• 4

    posted a message on Petition to blizzard - Change (buff/unnerf) Tinkmaster Overspark in Hearthstone to cost 5-6 and effect targets.

    Just add Tinkmaster to your deck and believe in the heart of the cards.

    Even with 7 potential targets, it's a 50/50 chance. Either Blizzard wants you to win the game and it'll transform the best possible target into a squirrel, or Blizzard wants you to lose the game and it'll transform their 1/1 into a Devilsaur.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm heading over to the Salt thread to share my thoughts on ZTG programming and how it's being used to keep everyone at a 50% winrate.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 5

    posted a message on Issue with Lorekeeper Polkelt?

    The wording is fine. I don't get why there's a misunderstanding. Shuffling cards in your deck literally means shuffling the deck.

    "Add two Soul Shards to your deck (in random positions)" would be the wording you interpreted it as.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on WE NEED MORE NERFS!!!! Here's how I would do it!

    Hehe, wp op.

    Lost it when I read the "minor drawback" is destroying your hero.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Reckful has left us.

    Heartbreaking news. May you rest in peace Byron.

    I watched a lot of Reckful's videos on YT and it's a damn shame we don't get to see more of his colorful personality.

    Posted in: General Chat
  • 1

    posted a message on What legend rank to get 11 star bonus?

    Bonus stars stay. D5 - Legend climb nets you 2 stars per win.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 5

    posted a message on Archmage Vargoth -> Time warp

    I think it's too powerful.

    Could be nerfed by changing the wording on Time Warp; Take an extra turn after this one.

    Only kills the interaction between the two cards but keeps everything else the same.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Sick of this. Uninstalling HS.

    He's probably talking about Zephyrs. He's thinking that if the game can figure it what the perfect card is, it's easy to make winratea close to 50% across the board in terms of topdecking and opening hands.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Zephry doesnt give lethal

    Zephyrs only offers classic and basic cards, and WILL offer lethal if can.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Group therapy! Need to blow off steam? Mega salty? Here is the place! V2

    Thank you Blizzard, for stroking my ego. You are so concerned with my dominance on wild ladder that you pair me against Big Priests that always have Barnes on 4. And when my wintate still doesn't drop I can always count on you guys to up the stakes and always make Barnes summon Y'Shaarj. If that's what it takes, launching nuclear bombs because I'm too skilled at knife fights, that's cool.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on The real meaning behind "uninteractive"

    Call me a degenerate but in 15+ years of playing card games competitively, I've always gravitated towards the most uninteractive decks. In Magic I played a lot of vintage and legacy, using combo decks like The Perfect Storm and ANT. If combo decks capable of killing in the first 2 or 3 turns were not available to me, I would pick a hyper aggressive deck like Affinity. When playing Yugioh, I play a Magical Explosion FTK deck. What's my go to in Hearthstone? You've guessed it! Pirate Warrior! It's a hundred times more solitaire than any OTK deck that hasn't been nerfed into oblivion (I play Wild exclusively FYI). Nagalock and Star Aligner Druid are the only decks that piqued my interest because well, it was blatantly obvious that these decks were incredibly uninteractive, but I didn't enjoy playing those decks because they lacked depth. The presence of those decks in Wild forced my hand - they pushed Pirate Warrior out of the format.

    Anyway, the two points I'm hoping to make are 1; there are players out there that enjoy playing "uninteractive" decks. Not because we're looking for free wins, but because we enjoy the aspect of focusing all of our energy and thought into counting damage, as well as looking at our hand and determining our gameplan from the very first turn taking all (limited) information into consideration. In short, we think deeply about what WE try to do, and carefully plan. There are lots of aspects, ranging from the hero the opponent plays, how many cards they mulligan, the odds of me drawing that missing 2-drop that would complete my curve while contemplating my mulligan, the list goes on. I'm trying to kill you before you get a chance to execute your own strategy, so yes, very uninteractive but there's a lot of decision making involved. Maybe not for you, because you opened a hand of 5+ mana cards and I killed you on turn 4, but all things considered, you cannot say the game played out with zero decision making involved.

    Point 2; I believe that decks that  try to avoid interaction (in Wild mode, typically hyper aggressive decks) play an important part in a healthy metagame. It keeps other decks honest. It preys on greedy decks as well as combo decks. When you build your deck, there should be the question; how do I deal with [insert boogeyman deck name]?

    That said, I will admit there is a problem with OTK decks if certain classes lack meaningful ways to disrupt the opponent. That's why I love Wild, where cards like Loatheb and Dirty Rat exist. It's not cool to be pushed into certain archetypes or you're forced to accept you've lost before a game started. At least with Pirate Warrior there's more RNG; mulligan and draws play a big part in the outcome of a game. You can "steal" a win, even when the matchup is super unfavorable.

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