Hearthpwn

Quote from Alexandru_91 >>

Quote from BravoTeam >>

Quote from thebitterfig >>

Quote from Star_Forge >>

HoF him. It's time.

 Yep.

It's not just about one powerful turn, however.

It's about the fact that Rogues have been doing essentially the same turn for nearly seven years.

That's just too dang long, and things should change.

And yes, Edwin rather than Shadowstep, since Shadowstep does a lot of different things many of them new and interesting as the sets shift, but Edwin only does one boring thing.

 Hey, someone gets it!

You HoF cards not because they're too powerful, but because they've been keeping the meta samey. Was Acolyte of Pain breaking the meta? No, but it was the staple go-to card draw for so many decks for so many years that it's outlived it being interesting in the meta. Same with cards like Molten Giant and Mountain Giant. None of them were overpowered, nor did you face them in every deck, but they were a consistent part of the meta basically since launch, and seeing the same effects be crucial every game in the same way. Do I get stomped by a big Edwin every game against Rogue? No. Often they don't have it, and when they do sometimes I have an answer and then they're out of gas and I win. The thing is that scenario's been happening to me literally since before the game launched, and every game that involves an early big Edwin plays out the same: Either I have a removal in hand and win against an empty hand, or I don't and get stomped. It's run its course, and neither the win nor lose scenario against the card is interesting anymore. Just get rid of it.

 Rogue had plenty of metas where Edwin wasnt even used. Yes it was used on game launch in a Miracle deck. but expansions changed Rogue decks. Oil Rogue, Quest Rogue, Galakrond Rogue(which was used there), Odd Rogue(saw some experimentation), Water Rogue, Kingsbane Rogue, Mill Rogue (Wild). When it gets support it shines, same with other cards as well and yes i am quite looking at Auctioner too since Druid can abuse it a lot nowadays and is another one of those cards that limit design space.

 Not really. Edwin works in almost everything. You just ram it in your deck, because why not.

Had similar issue (not ideally similar, but there are some common aspects) - there was a Rakanishu, whom I faced only at the beginning, so I wasn't surprised he had a bad board. Then I haven't battled him for the rest of the game and finally there was only three of us - me, the aforementioned Rakanishu, Patches.

I played against Patches, I lost, but was still pretty much alive. I was expecting to face either Rakanishu or someone dead now - no, I went against Patches for the second time. I was like WTF? so I hovered over Rakanishu and saw that his last two battles included me - that one battle at the very beginning of the game. The dude was dead (either dc'ed or left) for almost entire game.

I wouldn't mind it if it was just a visual bug - but after losing to Patches for the second time (properly, I didn't have hp left), I was third.

Quote from ZagniefMaster >>

Maybe it's not a bot and just a man pressing the hero power and roping? And what is bad about it, previously you had to play face hunter to earn some ez gold, now you skip turns as warrior to earn more gold, just let people have fun from this shitty game.

 I would assume one's life is really messed up if they deliberately rope to get more xp. I mean, this is not even playing the game anymore. I would kill myself at this point, if my entire life was focused on not only farming an online game, but actually farming them in such mindless boring way.

So it's not a complaint because I lost to this and got salty. I myself abuse this strategy and it works for me most of the time. But playing a lot both with it and against it I have to admit - it is stupid. What exactly I am talking about?

Here's a strategy with Galakrond - keep upgrading one and the same minion, while freezing it and in the meantime buying random crap from the tavern. You really won't lose so quickly having your board full of shit - it's a common knowledge it is better to have full board without any synergies than trying to look for a strategy in the early game. If you are lucky, you will be winning early rounds. If not - you'll just lose a couple of HP, but not many, since you spam your board.

Ultimately you will have a tier 6 minion in your tavern, while the rest of folks is at tier 2/3. Hit a good one and you've won. All of the below ones gotten early make you win: 

Goldrinn, the Great Wolf

Kalecgos, Arcane Aspect

Nadina The Red

Any of 3 Elemental cards

Any of Mechs

Any of Pirates 

Basically as long as you don't hit one of 4-5 cards, which don't give you a game plan, out of 15 options, you've won. And you can re-roll, if you are unlucky - it's not like you have just one shoot.

EDIT: A screenshot from a minute ago. Quick Goldrinn, easy win.

If I was a company owner I would milk my customers as much as I could do without losing them. In fact every reasonable person would do this and does it.

For a company the main goal is always maximizing the profits. Granted, there is always a threshold above which trying to milk the customers doesn't actually work, because you overdid it and lost too many customers. But believe me, it was thoroughly calculated and they know how much they can push the community.

I personally of course don't like it. Not at all. But I understand this is how the business works. It's not charity. I wouldn't give anything away for free as a company owner, you wouldn't do it and neither does Blizzard. It's easy to bash them for being greedy and I myself would love the reality to be different, but it just isn't.

If you want to find the culprit, don't look at Blizzard - look at the community. At the people wishing to spend ridiculous amounts of money, while being blatantly milked. Blizzard and every other company does only as much as their customers allow them to get away with. Blame Blizzard for using the opportunity to earn more money? It's just hypocritical, every one of us would use an opportunity to earn more money. Blame the playerbase!

Yeah, bug...

So boring design.

It depends how they code it. Ysera Awakens is considered "Ysera", because the devs consider it to be it. But whether they take the same route with C'Thun? No one knows. But for sure card text isn't an indication, because HS has a number of inconsistencies in the texts.

Duels are beta? Not beta, they are early access. And if we want to be technical, look at the BG - it is still marked as BETA :D

Zerus is a high risk, high reward type of thing. Such things are ok - no/low risk, high reward cards are dumb. So what you got lucky one time? Next 5 games you will pick him, he will be useless or you just throw it on the field tired of waiting for something better.

I looked at the post from Ben Lee, the reactions, and your post that got downvoted.

I think you might have picked the wrong tone? It is a bit patronizing (and speaking of "whining" is overused in this context), which isn't the best approach to convince people of something, especially since you cannot say for sure that the Battle Pass will be purely about cosmetic items. What Ben Lee said was that they are "investigating broadening the benefits of the existing Tavern Pass system to supplement the rewards of the upcoming progression system with exciting new cosmetics". I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, but apparently, the Tavern Pass will somehow add to the (possible) Battle Pass with cosmetics.

Anyway, I agree with you that in this case, most of the rather aggressive, negative responses seem out of place. At face value, it doesn't sound like some sort of "Battle Pass" (or whatever system they want to implement at the end of the year) is going to make things worse for anyone. And I think the efforts of the development team over the last year have mostly been going in the right direction, that is making the game better for everyone, so I'll be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

But I can understand that the idea of a Battle Pass generally sounds fishy to some. Most gamers associate Battle Passes with nothing but monetization, which is usually not in their favor, and the backlash is a mixture of cynicism and mistrust. They expect the Battle Pass to be the most egregious money grabbing scheme of all time, possibly while cutting down on the F2P experience, and any word from a developer indicating otherwise is "the Bli$$ard" trying to play it down because money company bla bla. It's not unexpected, to say the least.

Generally speaking, I'm not happy with the circumstance that a lot of people are a bit too hasty in pulling out their torches and pitchforks, and the tendency to overreact isn't making for the most enjoyable atmosphere here either (or anywhere else online, for that matter). Not much you can do about that, except for debating on the level you wish to see from other people. Yet as far as that is concerned, I don't find your approach to be much better, because "rightfully praising Blizzard" and decrying any kind of criticism isn't making things better either. If your main concern were that "haters" outnumber the "lovers" here, you would be part of the problem.

Criticism is generally helpful, and even the overly negative stuff is not necessarily a bad thing. Saying that there's no unhelpful feedback is maybe a bit too idealistic, and some "criticism" hardly deserves being regarded as such, but even if people go oveboard in their reactions, it serves as an indicator for bad communication, or a lack of trust between parties, or what kind of concerns people have. It highlights what problems exist or remain, which shouldn't be ignored. You don't need to explain yourself if someone's shouting unfounded accusations in your direction, but you should take it as a sign that your words or actions might be misinterpreted by some people. For example, the people who complain about "too much Battlegrounds" whenever there's a Battlegrounds update make it clear that communicating a BG update without mentioning other game modes leaves a bad impression with some people, and the developers might want to improve how they communicate these updates, like including news or updates for other game modes whenever possible in fewer blogposts.

This much should be clear to anyone somewhat concerned with PR, including game developers. They can't afford to not engage with their community, and it would be a terrible advise to not get some feedback on new ideas.

Speaking as a person who has played every control/combo deck that had any prayer of success in every meta of the game, I see the Glide effect on the meta as similar to the way Shudderwock evolved from a pure combo deck doing nothing but drawing, surviving, and comboing on day one to the Prince Keleseth-based "maybe I can win without the combo, but if it gets off . . . " sort of deck.

In other words, there's nothing inherently wrong with creating an environment where not playing anything and sitting at max hand size the entire game is somewhat discouraged.  If it becomes an issue, we're going to have to make more proactive choices in our decks, regardless of what the ultimate win condition is.

Having said all that, it's difficult to believe you'll want to forfeit the power of Skull of Gul'dan, and due to the Outcast mechanic, it is nearly impossible to use Glide and Skull together.  I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Glide ends up a complete nonstarter.

Quote from Geoff >>

Quote from TheHiddenNinja >>

There aren't any cards or decks that will be rotating soon, unless you count 11 months from now as "soon".

If you do, there's only 1 expansion that will last; the most recent one in AoO. And building a deck with the core being from only 1 expansion is somewhat harder than making the core of the deck with 4 expansions.

So keep in mind that any deck you make will still be playable for the next 11 months or so

All except for AoO rotate out in 11 months?

 Yes, other than basic/classic of course

There aren't any cards or decks that will be rotating soon, unless you count 11 months from now as "soon".

If you do, there's only 1 expansion that will last; the most recent one in AoO. And building a deck with the core being from only 1 expansion is somewhat harder than making the core of the deck with 4 expansions.

So keep in mind that any deck you make will still be playable for the next 11 months or so