Hearthpwn

The other aspect that people forget is that this a full on business for the bot distributors. Like, many of them even have support emails and actually try to do right by their customers. Banning all of them at once doesn't just mean they're not getting sales until they get a new one spun up. It also means they're getting slammed with complaints from angry customers. Refund requests, credit card charge backs which the banks then charge THEM for, etc. 

And again, business, not a side hustle or hobby. So now their livelihood is on the line and how they feed their family. Not that I feel bad for them. Fuck em. They made a choice. But suddenly they have all the anxiety that comes with that being threatened. 

It's much more disruptive to their ability to distribute bots when they have to deal with everything all at once. 

Turn 1, you will draw a 0 or 1 cost card. Turn 2, you will draw a 0, 1, or 2 cost card. Turn 3, you will draw a 0, 1, 2, or 3 cost card. Etc.

But it's based on mana, not turn, so if you Wild Growth on 3 then Turn 4, you will draw a 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 cost card since you will be at 5 mana on turn 4.

This only applies to the first card drawn, not cards you draw via draw effects. So if you cast something that draws you a card then it just draws a random card as normal.

Quote from memo333 >>

 

imagine playing MTG and each time you want to drop A LAND...you to toss a coin.

 

 I like how lands are your example... as though there isn't built-in RNG to the land mana system that decides - completely out of your control - if you can play a land this turn or not.. Mana screw has been a concept for 30 years and you're over here like "imagine if MTG had RNG". Wow, yeah. Imagine that. Good point. MTG would kinda suck if you randomly couldn't put down lands purely due to RNG. That'd be some terrible game design.

True, I found it fascinating from a technology and workflow perspective and think its a perfectly valid reason for not publishing the blog post. So, I was only focusing on that side of it. But its not like we need the full blog post to understand the changes. It might be best to just tweet a quick "X card to 5 mana, Y card to 3 attack" type reveal and do the full blog post later in a scenario like this. 

But I'd guess they just dont want to deal with the potential workload and fallout of that type of communication when they're trying to figure out and finalize whatever problem has come up with the build. So I kinda get why they're just not dealing with it. Sometimes the best solution isn't the logistically best solution.

Quote from crazyt4c0 >>

Wait there is an issue on telling us THE PATCH NOTES ?? Something wrong with the PATCH would make sense, but they should know about the NOTES AND TELL US WHAT IS CHANGING. This makes it seems like they are doing last minute change to the actual patch themselves and are still not sure on what buffs and nerfs are gonna be final.

Jesus when will Blizz stop dropping the ball

 He clarified on twitter that the blog patch notes pull graphics from the build. Presumably the pictures of the cards after the changes but no further clarification. Since the problem is that the build itself failed to finalize, it can't complete that step. If they were to publish the patch notes now it would be a text-only site that isnt up to their professional/design standards. 

Which is really interesting and explains why they've changed to publishing patch notes so late. They've reduced the workload of writing/publishing the patch notes by automating the graphics. But that comes with the downside of not being able to publish the patch notes until the build has been finalized.

There is a whole team designated for final balance for a reason. Adjustments to cards just before release is not abnormal. A version that is not being released being shown to us is abnormal. This is not a balance/testing issue. This is a communication issue.

Also, the rogue location change was not a nerf but a buff. They've confirmed that it can't be silenced. The stats are added before hitting the board like the Warlock card that gets buffs based on handsize. The only difference between the announced version and the final version is changing from 0/0 starting stats to 1/1.  

Finally, it's really weird to take them changing cards before release as an indication that they don't do testing before release. How would they know to change it if they didn't test? Wtf?

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.

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.

"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. 

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. 

MTG is a game of higher variance than Hearthstone but because people don't understand how probabilities work and because obvious random like Yogg is easily visible bad players think it is the other way around.

Funny how people call a turn 5 Rag underwhelming theses days.. I think it will be good. Sure its not an insta win, but its still damn good for tempo almost always.

Lovely soliloquy...but nobody cares.

This post belongs in the salt thread.

Togwaggle’s pick and deadly poison still exist. 4 mana for 2 4/4’s is pretty good.

I thought that too until I remembered Hooked Scimitar. 

This card is not op. I think its perfectly balanced and quite strong. 

You can always check the top 200 and get a feeling about where you are. Just look it up on google by typing something like Hearthstone battleground leaderboard. I'm currently about 6700 in rating so getting closer to the top 200 on EU and had reached it actually, but had to take a 2 day break and got behind. 

Quote from Spier20 >>

Blizzard is getting greedy in every game try to put new microtransaction to squeeze more money from customers.

 Blizzard gives away a free golden card, new quests that give more gold and dust, and a huge discount on buying cards that is entirely optional....

....yet Blizzard is "getting greedy".