Hearthpwn

Quote from Anarchy1g »

Quote from Baldassar »

Aggro is the best cure.

It's a cure to a format of decking the opponent. A format of warriors trying to get more armor than health. A format where the smallest relevant creature is a giant. This format has existed in Hearthstone and thanks to the persistence of strong aggro decks we will never see it again.

 

I'm a control player, but even I have to admit this is true. When aggro went completely out of the meta, that's when freeze mages and the stupid fucking coldlight oracle/deathlord decks started being made. Although I wouldn't lend too much credence to a post from someone who cant even spell disease ON A FORUM WITH SPELL CHECK ENABLED

ah @7*%#(@$& you beat me to my entire comment . . . 

YOUR SPELLING IS THE WORST DISEASE!

Seriously though, its not that bad . . . I'd rather aggro than fatigue decks (worst.)

Quote from Ultimatecookie »

Quote from CaptZoey »

The [card]Sword of Justice[/card] works nicely with [card]Muster for Battle[/card] and other swarm-like decks.

Wait, wouldn't the weapon replace the Sword of Justice before it did its ability? 

No, it summons the recruits first, then summons the weapon.  The charges from Sword of Justice would be used on the recruits first.  Its a nice order of operations on Blizzard's part.

Quote from Mister_Smith »

i downloaded HotS last night to see what the deal was. i played my first match this morning and judging from my first couple matches my description is on point. diablo is a good game so dont take it the wrong way. i just feel like that genre isnt for me. 

Diablo is and always has been a loot driven action rpg. The very basis of this game is to develop your character primarily by accquiring the best possible loot with certain sets enabling new ways of playing your character opening up alternative skills etc. in Heroes of the Storm there is no Loot, literally none at all there aren't even items. 

Diablo also offers a lot of endgame content build around - again - loot but also leveling up your character either to max level in the older ones or simply to achieve more Paragon Levels in the case of diablo 3 after reaching max level. In HotS on the other side you basically fully develop your character within a single match with pretty little room for customisation of skills just to have the character reset to zero as soon as your match ends.

Diablo is set in a semi open world with you basically deciding the way you progress through the map. HotS has you set in slightly adjusted versions of the usual MOBA maps and foces you to take set paths and stay within the area of your faction for most of the earlier stages of the game heavily limiting any form of exploration. 

Diablo is neither objective driven nor has the emphasis on teamwork that HotS is so keen on. There is a multiplayer but you are in no way required to play in a group and even if you do you barely have any need to tune your team in order to work properly together, there are no roles in Diablo unlike to HotS where pretty much every character has a clearly defined role and a proper skillset for that very specific role and nothing else.

 

Sorry but i fail to see even one thing that would make Diablo in any form similar to any MOBA. That being said i don't like the genre either, it's barely enjoyable without ingame friends to play with and the basic concept isn't very appealing either... just that comparison :/

 

The only way i can see Diablo being like Heroes is that you control a character that levels up through combat and gains abilities along the way, but thats one of the oldest mechanics in gaming, and is used by a wide variety of vastly different games, so it makes the comparison kind of weak.

I can understand not liking the MOBA genre, there are several genres I don't play either, but I would never recommend someone else not TRY a game because I find the genre uninteresting.  I would recommend that you not pay for it if you have that option, which is what this original thread was about, and has got lost somewhere along the way, especially now that the game is in open beta.

What might be useful is a comparison of Heroes to other MOBAs, I haven't read the entire thread, so this may have been done already, but I personally prefer Heroes to something like LoL, because the learning curve is much less steep, which is great for people who have limited amounts of time to devote to games.  Heroes also does away with the last hit mechanic, which I personally think is tedious and boring.  Basically, its a more accessible version of LoL, in the same way that HS is a more accessible version of Magic.

The downside is that Heroes is much more team oriented, so you can be drug down in random quick matches if your team construction isn't great.  The upside of this downside is that you still earn experience even if you lose, and matches are short, so losing doesn't hurt quite as bad (unless your ego can't take it.)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this is actually an issue with the way swipe works specifically.  I have noticed it before with this card in other situations where it does the 4 damage first, then the minion hit with 4 damage does its card effect/deathrattle, then the 1 damage is applied to all other characters.  Specifically, I have noticed this when a swipe targets an Acolyte of Pain, the 4 damage hits the acolyte and the card is drawn before the 1 damage gets applied to all other characters.  I don't think it works this way for a flamestrike or concecration.

Quote from Stubblestubble »

Quote from Spectre1116 »

Quote from Stubblestubble »

Mister_Smith you are absolutely correct about how interacting with RNG correctly is a way that RNG increases the flavor of the game and the skill of the game. What you are not considering is how inconsistent cards cannot be maximized. These are the problem cards i am referring to and they are increasing in the game. 

When a shredder could clear your board as easily as dropping a bigger minion in its place there is no way at all to maximize it. No way that skill comes into play with that card no way to interact with it correctly. 

Since i feel that you are more on the ball I will try to use a more relevant example: 

I am sure that you have heard of a facehunter deck. Its a controversial deck that relies heavily on card draw RNG to be successful. People often feel that there is no way to "interact" with the facehunter deck and they are correct. People also feel like facehunter decks require less skill to play than other decks and they are absolutely correct. 

A facehunter deck is a prime example of how card inconsistency takes away from the skill of the game. When you play against a facehunter what you are actually doing is going blow for blow with RNG. It becomes less of a match of skill and more of a match of who can draw their answer cards first. A facehunter with a perfect draw will beat dang near any deck in the game and this is a tragedy because anyone can play it. Even their first week of getting into the game a person can have enough skill to reach legend with this deck but said people wouldnt be able to play another deck type to save their life. Its a deck aimed to exploit a weakness in the game and its a weakness that I have been explaining over and over. 

This is a current real world example of how RNG inconsistency effects the skill level of the game. Unfortunately, the game is so complicated its very hard to explain in a post how cards like UP and the shredders effect the game in the way that is clear like how a facehunter effects it but they do in much the same way.

Essentially what they do is they cause situations that make RNG the center of the match and as multiples of these cards enter a match the effect is compounded. What you are left with if these cards get bad enough is a match that is decided by equal parts skill and luck. As you pointed out which is fair is that you still use skill in trying to maximize the RNG in the game. But when you have situations and plays that you cannot "interact" with and its effect could set you back or move you forward at any moment without ryme or reason it is impossible to ignore that a certain degree of skill has left the game. 

what kills me is how you can be so wrong, and yet be so condescending about it . . .

Say what you want but when I can give a friend a mech mage crambed with as much RNG BS possible and watch him climb to legend in 19 days and 175 games later (he had only played the game 3 weeks by the way) the game isnt much about skill anymore. The guy didnt even know what a mana curve is but still had a 74% win rate. Have you ever even been to legend? Have you seen the amount of people running aggro around 4-1? Completely crushing any winstreak you have? Well there is a reason for that. 

Ahhh, now the saltiness comes out. I will refer you to the original 'grinning demon stealing wins from you' comment so many posts ago.

Frankly, I don't believe any of your anecdotes.  Your comments kind of make you sound like you're a 15 year old who thinks he's being profound (especially that long story you did about 'pro' craps . . . oh boy.) It's not that I or the other people who have commented don't understand your argument. Its quite simple, to quote "RNG=LESS SKILL"! The issue is that this is a gross oversimplification.  Several of these posts have been written in an attempt to get you to understand this, but you basically ignore them, deny any misinterpretation is happening on your end, and continue to repeat yourself again . . . and again . . . and again. 

I'm a little embarrassed that I'm continuing to engage with you a) because of your perceived age, and b) because I could tell you were going to brick wall this entire thread several posts ago. Enjoy your "aggro around 4-1", may the unstable portals be forever in your favor.

Quote from Stubblestubble »

Mister_Smith you are absolutely correct about how interacting with RNG correctly is a way that RNG increases the flavor of the game and the skill of the game. What you are not considering is how inconsistent cards cannot be maximized. These are the problem cards i am referring to and they are increasing in the game. 

When a shredder could clear your board as easily as dropping a bigger minion in its place there is no way at all to maximize it. No way that skill comes into play with that card no way to interact with it correctly. 

Since i feel that you are more on the ball I will try to use a more relevant example: 

I am sure that you have heard of a facehunter deck. Its a controversial deck that relies heavily on card draw RNG to be successful. People often feel that there is no way to "interact" with the facehunter deck and they are correct. People also feel like facehunter decks require less skill to play than other decks and they are absolutely correct. 

A facehunter deck is a prime example of how card inconsistency takes away from the skill of the game. When you play against a facehunter what you are actually doing is going blow for blow with RNG. It becomes less of a match of skill and more of a match of who can draw their answer cards first. A facehunter with a perfect draw will beat dang near any deck in the game and this is a tragedy because anyone can play it. Even their first week of getting into the game a person can have enough skill to reach legend with this deck but said people wouldnt be able to play another deck type to save their life. Its a deck aimed to exploit a weakness in the game and its a weakness that I have been explaining over and over. 

This is a current real world example of how RNG inconsistency effects the skill level of the game. Unfortunately, the game is so complicated its very hard to explain in a post how cards like UP and the shredders effect the game in the way that is clear like how a facehunter effects it but they do in much the same way.

Essentially what they do is they cause situations that make RNG the center of the match and as multiples of these cards enter a match the effect is compounded. What you are left with if these cards get bad enough is a match that is decided by equal parts skill and luck. As you pointed out which is fair is that you still use skill in trying to maximize the RNG in the game. But when you have situations and plays that you cannot "interact" with and its effect could set you back or move you forward at any moment without ryme or reason it is impossible to ignore that a certain degree of skill has left the game. 

what kills me is how you can be so wrong, and yet be so condescending about it . . .

Quote from _Justice_ »

That example is factually wrong.

 

The only effect of putting X number of "random" cards into a 52 card deck is that stronger hands will be more common, e.g. higher variance. That's absolutely no indication whatsoever of who will win. The person who wins will be the one who correctly interprets his opponent's range of holdings more accurately, judging by the probabilities of the deck and other indications. That's the real skill of Poker. The person more used to assessing holdings while playing that deck, and better able to interpret other signs, will win. You honestly think that good Poker players win because they draw strong hands more often? Giving both players stronger hands more often helps the weaker player more, let me guess, because he gets strong hands less often with a 52 card deck?

 

Like I said, variance doesn't reduce the skill element in a game whatsoever. Its only effect is requiring more iterations before results close to the mean are established.

 

Let me put it this way. Say I sit down with the best Chess player ever. We can say with certainty that the next game we play will go his way. But if I sit down with the best Poker player in the world, he's not at all able to say with certainty that he'll win the next hand. But he'll definitely beat me heads up if our stacks are deep enough. The question that variance answers is how long it takes for him to beat me.

He's never going to get it.  Save yourself the trouble.

Well this was a waste of time . . . I should have known better.

Quote from Stubblestubble »

 

Bruh... I think you just like to debate stuff.

 

Variance as per the Webster dictionary's definition - the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent.

DO I KNOW WHAT VARIANCE MEANS? I DO! DO YOU??? LOL

I'm going to take one more shot to try to explain this to you without getting to far into the weeds on semantics.

The way you have been using the term 'variance', and even your webster's dictionary definition in the above post, are colloquial or literary definitions for this term, but what we are after is the more complex statistical definition, which Justice did quite well in explaining.  Words can mean different things when used in different contexts, and in this case, you are trying to incorrectly substitute a more common use definition into a statistical context, which is leading to superficial (and a little childish) understanding of this argument.

I do have one other question i would like to address, which is why it is believed that less consistency = less skill?  if a game is perfectly consistent, then it basically plays itself.  To me, blackjack is actually a good example of this, given any set of cards in front of you and the dealer, there is a statistically correct decision you should make on what action to make.  Playing correctly does not so much require skill as it does just memorizing a set of actions, which anyone can do.  To me, skill comes only comes into a game when it reaches a state that does not have a predetermined correct actions, and creative thought is required to make correct moves. 

I feel like blizzard added cards like shredders and unstable portals to help create board states that are out of the ordinary, and therefore require some creativity to play with and against. Yes, this sometimes varies too far from the mean and leads to frustrating losses, but this is overall quite rare.

In the end, I think I would rather lose to the an extremely rare turn 5 Rag than to the Druid FoN/SR combo that I have already lost to 100 times before.  At least the turn 5 Rag is a good story . . .

Quote from _Justice_ » 

It seems to me that most uses of the word "variance" in Hearthstone follows a thought pattern something like this - "When I play well and win, it's skill. When I play well and lose, it's luck (aka variance)."  Or the even more pathetically short-sighted version of that - "When I win, it's skill. When I lose, it's luck." Under that view, variance is a grinning demon that comes in for no other reason but to rob the better player of wins. 

This is exactly what all these 'RNG vs skill' threads give the impression of.  Well said.

Quote from Stubblestubble »

Quote from DropDeadCynical »

I'm very confused by that analogy.  If there was a card that, for two mana, dealt 1-15 damage then it would be ridiculously overpowered.  I mean who wouldn't put two of those in every deck?

I'm not sure how Unstable Portal could possibly be equated with that.  That is a card that gives you a random minion, that may or may not be good for the situation, that may or may not work with your deck, at an average mana saving of 0.6 mana.

I mean I get your point that UP is a bit of a lottery, but I don't understand the 1-15 damage analogy.

the analogy of a 1-15 damage spell being comparable to a UP is in the value you might receive from the card. It makes the card very playable like you said. I havent played a mage in the past 2 month that hasnt ran at least one UP. But how many times is that card going to fail on you and how many times is it going to work (like you said UP has an adverage mana value of .6 and the said spell would have comparable results) and finally what does all that say about skill when playing it? Those are the questions that I am trying to get you to ask. 

EDIT: I suppose the spell would have to cost 4 mana to actually have about the same value but yeah im sure you are getting the point. 

What this analogy doesn't take into account is that there significantly more 2 and 3 drops compared to 7 and 8 drops in the game, so the average value of a unstable portal is skewed down.  You're spell implies that you have an equal chance to get 1 or 15 damage.

sometimes unstable portal allows you to outright win the game with a 5 mana rag, but most of the time, it's just a cheap spider tank or taz'dingo. I understand how the memories of the in former instance stick way longer than the later, but overall, the RNG caused by this card is within a certain range. 

I could make a critique of th RNG vs 'skill' debate, but that has been gone over exhaustively in numerous threads already, so if you are still stuck on this issue, I don't know that there is anthing that hasn't already been said that will convince you otherwise. 

Definitely Tirion, Sneed is one of thsoe legendaries you throw in for fun more than to be competitive.

What 3 drop will a 2/5 kill?

I haven't played this card yet, but I've had it played against me, and so far, at best, I see this as a 1-1/2 for 1. Scenario is:

2/5 kills 3/2 leaving a 2/2, remaining 2/2 runs into 3 drop and at best requires hero power to finish off 3 drop. This means your turn 4 is hero power plus 2 drop, which isn't great for tempo.

i think this card is ok in arena, but in almost all cases I would rather have a Spider Tank

Quote from Genocide51 »

True. However you can drop any minion(s) and play It on the same turn.

I don't think this is right.  Yes, the minions you just played get some buff, but you don't get to make the best use of it (thinking divine shield and windfury here.)  And in your buffed imps example, you can't think of this as a waste of your opponents AOE, because you just spent 8 mana on that your self . . .

However, enhanc-o is great in arena, which is way more minion based, especially in shaman decks.