Hearthpwn

Oh nice, it’s the classic “HS is dying” thread. Haven’t seen one of these since the last expansion. 

I’ve been plying since beta and have seen one of these posts every few months. Nothing new here.

Obviously one day HS is going die, every game does. But maybe check the numbers before making these posts. Other than Twitch (which I find hilarious that so many gamers think it is the be all end all of gaming) Hearthstones numbers have overall been going up the past few years. 

Quote from MProdigy >>

Quote from Shadowrisen >>

Sooner or later, you may have to face the notion (if true) that ten losses in a row DOES reflect your skill combined with the lack of strength in the deck.  Hunterace himself couldn't get to legend with some of the memery out there.

On the broader subject of lack of skill in this game, I'll never understand why people latch onto that particular bit of masturbatory nihilism.  Hearthstone has a lower skill ceiling than Magic the Gathering, I grant you, but that's roughly akin to saying Differential Equations is an easier class to pass than Number Theory.  Statistically true, but practically useless information.

People should actually watch some of the GM League matches.  Last season, you could watch several iterations of each mirror matchup among the competitive meta decks, and if you pay enough attention and have enough knowledge of the game yourself, you can find one or two major errors in the highest levels of play with thousands of dollars on the line.  It's amazingly interesting to watch.

I suppose folks get the idea that skill is lacking in the game because there are certain specific matches where the game hinges on RNG.  If that is your philosophy, I laugh to think of how "skill-less" you must consider poker.  Games based on RNG are iterative processes.  No one particular game is guaranteed to reveal the player with the most skill.  Players must execute the correct plays numerous times, and sometimes those plays will not be sufficient to win, BUT win rates over time certainly show huge differences in levels of play.

 

It's relevant to point out that some folks just aren't cut out to handle games with an RNG element.  There are games, such as Starcraft, that reduce the influence of random factors down to functionally zero, and because of this, the better player will tend to win a MUCH higher amount than in Hearthstone, but this does not mean there aren't equally provable differences of skill in both games.  By the way, build order losses in Starcraft are NOT RNG.  They represent a conscious decision by one player to play greedily and leave the possibility open to be hard-countered by an opponent.

In any case, I realize that people who bitch about "no skill gamez" aren't susceptible to facts and evidence, but I can't resist sometimes.  It's disappointing to see, especially in a community I enjoy.  There are reasons the same players continue to post stellar results.  There are reasons you'll see someone take a deck with which you couldn't make Rank 5 if your life depended on it, and take that deck to #1 legend.  For that matter, there are reasons Brian Kibler single-handedly convinces people that Tess Greymane is part of the meta.

 

As a final thought, if anyone seriously despairs of substantiating the skill component of Hearthstone, I strongly recommend going to the Hearthstone eSports YT channel and looking up the 2017 World Championships.  In particular, the Quarter or Semi-Finals match between Frozen and Sintolol.  To this day, the greatest tournament match of this game I have ever seen.  If you want a challenge, spot the game-losing error Frozen makes that is not acknowledged by the casters.  Amazing match that most players on the ladder would have lost horribly on many different occasions throughout both sides of all games.

 I love it when people try to sound smart. Kudos my man

 This dude always posts like this, and it’s always just as entertaining.

Quote from Scorpyon >>

Quote from Kadadji_hs >>

warrior players should try play their deck without boom, just few games in rank5 or higher.

 Its a nice idea, but why would they when DBMG is so strong and removing him weakens the deck? Most people play to win so take the strongest options. Thats to be expected. 

 You’re making his point for him. He is saying they should try without to realize that he is an over the top addition to an already very strong deck. Hence people crying out for this deck being too much.

Beta Control player here. Warrior is my favourite class. But DBMG warriors is the worst deck to happen to warrior (close tie to hearing “everyone get in here”.. lol). The main difference between patron warrior and new mech warrior is that patron was silly and kinda so busted you had to laugh. Plus it was dealt with fast, devs knew it was too busted and nerfed it. This new warrior is boring, toxic, and extremely brainless. People always says that aggro uses no skill, but I promise you this warrior requires faaaaar less. OP is either feigning ignorance or in denial. 

Ready for nerfs so warrior can have some variation again.

Jesus, god forbid people have a life other than modding this site.

I'm really confused why people feel they are owed this.

Are you paying for your account on here? Oh it’s free? Get over yourself.

OP clearly has never worked on a game before. Pulling new modes out of your ass whenever a few people get bored isn’t realistic at all.

I don't think people get that this nerf is a straight shot at Rogue's class identity. Destroying classic cards isn't good for anyone, except maybe greedy rich folks. This was a tool that many F2P or new players could use. It now means they need to rebalance all the older Rogue spells (which they won't). We are stuck waiting till they release new Rogue cards every expansion, and having to buy them just to make Prep viable. 

I am not saying Rogue didn't need a nerf, cause it did, but this isn't the way to go about it. It's really lazy balancing IMO. 

You can't have all classes be relevant like "paper, rock, scissors" at this point. The amount of cards, combos, and tech make it super hard.
I don't think you've done any dev work in your life because it's simple to see and know that balancing a game at this scale isn't as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.

I realize you don't like playing against this deck, but it isn't even the highest win rate atm. Believe it or not, the meta is pretty healthy. We have three classes in tier 1, 5 classes in tier 2 up, and 7 in tier 3 up. That isn't bad at all. Each deck also has unique play now that Odd and Even are rotated. It's a good time to play, enjoy the games man.

Lol every time I see Mojo jojo post he is ripping apart players and talking like he's the best player. Ignore the troll.

Just here to say that this is the kind of thread I like to see on here. Interesting, fun, thought provoking. No salt, just discussion. 

Not much to add, but I do agree.

As always, never a shortage of bitchy little girls on Hearthpwn.

it is a trap guys, don't fall for it

Okay I understand that these changes are targeted at lowering the overall troublesome nature of the classic set and setting class identities around the classic set. That being said however, I believe this is backwards in regards to how they should be going about this. The main issue is that expansion sets carry huge power spikes with them for a select few classes every time one is release. Decks are built around expansion cards while players utilize neutral and classic cards as filler most of the time to pad out the 30 card requirement. This means that whatever class identity is held within the classic set is irrelevant  as at most there may be 3 or 4 cards from the classic set of that given class in the deck. If we historically look at how classes have been played from the initial expansion being Naxxramas to the present day expansion of Rise of Shadows, there are certain deck archetypes that have always existed in some form that go directly against what the class identity is supposed to be. Again this is because expansion cards are what define decks, not classic cards. Rogue has been played in a aggressive fast paced style for years now due to their ability to make powerful use of low cost, high impact battlecry minions. The entire point of quest rogue was to abuse bounce effects and 1 mana charge minions. There never has been any sense of patience in the rogue class, except perhaps with Kingsbane rogue, however Kingsbane rogue would really only go to fatigue against decks that had high defensive capabilities which at the time were priest, warrior, and to an extent mage, and even then with Valeera DK rogue would usually win in fatigue. Priest had one of the most disgusting decks with big priest, warrior has always and notoriously been the "patient class" with any game against a warrior leading to fatigue in many expansions, Warlock has historically used every archetype under the sun and is the reasons many cards have been nerfed in the past, and mage has an ongoing love/hate relationship with freeze mage and big spells, it goes in between them quite frequently, and currently has possibly one of the most disgusting combos ever conceived with Giant into conjurers calling, which many classes can't answer (hence BGH is back in meta). My point with this is that if you want class identity to be at the forefront of what players experience then you have to eliminate the fact that expansions push archetypes, not identities. Archetypes can be abused by multiple classes, the aggro archetype has historically been abused by Druid, Shaman, Warlock, Rogue, Paladin, and Hunter. The control archetype has historically been abused by Paladin, Mage, Shaman, Warrior, Warlock, and Priest. The point being that archetypes are not unique, whereas if you focus on identities you will create specific deck types that only one or perhaps two classes can utilize effectively, whether or not this is enjoyable is another debate. Shaman for instance has arguably the most useless hero power currently with almost 0 synergy to be found outside of The Stormbringer which is just an RNG fest. There was a time when shaman was defined by token style decks utilizing their hero power and it was also one of the most oppressive decks ever created for anyone who remembers aggro shaman with tunnel trogg into totem golem, and of course the infamous and now nerfed tuskarr totemic. I would strongly advise the developers to turn their attention to making expansions that reinforce class identity rather than leaving it up to classic cards, most of which barely fit into any existing decks. Just my two cents on the matter, thanks for reading.

Your definition of "balanced" seems to be what Blizzard is operating on, but it shouldn't be.  I don't know what a win rate needs to look like in order for you to consider a deck "countering" another, but that's a stupid subjective metric anyway.  Anytime you see someone achieving materially-higher-than-50% win rates against the deck in question, it warrants notice in these discussions.

If you take a look at the individual decks in HSReplay, you will find that players have found ways to achieve materially-higher-than-50% winrates against rogue in several classes.  For example:

Run of the mill Token Druids hitting 55%-59%

Secret Hunters at high fifties, low sixties win rate

Those two didn't surprise me.  What DID surprise me were the Mages who were holding their own.  The common understanding on this forum is that mages roll over to rogues.  Turns out, you can run the Mana Cyclone package, or the dragon package, and still beat rogue handily if you just put in Rabble Bouncers.  If mage can break 60%, I refuse to believe anything else, except perhaps priest, cannot be teched accordingly.

Again, I'm not arguing with you as far as why Blizzard is changing things.  I just continue to maintain that it's a ridiculous reason.  If they are looking at a player base that largely refuses to alter their decks to address the most popular archetype of opponent, BUT they are also seeing many individuals demonstrate it can be done, they can no longer hide behind "balance".

If you want to change because of "polarization" or "staleness" or "I really don't like Shudderwock" (all three being synonyms), that's perfectly fine.  Don't talk to me about balance, Blizzard.

And of course, you know for certain that balance is NOT the reason these changes were being made.  If balance were the motivating factor, they wouldn't execute three nerfs against one deck at the same time.  There is NO possibility they have calculated how this will effect the meta's balance; they simply want the frequency of rogue greatly reduced.  And they have certainly succeeded in that goal.

None of the above should be read to mean the nerfs were a bad idea.  I would just very much like to dispense with the notion that balance is the goal.  Ever since Flametongue joined the 3-mana club, that whole concept has been a farce.

My posts have more substance than the shit you just posted.

From now on, I promise only to defend decks you can beat.

https://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-126/

Yup, -token druid- is the problem.

Hi, my name is Bomb Warrior. Everyone hated me when I was in the meta for 5 days. Now this is my friend, Token Druid. Token Druid is a stupid aggro deck, like me. Everyone hates us because we SMOrc. Token Druid would like to talk to you:

"Hi. You asked me if there are enough board clears/removal. I have been fucked to many times by warrior with Warpath, Brawl, Omega Devastator, Execute, Dr. Boom's hero powers, and Dyn-o-matic. You hate me. Sure I'm fine with that. I bet you hated Odd Paladin, Undertaker Hunter, Pre-nerf Quest Rogue, Spell Hunter, OTK Priest, and pretty much every deck with >50% winrate. I would say go to the salt thread but I'm not one of those people."

Deal with it mate. Or just play any control deck.

Well, what is Druid going to do otherwise? They gutted combo then they gutted ramp. Do you want Druid to just flat out suck? Like, I get it, tokens and sticky minions are annoying. But again, what else are they going to do? They made it so Druid sucks otherwise, so tokens it is. And lets not imagine this is a recent "problem" token druid has been a thing since the dawn of Hearthstone. It's often complained about early in expansions because everyone is playing the greediest decks, which obviously aggressive decks and sticky minion decks punish. This is not new, at all. I guess that's why I'm defending token druid (and I don't even play it, I have no vested interest in defending it, I just don't want to see Druid disappear for another expansion).

Because the meta isn't even a month old and people already want nerfs.

Aggro decks will ALWAYS have inflated win percentages when people are experimenting with unoptimized decks. We need more data before a certain deck can be demonized as overpowered.