• 0

    posted a message on Opinion on book of heroes

    These morons didn't even test these fights properly. Some of them are extremely draw dependent, while a lot of your cards are completely useless. Whoever designed this stupidity should be fired.

    Don't get me wrong, a lot of them are fine. But these "gateway" fights are really annoying and having to redo them several times makes it extremely frustrating.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Community and developer relationship at an all time low?

    Then please go to twitter and ask Iksar to do something about these things in BGs. I do agree with you.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Option to ban class to queue against?

    What he's proposing is definitely possible. Consider this:

    Each player queues with a deck. Each deck has a class attached (which has an unique id behind the scenes). Each card also has an unique id.

    Comparisons would be quite fast since each deck is basically a dictionary containing a class id and a list of 30 card ids. Comparing one id to 30 others takes a fraction of a second (especially if those ids are numbers). In most cases it wouldn't even get to this, since the first comparison is the deck's class to the card's class (with the exception of neutrals). 

    Thus, if card == neutral OR card.class == opponent.deck.class, start comparing to see if the deck contains the banned card. Else, start the match.

    Also, consider the fact that we don't see what happens when the stupid matchmaking wheel spins. At most, it would add a few dozen seconds to the queue WHEN too many players are using your banned card (and at most 1 second otherwise).

    Similarly, you assumed the deck containing your banned card gets removed from your temporary queue and the matchmaking is restarted. What if this is all changed to a "start of game" effect, in which the opponent gets that card removed from his deck?

    There are a lot of ways to improve the queue times if needed (like quickly getting a matching list of several players by mmr, then checking their decks to see if one is eligible to not have the banned card; the numbers of matched players from the list could change depending on certain conditions, like total online players, too, to further improve queue times).

     

    Now, the reason this nor something similar is ever gonna get done by blizzard is because they gain nothing out of it. Nothing. If you think they give a shit about your enjoyment of the game and not the "potential" money you could be giving them (even in the future), you're delusional.

    Moreover, they knowingly print retarded cards to force things in a certain direction. Why would they allow us to ban exactly those cards?! I mean, it's been clear for a few years that they have no clue how to think up a proper design for the game, which doesn't revolve around powercreeping. Nor do they have any incentive to do it, since few people care about it anyway, while the others happily spend their money on the game.

    All in all, it's a nice thought, definitely possible (technically), but there is no monetary incentive to do it. Quite the opposite, based on their design patterns and abilities.

    And that is why we can't have (most) nice things.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on I DID IT ! What's your level Guys! LEVEL 350!

    Level 20 bacteria here. Congrats :)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Card Analysis: How many times have you been right while almost everyone else was wrong?
    Quote from PetiteMouche >>

    I was right about Star Citizen

     What exactly is it about star citizen? You made me curious

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Is there a reason to put any card that cost more than 4 in todays meta?
    Quote from Bengalaas >>

    There's already a salt thread for the two of you.

    Everytime the meta is aggro-oriented we get a dozen articles like this, until a balance patch happens and you look for new things to blame for your inability to climb. Git Gud.

     I haven't played HS for some years now because of how "balanced" it is. No salt from me, just my point of view.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Is there a reason to put any card that cost more than 4 in todays meta?

    You need to play something else. It's been like this for years. At least you started to notice this "design" choice.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 13

    posted a message on 5 things I would change in hearthstone as a control / combo player

    The second and fourth are completely uncalled for. If no card can be reduced below 0, then giants should abide by this rule too.

    Visible secrets make them not-so-secret, so this is just your subjective complaint after losing to some secret based decks.

    I do agree with the rest though. Too bad blizzard's willingness to truly balance the game is zero. They make too much money from the teenagers' parents' credit cards to remove so much highroll potential from the game.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Raise the PVE content is the game

    Could you go into more detail about how you see the whole idea of 5 people playing at the same time?

    Suppose the "bosses" are similar to what we've seen until now in Hearthstone PVE, how would you make 5 people play at the same time? I'm mainly thinking about the time investement (i.e. 4 people need to wait for the 5th to play, and every player needs to wait 4 turns before his comes up again).

    Regarding the bosses' decks: how many cards should they have? Should they start with 5-10 mana to compensate? Should they draw 3 cards each turn? Should their hand be increased to 20? Etc

    The idea is really nice, but seems very hard to implement (and imagine all the bugs that will come up with 5 players in the same game!).

    I would do it in a very strange way: by using the observer mode! Of course we'd need a way to create parties and queue for a dungeon (or simply let the matchmaking do it). After that, we get a limited observer mode in which we see the cards of one of the players in the party, and have the ability to move around the table and "spectate" any of them. The hard part comes with making room for a 3rd "hand" to play your cards from (together with seeing the spectated player's ones and the boss's hidden hand).

    In other words, i would keep the same board but multiple players "around" it. Maybe increase its size to 10-12 minions too. This way some players could focus on healing, others on buffing, others on hard removal, other on aoe, etc.

    Nevertheless, this seems extremely hard to implement from a company that only focuses on quick winnings through launching a few card sets/expansions for many years now, with little to no improvement in anything else (you do realize duels are a rehash of dungeon runs made for pvp, right? And so on).

    The only way i see this done is through a new company that wants to make a totally different card game.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • -4

    posted a message on 19.2.1 Patch Notes - Edwin & Boggspine Nerfs - Battleground Change

    So, Elistra becomes completely useless for a 6 tier minion. The one thing that is missing is for it to keep the buffs after reborn triggers (maybe except the life total which should just be 1). Or to reduce its tavern tier to 4 or 5. Now the only way you'd want it is as a triple, and getting that is very hard considering how the games go.

    I guess it's hard to be aware of simple issues like these in your own game. Not unexpected from Blizzard's history of nerfing stuff too much, though. 

    Meanwhile, the amount of damage we take is so high that the bottom 3-4 players don't really have any fun with the game.

    But I guess nerfing a card is more important in your stupid heads than reducing the damage we take or doubling the health pools, or anything meaningful.

    Just... F.U. Blizzard...

    Posted in: News
  • 1

    posted a message on Zeddy Hearthstone Needs a Slight Reality Check
    Quote from Strongpoint >>
    Quote from DiamondDM13 >>

    I don't understand something. Why is their race or sex relevant when it comes to who is invited? Is the Invitational supposed to be a competition? And if so, based on what, what is being measured in said competition?

     Invitationals aren't exactly competitions. They are more like a show. They choose popular players, not the best players (For example Kripp is an AWFUL duels player but has a huge audience with him.)

    BTW, anyone who runs an invitational wants diversity. They want players popular withing different groups. Truth is that huge majority couldn't care less about gender, orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc., They only care if player is interesting for them to watch\root for.

     

     Exactly. It's enough to bring at least one decently looking girl, and a lot of horny teenagers are gonna flock to watch it. Of course, the next step is to cry and beg for their parents' credit card to buy them the game and try to become more famous - simply to have a chance of meeting any girls.

    This is what the "online community" is about nowadays: anxiety-driven teens that have no idea how to talk to the opposite sex, yet are horny enough to require seeing girls (even on a monitor) to trigger the need to release the boiled up testosterone.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on The new reward system rewards only afk players

    Am I the only one thinking that there is a point to all of this? Like making BGs the "main" play mode for hearthstone, while giving up on the normal play mode or exchanging it with Duels down the line?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on "I'm done with spending money on this game"

    @op: you are completely right. But please correct your post and use proper english. It really takes away from the power of the message.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Wild Combos at the Darkmoon Faire

    Your friendly grammar-nazi here:

    @RaptorWithWings: thanks for the interesting article and for the time you took to write it. Please be aware that "your" is different from "you're". You're = the short form of "you are". So, "if your running" doesn't make any sense. "Your" implies possession (of something). I cannot possess "running".

    Thank you

    Posted in: News
  • 0

    posted a message on 99% certain

    Roulettes are actually rigged, though :D

    Most casino games are, if not all. They can't afford to leave their income to "chance".

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