Hearthpwn

Quote from JamesT >>

Quote from Pas >>

Quote from JamesT >>

I'm with those that think it's only going to be kind of "meh". I'm glad they're experimenting with it, but I think it'll only be useful for tech cards or perhaps high cost cards. The problem being, that we're unlikely to see really good cards printed with the effect. And if that's the case, you'll think to yourself when building a deck, "Do I really need this flexibility when instead I could just include a better card." There will also be a high skill ceiling to using it to its full potential. May have more popularity at high legend ranks, but lower ranks will probably just skip it and stick with the agro focus.

Edit: I guess my TLDR, is why have a card in your deck that you don't want?

 

You're asking the wrong question.
Obviously I don't put cards in the deck that I don't want to play, however I do put cards in the deck that I only need in certain matchups, at least in a control deck.

Let's say for example that face decks infest the meta: in my deck I will put cards that heal me. If I can cycle them, even at 1 mana, I will cycle them when my opponent plays control.

The same goes for every tech card. But not only that, if I play control I must have AOE, if my opponent is OTK I don't need aoe so I cycle them.

Or I can cycle if I need solutions to a specific board or threat, not having answers in hand, or more generally to look for a specific card that can solve the game by itself.

Or maybe it allows me to play tech cards that otherwise I could not play, cards that move a lot in some MUs but against others are useless. In that case transforming the dead draw in a consumed mana seems to me positive.

And that's without talking about discovered cards.

Obviously this does not mean that the mechanics is OP. In theory the mechanic seems interesting, the strength, as always, will depend on how much Blizzard intends to charge for it.

 Well yeah, it would be great if you could trade out for stuff you need. At least as of now, however, Hearthstone decks aren't built that way. They're built for matchups and mana curves. Using your example of control vs OTK, going to your deck for more draw is just going to pull more of what you already didn't need. You've built the deck with heals, AOE and drawing is just going to get you more of what you don't need. It's just a bad matchup and your deck doesn't have the right answers. Another example is rush warrior vs no minion mage. For rush warrior, trading cards with your deck for more draw is just going to give you more rush minions. Again, I see the potential for tech cards, especially anti-weapon cards, but that's about the only use I think it will get.

Edit: Another way to put it. Imagine that every current card in the game had the tradeable mechanic on it. However, as a tradeoff every one of those cards now cost one more mana (in addition to the one mana cost of the trade). Would a 5 mana Hysteria that was tradeable make the cut?

True. People are acting as if Tradeable instantly gives you the card that you want, but that's certainly not the reality.

You are more likely to get another useless card, and you pay 1 Mana for that.

Like the snake card, for example. It's actually better to play it right away when available against Priest, for example, where the class has no weapon, instead of shuffling it into the deck, so that you aren't punished as hard as in later turns when there are more Mana (since you won't be able to play it regardless of whether or not you shuffle it into the deck, and Priest matches basically end up in fatigue), and if the opponent potentially has a weapon, you don't want to shuffle the card into the deck.

Quote from hoernsen >>

 When you buy all the expansions with real money, you don't need to spend any gold

 Roll Safe meme

If you don't know about the keyword yet, here's an explanation.

"Tradeable is a mechanic where you can either choose to play the card the keyword is on normally or pay 1 Mana to shuffle the card to the deck and draw a card."

In my opinion, the mechanic is useless at best and bad at worst. The problem is that you must spend 1 Mana to do it. That 1 Mana do nothing hurts, and most of the time, people won't bother to do it, since they need that 1 Mana, especially against aggro players where every Mana counts.

I think the mechanic's use case is as a side ability when you're on turn 3 and you only use hero power, for example. It won't be something that will be considered as the center of deck building, unlike Corrupt or Frenzy.

What do you think?

First, you collect Gold by playing.

Second, buy mini set when available while collecting Gold.

Third, either buy new expansion packs or play Arena (if you feel lucky) until your Gold is 0.

Repeat.

Quote from Psy_Kik >>

Activsion is shady as shit, and will say/do anything to increase profits and squeeze more out their IPs.

But if you think they need an algorithm to swing things unfairly against the users in a head-to-head game you are a goddam fool. Think about it - if the algorithm decides you are due a loss then that would mean your opponent is due a win, if the RNG is fixed against you then it is fixed in favour of your opponent... the whole idea collapses around itself very quickly, and would be all so increibly pointless when the head-to-head nature of the game determines that results will always be reasonaly close to 50-50, and fair, one way or the other, without any effort on their part.

The way they 'rig' hearthstone is by making full use of the addictive side of the gameplay, the pack openings, the progression, etc to hook people and have them spend more and more. The way you believe they 'rig' hearthstone, to put it bluntly, is dumb as fuck.

 

 That's cool and all, but what do you say about the proof that is the patent?

Quote from Andrei2007 >>

Quote from IDProG123 >>

Here's my thoughts:

First of all, the guy made the video because he got banned on Twitter. That is just obvious. With that being said, it doesn't mean the guy didn't do research. I think it was a well-made video with good points.

Second, the OP posted the video because the video mentioned Blizzard's patent. That is also obvious.

Also, since most of the video isn't related to Hearthstone, I will only react to the Blizzard patent one.

First, I believe that Hearthstone is injected with the patent.  I don't need to prove it with actual statistical proof because the patent itself is a very strong evidence and proof. There is NO WAY they made the patent, paid for it, and didn't implement it. That would enrage the shareholders.

Second, for anyone who claims that Blizzard does not implement it, YOU MUST PROVE IT. That's what's called burden of proof. You are the one who made the claim, you must also be the one who proves it.

 Until you have solid statistical evidence of the claim you make the burden of proof is on you. Because you are the first one making an accusation. If what you said was true, me as a player with full collection should only get favorable matchups on ladder. Rank 1 when?

To answer your question, the patent never mentions about what happens to players who pay, only those who don't. 

If it's not black, it doesn't automatically mean it's white.

Still don't understand? Here, another example. 

Just because you are punished for not doing homework, doesn't mean you are rewarded for doing it. 

Here's my thoughts:

First of all, the guy made the video because he got banned on Twitter. That is just obvious. With that being said, it doesn't mean the guy didn't do research. I think it was a well-made video with good points.

Second, the OP posted the video because the video mentioned Blizzard's patent. That is also obvious.

Also, since most of the video isn't related to Hearthstone, I will only react to the Blizzard patent one.

First, I believe that Hearthstone is injected with the patent.  I don't need to prove it with actual statistical proof because the patent itself is a very strong evidence and proof. There is NO WAY they made the patent, paid for it, and didn't implement it. That would enrage the shareholders.

Second, for anyone who claims that Blizzard does not implement it, YOU MUST PROVE IT. That's what's called burden of proof. You are the one who made the claim, you must also be the one who proves it.

Quote from ZCFlayer >>

Warrior having +2 armour for 2 mana implies +1 armour is worth 0.25 mana. 

Lmao, you clearly didn't read my post.

The entire point of this thread is to ask if 1 Armor is actually worth 0.25 Mana (or if Warrior's HP is actually worth 2 Mana).

Quote from AAZ >>

it's ok, that some classes have stronger heropowers it was intented by HS team since the start. They said they balance it by giving classes with stronger Hero-powers, weaker basic and class cards (Warlock is a good example - best HP, weak cards).

 What? That's not how it should work.

Hearthstone has a decent value standard for things. For example, drawing a card is worth 1.5 Mana, up to 4 cards, then the value reduces because more draws means higher chance to overdraw. Dealing damage to yourself reduces 0.5 Mana for each damage, look at Backfire for example of this.

Hero Power is the same. A 2 Mana Hero Power is as worth as 1/2 Mana or a 0 Mana card. Paladin's and Mage's Hero Power are good examples to this.

Then comes the topic of Demon Hunter and Druid's Hero Power. Druid's HP gains 1 Armor, but it costs 1 more than DH's HP. That implies that 1 Armor is worth 1 Mana. Now imagine if DH's HP were "Gain 1 Armor" instead of "Gain +1 Attack this turn only". It would be trash, right?

My first point is that the 1 Armor is not worth 1 extra Mana, meaning that Druid's HP is underpowered.

Then comes the question of "How to make Druid's HP balanced?". If you increased the Armor to 2, it would make it look OP compared to Warrior's and Priest's HP. IMO, the best way to make Druid's HP balanced is to make it "Gain +2 Attack this turn only". So +1 Attack, remove Armor gain. This is because there is a 0 Mana card named Pounce that does the same thing, so it fits perfectly.

After that comes the question of "If 1 Armor is not worth 1 Mana, then does that mean Warrior's and Priest's HP are underpowered?" Should they go to 3 Armor and Health, respectively?

I'd like to know what you think about this.

Sethekk should've been 3 Mana 3/4, or even 4 Mana 4/5 or 3/6. Same as Kolkar Pack Runner, should've been 3 Mana 3/4. 2 Mana generators provide too much value.

I am actually at Diamond 7, currently. I have played Hearthstone since 2016, but I have never gotten to Diamond until this month. I am using Control Warrior, and it's demolishing ladder with win rate of around 9-2. I probably can go to Legend this week if I play long enough, but I'm currently not in the mood to play the game.

Quote from SirJohn13 >>

Again this Tickatus thread.....Tickatus Warlock loses to aggro (most of the time), gets obliterated by midrange decks, and loses to most control decks that have a reliable win condition outside of fatigue. It only beats some ultra-greedy weird control decks and priests. And even priests, they used to be auto-win for Ticklock, now with Mutanus and all Priests running the Southsea Scoundrels, it's at best 70-30 for Warlock, probably less.
So Tickatus isn't strong, isn't oppressive, doesn't have any meta implications whatsoever (if there is no control meta it has absolutely nothing to do with Tickatus) and there is absolutely no reason to nerf the card

This is a bad thought process. A deck being bad does not mean cards in it can't be OP.

Mage decks were bad back then, but Refreshing Spring Water still managed to be nerfed. Same as Hysteria. Decks running it weren't like Tier 1 or even 2, but the card still managed to get nerfed.

Mutanus is one billion times better than Tickatus. At least it only removes 1 card, not 10. 

There are multiple ways to play around Mutanus:

1. Always have more than 1 minion or have no minion at all in your hand.

2. Play spell-based win condition, like C'Thun.

3. Play more than one win condition.

Unlike Mutanus, there is no way to play around Tickatus other than discarding it with Mutanus.

Quote from Plahtica >>

wow Rohriant,

you literally dismissed control decks as being bad and greedy. Seems we found the face hunter player

 

In contrary, the OP might NOT be a Hunter player, but rather a control (other than Warlock, of course) player.

My guess is the OP is a Control Warrior (the greedy one with N'Zoth and Saurfang, probably) player.

Whether it's Warrior or not, the OP might be a control player, and the OP was probably bitter that he/she got the win condition burned by Tickatus.

EDIT: WHOOPS, I didn't read who you're quoting it to. My bad. I was referring to the OP, not the one you were quoting.