I think the better argument as to why some... let's call them unfortunate... interactions are not totally Team 5's fault on the outset is because despite all internal testing and designing and approving cards to be put in, they can only check for so much. Even if we go totally cynical and say there are about 500K people playing Standard ladder in a given month, and lets say 750K for everything else (both casuals. Wild ladder, arena) on the American server alone, there are still well over a thousand times as many people able to test the cards after the fact just by trying to use them. [Aside: I extrapolated those numbers from the fact Blizzard mentions at the end of every month what percentile your rank is. If legend is the top 1%, than a simple ratio equation can tell us approximately how many people are on ladder in a month.] This exponentially increases the rate at which cards are tested and "solved." Faulting Team 5 for some unforeseen consequences, bugs, or interactions less than a week into an expansion is just kind of unfair. However, it is valid to criticize them if there is an issue, and it is left to languish for an unnecessary amount of time after being identified. The tricky part (if it is not a bug or the Deathstalker Rexxar fiasco) is discerning exactly what is an issue, and what should be done about it.
- Registered User
Member for 5 years, 5 months, and 24 days
Last active Tue, Jun, 2 2020 19:20:07
- 0 Followers
- 302 Total Posts
- 474 Thanks
Apr 19, 2018LinkFan001 posted a message on The "Team 5 Doesn't Know What They're Doing" ArgumentPosted in: General Discussion
Apr 14, 2018LinkFan001 posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 7.15 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
Simple and effective cards make archtypes work.
Apr 9, 2018Posted in: Card Discussion
I did not catch what BBrode said on the stream, is the battlecry order random or not? If it's random (i hope so), then the absurd otk is not guarantee every time.Watching the stream again, I can say it is random order. Note that when the OPPONENT (because Day 9 frustrated me by not just playing the damn card) played Shudder, the order of the battlecries changed. Specifically the hunter dragon was near the end of the chain in the first play, led the chain in the second round. No degenerate otkos, but still an amazing card.
Apr 7, 2018Posted in: Card DiscussionEy, that 12/12 Call to Arms tho!
Mar 31, 2018LinkFan001 posted a message on Hearthstone Patch 40118 - Hall of Fame, Tournaments, Card Changes, BrawlPosted in: News
The Keyword change and the Freezing Trap change are pretty gud.
Mar 27, 2018Posted in: News
I will say this much: from what I understand of Godfrey's lore in WoW, he is a very flavorful card. Also very powerful, will serve warlocks well when Defile rotates. Gotta admit though, I agree with a previous post and wish they gave him to Hunter to really sell control archetype.
Jan 10, 2018Posted in: Card Discussion
I am intrigued to know what memes people are using Zola for.Go look up Dane HearthStone youtube. It is wild only, but he does some really interesting stuff like infinite value Zola mage and dead man's Zola warrior. He is also just a pretty funny guy, which I appreciate.
Dec 9, 2017LinkFan001 posted a message on Deathstalker Rexxar not getting new K&C beats added to his Zombeast optionsPosted in: General Discussion
Thank you for your civil input. Did my part to suggest a solution, as Kingsbane and Shadowcaster already afford one pretty useful workaround, which is to make the second beast count as an enchantment to the first. Kingsbane proves keeping track of buffs is not impossible and Shadowcaster shows that alterations to stats and cost are not too hard either. I REALLY hope they decide to rectify this whole situation in a satisfactory way. It stings the most no one was warned about it. There is no defense for silently hoping no one would notice.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Feb 21, 2019Thezzy posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 9.07 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
"Awww...it's so cute! And so is that one! Aaaand.. that one....aaand...that...uh oh..."
Feb 21, 2019AngryChicken posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 9.07 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
I KNEW he was cheating on me with other class cards!!
Keyword: Discover, Mechanics: Spellstone/Upgrade, Rogue Secrets
Feb 8, 2019ColinthePyro posted a message on Discussion: The modern control deck and Mojomaster ZihiPosted in: Standard Format
I've played a lot with Kibler's Dragonvolve shaman, and it's actually a pretty good deck. I'd highly recommend it for anyone who wants to play a cool, new control deck. Only problem is odd paladin, but hey.
Feb 4, 2019Posted in: General Discussion
Interactivity in HS is a bit subjective - there isn't any interaction at all, in the typical sense of "interrupting the opponent's action," as is common in IRL games. HS is designed from the ground up for each player to input a complete set of commands during their turn, without any opportunity for the opponent to interrupt that set of commands.
HS has a kind of pseudo-interaction - one player does something on their turn, and the other player potentially reacts to it. But often enough, they don't - lots of decks in HS can be weakly interactive in this sense. Aggro decks might ignore the opponent's board if there are no Taunts; Control decks often simply whiff, and don't have any early game plays, or simply pass in the early- to mid-game and clear everything with AoE, or they heal, or they freeze, etc.; Combo decks often spend a turn or two drawing their combo, rather than responding to the opponent's developing board; Mid-range usually wins with burst damage, and will "go face" in order to set up a next-turn lethal through burst damage from hand, etc . . .
In the olden days, folks used to complain that the most interactive deck in the game, Zoo, was weakly interactive for the opposite reason - all it did was interact with the opponent's board, often clearing it, and going face with whatever it had remaining, thereby depriving the opponent of any opportunity for them to interact with their own board . . .
Feb 4, 2019Posted in: General Discussion
The meaning of uninteractive is something which lacks interaction.
Interaction are actions you can perform to affect something.
In Hearthstone, all decks can interact with Combo decks, OTK and non-OTK ones.
Interacting with these decks doesn't mean disrupting or destroying their strategy. Or rather, it is not limited to these. Interacting means taking any action to affect them.
The simple fact that they rarely use board presence also means they rarely use board presence. They have a Hero, just like you, and their Hero, unlike yours, it's usually wide open for constant actions. They don't have minions but they have a Hero that can be killed.
It is the simple fact that they still have a Hero regardless of the minions they play, that makes their decks interactive. Any action you take will normally affect their Hero, and considering both players need their Heroes alive to continue playing, whenever you take actions that affect the opponent's Hero, you are by default interacting with them, you are taking actions that affect them, and that universally forces them to react to you.
This is same principle as the stupid "Solitaire" comment thrown at the same decks.
You need to be incredibly stupid to believe that Combo decks play Solitaire in Hearthstone, that the player can play the entire game and disregard your actions completely. If that were possible, every Combo deck would be composed of X cards that made the Combo the deck is based upon, and the entire rest of the deck would be Card Draw Engines. Nothing else would be part of Combo decks because that is mathematically the most effective composition of a Combo deck.
However, because the opponent can always interact with a Combo deck, because the vast majority of actions the opponent takes will affect the Combo player, they are forced to include all kinds of Survival tools in the deck to account for this fact. No Combo player wants to have Area of Effect tools, Removal tools, Healing tools and so on, they are forced to have them in the deck because they cannot just play the game independently of what the opponent is doing, the opponent is always given the option to interact and force the Combo player to react.
Oct 26, 2017LittleOgre posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 6.19 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
Jul 20, 2018RavenSunHP posted a message on Stop nerfing non-problematic cards in wild to release new cards in standardPosted in: Card Discussion
As a Wild main, i prefer a pro-active mode of nerf on possibly broken interactions, rather than a "Wild is Wild" way of life.
As a Wild main, i prefer a re-active mode of nerf on possibly broken interactions, rather than a "let's nerf it before we can figure out how strong it is in the meta" way of life.
Fair enough, at least we agree that "Wild is Wild" is BS.
Now, on point, Old Dreadsteed + Defile would be broken.
What you are asking, if we agree that Wild shouldn't just be Wild, is either to nerf old cards (Boxer, Steed) or stop releasing innovative cards (Defile).
Since i prefer innovation, i am ok with old, and nearly irrelevant atm, cards getting nerfed.
Because innovation keeps the game going.
Jan 10, 2018Posted in: Card DiscussionQuoting, only because I want to make a reference:
Feb 22, 2018Kovachut posted a message on Weekly Card Design Competition 7.08 - Submission TopicPosted in: Fan Creations
Thx Likafoss for your feedback and Entro9 for the wording.
Dec 29, 2018Posted in: General Discussion
Hunter is just insane. Correct me if I am wrong.
What did blizzard expect? They printed with rexxar a fairly cheap death knight. Included four expansions of insane beasts for his heropower for nearly unlimited versatile value.
Printed cards to make spellhunter viable (Rhok`delar, spellstone, wandering monster, crushing walls).
This expansion they added a new neutral minion that recruits a beast from your hand for recruit hunter. For the spellhunter friends they just included a new HERO, that fits perfectly into the deck and the other very good spells hunter has already.
Lastly they nerfed druid insanely untimely into the ground when it didn't even have a tier 1 deck. They reasoned that everybody would include the same op cards in druid (hello rexxar, hello candleshot, hello hunters mark, hello unleash the Hounds).
As a result we got a new hunter meta that polarises between hunters, hard counters and hunted. This is actually worse that witchwood. Before, you met the same 6 decks all the time. Now you meet a hunter every third game on average.
Team5 actually don't have a clue about their own f**ing game. They couldn't have made it more ******** if they'd intended it.
Well, Rexxar did almost nothing to improve the hunter class when it was printed or the expansion after(no new beasts added to rexxar pool). I can't blame them for deliberately improving his beast pool either considering how little impact he had on the game.
Spellhunter too had little to go on at first. Being nothing special upon release, it lost 3 sets of cards the following expansion while only gaining 2 possible deck additions, 1 of which actually put minions into your deck. So again, adding more cards to the game that improved an average deck probably wasn't much of a concern for them.
Oondasta was almost certainly not designed specifically for recruit hunter. Sets are created 2 expansions in advance after all. Zul'jin on the other hand was likely created with spell hunter in mind. The card is very strong, often game winning in some matchups, while doing little more than force the opponent to save a board clear in others.
The druid nerfs might seem untimely to some given how druid wasn't the dominant class of the current 2 week old expansion, but I can't remember an expansion where they weren't floating around the top tier sooner or later. I love it when a class has enough good options to make multiple strong decks. It's frustrating having to wait until my opponent has zero cards remaining in his deck before being able identify what they are playing though. Along those lines I agree with the nerfs. Of the hunter cards you mentioned, only 2 will remain in standard. Release the hounds and hunter's don't compare to wild growth and nourish IMO. Hunter's mark saw an average amount of play at best before candle shot. My only complaint about rexxar is how random it is. This amount of randomness from a single card over a long game is not a great design. Repeatedly failing to get the beasts you need or being on the receiving end of the perfect zombeast turn after turn is a miserable experience.
Is this "Hunter Meta" really worse than Meta's in the past? Decks like pirate warrior, jade druid, raza priest, cubelock and others were all dominant at times. If there is a perceived best deck, a lot of people will play it and these were all popular enough to queue into 1/3 of the time. Except these were decks and not just a class. Hunters have 5 decks atm with a winrate over 50%. I do face a lot of hunters, but rarely the same deck twice in a row. Is the problem that you have to guess when you mulligan?
Personally I think hunter is in a great spot atm, all their good decks have a reasonable amount of counters(all of which are fine in their own right). When classes have only 1 playable archetype for a long time, that's when I feel the design team has failed.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.