Hearthpwn

Bug surely? If it was for your team it would say "...your team's first mech" but none of these trinkets are worded this way or work this way and there aren't any duos specific trinkets.

My take is wheel warlock isn't very good. You're right that the wheel is very rarely a win condition against any deck, but burning your deck and playing a 15/15 taunt lifesteal and then copying it to make a 15/15 rush is often a very strong play with very little downside if you have Symphony and/or Marin in hand to refill your deck. I won doing that a lot more than I won with the wheel going off. 

Against BSM specifically the strength of the deck is just handlock stuff. You can pretty consistently create a bunch of 7/7 - 9/9 minions on board at 5-6 mana, and then resummon and copy them. The the Tsunami elementals just attack into them and die, you take a little face damage but you have lifesteal that doesn't empty your hand, and you have a win condition that isn't board based so it's not a big deal if they manage to spend their 10 mana spell clearing your board. 

Also domino effect/lifesteal drink/defile are all pretty good against the wide boards BSM creates.

I only got as far as platinum 2 from the starting rank. I didn't play the previous month so that was quite a few games.

I don't run a deck tracker so I say I feel like I had a positive win rate against that particular deck but I can't tell you exactly what it was. Death Knight felt like a bigger problem. Before I stopped playing I kept encountering Corpsicle DK / pain lock / Armor warrior and losing very decisively to those decks. 

There''s probably a better control / handlock deck out there than Wheel Lock, I just saw someone mention it on Hearthpwn recently and thought I'd give it a try.

I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid.

I’d say that’s the only thing I don’t 100% agree

I'm not saying BSM isn't stupid or easy to play or that it shouldn't be nerfed. Maybe it should! It's certainly fairly straightforward in what it aims to do and has a highroll that's not that difficult to pull off and very hard for many decks to answer. 

And there's nothing wrong with hating a particular deck. But it felt ok to me to play against and it didn't feel super strong when I played it a bit. 

I just mean I'm not trying to justify my low rank (I could care less) by saying skill isn't a factor or claiming that the deck that beats my deck is a stupid deck for dumb people. When I see people saying that X deck is stupid it's usually an emotional rather than a rational argument and I'm not doing that. 

People may be overstating the importance of skill in Hearthstone a bit.

It's a skill based game, players who consistently hit legend are better at the game than those who don't (like me), and I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid. 

But it's not chess. HS is a game where a weaker player can beat a stronger player, especially with a high-roll deck, and winrate is an average over time thing. Unlike chess, give me and a pro player the same hand and board and we'll probably make the same plays most of the time. 

There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't. 

I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent.

I find it's ok on wifi, even in long games you get 60 seconds or whatever for your turn if you watch till the end. 

On mobile internet sometimes it'll skip your turn entirely. Which is annoying and means you have to close and reopen the app instead. 

But it's an online game it's probably ok that having a stable connection is required for playing. 

One thing I find irritating is when the game knows you've lost and you're going to take lethal damage (and you can tell, too, by looking at the board) if you concede for 3rd or 4th place you take an additional 50 point penalty. 

Quote from powerporing >>

Quote from olestuga >>

Quote from powerporing >>

Aggro is my fun so in essence I hate facing Control decks because the games take too long I want to rank fast any game that goes above 6 minutes is not fun for me. I also like to play wide boards hence my preference for Flood Paladin.

 Do you genuinely find aggro fun, or just play it because you can rank up faster?

 Yes I do... For me winning is fun I genuinely hate slogfests where opponents already know they win against me but still continue to draw out the game. I find satisfaction at getting my opponents health to 0. So yeah winning is where I derive my fun from.

Play your favorite deck in your favorite mode, make it yourself or netdeck it, emote or don't, GLHF. 

My least favorite games are the ones where turns 2-5 you either don't have the counters and the game is over or you HAVE the counters the game is also over but you need to deal 30 damage first (if they don't concede). 

I like big high impact cards and when a quick aggro game is over, win or lose, I don't feel like I've engaged any meaningful competition.

But that's just me looking at the conclusion (I like control decks) and then retrofitting my reasoning to fit with that. I assume Aggro players do the same. 

Why would I prefer short games over long games, though? 

If I've got some free time and I'm choosing to use it playing Hearthstone why should I care if I play 4 games in 20 minutes or 2?

Is it just because you want to rank up as quickly as possible?

Also, especially if you care about ranking up:

opponents already know they win against me but still continue to draw out the game

Why not concede?

It's when your opponent's hero goes, "I'm running out of cards!" 

 Were you able to find any other part of the game to focus on, or did you lose interest when you couldn't break the pot?

Have you ever used any software, other than Hearthstone, fresh and unmodified from the Battle.net App or the App Store or whatever, to play Hearthstone or to run alongside Hearthstone or to interact with the Hearthstone app/program in any way? 

If you go to the shops you'll probably find you can buy a really cheap pen and one that does the same thing but looks a bit nicer that costs 10x as much. Assuming you don't boycott the shop, accuse the shopkeeper of criminality, and deride the people who purchase the expensive pens, you should forget the non-issue that is Hearthstone selling cosmetics that cost more than you're willing to pay.

They're pretty explicit in the press release that these are intended for people who "players who really care about cosmetics," who haveshown a lot of excitement for [i.e. spent a lot of money on] cosmetics with a higher quality bar" and who want "ultra-premium cosmetics."

Assuming that the cosmetics are as advertised there's nothing criminal or immoral about selling expensive cosmetics to people who want to buy them. It's good for the health of the game. It's good for players if Blizzard make more of their money this way than through loot box bullshit, decreased time between expansions, reduced free rewards and so on. 

It's especially good for players who have no interest in ultra-premium cosmetics.

This is just nothing. You'll probably never even see the skin outside the shop. 

A few months ago I started getting that glitch where the game would crash if I tabbed away from the screen. 

They said running in windowed mode would help, and it did, but it didn't fix the problem so I was running it in a window and still crashing frequently for months. Mostly if I tabbed out during combat. Seems to be fixed now. 

The game still sometimes randomly disconnects during fights. If I exit immediately and restart I can generally keep playing, though I've lost a few games this way. If it happens at the end of a long fight then I end up skipping my turn. 

I was playing a Pirates vs. Beasts game the other day where after the combat with all the death rattles had resolved my turn lasted around 3 seconds. So I had to start quitting the game and reloading as soon as combat started. I had to check the BG records page to see what position we finished in. 

Also I can see how much gold my partner has when I play on my phone but not on my laptop. So I can't tell when they're out of gold, if they can afford to upgrade before I pass, if they can afford to pass, etc.

Game doesn't seem to be in rude health at the moment. Been playing since 2014 and I can't remember a time when crashes and bugs had such a big effect on the experience. 

I don't know if it's possible to do that

I don't know if it's possible to do that, I've never looked.

« I'm pretty sure I had positive win rate against BSM the last couple of days playing Wheel Lock, I was certainly climbing whilst meeting loads of them. I couldn't tell you if that's a favored matchup or not but the main factor seems to be that BSM's not very consistent. »

I haven’t played the game since the mini set. I’ve just been watching streamers as I work out. I think it’s cool that you’re playing wheel in the current meta, you’re certainly challenging yourself. I’d be interested to know how wheel lock works well against BSM considering, from what I’ve watched, that games never last enough for you to play wheel. I’d be surprised if you managed to win by actually playing wheel and making it your victory condition. Either you die by the onslaught of tsunami or they concede/get wrecked shortly afterwards no? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m wondering how it pans out. From what I’ve seen, by turn 8, the game outcome seems to be already decided. This is from memory so I might be wrong. I mean, by the time you play wheel, I imagine you could’ve won otherwise because they ran out steam no? What rank are you at?

« There isn't a level of skill you can achieve where the opponent summoning 4 ice elementals that go face and then repeating this 3 times from turn 5 onwards isn't potentially a problem. Either you can go for lethal, you've managed to draw the solutions, or you haven't. »

I agree that skill matters in HS (and a good knowledge of the meta). This situation you’ve described doesn’t rely on skill however, I agree with you. 

« I'm not doing the salty thing of saying a deck or archetype I don't like is braindead and stupid. « 

I’d say that’s the only thing I don’t 100% agree in your well-written post. Not liking a deck and it being brain dead isn’t mutually exclusive. HS is a pretty low ceiling game, it’s meant to be that way. It doesn’t come close to the complexity of chess, as you’ve said. Some decks, therefore, require less skill to pilot than others.

To me, skill comes into play when your decision making depends on the board, considering what your opponent could have in hand, the right time to play a card and when to make optimal risks. Some decks are played pretty much the same way almost regardless of what the opponent plays. It’d be interesting to compare gameplay videos of treant Druid when it was a thing. You’d find very little variety in gameplay pattern. The player consistently repeat the same strategy regardless of what the opponent does. They then proceed to win by turn fiveish or concede and move on to another game in order to repeat the same pattern. Beginners can do that. It doesn’t require much knowledge or planning ahead. That’s fine. It’s inclusive. 

Playing a 40 cards control deck, to me anyway, if only due to card variety in the whole deck, will require by default to use various plays in order to win. I’d say so do highlander decks for the same reason. 

Watch Kibler play Tesspionage Rogue. There’s tons of randomness in involved. You constantly need to adapt and change your game plan based on what espionnage provides. That’s not something a beginner could manage. I’m not saying it requires genius level of IQ, just that it’s harder to pilot. 

Anyway that other dude deleted his reply but I wanted to reply to another one of his argument being: “Just play these 3 decks in order to adapt to the meta” implying it would be healthy if the current meta was the same three archetypes facing each other over and over again because of the need to “adapt”. If your game has reached the point where three archetypes are viable to deal with pre-patch BSM, the issue isn’t the skill of the players, the issue is that you’ve made designed the game in such a way where the meta has become stale and provides no diversity. If you design various classes, your design decisions shouldn’t lead you to a meta where very few of them are playable. 

To conclude, the patch seems to have lessened the issue of BSM, they don’t seem to be as oppressive and rampant as they used to be. The dev did the right thing by acting on it as opposed to go “let the players adapt”.

As for the team being “bad at their job”. I don’t agree with it. The whole team isn’t unanimously calling the shots, a few people are. The buck stops them. Also, Hearthstone might be a zero sum game where you’ll never reach a meta which is favoured by all players. Hiring new staff would likely lead to different complaints. At the end of the day people like thingd about the game which are hard to reconcile (the fast crowd vs the slow control crowd). There’s probably incentives to make the game profitable and pressure for the game to be that way which will then seep into the game. We’ve had good ideas lately, excavate and titans were highlights to me. I mean, it’s not all bad.

Quote from HeilKise >>

Quote from emkarab >>

Quote from TheMage >>

Quote from emkarab >>

Quote from Zizka >>

Do you play BSM by any chance? 

No, I just play at legend. I play mainly Shaman. There are many other decks that are worth complaining much more than BSM, especially when nerfs already reduced them to bottom tier 2 deck.

Yes, BSM is still tier 1 deck at bronze and silver, sorry that I don't care about these ranks.

 Of course - always the same reply from the actual bronze players that are milking BSM or whatever busted deck.  Uh huh, they are all #1 legend and have been since Day 1 using their home brew decks.  Its just a git gud thing. 

What? Your wild assumptions are not a good substitute for a reasonable discussion, you know? But you are right about one thing - Hearthstone is a game of one busted deck against other busted deck. It's not a matter of nerfing busted decks to the ground, but to make them more or less equal. BSM after nerfs is no more busted than other meta decks.

 I mean excuse me to enter in this but you are the one that asume that people calling the deck tier 1 is bronze or silver and you dont care about that. Now let me talk for real: BSM is right now just varely beaten in winrate by the aggro decks that we talk and know that were their "main counters" i will said that Pala, Warlock, Hunter and DH usually raise in aggro variants when heavy high roll decks are on top.

But again this is just varely. a week ago the diff between BSM and this deck was very large. And people still call it a "tier 2 deck" data on all the ranks is not enough to make a point valid? So the nerf technically did nothing people still was playing those decks to have a chance against Mage, the ladder is in fact the same. What change is that instead of being "worse than the target deck" now this aggro decks are "stricly better than the target deck" For any other deck this is not even a nerf.

If any the only valid reason to not call it a tier 1 deck anymore is because in HS standards there is place for only 2 or 3 spots in the "tier 1 list" and anything else is tier 2. So, yeah that is still one of the best decks in the format and is for sure still the best high roll deck in the format.

People that forget how different Legend rank (and less competitive) than rank ladder dont get this but: you cant just used the "Skill of the players" as a metric to evalue decks in any case. In legend rank high roll decks are never seem as a problem because people is not pushing for rank 1 Legend in the same way people is pushing to get Legend. In the end is not how fast you win but how many times in a row you win. High Roll decks temp to win a lot more than people belive but you can get unlucky 1 or 2 times in a row and that would ruin your legend rank, but it wont affect that much your ladder climb.

If you "dont care about bronze and silver players opinions" what a interesting way to said that you dont care neither about Daimond or nothing below legend, them you actually dont care about how strong is this deck in reality because every time you lose you will said "oh the mage was lucky they high roll too fast, next time i will beat them" 95% of the decks cant prevent that high roll not even solve the board when it happen.

You neither understood what I said, nor you know how tiers work. I said BSM is tier 1 in low ranks, I was not assuming these are ranks that people who argue it's very good play them. And decks are tier 1 not just because there is some mythical "2 or 3 spots" in the tier 1 list, it's because its winrate is just too low, more than 1 standard deviation, from the best deck. You cannot be 1 of the best if your results are so much worse than the best, even though you still can be quite good.

And also I'm really disappointed that you are so blinded in your anti-BSM crusade that it's enough to make any dumb point that is against BSM that you support it. As statistics show very clearly, BSM was hurt by the nerfs, it's significantly worse, although still tier 2 but some people for some reason refuse to acknowledge this. And if you want my wild assumption, if/when they play at high ranks they are for sure more often highrolled by Pirate DH, Painlock or even Odin Warrior than by Mage.

There are so many things that you are wrong about. What you are wrong from the beginning is your claim BSM warped meta so that aggro decks are so good just because they beat BSM. And surprise, even though BSM got weakened and is really a very rare sight at legend, aggro decks are still powerful. Because it doesn't matter they beat BSM, they are just good overall. Another thing you are wrong about is that BSM got weaker only against its counters, which is not true, for example after nerfs BSM match-up against Rainbow Shaman, Highlander Shaman and Highlander Druid got significantly worse and all these match-ups are now below 50% for BSM. It is funny you are not even right about it being the best highroll deck of the format, because, surprise, Ramp Druid is now better than BSM.

So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all.

I tried to play BSM and I gave it up even before nerfs - it was not good enough and it was quite boring. Have I been highrolled by BSM? Absolutely. And I understand that people can be frustrated by highrolls, but their highrolls are just one of many frustrating game states that can happen in Standard today and not the most frustrating ones.

I am going to assume no? There is no leaderboard for this but thats not too crazy considering some of the crap I've seen recently. Its amazing how crazy things get with Trinkets.

You don't have to. My take away is that you prefer winning to actually playing the game and that's fine. 

What is fun in Hearthstone?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to read the lamentations in the forum.

Your teammate was probably playing self dmg demons without rewinder 

I think that skin is good news. I wouldn’t buy it if it were 5 bucks but some people want stuff like that and they’re getting milked pretty hard. It provides cash to support a game I don’t spend a dime on. Keep it up and thank god for whales! 

I mean, I guess it's just surprising that someone would say being unable to click on background ruined the experience of the game considering the game experience revolves around playing cards as opposed to interacting with the background. I never imagined anyone could care that much about background interaction to consider their experience annihilated if it's not possible whenever they face Ragnarok skins. Couldn't they just experience with the background when they're not facing Ragnarok (which is most of the time) to see what they do once? I mean, it this an experience which needs to be repeated many times over? I thought this is something you did one time to say what happens and then never again. Do you guys repeatedly interact with the background in most of your games? 

I agree that it's a bug, I just didn't realized it could matter that much to anyone before reading OP.