Hearthpwn

except when, unlike normal decks, it can be drafted more than twice...so yeah applying logic from standard/wild games in the context of arena isn't apples to apples.

so I just combo'ed Lord Barov followed by Teron Gorefiend and all my opponent's minions remained even though Barov's deathrattle triggered--only against Teron, ironically.

I REALLY like this card but it needs either a health buff between 1-2 or a 1-mana cost decrease.  Like others have stated--its health is on the "weak side."  It can really only survive for one turn in standard these days and with rogue, that amounts to maybe 1 or 2 additional combo cards that may (OR MAY NOT) be useful.

You could always shadowstep or togwaggle it but I'm getting tired of that gimmick (a routine where you have to slot special cards in your deck merely to just preserve your other cards' utilities with the added penalty of having to pay for it again and-or draw it again as well), rogue has good cards but they tend to depend on minions that are super squishy.  Side note: just once, I'd like to see some more durability on the rogue's side.  Rogue is always fun to play because it requires solid, tactical deck-building to win (see squishy comment).

This is a very cool, albeit excessively squishy, card.  Even Shadowjeweler Hanar has 2-more health for similar utility.  Even though Hanar is legendary--whirlkick is epic so I think she deserves more health being a tier-2 card.

it sounds like bad cookies, if it's not a problem for you--I recommend deleting all your cookies but this means you have to re-login to all sites that require a username-password that you have previously specified to be remembered.

If you can swing that and login to hearthpwn and try a test upload of a new deck, I suspect that may have been your issue all along, given you can see what you thought wasn't saving.

I'll let xskarma takeover from here.

#toomanychefs

cheers, Oreli!

~Dapp

have you tried a different browser? If you have the option to try a different browser, do a simple test to see if it works in another browser--at a minimum you could isolate where the problem is if it works in other browsers than your default.

If you're on a mobile device, perhaps requesting the desktop-version of the site might resolve the problem.

also, make sure your browser is up to date.

If you run a lot of browser add-ons (plug-ins/extensions) then you may need to temporarily disable them (access add-ons usually with ctrl+shift+A, not sure what the mac equivalent is off-hand).

If you haven't resolved this within a day or two, I would email support@hearthpwn.com for some proper assistance; provide browser version and operating system initially so they don't have to ask you for it.

Also, make sure you're not in private-mode because cookies are disabled by default in that and it may be what's causing the issue.

never had any experience with this, but from experience of having messed something up in the writeup and there being no option to edit the actual writeup-portion of a deck on the hearthpwn site itself--I recommend saving your writeup in wordpad (or any word-processing utility that preserves spacing and line-returns) prior to submission on the site, since copying and pasting the deck hash is easy enough.

With this practice, you could at least copy and paste your writeups once the issue with deck submissions is resolved.

I know this doesn't address your problem but it does offer an alternative to losing your effort altogether.

Hope your issue gets squared away soon.

~Dapp

Quote from Dapptastic_ >>

has anybody ever been able to glean verifiable data about players auto-conceding to given classes?

 

I'm most interested in percentages related to priest-class matches but would welcome any figures as a general talking point of interest.

So yeah, would love to see how the playerbase reacts to given classes.

 

cheers and thanks, in advance!

~Dapp

 meant to write "...to given classes."

has anybody ever been able to glean verifiable data about players auto-conceding to given classes?

I'm most interested in percentages related to priest-class matches but would welcome any figures as a general talking point of interest.

So yeah, would love to see how the playerbase reacts to

cheers and thanks, in advance!

~Dapp

e.g. play warrior, hunter, mage, etc. for 3 matches.

what fulfills the condition for credit of playing 1 match?  Is it a number of turns, cards played, a combination thereof, or something else altogether?

Just wondering, because when I know I'll lose a match (when I'm trying to satisfy the quest) and, in the spirit of saving time--I quit, sometimes I get credit but sometimes I don't.

So to further save time, if I know that I should've waited another turn or played a couple more cards--I could save myself the trouble of having to play another match entirely when I could have avoided the scenario of quitting too early.

thanks in advance!

~Dapp

Quote from SCWT_FTW >>

I think the problem with “he needed to draw specific cards” as an excuse for why this isn’t problematic just doesn’t work because drawing cards, regardless of whether they are specific ones or not, is totally random and completely unrelated to skill.

 At what point are people going to stop defending the criminal "RNG" and start defending strategic, well-thought out decks?*

Hearthstone is a card game that is heralded by its own developers as a "strategic" game.  I present to the jury, evidence A.

You'll have to reference the attached screenshot, taken from Google Playstore's Hearthstone mall front just minutes before this writing.

If players don't clamor to defend strategy over RNG, this game will eternally suffer from plain-old ugly wins.  At what point is enough--enough?

Strategy seems to be taking a backseat to "RNG" and unbalanced designer mechanics.  Just look at the patch history to see the massive disconnect between design and implementation for a litany of revisions.

I love the diversity of the game's mechanics but simply put lucky plays taking the victory should be an outlier in the realm of probability, that's why it's called lucky--because under ordinary circumstances sh*t decks should lose to well-thought out decks on any given day of the week.

I say this as a massive fan of tactics and strategy, ala chess.

I personally think players need to wise up to this shameful status quo otherwise it won't change but I also respect others rights to think what they do.

cheers and happy gaming to all, just the same!

~Dapp

*DISCLAIMER! to the guy/gal I quoted; my reply was not a personal attack.  I simply seized the opportunity to address the issue raised about a given outcome in hearthstone being unrelated to skill; not trying to flame anybody

I wouldn't say strategy is overrated as much as it isn't respected but I think we're in the same camp of thought.  I'm of the opinion that a well-thought out deck shouldn't lose to decks that depend on some kind of gimmick or specific combination of card chains that consistently occur.

Quote from I_Feel_Ur_Pain >>

Huh. Your bitching about losing to a tier 4 deck 

 I don't follow tier lists; I play casually and I have never copied and pasted a deck for play outside of PvE adventures.

If you think I was bitching--good to know.

thanks for your mainly useless critique??? 

Quote from parzival2345 >>

On a somewhat related note, I personally hate losing to what I consider to be bad decks. So at the start of AoO when people were still experimenting with spell only mage, it was really frustrating to lose to it. Is there really such a difference between losing to a deck with around 48 percent winrate (like spell mage) than a deck with a 52 percent winrate? No, but I always feel kinda cheated when I lose to a tier 4 deck. 

But thats just a psychological issue, so I digress. 

As far as no minion mage goes, it isn't particularly focused on randomness. Sure one of the power cards generates a random 5 mana minion, but thats just a random hunk of stats. Sure you can highroll or lowroll, but most of the time you just get a or the like 5/5. Much more impactful is if they have Incanter's Flow on curve. 

Yogg box on the other hand is a terrible kind of RNG, but I'm not sure if its even a good card in no minion mage. 

Anyway, blizzard does NOT rig the results in any way, people play these decks because they want to. 

I think you had some valid things to say otherwise, insightful and much appreciated.  But this kinda deck archetype couldn't survive outside of experimental play if the results weren't rigged to some degree.  They have to be rigged sufficiently to be a viable trend at all; that's my argument and why I take issue with the idea that it's supposed to depend on randomness for the outcome of its discover cards and random-minion summons.

I might just be showing my inexperience with RNG if that's the case but also why I took the time to say I experienced the Yogg era, my experiences then differed from that of this no-minion mage deck archetype though.  Hence why I'm baffled it does as well as it does.

It's like going through old people's day-of-the-week pill case randomly sampling drugs and always expecting some kinda happy pill..and then it always is a happy pill.  <<< That shouldn't be the case.

EQuote from I_Feel_Ur_Pain >>

You are bitching about a deck that relies on spells randomly given . Think you need to get better deck lol.

it's a deck with no minions; 30 spells are *NOT* random.  I understand your point but you're missing the point of the issue I raise--that the random elements to the spells really never prove to be negative and I understand that hearthstone devs designed this option of a deck to be viable to some degree but it shouldn't be as consistent as it is in my experience.

every random minion or discovered spell shouldn't be the same as the effect of playing Zephris (Zephrys?).

I've played it a few times, only as a mage myself with a somewhat RNG deck myself , and it just blows me away how it drums up an answer ("randomly") to everything I play.

You don't have to sympathize or agree, I just wanted to know some other rational, intelligent players' thoughts on the case.  I can see I'm swimming in the shallow end of the intelligence pool given some of the responses though so maybe I had mismanaged expectations in terms of the conversation to follow.  I don't know much about the forum user base as I browse it casually, in the most liberal sense of the meaning of casual.

cheers to the civil forum participants all the same

the summoning spells aren't that random??  the primary means of populating the battlefield are purely random besides the Draconic sidequest.

absolutely ridiculous how something so dependent on "random" results consistently runs laps around my decks

such a truly awful gimmick...

last expansion is when I started playing this game more seriously; onna daily basis and I find these so-called cut-and-paste decks despicable.

I have been around casually on-and-off since goblins and gnomes.  The only two expansions since that time, which I missed, were boomsday and rastakhan.  I never remember being so utterly disgusted with the results of "R-N-G."  I caught the yogg era too.

I know everybody has their opinion about R-N-G in this game but I consider myself a "cooler head" but these pure-luck decks producing such consistent good fortune makes me wanna throw a toddler tantrum, part of me anyway...but then then reason descends on me again.

What do people think about these kindsa decks?  Obviously blizzard has rigged the results otherwise--it wouldn't be a trend.