-
- Crowleyswhitehorse
- Registered User
-
Member for 9 years, 9 months, and 9 days
Last active Tue, Feb, 6 2018 20:18:17 -
- 2
- 15
- 0 Followers
- 67 Total Posts
- 39 Thanks
⚙
Learn More
Cosmetics
Related Cards
Card Pools
✕
×
PopCard Settings
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Elements settings
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
0
4
0
A lot of it comes down to playstyle and matchups. Leeroy makes Zoo a lot more aggressive than Doomguard. You can viably hit face in the early turns and still win the game if your opponent clears your board. Against control decks that are likely to be weak in the early game but clear your board on turns 4-6, I think Leeroy is clearly superior. Against other aggressive decks, where Zoo can often win just through board dominance, Doomguard is definitely better.
I don't think it's particularly fair to judge the strength of the cards based on how often one is better than the other on a particular turn. Doomguard is a more versatile card, it's going to be useful more often than Leeroy. However, the instances when Leeroy is better - it regularly wins the game outright while having Doomguard instead would usually mean losing. Sometimes the Doomguard body will win games as-well, but a lot of the time when Doomguard is better than Leeroy - its impact isn't necessarily the difference between winning and losing.
1
0
The most important thing is that it's fast. Unfortunately we can't say the same for Yogg-Saron. What're the chances that Blizzard addressed animations eating into the next turn? Watching the stream with Brode and Frodan, Yogg comes down at the start of his turn and the animations finish at the end. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that waiting until the end of your turn to play him might just use up your opponent's whole turn.
1
0
The Japanese got it right because if you name 2 files 2015.01.04 and 2014.01.05 on a PC and organize by name, it'll always come out in the correct order. Whereas 05.01.2014 would come after 04.01.2015 as would 01.05.2014 with 01.04.2015.
0
I don't think there is any one strategy for minimizing tilt that works for everyone. For me, if I lose 4 or 5 games in a row, I really don't want to stop playing unless I can clearly identify that I'm making mistakes. If I stop in the middle of a losing streak, I feel bad about the whole play session, and as a result, enter my next play session feeling bad about the game. Usually what I'll do when I start a session badly, losing a few games in a row, is try to win my way back to where I started - then stop. If the losing streak is bigger, and I'm dropping multiple ranks, I'll just try to win one game then stop. That way at least I'm ending the session on a bit of a positive, and don't feel so much like my next session is just trying to undo what happened in my last session.
0
2
Yeah, obviously we don't know the numbers but I would have to imagine that far more people quit playing the game due to being unable to build a halfway decent deck until they've opened like 100 packs and bought both adventures. At least I know that's where a number of my friends got frustrated with the game.
How much does it really help to "teach new players about bad cards" by making 75% of the cards they have access to when they start the game bad? It seems to me that they'd learn a lot more about the game if they had some decent tools to work with and see how they interact. I'd also imagine you'd retain a lot more players if they could jump in and feel like they can play a powerful deck and compete at the lower ranks instead of just immediately getting stomped by people with bigger collections.
2
You know, Ben's video is so heavily focused on the reasons why he doesn't like nerfing cards and doesn't want to do it - it makes me think that they intentionally did a bad nerf to make people think any nerf is bad. What other explanation is there? He says in the video that their intention was to make Warsong Commander "not be played" and that he knows the card isn't good anymore. He says those things, it's not like he doesn't know that it's trash, he wanted it to be trash - the only question is why.
1
Why is it ever fine to change a card and make it useless in every facet of the game? There are tons of ways they could've changed the effect to be not game-breaking while not making Warsong Commander worse than Raid Leader. Change the existing effect to be more limiting, give it a new effect and give it better stats, give it a new effect and reduce its mana cost, keep the stats and mana cost but give it a new effect that isn't hysterically awful - just to name a few.
0
It bugs me that Ben doesn't even mention that any thought was put into what decks the new Warsong Commander would fit into. They balance the card around wanting it to remain simple, around wanting it to look familiar, around wanting it to have an effect that fits its theme - but they don't balance it around fitting it in with other cards?
It's painfully obvious that this card just doesn't fit anywhere, Raid Leader doesn't fit anywhere and it has a significantly better effect in exchange for 1 HP. I really think if you're going to just outright kill an entire deck - which they are, you should at-least try to create another one.
0
I think the biggest problem with Elven Archer is that it's often not very good on turn 1. Rarely do you want to just throw it down on an empty board, so it only really comes in handy at the start of the game as a response to your opponent's 1-health 1-drop. Compared to something like Leper Gnome in an aggro deck, comes out on 1 and often deals 4 damage - or an Argent Squire, comes out on 1, sticks to the board, gets buffed and trades up. For a 1 drop to be worthy of a card slot, it needs to be useful in almost any situation on turn 1 - or have a particularly strong synergy with your deck like Northshire Cleric.
3
The only answer to this question, and any question about RNG in Hearthstone - is that RNG can have a very large impact over any individual, or small sample of games. You can and will win and lose games based almost entirely on RNG. Skill has a greater impact over a large number of games. Over a long period of time the luck factor will even out, if you play optimally over that period you'll win a lot more often than you lose - play poorly and you'll lose a lot more often than you win.