Hearthpwn

I think arena has this problem a lot more so than the meta at any point in time. When I'm at 7+ wins and someone is play terribly I get scared because I know they've broken cards. I do agree with the general consensus that this meta is total dogshit though. 

As a mostly mobile player with android this is really killed any desire to play this game. The new (old) cards are not very exciting and losing a 1/4 of my matches to d/c to start the season made it an easy decision to not try for legend.

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

@Dunscot

He writes these long diatribes about every aspect of the game being designed with active malice.  Some of the theories are actually quite entertaining.

@Ehronatha

Did you really miss the sarcasm in WingsDude's post?  If you didn't, and I'm getting trolled, kudos to you.  But it sure sounds like you thought his comments were genuine.

 

 

I don't really think a lot productive has been added to this topic in the last 24 hrs, but I had to come back and note that Brian Kibler is one of the worst people to be holding up as someone with a reasonable stance on this whole thing.  I vividly remember him handing out bans for years straight to anyone who would suggest that maybe, possibly, we shouldn't be building the gallows to hang Trump over Russiagate.  THEN, when the Mueller report hit and the whole narrative was disproven, he bans at least 8 people that day for asking if he'd read the report, including two subscribers who had been subbed for multiple years.

None of this is to suggest he isn't fully within his rights in all of these actions, but I just can't keep a straight face as people venerate him for having some claim to wisdom on this topic.

 

It will be interesting to see whether Hearthstone actually takes a tangible hit in revenue this quarter.  After all the hubbub and rhetoric, it would be spectacularly embarrassing for the community to NOT have put its money where its mouth is.  In the past, however, the talk has rarely translated into any collective action with any bite behind it.

Despite my not being very impressed with the cause celeb this time around, I actually am rooting for those of you who want to see Blizzard take a hit.  Despite the shit some folks want to talk in their indecipherable rants, I DO want to see a community able to affect some change in the company that makes and maintains so many games I love.  BUT, it won't happen for you.  This will all be forgotten in plenty of time for sales to hike on the upcoming new expansion in December, UNLESS those of you who care do what it takes to make sure this is not forgotten.

Good luck.

 If Blizzard makes budget this quarter it will be a substantial disgrace for its gamers. Blizzard has already taken massive loses this year. However, if the trend continues it's not necessarily indicative of community response to HK . I don't feel like spending any money on Activision Blizzard until they fix management. It's easy for me to stay away. I've never been a fan of COD and haven't play WOW since it first came out. COD seems to be losing steam as a franchise and I think WOW subscriptions are taking a hit. Time will tell, but my guess is Blizzard continues its worst year financially.

Quote from Wingdude22 >>

Not sure if this 100% correct .

Its true that the Chinese Company holds 5% of Activision/Blizzard, but the market is way bigger there.

In Hearthstones case streamers tryed roughly a year ago to go down to the bottom of Legend and collect the most Legend points (queing and insta conceding etc.rougly a week before reset ). In NA a guy went down to 6k, EU was 10.3 k, and China was almost 33k. (dont compare it to asia pacific wich is the smalest server). Obviously numbers might have chaged meanwhile. 

Additional someone posted this:

"On Destiny's - not that one - Twitch channel a WoW dev that was a guest on the stream let it slip that WoW would almost always be in Steam's most concurrent game if it was on steam - He also let it slip that roughly 70% of WoW players are from China. China is well known for delisting and baning any game/devs/publishers that even remotely seems to speak out against them. 

What Blizzard has done is abhorrent and just downright ethically wrong - but I can see why they felt like they had to do that... Still keeping that shit uninstalled though. F..K Blizzard.
The original video is behind a Subscriber paywall - so here's a reaction to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSAlh9l-c7Q "

 

Feel free to figure out the numbers by yourself , but i guess China has far more influence than just 5%.

 You are correct that it's not just about the  5.2%, which is the actual total revenue. It's about growth in revenue from China, which doubled last year. The only place Blizzard revenue grew last year was China. Blizzard stock is down 27% this year. That's catastrophically bad. 

Quote from Lulchina >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Lulchina stayed out of it long enough for me to become the antiChrist of the thread for daring to point out a hole or two in the story, and now what are you supposed to call him?  No truer evil has been seen in this world, I'm sure.

I agree with whoever called out the "fake outrage" comment.  There's no particular reason to believe most of these guys are being disingenuous, nor is that required for the argument I'm trying to make.

I will say one thing by way of slight apology:  I would never have believed that the amount of publicity towards this story would ever have been generated thru a Hearthstone tournament.  Nevertheless, it is clear those of you who set out to make some noise have clearly succeeded.  I don't know yet if there's anything material to come out of it, but you got farther (further?) than I expected you could.

It's going to be interesting to see if any of the other Asia-Pacific players feel the need to say or do something in protest of Blitzchung's treatment this weekend for the GM series.  I hope no one else loses their career over it, but everyone has to decide how best to fight the bullshit of the world.

 C'mon Trump, true evil is a bit harsh :P

My main point still stands: the rules were broken and the punishment was given, all is right. Was the punishment harsh? Personally, I would still ban him but I wouldn't take away his winnings. He earned that money fair and square. Fair is fair. If getting punished for breaking the rules is fair then keeping your earned money is fair too. No need to be a hypocrite.

There is a misunderstanding among children that I support China. Let me be clear on this: I couldn't care less about China. I don't agree with their politics and that is where involvement of any kind with it ends. I care about this situation that we have here and nothing beyond that.

I fully support Blizzard's decision and right to execute a punishment although I agree that it is too severe. This has nothing to do with being ''a blind fanboy'' or something, if it were any other video game company, literally any other, in the exact same situation I'd support them in it. It is easy to look at the situation from an emotional stance but look at it from another point of view: IF Blizzard didn't ban him then what would the consequences for it be? First off, nobody would talk about Blizzard supporting HK because there wouldn't be as much attention to it if they just didn't do anything. Second, butthurt China lashes out and now you need to ask yourself the following question: what about Blizzard's employees in China? Worse, what about Chinese Blizzard's employees in China? Did you stop for a second to ask yourself what happens to them if their country sees them as taking the side of HK? Next, China bans all Blizzard games. Do you think that we're the only ones finding enjoyment in them? What about all other Chinese casters and pro players? What about other normal people who just play these games? Did you stop for a second to ask yourself that? Blizzard not doing anything will look as if they stand with ''the enemy'' and millions of people would get ''caught in the crossfire'' with some, chinese employees, probably facing some really fucked up consequences and all for what, for one kid saying something somewhere where he KNEW that he shouldn't do so and that it will have consequences for other people besides him?

 The market in China is 5.2% of Blizzard revenue. Blizzard stock is down roughly 4% this week. They have consequences regardless of how they dealt with the situation. The NBA is actually sticking to their values by supporting free speech. Adam Silver is dedicated to freedom of expression, more so than money.  The NBA under Silver is making more money than ever. Blizzard bungled this up badly. They don't want to be in the Wall Street Journal as the opposite of the NBA right now.

NBA is doing the exact same thing with the Rockets GM tweets. Politics are bad for business. Money is the core of American institutions, not integrity. This is expected behavior unfortunately.

Quote from metehan2399 >>

How Strife's deck work with too much duplicates?

 I think this is actually the best build for ladder as well as GM. Zephyrs is a staple in quest druid because you draw enough cards to support it. The late game is where Elise  becomes an alternate win condition. For example, if you're facing otk paladin you can Elise to get an extra hidden oasis and innervate, to heal 24 in one turn, or double up on ferocious howls. If your facing shaman or warrior Elise can give you an extra wave of threats that can seal a closely fought game. King Phaoris also serves as an extra big board and a pressure tool in the slower matchups. The only deck that this druid is very bad against is combo priest or some other extremely quick aggro decks. No beeees... 

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

As to the comment, "it is unacceptable that there are unwinnable games" that flies in the face of the entire design space of card games.  But again, the poker players are laughing from their mansions.

As to your definition of skill, I can't imagine any less relevant test of skill than "one single arbitrary set of circumstances which may or may not occur again in the entirety of a player's career".  It just isn't germane to the topic at hand to look at one particular game state and say "this person is more skilled because he navigated this circumstance . . . end of discussion."  And if that isn't the end of discussion, then by definition, skill can only be evaluated over multiple iterations of play.

 

BUT, even if one reaches a complete impasse on definitions, the issue here is whether RNG is the controlling factor in success of the game. 

You said, "even if one reaches no. 1 legend every month, that doesn't imply that there is skill in the game".  That is obviously untrue, and the argument can't really be carried forward if you insist on such an obviously flawed premise.

 I agree with all of the above. When Blizzard let some players early access to the new expansion Thijs almost made legend from rank 20 in 2 days. His deck building skills are so far above normal , he was able to achieve an 80% winrate with fresh cards. He was facing seasoned players, built 4-6 different decks and won with all of them. Once decks are optimized, the field gets a little bigger. But, I see the same names all the time in high legend for a reason. They make you think ahead to win, not just outdraw them. These percentages add up over time.

 I don't think politics has anything to do with the OP. I'm guessing the majority of hearthstone players don't vote or are too young to vote. That my guess which is all we can do on that front.

From playing some of the first online games I can tell you nothing has changed. Starcraft people would go ballistic, make death threats, lift all their buildings if they're Terran. In counterstrike people troll and lose a game on purpose and you get half an hour or more of that shit. Online gaming is toxic if you let it bother you. I honestly laugh when I lose to priest or murlocs on turn 4 or if my opponent highrolls crazy mutates. It's just funny and getting mad is not worth it.

Popolito#1660

Region: NA

Time played: Various times

Experience: Legend most months, depending on time. Top 300 legend 5 times.

Looking for: High level practice partners, deckbuilders. I will also take on students. Time is limited but I will gladly help when I can.

 I played tournament MTG in the early 2000's. I play poker and do marketing for a poker site. I love cards!

The quest reroll change confirms that a 60 gold quest is above average and shouldn't be rerolled if maximizing gold. The chance of rolling a higher quest is long term less gold. This allows a player that has minimal time to reroll a 3 win or 100 damage quest into an easy quest to complete.

I've a feeling loatheb is coming back. Which will effective the meta a lot.

These numbers are bloated. If the deck doesn't make it to gm, it's probably not broken. Murloc shaman I've faced maybe twice this season and in top 300 legend I've never seen it played. On a seperate account that's entirely f2p I've all the basic murlocs because they are almost always viable in a cheap deck. I went from rank 15-9 on that account with maybe 4 loses or so with budget quest hunter,because that was the quest I got for free. Pretty much all 4 decks I play in legend regularly beat hunter consistently. The highlander secret is the strongest and it's still not oppresive in any way.

Quote from MoonUnit >>

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from MoonUnit >>

Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.

 I would actually love to see a singleton-deck build-around legendary that could insta-kill hero cards. I dislike hero cards as much as you hate this interaction. So here we are, back to a matter of opinion about two cards that have zero impact on the meta either way.

By the way, there are plenty of individual cards that sit dead in your hand forever against certain decks, so that's not much of an argument. If Jaraxxus is literally your one and only win condition, your deck is terrible anyway and you deserve to lose. Jaraxxus the card may never be able to stand up against Zephrys the card, but it's nobody's fault but yours if your Jaraxxus deck can't stand up against the singleton deck.

I don't know where you even get the idea that Jaraxxus "should" be playable against Zephrys decks. There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable.

Its not about liking or disliking the interaction. From a design philosophy and game balance standpoint "Draw card x, if card y has been played, win the game." Is atrocious design, especially in the instance that card x is not a tech card specifically played for matchups with decks containing card y, but a staple that appears in a third of decks in the standard metagame and has incredible utility beyond this use. With that said I do think a card that is completely fucking useless in almost all other cases, and only playable in one class is borderline acceptable (Sac Pact prior to the introduction of Zephrys). When card x completely locks a player out of playing card y, while also fulfilling every other role in the game, card x is too powerful. As stated before I think the power level of Zephrys otherwise is reasonable considering the cost of activation, but generating Sac Pact against Jaraxxus is a step too far.

High cost cards or cards that aren't particularly useful in a specific matchup can sit dead in your hand for a long time, this is true. But that's either because the game ended before you accrued enough mana to use the card, a situation where the card would be useful didn't arise during the game, or you failed to see a way to use the card creatively in a mathup where it is not normally very useful. This is far removed from not being allowed to play a card because you will automatically lose the game every single time if your opponent is holding the single-card answer, or happens to draw it before you win.

"There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable." This is false. The worst polarisation we have ever seen was Boomsday meta's Odd Warrior vs Quest Rogue, which was over 80% in favour of the Quest Rogue at a high level of play, but at no point has it ever been impossible to win any given matchup. Additionally, steep polarisation of this sort has been a source of numerous complaints in the past and was very much seen as a problem that needed to be fixed. In any case, no one has suggested Warlock is incapable of beating Zephrys with Jaraxxus in their deck, simply that it is detrimental to game balance and entertainment value that a card has been (quite unnecessarily) rendered unplayable. More to the point than meta polarisation, however - there has never before existed a card that you can't play for fear of immediately losing the game to a single card that is run in a large percentage of decks, neither should there be. Players should be free to use their classic class legendary (no matter how bad it is) without being forced into not playing it because of a tired relic meme from vanilla days has now become a significant force in the meta.

Bottom line here is I'm not trying to express my opinion about whether hero cards or instagibbing Jaraxxus is "fun" or not, I'm trying to explain from a design perspective that making a card completely unplayable only serves to take something away from the game and does not add anything to it. If effectively removing Jaraxxus from the card pool would lead to a blossoming of several new strategies that he was holding back (which could well have actually happened with Dr. Boom - Mad Genius), then I'd be all for it, but it does not. It just gives the player base one less card to play with.

 Yeah I agree, it is really bad design. It's basically adding hate cards, to a card that isn't even played ,for no reason at all. I still don't understand why Charge is a basic warrior card. Complete garbage card that is confusing with rush as a mechanic now. Every TCG has River Croc type basics that get power creeped out of existence, which is fine. River Croc is a free card that teaches people how to play the game, not a standard class legendary that cost 1600 dust. Mage has toni, druid has Cen, pally has Tirion in every standard meta. Warlock has a unplayable card in metas with multiple combo decks which is pretty much every meta now and they made it worse.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from MoonUnit >>

Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.

 I would actually love to see a singleton-deck build-around legendary that could insta-kill hero cards. I dislike hero cards as much as you hate this interaction. So here we are, back to a matter of opinion about two cards that have zero impact on the meta either way.

By the way, there are plenty of individual cards that sit dead in your hand forever against certain decks, so that's not much of an argument. If Jaraxxus is literally your one and only win condition, your deck is terrible anyway and you deserve to lose. Jaraxxus the card may never be able to stand up against Zephrys the card, but it's nobody's fault but yours if your Jaraxxus deck can't stand up against the singleton deck.

I don't know where you even get the idea that Jaraxxus "should" be playable against Zephrys decks. There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable.

 Jaraxxus is only playable from getting it from your own Zephyrs. In wild Gul'dan is infinitely better. Control warlock in standard is garbage. Jaraxxus will never be included in standard. When you think about it, the warrior quest is a better hero power and it's the worst quest in the game.

Now to get Jaraxxus from your own Zephyrs requires a situation with low health and low cards. Zephyr sees it as a win condition in this scenario only. If your opponent hasn't already played Zephyrs, it's unlikely you would win vs a Tirron or Fireball anyway. 

It's an interaction that Blizzard chose to include. I think they find this interaction hilarious and it won't be changed.  It's a feature not a bug.