Hearthpwn

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).

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.

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.

If you'd say that Deadly Shot is fairly costed at 3, then this is basically a 6/5 for 2 - which, of course, is insane. Less insane in a meta with such strong effects to deal with, but still really good. Even if we called it a 6/5 for 3 (saying that Deadly Shot is worth 2 - which would make it an auto-include everywhere), that's still really strong.

The only reason I'd say it's "very good" over "meta-defining" is due to the presence of strong aggro decks that go wide rather than tall, and Deadly Shot has always been weaker against wide boards.

(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.

Quote from GibreelFury >>

Quote from Sherman1986 >>

Quote from Alp2760 >>

Quote from Live4vrRdieTryn >>

Be a dick get roped.

Yup netdecking and getting lucky on top of it calls for it.

 You're clearly one of the toxic players that can make not just this game but games in general feel miserable.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

The problem is not him, dude, the problem is the fact good people usually do nothing meaningful to solve certain problems. If good people had the balls to do something important once in a while, instead of just complaining like crybabies most of the time, while waiting for a miracle or some sort of hero to save them, Hearthstone and the World itself would be a better place for everyone, but fortunately that is not the case, hehehehe. ;)

 And what's the "meaningful" thing one could do in order to solve the problem of roughly 60 millions people netdecking 3/4 decks in any possible game mode, in your opinion sir, may I ask?

Late to the party, but there's zero problem with people netdecking in a competitive environment. When it comes to winning a game of Hearthstone - or any other game that can involve a strategy obtained from external sources - the winner is the person who defeats the other player, not the person who was running the most original deck. If the best deck for a metagame is one that plenty of people have identified and designed - that is, basically, a netdeck, though it should be stressed that plenty of people come up with the same strategy concurrently and without even looking online - but if it's the best deck, people should run it.

I'll stress that that's for competitive environments - which ranked mode in Hearthstone is. In a more casual setting (ie. a match with a friend) you can set your own guidelines as to what's appropriate or not.

If you're mad that one deck is appearing so much (and its appearance rate is justified by its strength), you should be mad at Blizz for making the card/s that go into that deck that make it so strong, rather than the players that have (probably correctly) identified it as a good deck to choose for the meta. It really is a case of don't hate the player, hate the game - because if they're netdecking the strongest deck in the meta, they're playing to win, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm pretty most professional players who are serious about winning would have zero qualms about getting an entire list online if they could be confident that list would see them to victory (and many good players that are starting to pilot a deck part way through an expansion may get a netdeck as a start, then tinker with tech options as they get more experience with it).

If you want to whinge that people playing in a competitive environment shouldn't use deck X, Y or Z because it's a netdeck (I imagine the underlying reason is actually because you find that specific netdeck unfun to play against, or something like that) - that's getting into scrub gamer territory (where one aspect of a scrub gamer is that they often complain about other players not following made-up rules that they follow - like no combos allowed, for example). "No net-decks" is fine, and some players will see it as a good challenge to reach legend with a homebrew. "No net-decks" and then complaining about other people who use them may well fall into scrub territory.

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.

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.

It doesn't make people feel better, but trust me, you weren't missing much with the other brawl - just another dungeon run, that's almost a carbon copy of Tombs of Terror.

I've really enjoyed enjoyed the roguelike dungeon format since K&C, but after 2 and a bit years of it they really need to freshen it up, if not try something entirely different.

Got a pack for completing the first fight. On completion of the run I got nothing extra - did it in 32m58s, and in the time result box it says "how low can you go?" - but doesn't mention anything about potential rewards for a sub-30 run, so I imagine it's just the one pack this week.

The first thing that came to my mind. Now i want such a card to exist.

???

They don't do the same thing?.. Like at all?

Favorite brawl by far.   Those that complain that this is a RNG fail know nothing.  This is,  in my opinion, the most skill brawl out there.  If you are good in arena, you will do well in this brawl. 

Game plays similar to arena, testing your drafting ability and understanding of what cards work well and what doesn't work.  But you also have the knowledge of what cards are in the opponent's desk, so you have to play accordingly.  Tempo vs greed, board control, maximizing value, knowing the best trades... it's all here.  Just wish each game didn't take so long.  7-1 so far.

I wish this was an entire game mode, it's the best of hearthstone in one game mode. 

Quote from Perky_Nips >>

Wait does the golden classic pack give you a legendary guaranteed? 

 it gives you 300 dust instead of 40

3am in QLD. I'll probably just wake up at 5am instead. 3am was hard work last time.

Quote from Mugen8 >>

Oh lord, do I stay up past 1 AM here in Western Australia to enjoy the xpac at launch?

 Do it.