I dont know why that player is trying so hard to disagree with you. Thanks for sharing OP.
I dont know why that player is trying so hard to disagree with you. Thanks for sharing OP.
Quote from DiamondDM13 >>Quote from bigbrotherandsister >>
Welcome to the millennial snowflake generation, where people get so butthurt about anything, including art changes, to the point where they’re willing to start a war.
Actually, the art changes are a problem done by those snowflakes. I personally don't like that they changed the art for the most part, since I liked the art of most and the changes were dumb. Secret Keeper however, I actually like the new art better, I think it looks cooler, even though there was no reason for it to require a change.
I mean, it is their game, they can change the art as they see please, but I think they should have offered refunds. They should offer refunds whenever they change any aspect of a card. If you bought a car, and suddenly the manufacturer decided to go and change the paint without asking you, you would be well within your rights to ask for a refund.Quote from PraisetheRNG >>
Yes, that was my first impression that's why I wanted to discuss about it to clarify it. And no, not because I've conceded MY game but because it can just happen to many others players and I feel it pretty unfair first, but that's true that the odds are ridiculous I agree.
Of course it can happen to other players, as I said, since Elysiana is a neutral card, it fits the criteria to enter the pool of cards to discover. It is just as unfair as any other discover card randomly giving the player the exact card that will win them the game. Elysiana can also give you Elekk and Banker and you also win.
Either the game having the option to randomly grant you a free, lucky win is a problem or it isn't.
By the way, I do think it is a problem, but that is the game Blizzard decided to make the game. They decided to include a lot of random elements which can decide games, and we either accept that or we don't. If we play, it means we accept it. I accept it, to a certain extent. I'm not going to complain about how I randomly lose games to lucky opponents because I accept that this is how the game works, even if I would do things differently if I were in charge of the game.
Very well put.
The heal is from a deathrattle. Deathrattle effects trigger only after all dead characters are removed. Hence hero should be dead before heal can trigger.
This is correct. Uther and Khartut Defender die at the same time. The deathrattle does not trigger because the game is already over. Conc was lethal.
This is correct.
Quote from Shadowrisen >>
Sooner or later, you may have to face the notion (if true) that ten losses in a row DOES reflect your skill combined with the lack of strength in the deck. Hunterace himself couldn't get to legend with some of the memery out there.
On the broader subject of lack of skill in this game, I'll never understand why people latch onto that particular bit of masturbatory nihilism. Hearthstone has a lower skill ceiling than Magic the Gathering, I grant you, but that's roughly akin to saying Differential Equations is an easier class to pass than Number Theory. Statistically true, but practically useless information.
People should actually watch some of the GM League matches. Last season, you could watch several iterations of each mirror matchup among the competitive meta decks, and if you pay enough attention and have enough knowledge of the game yourself, you can find one or two major errors in the highest levels of play with thousands of dollars on the line. It's amazingly interesting to watch.
I suppose folks get the idea that skill is lacking in the game because there are certain specific matches where the game hinges on RNG. If that is your philosophy, I laugh to think of how "skill-less" you must consider poker. Games based on RNG are iterative processes. No one particular game is guaranteed to reveal the player with the most skill. Players must execute the correct plays numerous times, and sometimes those plays will not be sufficient to win, BUT win rates over time certainly show huge differences in levels of play.
It's relevant to point out that some folks just aren't cut out to handle games with an RNG element. There are games, such as Starcraft, that reduce the influence of random factors down to functionally zero, and because of this, the better player will tend to win a MUCH higher amount than in Hearthstone, but this does not mean there aren't equally provable differences of skill in both games. By the way, build order losses in Starcraft are NOT RNG. They represent a conscious decision by one player to play greedily and leave the possibility open to be hard-countered by an opponent.
In any case, I realize that people who bitch about "no skill gamez" aren't susceptible to facts and evidence, but I can't resist sometimes. It's disappointing to see, especially in a community I enjoy. There are reasons the same players continue to post stellar results. There are reasons you'll see someone take a deck with which you couldn't make Rank 5 if your life depended on it, and take that deck to #1 legend. For that matter, there are reasons Brian Kibler single-handedly convinces people that Tess Greymane is part of the meta.
As a final thought, if anyone seriously despairs of substantiating the skill component of Hearthstone, I strongly recommend going to the Hearthstone eSports YT channel and looking up the 2017 World Championships. In particular, the Quarter or Semi-Finals match between Frozen and Sintolol. To this day, the greatest tournament match of this game I have ever seen. If you want a challenge, spot the game-losing error Frozen makes that is not acknowledged by the casters. Amazing match that most players on the ladder would have lost horribly on many different occasions throughout both sides of all games.
I am not one of those people youre referring too in your post, but man...im gonna watch that match anyhow. You hyped it up haha.
Ok, let's all be friends folks. I've decided to start a HS game on here for us to do while our opponents are roping us.
So, the name of this is "Say what one more time!?" and what you do is you post the entrance dialogue of the minions that make you roll your eyes everytime they're played, for whatever the reason is. Could be that they are auto-includes in decks, or that you see them all the time because a specific class is dominating the meta, or you find them annoying, etc...
I'll go first!
"You'll find me wherever the action is!"
"No tomb can hold me!"
"Our Homes, Our Tombs"
Haha true, if you consider that CC going to 4 mana is the buff lol.
Yep. I'm finding that I agree with almost all your posts. Jesus dude, stop being so intelligent ;)
Also, you seem to post in the same threads that I intend to post in ahaha. Coincidence ofc.
Oh yeah. Looks nice. Looks annoying AF though if you're playing against it.
I like your posts, even though I hate trump, even though America is literally my southern neighbor, and like everything about them but Trump.
But anyways, I expected to see an increase in hunters (and I myself joined the Zul'jin bandwagon). Also, the increase in quest druid didn't happen, because again, hunters own malfurion's boyhole ;)
Btw, probably going to change some of the other filler cards I have in there... if you got any suggestions, please post them here (I put in the quest shaman staples as filler for now. Trying this out after my favourite mage combo deck got "slightly" nerfed. Used to love playing an early MAGE malygos otk deck, but now it's just like anything else with the revert back to 7 mana for Luna's, so I wanna try shaman with malygos again.
Guys... he's joking.
And for those actually worried about malygos...no he isnt broken at all. It takes at least turn 9 before you can make any actual play with him (and thats only with druid and moonfire).
With mage you need turn 10 with coin for making any play the same turn with him.
Otherwise you have to wait until the turn after. He us actually one of the good balanced end of game cards.
If he survives it's game over but at least your opponent has a whole turn with 10 mana crystals to deal with him.
Yes. It is worth to craft it. I joined the hunter club last week after witnessing how powerful Zuzu is.
Zuzu = Zul'jin
Also, literally click on the hunter class on the main hearthpwn website and pick some high viewed high commented highlander hunter decks. The one I made is a good one too, but it needs a lot of leggos so i wouldnt recommend mine lol if you dont have them all.
i play this game drunk, so no
I don't drink, BUT I do have prescription percocet (oxycodone and tylenol mix) and prescription concerta (methylphenidate or "Ritalin" ER), and needless to say, I'm allowed up to 40 mg per day of oxy and 72 mg per day of concerta, and it's definitely due to those plus that I actually do enjoy the game that I am never stressed when I'm on Hearthstone. It can get frustrating at certain moments, but usually, even through those moments, I can find myself smiling. haha. So, I definitely do understand the feeling l);)
Nerfs are axiomatic and central to card design philosophy Blizzard employes for Hearthstone. Here is the axiom: nerfs are relocated to classes that keep the meta polarized. Hunter is one of the key classes to keep the meta polarized (together with rogue, merloc shaman/paladin: aggressive, skill-low /strategy-low). On the other hand of the equation: control decks from Warrior and Mage.
Keeping the meta polarized is the core reason for nerfs and other so called 'balance changes.' Therefore perfectly understandable that Hunter isn't nerfed. Consequences are dire: lack of proper balance, classes falling from ladder, low skill floor....but who cares? Everything for the easy winfix therefore pack selling: serving the target audience.
Marketing based card design counters skill based card design.
Marketing rules the nerf meta, not skill and strategy.
Well put, also, aggro decks in general are much cheaper to craft than control decks, and Blizzard knows this. I feel that while they entice one into buying packs for the legendary cards that are needed for many control decks, they understand that for a new player or a player without much money, needs to have access to competitive decks, hence why aggro will never be nerfed, and instead more options will be given to seasoned players to deal with them (like more control decks).
I seriously have 0 problem, never had and never will, with aggro decks. The reason why I have problem with Zul'jin is because it isn't a card that fits into the aggro theme that Blizzard has been pushing with hunter, and in so doing, you have a class now that doesn't REALLY (I said really guys, so don't start linking spellstone nerfs, etc...) get the spotlight for nerfs and in so doing, can dominate the meta with other variants.
I like the new archetype for hunter with Zul'jin, just from last night on HSReplay, I've gone 5 wins straight to 1 loss - which means nothing right now because it's such a low pool of total games. But that's better than my Quest paladin, which is 4 wins to 1 loss.
The thing is, I don't know how Blizzard could nerf Zul'jin. I feel like placing him into the Hall of Fame is better, that way he can still be as strong as he is in Wild formats, but in standard, players would be on a much more even ground - considering many heroes don't have access to their hero cards (I miss Frost Lich Jaina in standard).
Siamat is meh, imo. He's often a 7 mana removal tool. He's a win more if you're ahead on turn 7 and don't need to use him for that.