I think the most ludicrous argument I've heard through-out the "I hate priests" threads is this:
"The games take too long!"
You are playing a game, it's meant to take time away from day to day activites. There are streamers who play as a "job" but again its a game. The time you set aside to play the game, or the lack of time you set aside in favor of procrastination, is to play the game.
Now you come to the forums and act like playing a game is serious business, when for the majority of you are playing just to waste time and get away from reality.
For the streamers, the more time that is spent streaming and entertaining viewers equates to more money earned, so playing that 3rd priest of the day is a great way to interact with the viewers and start generating more subs and more revenue.
The argument that "the games take too long" is just more proof that this is a world moving faster and faster towards instant gratification and a lackluster desire to actually work for what you deserve. (and yes I am a priest player and yes I will play out to the last turn with another priest as my opponent)
I agree to a point with your recount of the balance vs business model thought.
My curiosity is this: If the resulting status of the game is catered to simplicity and a specific demographic of players to keep/create a specific player base and revenue. And this is an ECCG, then how do PCCG's continue to thrive when they cater to the same demographic of players AND the others as well? (the only difference in the demographic is electronic vs physical)
Follow that up with, why then can't/won't blizzard follow suit of the PCCG's and institute similar business strategies to increase their revenue?
OK I’m a little unclear, just for my sake of not misinterpreting.
When you say “rig the draw order for the ideal order for each of the strategies in the matchup” – who is supposed to choose the optimal order, the deck creator or blizzard?
Also is this rigged draw meant for testing only or something you think should be implemented in the game?
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone?
A game state where if you provide average draw order (or even optimal) and you perfect technical play, you have a strictly enforced Rock-Paper-Scissors model.
If the game is correctly balanced, and you remove any element that the player cannot control, or in the case of draw order, you actively rig it for optimal draw order, what you get is a game in which, if both players play perfectly, the strategy that has an advantage in the matchup will win every single time.
This happens because using these conditions, you remove any variable that would deliver outcomes based on anything except the strategies being played, so what you get is a state where the strategy that has an advantage in the matchup always win.
Obviously, even if you remove all randomness from Hearthstone, you will still have variance because of draw order and improper technical play, this is where the matchups lose the strict RPS model.
Anyway, it is not subjective.
You are correct, that would balance the technical side of gameplay.
What of the cards themselves, due to human ingenuity there are a multitude of interactions that are found and utilized by players.
There are certain card interactions (that are player controlled and not random) which create broken or unbalanced gameplay.
Such as OTK decks or impregnable defenses due to healing or health mechanics.
Then there are cards which create huge power spikes that can not be stopped. (jade drd, original quest rogue)
These situation have been and are currently being done without RNG or uncontrolled variables (besides card draw).
However, when the cards are addressed it oftentimes kills the deck that had the specific card(s) in question. Which in itself unbalances the game.
I say balance is subjective in the respect that one persons view of balance is not necessarily the same as another's. Your view (and mine) of a rock/scissors/paper balance is something we agree upon, but a pure aggro player always wants rock and the others are unbalanced because they can stop them consistently.
Useless and completely false thread. People that complain about game balance usually do so because of one reason and its got absolutely nothing to do with winning or losing, its because they aren't having fun.
If a person plays a card strategy game to feel challenged...and its full of op cards, mana cheating, crazy rng, excessive discover effects etc...they don't just feel cheated...they are being cheated. Cheated by a company who is actively manipulating and interfering with game outcomes in efforts to maintain a 50% win avg.
By your own admission, the game is not balanced (blizzards manipulation) so you are contradicting yourself in stating that this is a completely false thread.
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone? Is it that all cards have a positive playable nature? Is it that each class has the same power curve? Is it that there should be a rock/scissors/paper style of game play?
Even the idea of balance is a bit arbitrary.
I want to win at all costs, well simply put, everyone wants to win. But what does “at all costs” mean? Is it P2W? Is it net decking? Is it playing the flavor of the month?
Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Personally, I copied the most recent Galapriest deck so I had a chance in standard, but I play an OTK priest deck in wild.
I play on both sides of the coin, but I choose to do so on different battlefields.
The game is not balanced, there should be more of a mix for aggro/tempo/control in the game, and each class should have the same power curve and access to each of those play styles. (imo)
The players who are here to push through with the highest win ratio and “best deck” play should see the benefits of going meta, compared to off-meta decks.
Off meta decks shouldn’t see such a disparity of success in comparison though.
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, whereas it’s easier to piss off a lot of people every day. Welcome to the human race.
I voted “Other” because of the previous comments: The idea of Balance is arbitrary and Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
As a priest player when i'm making a deck i always find myself wondering "What is my win condition" its a easy question for all other classes/decks but when it comes to priest each and every time the answer remains the same........Survive,
I have only ever played priest, from the day I downloaded the game to today. I did so because my main is an priest in WOW. And I couldn't agree with noobito123 more.
Priest has no identity, they leech off every other class for sub-par performance and the only thing that allows them to continue forward is to control the board.
As for fun/unfun to play against - I enjoy it. I mean someone who is willing to go through the trouble to put together a sub-par deck and actually succeed at winning, full props. I will take the time to see how it's done.
I mean, I play wild almost exclusively, break out for tavern brawl or standard depending on the quest(s) I have in my log. I play OTK Velen, been doing so since year of the mammoth. My deck is listed here and you can see how the deck has been altered, which is very little. But for me it's fun to get the combo off.
For the opponent I can only imagine how it must suck when I drop the 5th board wipe then rez a full board and pop them for 40+ damage in one shot.
If you don't like it, you have 3 choices - don't play HS, concede, or play it out.
Not going to clog up space with a quote fest here.
I do not feel that standard or wild are being handled inappropriately. This style is seen in every ccg out there from pokemon to MTG and more. Your eloquent and loquacious response actually illustrates many of the reasons players feel stifled. And perhaps stifled is the wrong word, instead, restricted may be better. It's subjective to the player, however, as you also pointed out these same commentaries are made in a myriad of ways on multiple occasions.
You can make some of the people happy all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
You do realize that you quote something from over 2 years ago, right?
I do realize it was 2 years ago, but the mentality is still present in today's player base.
Point 1 - no it's not all about money, but as a business, it is a primary driving factor. New releases are meant to entice more money spending, esports revolve around current releases and promotions. It makes more sense as a business to focus resources on that front. As a business owner myself, this is how I thrived.
Point 2 - I said 'it can be' difficult not that 'it is' difficult to collect, that distinction is made by the player on how they want to approach it.
Point 3 - With a limited card pool creativity is stifled in standard. As you yourself pointed out " it's just harder/less likely to come up with something decent that others haven't thought of yet," - As for creativity not being rewarding, the first part of this comes from the community often demeaning a new deck idea. And the fact that the synergies, archetypes, and meta are limited upon release means that there are only a finite number of decks that will garner playability. Whereas in wild - creativity is welcomed and each new release only increases the synergies, archetypes, and meta.
I appreciate that you will likely still disagree with me to some extent and I don't mind. It's good to have different views on these topics. I am not trying to change your mind. Just elaborating on my view.
Both are terrible atm. Do not listen anyone that tells you wild is better. They are equally toxic.If you do not believe me,try them your self. Hopefully the next patch will change things.
If that's the case - don't play the game IMO
That being said...
My view:
Standard -
More restrictions on gameplay due to the limited card pool.
Consistent shifting in meta with each expansion.
Copy/paste decks everywhere once the meta is set.
Creativity is stifled and not rewarding.
Blizzard has more focus on standard due to the financial gain.
Wild -
Massive card pool which can make catching up difficult.
Fluid meta ask expansions are added, exsiting meta is absorbed.
Copy/paste decks are not the go-to format but still an option.
Creativity is viable and often rewarded.
Blizzard sees some revenue so they keep an eye on it as needed.
Neither is better or worse, it's all dependant on what style of play you are interested in.
If you want to have fun with off-meta decks: expect to get nothing for it expect no sympathy expect trolls expect to be considered a troll expect to be told to play wild expect to be told to quit playing expect to be told to play a meta deck
If you want to have fun with meta decks: expect no sympathy expect trolls expect to be considered a troll expect to be told to quit playing expect to be called a P2W player
Now – the OP here has made an observation that as an off-meta player the match-making system is posing a problem.
I have to agree with the OP, it seems that once I reach platinum and win about 5-6 games (not consecutively) I get paired with 3-4 legendary tier 1 or tier 2 players. Then I get a couple of wins and another 3-4 legendary players.
However, I can argue against the OP in the fact of – how can you prove that the legendary player you come across is still in the ranking process and is in fact currently ranked similar to you.
Unless there is a tracker added under the player's name/rank banner that shows win/loss ratio there will be no way to adequately prove if the match-making system is faulty or accurate.
Also:
Stop trying to tell people to be different or play like you. Your account, play your way.
If you have run into a similar problem to the OP then please share. If you have evidence to the contrary to the OP then please share.
If you are here to be a troll or leave a negative comment against the OP’s mentality or play style – leave. Be Helpful or keep quite.
I love it - I think priest is the most talked-about class. And with what I've seen here I can only repeat what I've said in previous threads.
FIrst - There are generally only 2 states of priest within hearthstone. Priest is viable Nerf it!!! or Priest isn't viable Fix it!!
Second (set in a spoiler to save space):
So, I was in the middle of cataloging all of the cards that can be used for:
Minion Damage/Removal - directly damages a minion or removes it Potential Removal - 'damage to enemies' or just direct damage Card creation - Cards that generate the above-mentioned cards (this includes the "theft" mechanic) Other - this is a category for things like Hero power manipulation, polymorph effects, and in the case of priests, the ability to change the mechanics of spells (healing into damage)
The reason I started this project is due to the consistent argument that "priest is the king of removal".
I had only gotten through: Class Direct Removal Potential Removal Card Creation Other DH 5 4 N/A N/A Druid 16 3 2 N/A Hunter 23 10 5 1 Mage 29 22 27 4 Priest 28 4 15 13
The view here is that priest isn't the only class with removal in abundance. It's just the one that people dislike the most due to the accompanying kit behind it. And this list doesn't include Neutral cards this is just class-specific cards
I will probably still do this just for comparison's sake but put it in a different thread.
Creating an overview of the classes to show the differences, getting data, this can help show what is fact and what is opinion. Opinions matter, but when a majority of the community bands together for a single cause, it's best to have some data behind it.
Card draw for priest is a flaw in the class, on purpose, I think it's fine. Having to rely on top draw and RNG creates a difference in the class which is fine.
The fact that games take forever, well go figure, the class is based of control/gimmicks and one card drawn every turn. if you want the game faster with priest - give it aggro/tempo/card draw to keep up with the faster decks.
And last but not least:
If you are playing to win and the conditions aren't favorable, it's your choice to continue or concede. If an opponent decides to play priest and you don't like the class, it's your choice to continue or concede.
If you don't like something that exists within hearthstone - it's your right to complain about it. BUT don't expect everyone to agree with you.
0
I think the most ludicrous argument I've heard through-out the "I hate priests" threads is this:
"The games take too long!"
You are playing a game, it's meant to take time away from day to day activites. There are streamers who play as a "job" but again its a game.
The time you set aside to play the game, or the lack of time you set aside in favor of procrastination, is to play the game.
Now you come to the forums and act like playing a game is serious business, when for the majority of you are playing just to waste time and get away from reality.
For the streamers, the more time that is spent streaming and entertaining viewers equates to more money earned, so playing that 3rd priest of the day is a great way to interact with the viewers and start generating more subs and more revenue.
The argument that "the games take too long" is just more proof that this is a world moving faster and faster towards instant gratification and a lackluster desire to actually work for what you deserve. (and yes I am a priest player and yes I will play out to the last turn with another priest as my opponent)
0
@Hooghout
I agree to a point with your recount of the balance vs business model thought.
My curiosity is this:
If the resulting status of the game is catered to simplicity and a specific demographic of players to keep/create a specific player base and revenue. And this is an ECCG, then how do PCCG's continue to thrive when they cater to the same demographic of players AND the others as well? (the only difference in the demographic is electronic vs physical)
Follow that up with, why then can't/won't blizzard follow suit of the PCCG's and institute similar business strategies to increase their revenue?
0
@DiamondDM13 -
OK I’m a little unclear, just for my sake of not misinterpreting.
When you say “rig the draw order for the ideal order for each of the strategies in the matchup” – who is supposed to choose the optimal order, the deck creator or blizzard?
Also is this rigged draw meant for testing only or something you think should be implemented in the game?
0
You are correct, that would balance the technical side of gameplay.
What of the cards themselves, due to human ingenuity there are a multitude of interactions that are found and utilized by players.
There are certain card interactions (that are player controlled and not random) which create broken or unbalanced gameplay.
Such as OTK decks or impregnable defenses due to healing or health mechanics.
Then there are cards which create huge power spikes that can not be stopped. (jade drd, original quest rogue)
These situation have been and are currently being done without RNG or uncontrolled variables (besides card draw).
However, when the cards are addressed it oftentimes kills the deck that had the specific card(s) in question. Which in itself unbalances the game.
I say balance is subjective in the respect that one persons view of balance is not necessarily the same as another's. Your view (and mine) of a rock/scissors/paper balance is something we agree upon, but a pure aggro player always wants rock and the others are unbalanced because they can stop them consistently.
By your own admission, the game is not balanced (blizzards manipulation) so you are contradicting yourself in stating that this is a completely false thread.
1
How do you define balance in a game like hearthstone?
Is it that all cards have a positive playable nature?
Is it that each class has the same power curve?
Is it that there should be a rock/scissors/paper style of game play?
Even the idea of balance is a bit arbitrary.
I want to win at all costs, well simply put, everyone wants to win. But what does “at all costs” mean?
Is it P2W?
Is it net decking?
Is it playing the flavor of the month?
Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
Personally, I copied the most recent Galapriest deck so I had a chance in standard, but I play an OTK priest deck in wild.
I play on both sides of the coin, but I choose to do so on different battlefields.
The game is not balanced, there should be more of a mix for aggro/tempo/control in the game, and each class should have the same power curve and access to each of those play styles. (imo)
The players who are here to push through with the highest win ratio and “best deck” play should see the benefits of going meta, compared to off-meta decks.
Off meta decks shouldn’t see such a disparity of success in comparison though.
Unfortunately, it’s not possible to please everyone all of the time, whereas it’s easier to piss off a lot of people every day. Welcome to the human race.
I voted “Other” because of the previous comments:
The idea of Balance is arbitrary and Winning at all costs is subjective to the intentions of the player.
0
I think this about sums it up.
I have only ever played priest, from the day I downloaded the game to today. I did so because my main is an priest in WOW.
And I couldn't agree with noobito123 more.
Priest has no identity, they leech off every other class for sub-par performance and the only thing that allows them to continue forward is to control the board.
As for fun/unfun to play against - I enjoy it. I mean someone who is willing to go through the trouble to put together a sub-par deck and actually succeed at winning, full props. I will take the time to see how it's done.
I mean, I play wild almost exclusively, break out for tavern brawl or standard depending on the quest(s) I have in my log. I play OTK Velen, been doing so since year of the mammoth. My deck is listed here and you can see how the deck has been altered, which is very little. But for me it's fun to get the combo off.
For the opponent I can only imagine how it must suck when I drop the 5th board wipe then rez a full board and pop them for 40+ damage in one shot.
If you don't like it, you have 3 choices - don't play HS, concede, or play it out.
0
@Dunscot
Not going to clog up space with a quote fest here.
I do not feel that standard or wild are being handled inappropriately.
This style is seen in every ccg out there from pokemon to MTG and more.
Your eloquent and loquacious response actually illustrates many of the reasons players feel stifled. And perhaps stifled is the wrong word, instead, restricted may be better. It's subjective to the player, however, as you also pointed out these same commentaries are made in a myriad of ways on multiple occasions.
You can make some of the people happy all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
0
How do you think the Dragonqueen Alexstrasza nerf will affect the deck?
(added dragons cost 1)
0
I do realize it was 2 years ago, but the mentality is still present in today's player base.
Point 1 - no it's not all about money, but as a business, it is a primary driving factor. New releases are meant to entice more money spending, esports revolve around current releases and promotions. It makes more sense as a business to focus resources on that front. As a business owner myself, this is how I thrived.
Point 2 - I said 'it can be' difficult not that 'it is' difficult to collect, that distinction is made by the player on how they want to approach it.
Point 3 - With a limited card pool creativity is stifled in standard. As you yourself pointed out " it's just harder/less likely to come up with something decent that others haven't thought of yet," - As for creativity not being rewarding, the first part of this comes from the community often demeaning a new deck idea. And the fact that the synergies, archetypes, and meta are limited upon release means that there are only a finite number of decks that will garner playability.
Whereas in wild - creativity is welcomed and each new release only increases the synergies, archetypes, and meta.
I appreciate that you will likely still disagree with me to some extent and I don't mind. It's good to have different views on these topics. I am not trying to change your mind. Just elaborating on my view.
1
If that's the case - don't play the game IMO
That being said...
My view:
Standard -
More restrictions on gameplay due to the limited card pool.
Consistent shifting in meta with each expansion.
Copy/paste decks everywhere once the meta is set.
Creativity is stifled and not rewarding.
Blizzard has more focus on standard due to the financial gain.
Wild -
Massive card pool which can make catching up difficult.
Fluid meta ask expansions are added, exsiting meta is absorbed.
Copy/paste decks are not the go-to format but still an option.
Creativity is viable and often rewarded.
Blizzard sees some revenue so they keep an eye on it as needed.
Neither is better or worse, it's all dependant on what style of play you are interested in.
0
That is very true with this style of OTK.
One day you pull the combo off multiple times in succession.
Other days you don't see any love...
0
And this right here is one of the biggest concerns within the game, thank you for pointing it out.
0
So what I am seeing here is this:
If you want to have fun with off-meta decks:
expect to get nothing for it
expect no sympathy
expect trolls
expect to be considered a troll
expect to be told to play wild
expect to be told to quit playing
expect to be told to play a meta deck
If you want to have fun with meta decks:
expect no sympathy
expect trolls
expect to be considered a troll
expect to be told to quit playing
expect to be called a P2W player
Now – the OP here has made an observation that as an off-meta player the match-making system is posing a problem.
I have to agree with the OP, it seems that once I reach platinum and win about 5-6 games (not consecutively) I get paired with 3-4 legendary tier 1 or tier 2 players. Then I get a couple of wins and another 3-4 legendary players.
However, I can argue against the OP in the fact of – how can you prove that the legendary player you come across is still in the ranking process and is in fact currently ranked similar to you.
Unless there is a tracker added under the player's name/rank banner that shows win/loss ratio there will be no way to adequately prove if the match-making system is faulty or accurate.
Also:
Stop trying to tell people to be different or play like you. Your account, play your way.
If you have run into a similar problem to the OP then please share.
If you have evidence to the contrary to the OP then please share.
If you are here to be a troll or leave a negative comment against the OP’s mentality or play style – leave.
Be Helpful or keep quite.
0
This totally made me laugh XD!!
1
I love it - I think priest is the most talked-about class. And with what I've seen here I can only repeat what I've said in previous threads.
FIrst - There are generally only 2 states of priest within hearthstone.
Priest is viable Nerf it!!!
or
Priest isn't viable Fix it!!
Second (set in a spoiler to save space):
So, I was in the middle of cataloging all of the cards that can be used for:
Minion Damage/Removal - directly damages a minion or removes it
Potential Removal - 'damage to enemies' or just direct damage
Card creation - Cards that generate the above-mentioned cards (this includes the "theft" mechanic)
Other - this is a category for things like Hero power manipulation, polymorph effects, and in the case of priests, the ability to change the mechanics of spells (healing into damage)
The reason I started this project is due to the consistent argument that "priest is the king of removal".
I had only gotten through:
Class Direct Removal Potential Removal Card Creation Other
DH 5 4 N/A N/A
Druid 16 3 2 N/A
Hunter 23 10 5 1
Mage 29 22 27 4
Priest 28 4 15 13
The view here is that priest isn't the only class with removal in abundance. It's just the one that people dislike the most due to the accompanying kit behind it. And this list doesn't include Neutral cards this is just class-specific cards
I will probably still do this just for comparison's sake but put it in a different thread.
Creating an overview of the classes to show the differences, getting data, this can help show what is fact and what is opinion.
Opinions matter, but when a majority of the community bands together for a single cause, it's best to have some data behind it.
Card draw for priest is a flaw in the class, on purpose, I think it's fine. Having to rely on top draw and RNG creates a difference in the class which is fine.
The fact that games take forever, well go figure, the class is based of control/gimmicks and one card drawn every turn. if you want the game faster with priest - give it aggro/tempo/card draw to keep up with the faster decks.
And last but not least:
If you are playing to win and the conditions aren't favorable, it's your choice to continue or concede. If an opponent decides to play priest and you don't like the class, it's your choice to continue or concede.
If you don't like something that exists within hearthstone - it's your right to complain about it. BUT don't expect everyone to agree with you.