• 8

    posted a message on Activision being Activision

    Bro, we get it. You don't like how they do business and think it's a big conspiracy. What do you get out of annoying people who clearly don't agree with you over and over again? It's weird and unhealthy.

     

    Move on with your life. Go find a game or company that you do like. Pick up a new hobby. Learn a new language. Go to therapy. Do something productive with your time. Enjoy yourself instead of spreading negativity.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Shaman is STILL the underdog
    Quote from SinAscendant >>
    Quote from Leaga >>
    Quote from SirJohn13 >>

    Shaman is good and Doom Shaman is probably better than Elemental Shaman, however I cannot imagine a deck, other than OTK Demon Hunter perhaps, that wants to waste a deck slot to run Ooze in the current meta

     There's def a few other decks. Priest could squeeze one or two in if they find themselves not stabilizing in the MU fast enough. Miracle Rogue could drop Cult Neophyte if it wants to tech for Shaman over Paladin/Druid/Mage. But yeah, most decks cant afford a card that's dead weight in a bunch of matchups and doesn't directly synergize with their gameplan.

     >dead weight in a bunch of matchups

     

    Let's look at the decks with over 10k plays right now.

    Face Hunter: runs Rinling

    Ele sham: runs double Whack a Gnoll

    Spellmage: No weap

    Spell Druid: No weap

    Deathrattle DH: killing Tuskpiercer isnt really useful but they run Felsteel too

    Ele sham V2: see above

    Miracle Rogue: Mediocre since they dont run weap buffs, but still usable

    Secret Pally: Secret sword and Hammer of the Naaru

    Aggro Sham: Doomhammer

    Spellmage v2: no weap

    Ele sham v3: Gnoll Hammer again

    So by adding the total number of games, and subtracting the ones where it's useless, we get 72% of matchups where it has some use, and adjusting for the fact that it's only partly useful against Hunter or Miracle Rogue, that makes it useful about 60% of the time. That's about the same as Cult Neophyte since Deathrattle DH, Ele Sham, and Secret Pally arent very bothered by 1 extra spell mana

     Just because its usable in a matchup doesn't mean its useful in a matchup.

     

    Ie: Against a face hunter you Ooze their Rinling's and then they kill you with a Rhino or Piercing Shot because you just put a 3/2 body on board. Oozing a Gnoll Hammer doesn't stop their now buffed minion from dominating the board leading to them winning the game. Oozing a Hammer of the Naaru and leaving up a 6/6 Elemental isn't gonna help much. 

     

    Please note that I said "dead weight", not "dead".  Whether or not it can hit a weapon is unimportant. The important part is if hitting that weapon helps put you in a position to win the game. Also, keep in mind that to put an Ooze in you have to take something out. Don't just look at what Ooze adds when it hits. Look at what Ooze costs. A lot of decks (Rush Warrior, DR DH being prime examples) are so dense with synergies that they can't afford something that doesn't further their gameplan.

    Posted in: Shaman
  • 0

    posted a message on Shaman is STILL the underdog
    Quote from SirJohn13 >>

    Shaman is good and Doom Shaman is probably better than Elemental Shaman, however I cannot imagine a deck, other than OTK Demon Hunter perhaps, that wants to waste a deck slot to run Ooze in the current meta

     There's def a few other decks. Priest could squeeze one or two in if they find themselves not stabilizing in the MU fast enough. Miracle Rogue could drop Cult Neophyte if it wants to tech for Shaman over Paladin/Druid/Mage. But yeah, most decks cant afford a card that's dead weight in a bunch of matchups and doesn't directly synergize with their gameplan.

    Posted in: Shaman
  • 6

    posted a message on Archdruid Naralex's RNG is Rigged?

    "To really understand what is going on, you need to do some research. I can give you a couple of links to get you started so you know what you are dealing with."

     

    Let's go ahead and take a look at the smoking gun evidence that is so strong 3nnu1 thinks it will entice us down the rabbit hole.

     

    https://kotaku.com/activision-patents-matchmaking-that-encourages-players-1819630937

     

    This was reporting on an exploratory patent done by an Activision R&D team, not affiliated with any particular studio. At the time. it had not actually been implemented any where. I've not seen any confirmation of it used in any game. If they do actually do something like this, then he **does** have a point imo. This system is pretty scummy, but the way the patent is structured, the system couldn't possibly be used in Hearthstone.

    It rewards users who buy items by placing them in scenarios that the item is good. IE: You buy a sniper rifle, your next game is on a map where sniper rifles are very effective. End result: you feel good about your purchase and might want to buy more. It also puts people who it thinks might want the sniper rifle in that game with you so that they see how awesome you do with it and they want to buy it too. Since we dont directly buy items this system wouldn't work in Hearthstone. We also dont have variables like maps that it can use to highlight the new item so the only way this could be adapted for Hearthstone is to have better RNG when you first play with a card and then normal RNG after. But then that directly conflicts with the claim in this post so its a weird thing to use to try to agree with the OP that the game is rigged.

     

     

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/apr/01/candy-crush-saga-app-brain

    This being in the "Science" section is pretty laughable. There is barely any actual science and its basically is just someone bitching about how they got sucked into the Candy Crush craze. I just can't take seriously people who act like there's some nefarious purpose to a game being easy at first and harder as it goes. That's just good game design. Seriously, that's something I use as a milestone when trying new games on my phone. Too hard at first? Uninstalled. Too easy after more than 30 minutes of play? Uninstalled. Its not some conspiracy. Its basic logic. If a game is too hard at first then it's not fun and difficult to learn. Then if its too easy once you've learned it then you never have to overcome any challenges and it gets boring very quickly. 

    The only bit of science that it actually references is when it goes into the bit about how Candy Crush locks you out of the game for a while. I will admit that this is a mechanic that instantly turns me off of a game and I think is completely annoying. But trying to link it to evil intentions because of hedonistic adaptation is a bit of a stretch. That's just their monetization model. Hedonistic adaptation is one of the reasons that the business model can work but if the game wasn't engaging without the break then users would get scared off once they made the mistake of spending that money and got very little satisfaction out of their purchase. 

    Regardless, I'm not really sure how this relates to Blizzard rigging things. King was also known for being highly successful in the mobile space which Blizzard was looking to expand in to. Acquiring a company like King brings in a lot of employees with experience that they were missing, a bunch of technical data and code that they could use to optimize their entries into the market, and multiple highly-profitable IPs which they have to invest very little time and money in to. I'm not sure why anyone would think there needs to be hidden motives on this one.

     

    "Here is a seminar provided by a blizzard employee which illustrates everything is on the table in terms of rigging matchmaking and other parts of the game to promote player engagement."

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-pglxege-gU

    Thats just a talk about the concepts behind Skill systems, Matchmaking systems, and Ranking systems. I've seen it before but I rewatched it just to confirm: Absolutely nothing about rigging matchmaking, for player engagement or otherwise, is mentioned. There is nothing nefarious there at all. I'm not sure what 3nnu1 is trying to prove linking a presentation about the work that goes into quantifying player skill so that they can have players of the same skill level play against each other. Doesn't seem to support the idea that the game is rigged at all.

     

    "The overall practices have had an interesting effect on blizzard as a whole, blizzard has become more profitable while losing players. This means their practices have extracted more money from some players while driving away another part of their player base. 

    amespot.com/articles/blizzard-loses-millions-of-monthly-players-but-is-making-more-money/1100-6491037/#:~:text=Login%2FSign%20Up-,Blizzard%20Loses%20Millions%20Of%20Monthly%20Players%20But%20Is%20Making%20More,fewer%20players%20in%20Q1%202021.&text=Blizzard%20had%2027%20million%20monthly,38%20million%20in%20Q1%202018."

    This link is broken but I'm pretty sure its meant to go to the article on gamespot. I'm just going to go ahead and quote from the article itself "While Blizzard's total number of players might be down year-over-year, it's not altogether very surprising. Q1 2020 marked the beginning of the pandemic, which led to a surge in people playing games, so a comparison to that quarter was always going to be difficult to match." The article itself basically says don't jump to the conclusion 3nnu1 jumped to. Yikes. 

     

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Bug or intended secret passage
    Quote from FortyDust >>

    In fact, despite the wording of the card text, Secret Passage does swap back at the end of the Rogue's turn. The reason the spells from Evocation are not discarded is because cards are always returned to their default state when moving between zones.

    Specifically, Evocation creates a "discard at end of turn" effect that gets removed when the cards go into the "Set Aside Zone" created by Secret Passage.

     Small (and admittedly inconsequential, pedantic, and unverifiable) correction to this.  Cards dont change when moving between zones if they move between the zones in order. IE: Deck to Hand to Board. Cards only change back to default when moving zones out of order. IE: Going from board to deck via something like Psychic Scream. They've never clarified if this new "Set Aside Zone" is actually considered a zone, much less where it falls in the order.  So there's no reason to think this interaction has anything to do with moving zones.

     

    I believe what happens is the Evocation cards have a one-turn effect applied to them that says they're discarded at end-of-turn. However, effect triggers only happen when they are in the appropriate location during the check for the event trigger, end-of-turn effects are checked for while the cards are in the Secret Passage. Then they get re-added to hand but their effect was not put on the stack so the effect just fizzles.

     

    In short, the change that stopped minions with "after a spell is played" effects from triggering when put on board via spells explains why the discard does not happen.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Classic format problem

    The deck import feature is really wonky in classic. It probably created the deck using cards, ie Flame Imp, which are in both Core and Classic using the Core version, not the Classic version which makes it playable in wild but not classic.

     

    Make sure you're selected on classic when you create a new deck and only do the import after you've selected the class and have an empty deck. Might even have to build the deck out yourself, really get that Classic experience.

    Posted in: Classic Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Honestly I don't understand why people play this game anymore.

    Honestly, of everything OP has said, the most telling part is this: " The problem is that a lot of the time the people that only want quality food have a higher opinion about themselves and are just claiming to be better *cooks* because they eat better food. "

    OP, if you think that losing to someone in a game is them telling you that they are better than you then you are bringing a lot of weird baggage to the table. More importantly if you think that means they're saying they're better than you as a cook then you are fundamentally misunderstand things. Your deck's winrate is not proof of your ability to deckbuild, its only proof of how good your deck and deck piloting is. 

    The problem with your analogy is that its only a decent analogy for the deckbuilding portion but not the competition portion. So let me adapt your analogy a bit. Let's say you were going to a best chili competition. Not a chili cookoff, there's no rules that you must cook the chili yourself. It's a best chili competition. Its scored purely on flavor and presentation. Whoever brings the best chili wins. Would you get upset if the winner had a brother in law who was a chef and they brought their brother in law's chili? Would you snidely ask him if the victory feels hollow since he didn't cook the chili himself? Would you accuse him of thinking he's a better cook than you just because he brought someone else's chili and won a best chili competition? 

    Your opponents are not saying they're a better cook than you. They're not saying anything. They're just competing in the best chili competition.

    Quote from happyday >>

     

    And for those of you who said that deck building is a small part of the tcg... Are cooking skills a small part of life also?

     

    I wasn't one of those that said that as this is my first comment in the thread. But I will say this, and keep in mind that I say this as someone who loves deckbuilding and has made it to legend nearly every month for the last 2 years with homebrews. I say this as someone who went to culinary school, who prides himself on being a good cook, and who has won best chili competitions with completely from-scratch chili. Yes, both of those are small parts of the larger thing that was mentioned. 

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Forged in the Barrens Launch Day - Everything You Need To Know!
    Quote from HEXBURN >>

    Question guys, next year, when they refeesh the core set, we gonna keep the core set cards of this year?

    No, they dont actually gift the entire core set. They give you access to the entire core set for free. So when the core set is changed you will lose access to any cards in the core set which you do not own. But you will gain access to any other cards they add to the core set.

    Core set is not useful for fleshing out your Wild library, Its specifically for giving building blocks for standard.

    Posted in: News
  • 6

    posted a message on Did everyone forget about Blizzard claiming that there are special events for extra rewards in the new reward system?

    They didn't forget anything. Due to the backlash at launch, they announced a bunch of changes to the rewards track including more levels with less XP grind per level, subbing out many packs in the rewards track for gold, and the removal of events to make room in the base system for more rewards. 

     

    Basically all of the outrage made them give up on having any of the rewards be a surprise to the players and they increased transparency instead. And it looks like they're keeping that standard with the announcements today detailing out the entire rewards track for Barrens and even a little infographic showing the differences between the Darkmoon Faire track and the Barrens track. 

     

    ETA: I believe, the event sirnephrosis is remembering was the Blizzard 30th anniversary celebration. I had kind of forgotten that but I dont think that was what they meant when they originally talked about events. I could be wrong on that but I'd think there was an in-game event or two that got cut due to all the outrage. Regardless, he is right that there were some freebies handed out besides the rewards track.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Edwin. 4/4 -> 14/14 how?

    If its true that you hit next turn without healing yourself and he shadowstepped his Edwin without attacking then you're both idiots and should just delete your accounts. Move on to something simpler. This game is too hard for you.

     

    You're either wrong about the sequence of events or trolling. 

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Edwin. 4/4 -> 14/14 how?
    Quote from mulluk >>

    It states: "for every OTHER card". Also @Rino the first Edwin was from the round before that round where he "shadow step, coin and edwin"ed.

    There was a 4/4  Ediwn, Then a shadowstep, a coin and edwin. -> 14/14 It just happend, that i just did nothing as a priest in my round.

    Why would he coin if all he's done that turn is play a shadowstep? You're confused about the sequence of events here. The screenshot clearly shows Edwin, Prep, Swindle, Shadowstep, Coin, and Edwin being re-played. That's at least 12/12. The last 2/2 is the only thing in question here and whatever made Edwin a 4/4 to begin with in your story explains that away. Stop claiming its a bug and look at what people are telling you. Its all right there in your screenshot.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Edwin. 4/4 -> 14/14 how?

    There's a prep and a swindle in the sidebar of the screenshot you posted. And you didn't mention the Foxy Fraud which I'm assuming he also played this turn.

     

    Foxy Fraud (1), Edwin (2), Prep (3), Swindle (4), Shadowstep (5), Coin (6), Edwin gives +2/+2 per card played before him with 6 cards played that is 6*2 = 12 so Edwin is a 2/2 with +12/+12= 14/14.

     

    Mystery solved.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Blizzard no brain strikes again.

    It absolutely amazes me how often people undermine their complaints of the game by pointing to a "ridiculous" card that sees almost no play. 

     

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Omu - how is he good?

    Tough to tell without seeing you play it obviously but from the description, it sounds like you're sticking too closely to the "you get to level up a turn early" plan. That's not always the correct play. The beautiful thing with Omu is the flexibility. If your board isn't good enough to justify being a minion down then don't level up a turn early. Level up on curve and utilize the extra mana to reroll and get higher quality minions or to be a minion up.

    "what you do have is chaff...  You can't get any kind of build going, you're picking mediocre T2s because there's no T3s or they're just abysmal." 

    What you describe here just sounds like rolling badly and then exacerbating the problem by making economic plays instead of tempo plays. Every hero is bad if you don't roll good minions and investing your money into leveling up isn't going to fix that. I've not played a ton of this patch but he certainly seems worse now than he was before. The last meta was about getting a triple and discovering a tier 5 unit as early as possible. Omu excels at that and so he was very powerful in that meta. I've not really figured out what this meta is about yet but it definitely seems tempo oriented. There's almost always a place for econ heroes in any meta, even tempo ones. You just have to learn to balance the approaches instead of going all in on economy.

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 6

    posted a message on 18.6.2 Server Hotfix - Zephrys the Great Available in BG & More

    Zeph was Early Access so only those who had bought the Tavern Pass could pick him. Now he is fully released and will show up even if you're only picking between 2 heroes.

    Posted in: News
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.