Hearthpwn

Hahahaha, we need more lighthearted threads like these! 

Chun-li was my first video game crush.

Hahaha, laughed so hard at this topic.  YES!

Dont mind him; he always tries to find ways to bash hearthstone without doing any due diligence.  Wouldn't be surprised if he gets banned given that he spread false information and brings absolutely no value to this forum.

Putting him aside, great games played at grandmasters.  My favorite moment was when Glory was playing as priest but was able to pull off two Tickatus against Alan's Warlock.

Agree, wild is unplayable right now. There is no viable counter against the deck and you are helpless by turn 6-7 watching them channel through their entire deck.  Blizzard really screwed up again.

Really enjoyed this miniset.  Story line and characters from other books were boring because it was recycling the same plot about an overly compassionate, immature and rebellious protagonist defying authority.  Xyrella had different persona where she was more mature, patient and humble.

One thing to note is that its between expansions which is a stagnant period.  The forum becomes more lively when they start revealing new cards for the next expansion.  

Quote from Adam030201 >>

Quote from Eastend123 >>

I am seeing a lot of odd warrior ropers in wild and its frustrating as hell. Blizzard really made a mistake in giving out exp based on playtime.  

 That's just botters. More xp for longer game.

 Makes things worst.  I am playing what should be an interactive game against a bot that plays no cards and takes 90 seconds each round?  Blizzard really needs a reporting function in hearthstone

I am seeing a lot of odd warrior ropers in wild and its frustrating as hell. Blizzard really made a mistake in giving out exp based on playtime.  

Just played against 6th odd warrior in two days who only ropes and hero powers... common man, i just want to enjoy playing a game.  These selfish people should burn in hell. 

Christ man, dont make the game so complicating than its intended to be.  There is only one objective:  to win.  You are asking people to queue into a game and start thinking unnecessary things like “is he trying to get an achievement?” “What can I do to help him out?” “Maybe he had 999 wins and need one more to get golden hero portrait, am I preventing him from doing so?” etc etc.  

No one knows your situation but you and no, its not obvious that you are going for achievement since majority dont remember requirements of achievements.  Dont be selfcentered and just play the game.  You have to work for it,no one is gonna hand it to you. Thats why its called achievements

Quote from TwistedCardmaster >>

Quote from Eastend123 >>

if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so".  Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.

 

True, but everything seems to be going in the opposite direction now. Some matchups are so polarized (despite not being OP or broken) that trying to win them is almost pointless. Even if they are statistically winnable, playing them feels like a chore and it's not fun at all.

Not sure what you mean by “going opposite direction” because I highly doubt  hearthstone team is intentionally making the game polarizing.   

As others pointed out, you have to also think about the other side of the coin.  You can avoid them, but they can also avoid you.  Using your example as a priest player, lets say you want avoid mages and warlocks but you have fun playing against  druid or warrior.  Well guess what; warrior and druids will autoconcede against you because they believe its polarizing to play against priest.  In other words, you will not play against unfun decks but you wont play against fun decks either.  This will kill hearthstone.  Here is the scenario I foresee if they implement autoconcede system for the priest example:

Round 1: vs warlock, you auto concede

Round 2: vs druid, they auto concede

Round 3: vs mage, you auto concede

Round 4: vs priest, play normally

Round 5: vs warrior, they auto concede, etc etc

Do you now see how unhealthy autoconcede system is to a game that needs to be interactive?And you may say “ but autoconcede isnt for everyone. Only people who want to use it.”  In that case, its a feature not needed in hearthstone since majority will not be using it anyways.  

Quote from HoraceWalpol >>

The real problem with this feature is that it would feel bad for the player who's being auto-skipped. Sure, they might be moving up the ladder but they are not actually playing the game, and most people (I hope) are playing Hearthstone because they well, like to play the game. Ranking up doesn't feel like an achivement if you've not actually played any games.

Say you're a Priest player, and you're being skipped by the majority of players in 8/9 classes except Warlock. Then you will be unfavoured in most of of your games - unless you of course ban Warlock, in which case you will mostly play mirror match-ups along with the occasional deck that for some reason didn't skip Priest. You're laddering rapidly, but you're not playing a lot of games doing so, and the ones you do play all feel the same because they're mostly mirrors. If everyone then starts playing Priest in order to rank up fast, the number of mirror match-ups will increase - unless you're of course skipping Priest, which would mean that you're back to play against mostly Warlock... and so the circle continues.

Do you see my point? A skipping feature like the one you suggest would make it more difficult for players to actually play the game, and it would limit the amount of different decks you're playing against, making the game feel stale. If a player doesn't use the skipping feature because they enjoy the challenge of playing even the unfavoured match-ups, they will almost never get a favoured match-up (e.g. Warlock never playing against Priest), which will also feel bad. Matchmaking times would also be longer, because you might get matched and "win" against several players before getting an actual match. It makes no sense to implement a feaure like this, and the players that want to immediately concede games (a minority, if my own ladder experiences are anything to go by) can just do that. 

Exactly this.  And it would be terrible if Hearthstone implemented feature like auto-concede because their objective is to promote inter-activeness between players and enjoyable gameplay.  Auto-concede goes exactly opposite of this philosophy because Blizzard would allow one playerto saying "nope, I dont want to play with you."  Its ok if a player does this at their own account by auto-conceding, but if Hearthstone team systematically implements an auto-concede system, its a lazy approach to competitive gaming because rather than balancing the gameplay to make it more enjoyable, their approach would be "Just quit if you dont like your competition. We made it easier for you to do so".  Brings absolutely no benefit to the consumer.

You can find Clockwork Giant under Goblins vs Gnomes set.

Refer to my response here:

https://www.hearthpwn.com/forums/hearthstone-general/general-discussion/248930-did-we-lose-any-dist-when-we-were-given-golden

I had the same question and found out that cards displayed under "standard" or "wild" in the collection manager shows only the cards that were "borrowed" to you by blizzard.  In order to look for the cards you originally had, you have to go to other types of collection. 

For example, I originally had Bloodmage Thalnos in my collection.  Under "Standard Cards" , it tells me its uncraftable.   My original  Bloodmage Thalnos  is found under "Classic Cards" and can be dusted.

Its really stupid what Blizzard did here.  Confusing as hell and cheapens the card collecting experience.