• 1

    posted a message on Can it really be since 2021 since I enjoyed Hearthstone??

    Can it really be since 2014 that i enjoyed playing HS?! ;)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on What is the state of Wild?

    Bad, like most of the game. Try Classic

    Posted in: Wild Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Bot Pandemic

    Like i said above, it's a response to blizzard leaving China => many players from there decided to bot out of spite or whatever.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Bot Pandemic

    Since blizzard is no longer in china, i guess chinese hackers finally found a way to "crack" this game in a way that they are not easily found out (yet). It's probably a spite move. The company from china "spilling" some specific data that made the game easier to bot.

    At least blizzard's greed needs to have consequences. Definitely not enough, but it's a start.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Should they balance old cards with new keywords?

    Judging by the title, this seemed to be about something different.

    Was just about to say that they don't change old cards to use the newer keywords for the same funcionality, because it's too confusing for morons...aaaah i mean players.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Gotta love the way Blizzard treats Wild
    Quote from LIJ >>

    Not saying its terrible, but putting a 6-7 card combo (depending on weather you have guff up or not) that is weak to hand disruption, loatheb, aggro and bricking on combo pieces (or just not having the mana needed to pull it off) in a line with a card like the demon seed, is a bit silly to me.

    The deck is nowhere to be seen on latter (which admittedly is not decisive, i.e. big priest), but even if it was anywhere near as oppressive as cards like demon seed, there would still be a one card counter that isn't even class-locked.

    So yea, not trying to be mean to op, just having a chuckle.


     Kind of says something about how the matchmaking works if OP's deck is hard countered by this exact deck that is extremely rare on the ladder.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on How to make Hearthstone more enjoyable

    Well, your arguments are all very valid.

    That is why we should have access to the whole collection, even in standard. And no, not like Wild is now.

    Basically you can always "access" all/any of your cards like this:

    - wild stays the same, all cards, all expansions

    - standard gets a rotation of available expansions, like arena has now

    - these rotations change after 2 months or so, or any interval deemed appropriate to not get bored and shake up the meta, irrespective of other releases (like minisets and such)

    - probably the idea of a miniset becomes a bit redundant too, in this context

    - this also means that an "expansion" doesn't need to have 130+ cards out of which 90% are almost useless. Maybe expansions should in fact be limited minisets, with fewer released cards.

    The problem is the financial aspect for blizzard. They release huge (useless) expansions to justify the cost of the bundles and such.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Blizz match making broken
    Quote from Banur >>
    Quote from kiljaedan >>

    here they are the  hearthstone white knights rushing to defend when it’s been a known fact.

    The only known thing here is the rhetoric that is used over and over again in these topics:

    "Here is the thing I can't prove but it's true and if you disagree you are a Blizzard shill and white knight. Therefore I'm right."

    You have nothing but your few anecdotal data points. If you want to make that claim, back it up with an actual dataset and have an explanation why this was never discovered by the bigger data sites.

     It's very easy to make the system be aware of probing it. Remeber, you are using ONE account each time you play.

    System: "hey, this account faced 80% of my scripted decks in the last 50 games. It's getting obvious. Lets change back to either true pseudorandom or simply the negated scripting (i.e. don't face decks with certain cards)"

    Player: "hmm, i've had 50 games that seemed to be against scripted opponents. But the next 10 were all over the place, and it continued to be like this for a while. Hmm, must've been an unlucky randomness streak with a 0.00001% chance. Nevermind, it happens, blizzard would never do this anyway".

    System: "gottem. No big data website is gonna find out. Now let's reset the time variable for this account (yea, the variable that determines - after how many days of playing and/or being offline and/or matches played reached a certain number since the last script run - how often this scripted matchmaking should run)"

    It's funny how easy it is to implement something like this, which doesn't even need to be complicated.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on And just like that...the duels run was over...

    I am so sorry for everyone still playing HS. LoL

    Posted in: Duels
  • 0

    posted a message on My first build new expansion, i'm under the impression that undead is Op

    They ALWAYS powercreep new stuff and make them OP. They are incapable of releasing balanced stuff. And it's all about money and the target audience of this game.

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?
    Quote from AndreiLux >>

    I think balanced meta is a meta where every type of deck has at least a couple of different viable decks, there is no deck with too big winrate and every class has at least one playable (tier 3 or better) deck. The problem is, it's harder and harder to achieve with endless power creep and bigger difference between high and low levels of play (so they need to balance several metas at once).

    Quote from Anarchy1 >>

    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

    He doesn't want aggro dead, he wants control to be OP. I mean, "the board-based decks should have an easier time reaching the set rank" clearly indicates that he wants an advantage over combo too. It's interesting how in such threads aggro, midrange and combo players typically say that everything should be viable and some control players just come to rant about how the game is unbalanced and skill is not required because games are not long enough, basically implying that the game is balanced and skillful only if it is dominated by control (or even fatigue in most severe cases).

     Control decks shouldn't be OP. I never said that. Keep your issues to yourself please.

    If you want combo to be OP, sure. It's your opinion. Stop shitting on mine. Just because i don't like wasting time to play single player (i.e. watch opponent kill me in one turn without any way to answer it) doesn't mean i want any archetype to be OP.

    Sure, aggro and midrange are board-based strategies and are ok to be viable. But when the game ends too quickly it means there's an inability to answer them by other strategies. Which leads to the stupid binary metas that we keep having - you know if you have a chance by turns 5-6. Is that fun for you?? Really?? Do you like conceding or wasting your time every 2 games (based on a 50% win rate which is purely theoretical anyway)?? If so, i wish you never design a game. I wish blizzard stopped designing games too lol.

    How about playing a meaningful number of turns instead? Actually feeling like you played SOMETHING even if you end up losing. How about having multiple chances to turn the game around, no matter the archetype you use? This is what i'd like. If it's too hard to comprehend this for you, then stay in your bubble and have fun playing this fucked up game. "Balanced and fun" my ass. Yea, it's balanced and fun because you play the meta decks which give you fast and more certain wins. Trying anything else would make you miserable.

    Enjoy your stupid game. Maybe you'll come to realize some things about it after a while.


    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Has Hearthstone already passed the test of time? What do you think?

    HS is nothing special.

    Every game can pass the test of time when:

    - people are lured into it for different reasons and with different strategies

    - they are encouraged to keep spending

    - their stupid brains don't realize it's a trick to keep you invested so you never stop playing

    - the target audience seems to be kids of at most 24 years of age. Yes, they are kids. Men grow up at around 26-28. A 24 year-old male is rarely a grown-up person with respect to life and choices (i.e. there are always exceptions but that's not the point).

    - netdecking is amplifying all of the above


    Smart moves from blizzard? Sure. Immoral much? Definitely. Does "immoral" make lots of money? Oh yea baby, let it flow. Should we do something about it? Definitely. Why don't we? Because we are too stupid or suffering from a god complex. What's that??? When the game's whales need to feel powerful or like they matter in this world, they spend their very-easily-earned money on this game. But isn't it their right? Of course, but it also shows how "smart" they are and why things never change in this world.

    Meanwhile, the homeless guy you see every day on your way to the bank, to retrieve your 1million$ pocket money, has almost froze to death because he can't afford a ride to the nearest shelter.

    PS: i'm waiting for the world to have matter replicators so we won't require money anymore, for almost anything. No one starves to death, no one lacks basic clothing etc. An economy without money and based on research and self fulfilment is the best humanity has to offer. Too bad it's gonna be an utopia for a good while due to greed and power. Technically we are not that far from it - quantum mechanics and computing is the first step.

    Nice thread.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on What does a balanced meta look like?

    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.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on The Corpse Mechanic is a FAILURE

    Would you have preferred that this stupid cash-grab of a class to be overpowered, like DH was? I guess people complain no matter what. Boy, i'm glad to not be playing this shit anymore, because of all these entitled pricks.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Reallt dumb mechanic-interaction?
    Quote from GiantHaystacks >>

    Hmm... there's a sign here...  It's a bit old and faded but there's a chance that it still says something relevant.  Let me just dust it off and see what it says...

    "Do not feed the trolls"

    I'm not quite sure what that means but perhaps it's still as relevant today as it was, back when the sign was written in 1995.



     I wonder why no one changed the word "trolls" for "morons"...

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