Nothing. Like usual,just lackluster mechanics, overbuffed classes, underperforming classes, aggro is dominant, high amount of randomness, etc. Just hearthstone as it's been for some years now. Strapping a few newish mechanics to some cards won't change the fact that the whole base design sucks. At least for me.
- Registered User
Member for 2 months and 28 days
Last active Tue, Aug, 3 2021 00:59:25
- 0 Followers
- 17 Total Posts
- 16 Thanks
Jul 30, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on What are you most excited about in United in Stormwind?Posted in: General Discussion
Jul 18, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on What exactly do you do about buff Druid then...????Posted in: Standard Format
Or just fwck HS and play something else.
Jun 18, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on Why are there so few functioning top-tier control decks?Posted in: General Discussion
I've tried control warlock, control priest, control warrior. Control priest is "ok", but I still don't feel like back in the days when control was really strong.
Why does control get so little low? Even control priest with its gorillion heals and AoE effects can't keep up with no minion mage, deathrattle demon hunter, face hunter, aggro shaman etc.
Because blizzard doesnt give a shit about lower brackets (their statistics are based on upper legend), and because their design was shit from the start - focusing on aggro every time, as if everyone considers dying by turn 6 fun. And now, people that have played this game for a few years got accustomed to everything being aggro-favored, thus very few complain about it. This is similar to the effect of getting used to an addictive drug and thinking everything is fine(or bad laws, or anything along these lines).
Jun 12, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
Ok, I needed the morning laugh.
There's not a lot to say to be honest as you are, by your own admission, woefully ignorant and with clear deficiencies/biases that stop you from understanding how statistics work or what they even are. I'll try to elucidate you on why that's the case.
The VS report is based on 195.000 games, almost 6% of which (at all ranks) were control warrior games. Now, that's not even that many overall as according to hsreplay almost 12 million games have been played in the past week alone but, as a starting point, it's a good enough number to extrapolate from. What isn't statistically a good enough number, under any circumstance, is a pathetic 26 games played between diamond and dumpster legend. In fact, 26 games wouldn't be relevant to anything even if you'd gone from legend 15 to legend 1 with a 26-0 run (in fact, it'd be less relevant than your dumpster legend journey, funnily enough). That isn't to say that you possibly found the miraculous metabreaker, the one build of control warrior that magically elevates from tier 4 (tier 4 at all ranks, might I add) to tier 2. It is possible. Laughably unlikely, but still possible.
What actually isn't possible is that the vs report is, as you put it, wrong, when it comes to the statistics it presents. To paraphrase an overly used statement from the past months, "stats don't care about your feelings". It's possible, albeit unlikely, that the vs report next week will say "hey we were wrong, based on the new data we obtained, control warrior is actually tier 2" but at the present moment, control warrior is a dumpster archetype, marginally better than control warlock (or marginally worse, depending on your rank and meta pocket), with its best matchup against what is possibly the worst deck of the entire expansion, the almighty celestial druid that boasts a very healthy 35% wr overall.
Those are the facts, dear lad. Your meaningless 26 games don't change anything about that because 26 games are entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. And to be brutally honest, one might think that there are players out there who are more knowledgeable about the game and about control warrior as an archetype than you, you'd imagine that at least one of them would have come up with some good control warrior list by this point, don't you think?
The fact of the matter is, with enough luck (or, who knows, skill) you can reach legend with any deck. That's been true since the system changed and singular lucky streaks aren't unheard of (a 62% wr is pretty pedestrian, if we're being realistic here). But if you want anything you say to have statistical weight, go play a few thousand games with your control warrior deck. If at that point you'll still have a 62% wr then I'll be listening to your vs is wrong!1!!1!!ELEVEN tirade but until then...you are wrong and vs isn't. Cheers.
And here is why you are probably wrong:
- control warrior is a generic name for a deck which doesn't account for different versions of it (like the one OP presented)
- not everyone is able to pilot control decks properly
- not everyone is able to pilot warrior correctly
- likely a lot of people are trying to counter aggro (since this shit game is so full of it every time) that they may have turned to one of the classes that historically is good at control, the warrior
- there is positive correlation between my last point and the previous two
So, dear lad, the statistics you are so fond of and depend on, are nothing but a global view on things, that doesn't consider every variable that actually matters in such a computation. The easiest missing fact is the play times - the later it is in the day for people, the more mistakes they do with any deck. And so on...
Hope I was clear enough on why those stats are not meta defining nor unbeatable, but rather give a very general idea on you might be facing on the ladder. There is so much "human nature" involved in any game that you'd have dozens of excel sheets for different computations based on all of these variables (and averaging the resulting win rates would obviously be wrong).
Jun 12, 2021Posted in: News
The only conclusion at this point is they do no testing whatever when they make new cards.
Hey Activision, let me give you a tip. Allowing cards to cost health in a game where your hero can also become immune is absolutely terrible design. This will bite you again and again and again until you figure it out. Look at this week's tavern brawl as proof they're utterly clueless here.
True. They are a bunch of morons that keep on lying about the fact that they do take Wild mode into consideration when designing cards. And we have been their free beta testers since the game launched.
Seriously sick of this company and this so called "game designer".
Jun 11, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on So, aggro will always be king in Wild and the game itself then?Posted in: Wild Format
Aggro has always been king and will always be - because the target market for the game is mostly kids playing CS:GO and similar (i.e. fast stuff, just like aggro), with the added benefit that those not having enough time to play the game can also get more games in.
And I deeply hate Blizzard for this line of thought and their decisions. I'd much rather have 1 really good game in 20 minutes(even when losing due to my mistakes, NOT stupid retarded randomness and powercreeping), than play 4-5 meaningless games in that time, obviously still decided by stupid extreme randomness (way beyond just the card draw one).
I know, i know, not all of you think or feel as i do. Unfortunately, the way the game is designed has never showed us "the other side of the coin" and we are just used to aggro being the best choice no matter if it's able to be countered or not, due to the high number of games in the same amount of time. The problem is that the rest of us don't really have a viable choice - i'd really love to be able to play long and meaningful games, irrespective of their result, and still feel that i'm accomplishing something and having fun, etc.
Yet, that's not really possible. Every new expansion is the same shit over and over again. Demon hunter is the epitome of aggro. Mana cheating and cost cheating have plagued this game for a long a time and will continue to do so, just so teenagers can get their endorphin spike and continue playing this shit instead of buying condoms and playing with their girlfriends.
I'm sick of you, Blizzard, really sick. Have been since Brode decided to do these things, and will continue to be until you find a proper game designer that can think outside the box and change the focus/target of the game to something more meaningful.
Jun 11, 2021Posted in: Battlegrounds
Actually a very simple rule can be implemented: count the number of times a player has gone first over the course of the match.
When 2 players fight, compare this variable and give the first attack to the one with the lower value. If they are equal, coin flip.
It'll definitely skew the impression of having bad luck and make things seem more fair.
Easiest fix. Too bad they don't give a shit
Jun 10, 2021Posted in: Wild Format
Will they ever remove this free-cost bullshit from the game? Either the 0 mana spells that don't start at that cost, too much mana cheating on early turns, or the infinite amount of cards played for health instead of mana while immune. There is always something with these morons.
Man, i wish i could fire the designers of this bullcrap.
May 30, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
I agree mostly with above but I want to say, they can powercreep as much as they want. In theory it's not a bad thing, could make the game more spicy. The problem is, when they print only a few real powercreep cards and not adjust the whole game around them.
As example the problem with crabrider and farwatchpost was that no spell in that mana range does 4 dmg nor a (unbuffed) minion.
I personaly dont mind more keywords/effects on minions to spice things up nor higher stats but then we need more answers (old answers adjusted) and probably more HP or HP protection somehow.
The problem with powercreep is it adds stat inflation every time. We'll end up with 3 mana 8/8 being the norm. This means they need to readjust everything that is older, including the basic sets, every time this happens.
They just give themselves more work to do instead of making the game better. Like you said, when powercreep comes up, the older stuff is usually unable to deal with it. If the game wasn't so well designed for aggro/face decks, it wouldn't have been a problem.
In my opinion, the first three steps should be these:
- consistency changes, i.e. give up on the stupid philosophy of not putting keywords on older content that did not have them; the game should be seen as a whole, not as different stages; if one keyword was the focus of a certain expansion, it doesn't mean it can't exist before it (even laws can retroactivate, and it's even an incentive for players to buy those expansions).
- rebalance everything around players having 20 mana, 2 per turn. This way you can give a proper cost to things that are at 2.5 mana currently, and not make them overpowered nor underpowered.
- increase the player health to 40 or 45.
May 30, 2021Posted in: General Discussion
OP,i don't agree with your MTG statement from the beginning. Hearthstone, in its "simplicity", doesn't allow true interaction during the opponent's turn. This means that *every* kind of powercreep they introduce *will* be unfun to play against. And that's why people cry for nerfs - because they want to have fun,not be frustrated.
In MTG, there is a lot you can usually do to play against most things, and this makes it fun. Nothing appears as broken, except when they do some mistake and print something really overpowered that everyone starts to play or has too high win rate.
In HS, the design philosophy, since the game launched, gated (and is gating) them into a corner every time they print some new cards. It's a complete binary system - you either have fun playing something and winning, or you completely hate playing against that same thing, at least after some games.
And they simply refuse to move away from this powercreep stupidity every time they print cards. It's like they are adding more inflation to their own savings account, knowingly.
What would be ideal? More interaction, having a counter printed along with every powercreep possibility, buffing the rest of the classes and archetypes or printing cards for them too, giving up on the whole powercreep idea and making all classes have at least one viable archetype each expansion(win rate around 55% on most brackets, not only high legend).
Sure, since it's all a zero-sum game, someone must lose. That's perfectly fine. I'm not asking for EVERY archetype from EVERY class to be viable. You can have a viable control shaman but have a bad control warrior. Split them around.
Instead of making the game more complex, they went and complicated everything else - brackets (each with their own cry for nerfs and life cycle and card viability), extreme card simplicity mostly, not adding more keywords because morons can't read the explanation text, the market target being teenagers, etc.
All in all, for HS to change we need someone capable of ripping it apart and moving the design in a new direction, that doesn't apply inflation to the cards' power every new set. That's the hearthstone i'll play. Until then, some BGs will do just fine, until I get frustrated by the same stupid gating they force in this mode too, and the unfun gameplay for the bottom 4 people.
May 25, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on Honestly I don't understand why people play this game anymore.Posted in: General Discussion
I've read almost everything that was said in this thread and I kind of agree with all of you.
OP did come up as offensive with the way in which he tailored the text. Yet, looking beyond that, there is something amiss with the game, and has been for a good while now.
It doesn't really matter what is fun for each of those playing the game, simply because Blizzard never did a survey asking "what do you find fun in HS?". They simply changed some things and saw how their income went up or down. Everything else is corporate bullshit, maybe with a very small dose of truth.
Think of it like this: if the game doesn't provide more/sustainable income, do you really think the lead game designer and others would still have their jobs? Which company (especially those big as Activision) allows its employees to do whatever they want no matter how badly it impacts the revenue? Definitely not a successful one.
I believe some small/fun things do slip through the cracks (like the puzzle thingy for example). But the whole general direction of the game in terms of design and balance NEEDS to be one that brings ENOUGH money such that the shareholders are happy.
And for those of you missing Ben Brode, i'm sorry to say it, but the stupid powercreep started with him. The company saw that this attracts more children and teenagers because they are incapable of controling their urges at that age, then they devised the new experience system that rewards playing the game as much as possible.
Quests are nothing but means of gating the players towards game modes they don't usually play, to maybe make them nostalgic or something, thus spending money to be a bit more competitive (i wonder why for the past 4-5 weekly quests i've always had the one to win 5 ranked matches, considering i hate it and have stopped playing it for years).
The game CAN be balanced away from powercreep and stupid rng. It's not even about the skill of playing this game. In classic we had mostly only the card draw rng and what the opponent has in the deck. That was actually skillful. Now we have only mana cheating and minions or spells that are way too powerful for their cost. Every game is now much less fun to play against someone that is even a bit luckier than yourself. I never had this problem in classic - decks were mostly clear which beats which and what you could tech against something(a freeze mage with spellbender can win against control warrior if played carefully). Right now it's a shitfest.
Battlegrounds is a nice mode, with 3 big problems that truly make it unfun: bottom 4 people don't have any fun because the top 4 highrolled more or less, the fact that the damage is way too high usually preventing comebacks, and the fact that Blizzard is forcing OP shit down our throats every time they add something new (e.g. quillboars were OP and they knew about it, plus they are still in every god damn match).
Arena was fun the past several years, but now something is off about it. There is a huge difference between a deck with no legendaries and one with a few. The former rarely goes too high because you end up against people that have had much better options than you. Maybe this was always the case, but I don't remember a time where the gap was so huge. The prevalence of spells seems a little low too, making minions very important - yet the sheer number of possibilities means that even if you pick the most efficient minion every time and try to have a nice curve, you'll end up against people with much better decks (and having no big impacter usually means a loss). I'm not complaining about the in-game rng in this case, as it seems more or less stable in this mode, with the exception of very qualitative decks where the swings can be huge due to how the cards were designed.
Overall, I think HS has become too hard to swallow. Yes, it could be much better, it could be more fun, even to lose a game, it could imply more skill too. Yet it doesn't. By comparison to classic, this is way worse in my eyes. Back then I would not become this frustrated because there usually was something you could do. From that time, the game has got more and more aggro oriented, forcing you to invest more time into playing more games rather than fewer more satisfying ones.
This is what I personally hate about the game and the reason i'll never pay anything in it anymore. For whatever reason, blizzard's psychologists believe it's easy to just "let go" when you lose in an unfun (i.e. too fast) way. Probably this is where the market target difference resides - younger people will more likely pay to win, while older people will more likely stop playing.
It's sad really, because at least I never got frustrated after losing a longer matchup where each of us swung the board in our favour, and so on. There really can be fun when losing, even if the most endorphin-friendly thing is to win.
I would really like a chance - be it by homebrews or netdecking. I want my time to matter and to be able to play what I want and how I like. Different game modes can't provide that if their innerent problems are the same. Right now it's just a barrel of frustration. Is it that hard to not have powercreeps or to make the average game last 10 turns? Hell, make an aggro-standard and a control-standard if you have to. Balance battlegrounds so that the bottom 4 people can actually have fun playing (no, not by rewarding them). Make arena more impacting and increase the amount/chances for impactful cards.
May 11, 2021Crusader2020 posted a message on Is there any anti quilboar build share your ideas or thoughtsPosted in: Battlegrounds
@op: short answer - no, unless none of the players highroll into a lot of quillboars and start scaling. I've had games where i won with pirates and/or elementals because the quills weren't scaled enough or they misplayed something.
Long answer: blizzard's idea of "design", forcing OP tribes and making them present in every game shows how moronic they are. I can understand having the new tribe in every game for a while, to gather data, but it wasn't needed to make them OP. Even the shortest play test would've revealed they outscale everything else. Why not make them a god damn 'normal' level?! Because stupid people and ideas most likely.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.