• 2

    posted a message on General Galakrond's Awakening Heroic Deck

    While this deck did get me the W against Galakrond (final EVIL version), what ultimately got me there was Galakrond not invoking until about 9 or 10 mana. Seriously, how did Blizz think an encounter where the boss consistently gets 8/8s would be fair.

    I don't remember any of the old heroics being as unfun as some of these new ones. Some of them were fine; some of them just felt like you were rolling the restart button until you got a godhand, or the boss got trash.

    Posted in: General Galakrond's Awakening Heroic Deck
  • 3

    posted a message on Peter Whalen Following Mike Donais And Leaving Hearthstone Team

    Well I can't speak for every other user, but it seems like a pretty obvious joke to me. Hearthstone 2 = Overwatch 2, Hearthstone Vanilla = Classic WoW.

    They're basically taking a jab at how most of Blizzard's 'new' games these days are rehashes of current franchises. Overwatch was the first new thing they had done in ages, and that was what, 4 years ago now?

    Posted in: News
  • 1

    posted a message on Warcraft 3 reforged. 0.5 score never forget.

    I've not played it, but from what I've seen and read it massively under-delivered on what was expected and promised, as well as trying to lockdown any potential custom maps that could prove successful in the EULA (given the success of Auto Chess and how popular DotA ended up being back in the day, when it started as a WC3 custom map).

    Under-delivering on the promises is especially an issue in these modern times of preorders. While you certainly have to accept that you take on risk when you place a preorder for a game that isn't even finished yet, the level at which they under-delivered here has a lot of those preorderers quite annoyed - especially when, if what I've read is correct, many of them are unable to get refunds (which, while technically fair, just highlights how money hungry Activision-Blizzard has become - half-assing the product and then not caring about the fan response and trying to make it better/right).

    The user score doesn't seem accurate - more the backlash resulting in a bombing of negative reviews - but the critic score is closer to the mark, if not a little high (from what I've seen, it doesn't do nearly enough to differentiate itself from the original to be worth more than about a 5).

    Posted in: Other Games
  • 1

    posted a message on Tier 6 in Battlegrounds

    You're usually rotating minions through at least one spot for battlecries - when you think you're on your last match, or it's do or die, what better to put into that spot then a Ghastcoiler, Maexnna or Zapp? Even a Foe Reaver as a divine shield breaking cleave? Of course, there's Mama Bear which if you've managed to get beasts to the late game can make them stronger, but for the most part, there are some decent tier 6 minions as those last slot fillers.

    Posted in: Battlegrounds
  • 2

    posted a message on Albatross Priest

    Just came up against a version of this. Very, very cute - would be a lot of fun to play in a casual setting, though seems too cute against competitive decks unless you get a high roll (ie. lots of birdies in the opponent's deck early, and your opponent drawing at least a few of them).

    Personally, I won - though I also rolled fairly well (Dragon's Hoard Galakrond, while my opponent got lots of birdos in my deck early, my two DH legendaries were Shudderwock - so very high roll there - and Prince Liam to turn all those birdos into random legenderies).

    Posted in: Albatross Priest
  • 1

    posted a message on I like dungeon runs more than Adventures.

    For the most part, I prefer dungeon run style - but it'd be nice if they did *something* to shake them up a bit. Couldn't tell you how, but then, I'm not being paid to design it. :-P

    I appreciate that they're doing something different - while the last few dungeon runs have all been quite good, by Tombs of Uldum things were getting quite repetitive.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Why do we have to play the adventure to get the new cards?!

    It should be:

    * Buy the wings - get the cards straight away (or, at least, be able to craft them then get given equivalent dust if you later unlock it normally)
    * Complete the wings - get normal mode cardback
    * Complete the heroic wings - get heroic mode cardback

    Those who want the card for competitive purposes aren't forced to do non-competitive content; those who want the cardbacks are able to get them, and as always those that want to do the adventure can do so.

    30 mins to do all 6 fights isn't too long, but if OP has only 3 hours to spend a week on Hearthstone that's essentially 17% of the time (for the next 4 weeks, mind you) being thrown into something they don't enjoy, which isn't a good thing.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 12

    posted a message on It's TOTALLY FINE to netdeck in competitive environments.

    (Before I start, I refer to 'scrubs' a couple times in the below - for definition and explanation, see http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub - it's something I found probably close to 2 decades ago now, and is as valid today as it was back then)

    In a recent thread a lot of posters were complaining about players, presumably in ranked, netdecking. Things like "I only rope if my opponent is playing a netdeck; in that case they deserve it" or "netdeckers deserve every bit of BM that comes their way".

    Now, there are times when this might be an appropriate call to make. Mainly, if the environment you're playing in isn't competitive - which will generally be something like a match with someone on your friends list. This isn't the case for ranked, which is a competitive mode.

    When it comes to playing a game competitively - Hearthstone in this case, but it applies to most competitive games - using every legal (game rules and otherwise) tool at your disposal is what the best players will do. Creating arbitrary rules to challenge yourself like "use only homebrew decks" or "win without epic of legendary cards" is fine, but you enter scrub-territory when you try to impose those rules on other competitive players. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the research of players that came before you in order to gain as much advantage as possible against the competition. Doing so means you're making effective use of the tools available.

    Sure, you may feel annoyed if you lose to someone that's using the flavour of the month netdeck and made some pretty obvious misplays, and you may feel like the deck carried them. Maybe it did - but so what? It was a legitimate win. Whether it was the matchup, the draws, the plays or whatnot, the stars aligned in such a way that they won - and that's fine. Using a netdeck is not some secret advantage that player alone has - if you don't want to use one that's totally fine too, but it's bad form (and again, symptomatic of a scrub mentality) if you decry their victory just because they chose to use a deck that, in all likelihood, has proven to be strong in the metagame.

    If the issue is because you don't actually want to play in a competitive environment, and would rather play in a more relaxed environment with more casual archetypes (and believe me, I know - kitchen table Magic is far more preferable to me than competitive events), then that's not an issue with people netdecking - that's an issue with Blizzard not offering such an environment (casual would be more accurately titled 'unranked', and while you can find friends online that will play casual decks with you, it's a bit like Destiny in that they make you do the legwork for multiplayer fun).

    As another example, the first RTS I wanted to actually get good at (as opposed to just playing against the AI and taking advantage of their issues) was Starcraft 2. And when I first started out - hell, pretty much the whole time I played - I took advantage of build orders that others had submitted online. That's effectively the Starcraft/RTS version of netdecking (a build order basically defines what you build in the early game, where the decision tree is generally so narrow that you can refine a reliable opening to springboard into later stages of the game). As a new player, was I just supposed to head into games and flail about, hoping for the best? I would have stayed in bronze for much longer if I had taken that approach!

    To sum up - there's nothing wrong with a player wanting to use every legal tool at their disposal, and taking inspiration (either partial or entire deck-wise) from players that came before them. Not only is it fair game, but if they're trying to be as competitive as possible it makes sense to identify and use the best deck for the current metagame. If you don't want to netdeck and want to impose the challenge on yourself to use only homebrews, that's totally fine and good luck with it! But to try and impose that rule on others when it isn't actually a rule within the game is a scrub-like mindset.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Intentionaly Roping your opponent, it sucks
    Quote from Darksun200 >>

    It astonishes me that everyone seems to think that roping all the way to the end timer is considered "BM" and nothing else. While there are those pricks that do it intentionally out of spite (ableit a minority) there are also people that..you know...actually think out their turns by weighing what other options they have, if "x play" would be better than "y play." Also accounting for certain cards your opponent has in their hand as well as your own (ex. figuring out what cards your opponent's Alex gave them but didn't play them could mean something) thinking ahead, knowing what's left in your deck etc etc...

    If you ever watch Trump's videos and stream you would understand what I mean. Of course he tends to over think things but he's using his brain and using the most time he has to his advantage, unlike most HS players. As well as players at tournaments try to do their best with the time they have to win, an incentive to do when you're risking a grand prize of over a grand in money.


    I'm pretty sure most people who are complaining about 'ropers' aren't doing so because a player facing a complicated decision process actually used up their entire alotted time (ie. 10 mana, complicated board state, no solution that is clearly better than the others). Generally when someone complains about ropers they're doing so because of a person doing it when that amount of brainpower almost surely isn't required - like turn 1 or 2 when their play ultimately ends up being very obvious - or, even more obviously, when they play out their whole turn but then don't pass.

    Well, at least that would be my complaint against them. I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure some people are pretty unreasonable about the high-decision-branch situations. But I do think most people don't mind those who are actually using the time, but rather dislike those who are just seeming to be assholes.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Pick a Hand, Any Hand is This Week's Tavern Brawl

    Awesome! :-) I have enjoyed dungeon runs, but yeah, they haven't been innovated enough to keep them from feeling a bit stale. The Boomsday Puzzles were nice, and I always enjoyed the old school "here's a boss, design a deck to beat them" format, so hopefully they keep mixing things up. I think one dungeon run a year is probably a good amount.

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