Cracks me up that people whine about Reno so much when only *1* Reno deck has ever managed to make it to tier1 (warlock). Meanwhile, aggro decks have topped tier 1 for just about every meta. Aggro decks do not exist because of Reno decks -- Reno decks exist because of aggro. Aggro was around *loooooooooooong* before Reno ever existed.
Aggro is extremely appealing to people who want to ladder quickly because of the brevity of the games. Trying laddering with reno warlock (which takes some of the most skill to win with)... you spend 20 minutes battling out an amazing win against another midrange or control deck and then turn around and lose in 2 minutes to a pirate warrior. It makes you want to chew through leather. The game lengths make it difficult to ladder because of how long the matches are. Aggro, on the hand, can hammer through many, many games in a short period of time.
Having a balance between aggro and control is extremely important for the health of the game. Arguably control should have a slight edge to account for the average length of each game, but I do not think that is the reality in this particular meta. That's fine, but I wish they would nerf certain cards when it's obvious that aggro has the edge.
4
Covering a number of topics on the thread. So very long post. Also this is opinion, I in no way wish anyone to feel their opinion is wrong nor do I feel I am an expert in these matters. So if this upsets you, my apologies but at least thanks for reading.
Price of a single pack of MtG cards ~$4.25 - 15 cards per pack most sets are around 250 cards. All random just like HS. Just like HS the value is stated (HS is at least 1 rare and 4 commons) 1 rare 3 uncommon 14 common in an MtG pack. In order to collect the whole set with 100% accuracy of each pack giving NO duplicates (which you can get many duplicates in one pack) it would cost $70.83 (no tax) for 17 packs.
Now being it's random in a pack let's presume at least one duplicate per pack, depending on the rarity of the duplicate it requires a varying number of additional packs.
On average it will require around 390 packs to collect a set which translates to $1657.50 (no tax). So with that in mind for a physical card game vs an electronic card game pricing seems fair.
The big difference is you can shave off a majority of your expenses on a physical card game by trading (TCG) where as an electronic card game is only collectible (CCG). Thus the cost is constant and feels like a heavier burden on the bank account.
The lootbox legal war is understandable, it is gambling by nature if not by law. If the rewards are cosmetic only it has no bearing on the validity of gameplay that should be allowed without regulation. If the rewards directly influence gameplay or quality of life in game (i.e. exp boosters, playable characters, gear, currency) then it should be regulated wether by a specific level of value per lootbox or a static value per tier of available rewards.
HS as an example would have to have it so each pack was worth say ### dust no matter the variety of cards inside (Not actual numbers only an example). This would however change the whole structure of the crafting function. This is true as well if it were to change to the sale of dust instead of packs.
The other option is to make it so every tier of card has a static drop value (in essence what Apple is asking for by wanting the numbers from lootbox companies). Legendary is at a 40 pack pity timer. Change that to 25 packs = legendary, 15 = rare etc. This may result in the duplicate rule being removed however, and double the packs needed for golden versions. This would let the customer base know exactly what to expect but still random enough for the endorphin rush. This module would still upset some people because there is still the chance that some time will be needed to collect all the cards
Another option to help the whole game would be to implement trading as well an actual release of the % chances per pack of each rarity. To make trading more viable to collections, could make it so you are unable to trade if it is your only copy of a card.
2
Looking at possible option cards for the deck for those that people may not have and also specific tech cards.
Eater of Secrets, Gluttonous Ooze, Skulking Geist as options to tech vs the meta range people are in, question is what card(s) are easily swapped in the deck to tech out?
1
Nerfs aren't always bad, though I agree with the above post. Classic + basic cards should be looked over again.
Personally I think that classic+basic cards should be looked at and possibly overhauled every year. Either nerfed or buffed, as the card pools change between standard and wild their power either raises or falter. Keeping them viable constantly.
As for the OP's suggestions, I don't agree that there needs to be nerfs to those cards. Even though scale and bonemare have killed me many times even when I had what seemed to be a healthy board.
-2
So still not sure why people think this is so broken... Turn 7 hey have all the minions including mine!! (or your minions back only yay Vanish).
In the case of giving my minions to you lets look at it with this example: Hello my opponent I see you have a sword and I have a gun, here have my gun to use with your sword, don't worry I'm still more powerful!!
Unless you can double the amount of control, or give them crap minions, or prevent them from playing minions, you just gave your opponent more kill conditions. So if someone could give me a logical reason why this is so broken I'd appreciate it.
3
A ton of variations out there for Big Priest decks: my edits to this deck list
-1 Greater Healing Potion -2 Silence
+1N'Zoth, the Corruptor +1 Cairne Bloodhoof +1 Shadow Word: Death
I prefer the continuity and consistency with the changes hereCairne Bloodhoof can be hard cast earlier with out feeling bad, and also creates a fun interaction with Barnes and Shadow Essence. Paired with Obsidian Statue and the obvious multiple summons of both makes playing N'Zoth, the Corruptor well worth it, also its a fun game stopper when your opponent thinks you are out of steam.
I've run into several games that go into fatigue due to bad RNG, and that N'Zoth, the Corruptor play at the end generally garners an auto concede. And an early Cairne Bloodhoof can easily turn into a tauren battlefield.
Updated with my deck list: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/949952-nzoth-big-priest
5
This has to be the most ironic thread I have seen for Hearthstone, got a good chuckle. Net decking was originally used to describe players of physical CCG's (i.e. MTG, Yu-gi-oh) who waited for world tourney or "pro deck" lists to be posted online and copied them. I see it as an inevitability in the progression of face to face table top games to faceless computer based games.
My experience in this topic comes from running a gaming store for 11 years and many, many tournaments in the past.
In the past it was annoying because in the F2F games there was no creativity based on the community involved in the gaming centers (local games stores or tournament arenas) and it was those who wanted to get an easy win who did it, preying on the casual players or players who didn't have the money to build "pro decks".
Currently with the ease of access to "pro decks" and the shift towards electronic CCG's the idea of net decking is expected, if you aren't using all the resources to find how the games meta works that's your fault, that simple.
However this still is a problem in the fact that its the 2% (arbitrary number) of the community of gamers who are creative and the rest are leeches. Even then if someone tries to be creative and decide to break meta, they run into either a large push back from the community and are laughed at, or its just for fun and there isn't much progression in a competitive nature.
1
The difference between a "roper" and a "thinker" is apparent in the first few turns.
Opponents first turn, rope and play random 1 cost minion at absolute last second no Patches or attack. - Opponents second turn, rope and use class ability and attack at absolute last second. - Continues trend on 3rd turn. This indicates a roper and should be punished if done for multiple games as per the OP's suggestion.
A thinker won't 'rope' generally till turn 5 and even then its still usually only half rope (with the exceptions of mages generally). This is understandable, though not addressed by the OP.
The game can track activity, thus it will kick inactive players out of the game if idle for too long, the same function can be applied to the actual in game mechanics. The normal duration of a turn is 55seconds (+20 with rope) If a player consecutively reaches a point in their turn with inactivity, say 50 seconds up to 74 seconds as an example, the game can track that towards a "roper" penalty.
My opinion is that after a set number of games, the offenders turns should be set to 15 seconds and the sandstorm animation of Nozdormu should be applied until the next couple of games are played out properly. The number of games needed to incur the penalty should be undisclosed by blizzard so as not to give players the ability to "play around" the penalty. As well if it is done on a daily basis where the penalty is obtained then perhaps a penalty in wait time for the next game que could be added as a deterrent.
The community in general is good at keeping the game going and the turn flow constant, but the players who are actively causing grief for others need to be addressed.
2
As a 1/1 that is easily killed, Ysera and The Lich King have a single card return (minimum) and Obsidian Statue has good return with lifesteal and a minion kill. Cairne Bloodhoof would net a 1/1 minion that when killed becomes a 4/5 (Baine Bloodhoof) which is another creature and a larger body. This isn't considered good value?
1
I do hope to see the win rate /average turn counters implemented on other facets of the site. And I encourage anyone using innkeeper to please track their games.
I don't get much in the way of visits for my decks because I'm an average player / poster, and posting some arbitrary win % would only hurt me in the process of becoming more solid in the gaming community.
If the Average player or even the new player posts a deck here and it is tracked at having a rather decent win rate / average turn count then those decks may finally see the light of day and make it to a more prominent spot in the community.
The fear factor of the OP and others is relevant, though as Flux pointed out, change and progress happen and sometimes you just gotta roll with it and hope for the best. Or be pleasantly surprised.
2
I have to agree with both sides of this argument, with a slight view change though. Otk (ttk) decks, or any other style of combo deck needs to be watched hard by the devs, if it becomes too easy to achieve then adjustments need to be made. And that determination isn't based on how many people play or complain, but by watching the ladder and tourney matches.
Any deck that takes 2 or more cards and makes them work together to achieve a specific goal is a combo deck. So it's not always a win condition to make a combo deck.
It isn't fun being beaten by combo decks, it does seem one sided and feels like there is nothing to be done about it. But that's true if you don't have a counter to the combo when its needed, or the opponent has an epic opening hand. But the feeling of pulling off the combo is amazing, extreme success and/or luck.
Now I do have to complain a little, I do believe questrogue is too easy to steamroll with, and if you don't have the counter in your opening hand or turn 2 you lose. But the same RNG pits that deck against the draw so it does lose as well, it's not a sure fire win.
TL;DR - Hearthstone devs and players need to keep aware of and fix broken: OTK, highly efficient combo cards and quests with too easy of completion requirements. Otherwise, take the loss and start a new match.