Player 1's The Darkness faster.

If these two points are true, then drawing and playing a Darkness Candle has the opposite effect. Drawing them hurts you. Playing them helps you.

If Grand Archivist would cast a Darkness Candle under these rules, it would not help awake your opponent's The Darkness, but instead advance your own. This would also leave your deck with too few Darkness Candles to activate your opponent's The Darkness, without them playing additional stolen Darkness Candles.