Quote from KingCarnage >>I'm the OP, here's my comment:
I thought the original portrait was overly sexualized, so I am in favor of the change. Suggestiveness is classier than semi-nudity. I don't play WoW, but I have read that the Jaina character was known for her wisdom, courage, and history of struggles, and her looks were secondary.
Full disclosure: I'm a gay man, and cleavage doesn't do that much for me. Another personal bias is that I think both men and women should dress modestly in public, like buttoned-to-the-top modest. (Edit, yes my avatar is Lucy Heartfilia, and yes I hate how she is dressed in the anime/manga even though I like her.)
Of course, there is a lot of idealization in fantasy art, for both men and women. As many have pointed out, several of the male portraits have pictures hyper-muscular half-naked fantasy humanoid men.
Blizzard should directly address the censorship of the portrait. I would like to know the reasoning. Had they received complaints? Did they foresee a future problem? Are they going to be stricter about sexiness in future art releases?
That's dumb. She's a mage who isnt afraid of the cold. More seriously, all the characters should look just like they do in WoW. It's too many layers. Looks bad.
In the real world no one cares about your "modesty". People dress exactly how they want and are comfortable. Your opinion on what anyone wears in public is just about as important as other's opinion on what you do in private.
*micdrop*
Hah. It is not true that people get to dress exactly as they want. Maybe in the Scandinavian utopia you inhabit clothing is optional, but not where I come from. There are plenty of places where "comfortable dress" won't get you in door.
Public decency is a big issue in a lot of places. It seems a lot of the discussion of modesty (in the United States at least) devolves into young men getting mad that someone is denying them their view of breasts and young women getting mad that someone is denying them the opportunity to show their breasts.
Personally I'm convinced that cleavage is a sexual display, and should be considered as such. Plunging necklines in women's fashion not present in men's fashion are basic evidence of this. Your society decides how much sexual display it can handle, and then you go from there. There are a lot of societies in which Jaina would get arrested for wearing that outfit. I like RavenSunHP's idea that the alteration was due to a business decision in order to appeal to the biggest market possible. I'm interested in hearing Blizzard's reasoning, but I guess that not saying anything is their wisest move.
This is so funny, comming from someone who admitted being gay... In the past (not so long ago), being gay was a crime in most countries, did you know that? Because it seems that you live inside of a bubble. Now you support shamelessly this change, as you said in your previous post, and you seem to be ok with Blizzard decision to appeal to the biggest market possible, even in places were woman are being arrested for wearing outfits similar to Jaina's one. Admitting it is not Blizzard's wisest move, doesn't change that fact.
How the hell that makes any sense? How dare you to support something like this, when it goes against everything those of your kind have fought in the past, so you can live a normal life in the present? Don't you have any respect for those who fought for your rights years ago? I guess the answer is no...
1
No just delete the fox and Edwin is fine.
1
What exactly is your argument here?
3
Tilt is literally exactly what you are describing. If you feel like you’ve lost before you start, you will think your plays through with emotion and not with logic. You will miss simple combos because the cards don’t look impactful by themselves at first glance, and you’ll just pass you turn out of frustration when you actually had a clever play available. You’ll play minions out onto the board in matchups where you should hold them, or waste removal on minor threats only to lose to major ones because you feel like just once, things should line up for you like they always line up for your opponents. Now apply logic to these scenarios; Sometimes your opponent will nut hand you, sometimes your opening hand will cost upwards of 30 mana. Sometimes both. This happens. There will also be equally frequent games where your opponent doesn’t stand a chance, but in the vast majority of games, both players will have marginal hands, and over a large sample size the player who utilises their marginal/poor hands better will win more games.
Don’t look at every single game as a must win, because that’s not how CCGs work. Instead aim to play each game optimally, that’s the only thing you can control once the decks are shuffled. Look at it in terms of whats actually required to reach your goal. Let’s say you are Diamond 1 with 0 stars 2 weeks into the season. You literally have the rest of the month to go +4 Wins vs Losses. Ignore the games you get sacked and die on turn 5. Ignore the games you draw the god hand yourself and your opponent concedes before they even play a card. Just focus on playing the best you can in the average games.
Definitely seek to learn from streamers who use whatever deck you choose to climb with, because a horrible, horrible misconception is that hearthstone is a super simple game and the optimal plays are extremely obvious. A lot of the time they can be, but oftentimes they are not, and the obvious play would get 99% of the player base killed, while spotting the hidden play leads to a win several turns later for the more skilful player. This is the difference between hitting legend and dropping back to Diamond 1, 2 stars. The rope is there for a reason - use it - when you see the play that looks correct but there’s still 50 seconds on the clock, sit and think about the situation, And about your opponent’s deck. What are their standard plays over the next few turns? Is it worth deviating from your game plan to throw a wrench in theirs? Very often, messing with your opponents key turns is more important than hitting your own, and sometimes you may spot an opportunity to disrupt their strategy while developing your own.
1
Btw @ people who don’t understand why Priest needs removal, it’s because their card and hero power design forces them into a reactive, value-oriented control play style. They do not have the capabilities to play burn/aggro, they don’t have any OTK combos in standard, and board-based aggro/tempo is just not cutting it in the era of heroes stacking damage and attacking your face. That said, I am quite happy with Priest’s current removal options, the class is just unfortunately useless because it isn’t particularly good at doing anything that wins games. Rogue for example has equal or better value generation than Priest, while having a proactive game plan with big threats like Edwin and Questing, and doesn’t just rely on grinding its opponent out of stuff (although it can play that role against aggressive decks). So Priest is forced to play a value game in a world where most other classes can out-value AND out-pressure it, or just kill it with a OTK since it can’t reliably go above 30 life. Priest doesn’t need more board control tools, it needs the means to control alternative win conditions, and a win condition of its own.
1
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. 99% of the players probably don’t even know this achievement exists, while the other 1% don’t care if the opponent gets it or not.
1
Let’s not pretend we are running Stickyfingers to steal a Truesilver Champion. We run them because Boggspine is the Evolve Shaman win condition, and stealing it can also deny their hoard pillager. While I do agree that weapons in general are a touch overpowered right now, weapon tech isn’t required to beat these other classes like it is Shaman. I don’t know where on earth you’re running into quest Rogues right now either?
4
Why are people hating on this guy? He makes a completely sound and logical point. Sure, it isn’t having an enormous impact on the game or affecting balance, but when you’re developing software at this level, you’re supposed to be striving for a polished product, not some half-assed, lazily coded hash with obvious issues. Programming standards in games has been slipping in recent years, everything always feels rushed. I get now that everything is online you can hotfix and patch things, but version 1.0 should still be a finished product, and not just rushed out for the sake of meeting an arbitrary deadline.
5
It’s too consistent and too relentless for a format where aggro is weak. 4 copies of the weapon to mulligan for and up to 8 charges is too tenacious for most control decks to handle without heavy, heavy weapon tech. If there was more in the way of viable aggro to keep it honest, it wouldn’t be so problematic, just a midrange control killer with an exploitable weakness like it should be. Unfortunately the most reliable aggro deck we have at our disposal now is zoolock, which feeds the fleshshaper/giant engine and is a 50/50 at best, making it ultra safe to ladder with Shaman.
As I’ve said before, if the best ladder strategy is to run double Stickyfinger in every deck, there is a problem with the meta.
1
Evolve Shaman has just one matchup with a win rate below 50% (aggro Demon Hunter, which is quite poor against the rest of the field and as such is not very popular) so let’s not pretend it isn’t a problem. I do think there is an element of players not understanding how to play out their early turns against Shaman but it is still clearly very oppressive.
Stickyfinger is amazing tech for the matchup but if the most effective meta call is to run 2 copies of Stickyfinger in every deck, then there is quite obviously a problem. What’s worse is that other less oppressive decks that rely on weapons to win get caught in the crossfire here, while the Shaman can still beat you down through its linear consistency and relentless tide of weapon charges thanks to Hoard Pillager.
I don’t think making knuckles a battlecry is the right answer, because you’re turning 8 charges into 2 and forcing them to set up a board before playing the weapon. This is over the top and not a fair way to balance the card. Making it a 4/1 is interesting but it would have to have a mana cost reduction to avoid being completely redundant. The optimal move is probably a simple mana cost adjustment to 6 to give players more time to set up a defence.
I am generally against nerfing cards when I believe the counterplay is “get better,” but this deck has the highest play rate AND win rate in top legend, so can’t really argue that in this case.
1
Its likely that the issue wasn't the decks you were facing but the caliber of player. If you win a bunch of games, your match maker rating will increase, and you will be pitted against players of a similar rating. The more successful you are, the better your opponents become. Bare in mind an idiot wielding a tier 1 deck is still an idiot. Decks can't beat you by themselves, and once you start facing better players, your win rate will naturally decrease because your opponents will make more correct decisions, leading to more defeats for you largely irrespective of the decks they are playing.
The matchmaker manipulation theory is 100% confirmation bias. You absolutely couldn't get away with that kind of algorithm going undetected when hundreds of thousands of people tune into Hearthstone streams daily watch people grind ladder for hours at a time.