6
... you would want to remove emotes because you get tilted from a little teasing? this is why we can't have good things.
most of the people I played with normally uses emotes for greeting and acknowledging some moment in the game, perfectly fine use. the much lesser other bunch uses it for BM and spamming, which you can Squelch. so how is any of this a problem?
7
Because saying "I greet you" is fun.
10
TL;DR: Bloodreaver Gul'dan would have been fine, had certain Kobolds & Catacombs cards not undermined the Warlock's balancing-weakness and perverted the DK's strengths to an unseemly level:
1. Dark Pact and Lesser Amethyst Spellstone gave the Warlock too much life restoration all at once. The Warlock's main weakness has always been his fragility - "the cost of power" - and that weakness was significantly lessened. As such, the Warlock can survive until turn-10 far more reliably, allowing the DK to come in and seal the game away. In addition to that, with these additional tools to ward off death, Warlocks are not playing the DK when they have single-digit Health left, clawing their way out of a hole; their Health thresholds are much more safe, changing the Hero Power's position as a life-saving play toward being a drain-tank, "I'm never going to die" attrition-winner.
2. (Insert Tired-But-True Remarks Regarding The Perils of Summoning-Cheats Here). If cards like Possessed Lackey and the Skull of the Man'ari were not available, the Warlock would have to play his Voidlord on curve like a normal 9-mana play, taking up basically their entire turn. This would be later followed by the second one at some point - taking up yet-another turn - and then the DK if they wanted to maximize value. That would be three turns at the 9+ mana stage of the game where the Warlock only plays a single card; a totally reasonable set of actions, and yet far less formidable versus what we're seeing. Being able to cheat out high-cost Demons early - and/or playing Demons such-that you circumvent their major drawbacks - balloons DK Gul'dan's potential beyond what it arguably should have been (and beyond the level it was originally). With these means to cheat minions out, you can play Bloodreaver Gul'dan on turn-10 itself and respawn 2 or more Voidlords; that would have been impossible if you had to play them normally. Speaking of having more than the allotted number of copies...
3. Carnivorous Cube. Being able to replicate these costly, high-value minions once-again exacerbates DK Gul'dan potential beyond its original KFT-era value. If you could only revive two Doomguards total, or just two Voidlords - after playing them normally and suffering the cost to do so - that would have been acceptable as a full 10-mana turn down the line. Being able to revive 3 or 4 (or God-forbid even more) of these minions is obviously ridiculous, and beyond what the DK was presumably meant to do.
To reiterate, the Deathknight is arguably fine...or rather it was. Kobolds & Catacombs was just way too much coming from various directions, shining a blinding spotlight on how great Bloodreaver Gul'dan could become if you provide the Warlock all of these absurd methods to exploit the card further.
It's too late to pull back on all of these cards, and a nerf to DK Gul'dan might be necessary "collateral damage" to salvage the situation. However, my ultimate point here is that this wasn't the Deathknight's fault.
1
I agree its a load of shit , no change from the boring ladder
1
Yeah, I find it pretty shitty too. Who asked for a second ladder? Literally all I met were the top metadecks. Anyway, got some nice rewards, and don't intend on playing again.
5
No. Don't do it.
The rate of return on dusting cards is really bad. You will regret it in the long term.
1
Harder, more unwinnable conditions, yep.
4
The following arguments against 'fixing' Naga Sea Witch do not have merit:
1. I crafted all those cards to make the deck. That's nice, but that means no card should ever be nerfed because there are times players craft cards for a deck all the time. Raza Priest got nerfed and many people crafted cards just for that deck. It's a weak argument that basically says, please don't nerf the deck that I made.
2. It's fine as it is, as there are counters to the deck. Even if there are counters to the deck, that does not mean it should still be allowed to exist in the game as is. You have to take under consideration, how do these Giant NSW decks warp the meta and regardless if there are counters, sometimes you can't draw your counters on turn 4 or 5 when it matters. Also, some counters cost too much mana. It's the age old story...I have a rat problem. Get a cat. The cat has outstayed its welcome. Buy a dog. and so forth. Instead of creating cards to deal with problem cards, just kill the rat (or the problem card in the first place) with a broom.
3. There are other crazy decks in wild, so it's no big deal. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else is committing crimes, doesnt mean its ok for you to start doing them just because they are getting away with it. All decks and cards that are causing an oppressive or un fun Wild meta should be looked at carefully. Losing on turn 4 or 5 because a card is not working as intended or broken is not a fun or even interactive experience.
4. It doesn't have a good win or play rate, so it's ok. I don't care if the deck has a 2% win rate and only 3 people play the deck. The card going forward will always cause problems with future design if they ever wanted to print other giants or other cost reducing cards. The card is not working as intended. Win rates do not matter to a card being broken.
Basically, the NSW and Giants issue comes down to the following valid arguments as to why it should be 'nerfed' or reverted to its old self:
a. The card is not acting or interacting with other cards with it's intended effect. The implied effect was to have all your cards cost 5. Cost reduction should not come into the equation.
b. It's un fun and un interactive for the other player. I try to kill you before turn 4 or 5. if I fail, you get to spam the board with giants and win on the following turn. In fact, by attacking you, I have enabled one of your giants to be cheaper too. There are very few counters that can clear a board on turn 4 or 5 and that means you lose.
c. Cards that affect or warp a meta game, should be monitored and fixed, despite win rates and play rates. It doesn't matter how many times a deck wins, the card itself is still not fair. Let's suppose a card read "10 mana minion - Battlecry: If your deck has no cards in it, you win the game." It's 10 mana, so no big deal right? Wrong. Such a card would be un fun and have no interaction from the opponent. You simply fill your deck with board clears and card draw. If you are druid, you can put in ramp too and win before it matters. You might say, but it's very hard to pull this win condition off. Yep, it is. Still not fun and your opponent has no chance to disrupt it.
Another example, which should be a simple thing, is to fix or change keywords from the past. Why, because it keeps the game consistent.
Fix cards that dont have the intended effect. Update cards to reflect their ability.
Unstable Evolution should have Echo.
Warsong Commander should read Rush minions instead now to make it playable as it's clear Charge is too hard to balance.
And there are many other examples as well.
2
Play Monster Hunt. it's fun.
17
You are drunk if you think this is harder than dungeon run
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
1
Every single person I've met in life who was a bad loser/table flipper was a younger sibling. Competing with their older brothers led to a hyper comeptitive psyche that literally could not process losing at anything through anything but rage....if this is your case to, well maybe you can take that on now and change.
1
Yeah I'm not seeing this either, I've played CCG all my life.
In the early days of hearthstone the devs were very much just 'throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks'. We ended up with crazy charging molten giant decks and other broken stuff, but it wasn't in any way being force fed to the players as the devs themselves barely even knew what they were doing.
What we are seeing now compared to before is force-fed archetypes, There is no other way you could see it. So many many useless epics and legendaries that are competely terrible unless you own their entire 'synergy set'. Own it all, well you suddenly got a blizzard planned tier 1/tier 2 meta deck.
1
Can't really argue with anything you said, but I don't like the result - glorified, super expensive rock/paper/scissors. They need to work hard on reducing the 'hard-counter' factor that comes in to play with this heavy segmentation, it leaves virtually no room for skill...or even RNG for that matter.
1
But how will the player base cope if they can't play aggro paladin or spellstone-play-itself hunter and emote?
3
Yeah opening multiple useless epics is really frustrating. Epics is where blizzard makes their money these days I think, since the change to legendaries. So I understand there being some 'filler' epics but some just go too far. If the card isn't even passable in arena format they don't need to create such horrible but extremely rare cards. Greed.
1
Now we're talking. I never understand why people always bring up other card games as hearthstone's competiton. Please... hearthstone has had, and will have the card game market locked down for years yet.
But there is only so much time in the day...reality is I don't play hearthstone if I'm spending all my free time with another game...a real AAA game. Last Of Us was literally the most cinematic incredible gaming experience I've had in years. It made such and impression I have to go back to stuff like Ocarina of Time of the N64 or even Secret of Monkey Island on the Amiga to compete.
I can not wait for Last Of Us 2.
1
The actual answer, because it needs to be simple, not that it's something Blizzard will ever do because of their greed, is weighted rewards.
If you are playing a copy-paste highly popular tier 1 net deck, the system recognises and your win is worth a quarter star. Rewards for your win scale up quickly from there based on how closely tied your deck is to popular decks known to be dominating ladder.
3
Instead of flopping around on the old Aggro-Combo-Control cycle we head back in the direction of mid-range for all. Spice it up with more cards like defile to give them cheap board clear options with a skill factor (allowing for the cards to be somewhat OP) that it's possible to play them over more stats/tempo.
I bring this up right now as it looks like we may be heading into a highly polarised phase of hearthstone, odd paladin being what it is, OTKs that reliably go off before or on turn 10 and odd warrior...just wait till we see a refined fast hunter list.
There needs to be room in hearthstone for skill but arguable more importantly RNG, polarised matchups remove all that and suck the life from this game. Gauranteed win macthups are almost as little fun gauranteed losses. Pilot influence over a match is what keeps the game....a game. Mid range is a way out, arena remains fun as it ever was, all largely mid-range by nature.
1
I'd say it's comparable with witchwood, in other words, it doesn't seem very good when compared with dungeon run.
2
The problem is pirnting cards that allow a combo deck to just sit there, risk free all too often and wait for the combo. All that armor gain for druid is ridiculous.
I love cards that mess with my opponents directly like dirty rat, but too many salty babies playing do not.
I'm cool with combo decks as an archetype but I'm not cool with them being so pwoerful they completely squeeze mid-range decks out the game. I can't count deathratttle hunter and even lock as mid-range decks, sorry. They just don't play like them, they are closer to combo/control decks themselves.