• 1

    posted a message on IMO 40 Health is the best that happened
    Quote from fjl93 >>
    Quote from TheSpunYarn >>
     

    I disagree, Renathal indeed dismantles agro decks based solely on quick face damage like DH or Quest Hunter, having more health doesn't guarantees you're going to have removal. Yes, it makes it statistically more probable, but it doesn't. Efficient board generation decks will still be viable and will probably still kick Renathal deck asses. I do agree that agro disappearing is totally bad for the game. Agro needs to be there. I like all kind of decks, I played agro, combo, midrange, control and even meme decks with no sense lol. All serve a purpose.

    What needs to be done is actually increase the ceiling of the game a little bit. Lets be honest, you can't play around an insane amount of direct damage unless you have extreme heal or dumb armor generation (which was the current strategy). That play style is toxic, we have seen it before a lot. Having more life from start is not equal to having an entire deck for generating armor and healing. So, a play style with not so many counters what finally does is lowering the ceiling of the game. How many times have you lost against a face hunter or DH that you visually saw counting poorly, making trades when he clearly didn't needed to do it so? It's something that happens. And it's to blame the abusive amount of face damage we have...

    TLDR, IMO Renathal is the clean solution for the problem of too much face damage.

     I agree that decks which pump ridiculous amounts of damage to the face are problematic.  Mine Rogue, Curselock, Garrote Rogue, various Mages, etc.  You're right that lifegain is the only way to mitigate those strategies.  But I don't really consider decks like that "aggro".  If a deck can deal 20+ damage to you in a single turn from hand, I would consider it a combo.  Popping off with a million spells and hero powering with Quest Hunter is essentially a linear combo, Smite + Sunken Vessel is a two-card combo, Brann + 2 Curse Battlecries is a 3 card combo, etc.

    Aggro, to me, plays on board and hits you with dudes until you die.  Traditional Face Hunter, most Demon Hunters, Pirate Warrior, Aggro Shaman decks, etc.  And when it takes 3 more turns or so to put your opponent to 30 Health, that presents an issue for those decks.  Anecdotally, I finally started playing Demon Hunter now that I have a skin that isn't an angry guy.  I've got a really fun Token Demon Hunter deck in Wild that I play casually because I like the strategy.  The extra turns it takes to kill my opponent gives them enough time to put me on the back foot, wipe my board, and keep me from getting through fairly consistently.  Now I know this isn't the best version of the deck, and I'm not the best pilot, but that's what I've experienced.

    I guess Aggro can also be like Questline Shaman, since it'll play kinda like Mono Red Burn in MTG.  Tossing burn spells face and attacking with dinky creatures is aggro.  But 10 health is a lot to a burn/aggro player.

    I think it's easy for Control Players to believe that 10 Health isn't that much because the style of game they play is different from Aggro.  Every Control-Lock ever would happily trade 10 Health for 5 cards.  But the gap is huge for Aggro to clear early.  Turns 1 through 4 they just don't have access to that kind of over-the-top damage.  And after that point, if your opponent isn't already on the back foot, it's so easy to lose all your tempo and the game.

    TLDR: yeah decks that deal 20+ damage from hand are toxic and difficult to interact with.  but i think a better solution is preventing those strategies from being dominant.  Not making cards that enable those strategies to flourish.  Giving all Control decks more starting health seems inelegant, and dances around the actual problem of designing cards that make toxic strategies work.  Also, even if this is the best response, it's still an expensive one.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on IMO 40 Health is the best that happened

    I feel like online discussion of Hearthstone leans really heavily in favor of control -- of the entirety of Hearthstone's playerbase is likely very diverse in opinion on deck preference, but people who flock to YouTube comments or forums like this are usually Control players.  I could throw out some guesses regarding demographic; people who have more time to play longer Hearthstone games also probably have that free time to spend watching Hearthstone on YouTube etc.  I prefer playing aggro, but I see the value in a balanced meta as the best kind.  Each archetype has an important role in keeping another in check.  The classic rock>paper>scissors at a conceptual level.

    I worry that Renethal may actually be the worst possible thing that could have happened to Hearthstone.  I've been wrong before, and I am a dramatic bitch, but I have reasons.

    It's been mentioned here before, but if (hypothetically) 50% of the Standard meta becomes Renethal decks, that means that people need to invest into 10 more cards.  People aren't filling those slots with garbage, they're using the next best cards available to their deck.  Higher quality cards in slower decks tend to be higher rarity, the epics and legends.  Even the fun cards, the off-meta Renethal decks people will want to play, will involve like 5 Legends because those cards tend to be the most fun, impactful, and interesting to build around.  Hearthstone becomes, as a result, more expensive to play.  Somebody who wants to play Control is now highly disadvantaged unless they buy in; while Renethal may be free, the other cards in your deck most likely aren't.  Aggro was popular for a large variety of reasons.  Hearthstone is widely designed to be faster paced, to keep players attention between shorter and more exciting games that you can play on your break at work, or on the toilet.  Devs leaning into aggro made it strong, and desirable to play.  On top of this, aggro was cheap and accessible.  Commons and Rares made up a bulk of aggro decks, and games could be completed quickly for people with busy schedules.  Aggro, to the chagrin of Combo players everywhere, is the best thing for the largest demographic of Hearthstone players.  TLDR; the game becomes more expensive for anybody who wants to compete *if Renethal decks are the strongest available option*.

    The effect that Renethal could have on aggro in and of itself could be a net negative for the game as a whole.  If aggro dies (and I do mean *if* it dies, Renethal has been out for all of 2 days so I won't conclude either way) I think that that's a terrible thing.  Because once Aggro decks become a non-element, Control decks are now running mostly into Control mirrors.  That might not be such a bad thing for people who like the grindy value matches, but competitive Hearthstone players are Spikes, and what I think will probably happen is that those 10 additional cards convert from Control additives to a Combo package.  Combo is the most effective way to beat Control, after all, so it makes sense that in order to combat the mirrors, all Control decks pivot into Combo/Control in order to compete.  The game then becomes two slow decks racing to see who hits their combo first.  And, in my opinion, that sounds boring as hell.  And if those changes make Aggro relevant again, the game will become a cycle of: Combo Control Mirrors > Control+ Mirrors to keep Aggro dead > Combo Control Mirrors > Next Set Release.

    This is all purely speculative, and I'd own up to being wrong if I was proven wrong.  But an additional 10 Health is a hurdle I'm uncertain Aggro decks will be able to overcome as decklists become more refined.  For every draw card an Aggro deck includes so they don't run out of steam, that's a threat they have to drop.  I don't see the math working out for Aggro at all tbh.

    Some people will be thrilled about this, and in fairness I'm glad Control players can get their time in the sun!  Aggro historically has been a dominant force in the game, I remember very VERY few metas where Control had the crown.  Though recently a Control deck was so strong it got like, 4 or 5 nerfs?  Let them eat cake imo.  But I think there'll need to be very relevant changes after a while, because one-third of Hearthstone vanishing will do a lot of damage to people's willingness to play it.  And why come back to Hearthstone when there're other, better TCG's and CCG's out there?

    Just my thoughts.  Wanted the chance to share them on here, so I'm grateful for the thread.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Will there be 20 hp/20 cards legendary?

    I really hope so.  Make it a 2 mana 2/1.  I'd play it all the time even if it was terrible.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 5

    posted a message on New Rogue Legendary Card Revealed - Pirate Admiral Hooktusk

    This is an unbelievably cool card.  Will make a very fun (but likely uncompetitive) Pirate Rogue in Wild, and perhaps something equally fun in Standard, if more viable in a more stable format.  This kind of interaction is extremely underutilized in Hearthstone, and I'm excited to see more of it.

    Posted in: News
  • 1

    posted a message on The new warlock card stealer of souls is BUSTED

    I got whipped by this earlier in Casual.  Seems pretty inoffensive, and I can't complain much since just minutes before I was doing Lady Anacondra + Celestial Alignment shenanigans in Druid just to get a feel for the deck.

    Sure it feels a little bad, but it's either a fad that'll go away when they keep losing to Secret Mage and Darkglare, or it does wind up good enough to be tier 2 or tier 1.5, and Warlock just gets another good deck that hard loses to anything with face damage.

    While I think minions that make your Hero Immune is silly because it's so limiting of design space in creating stuff like Stealer of Souls, clearly Blizzard doesn't really care about it at all.  Personally I think it's not good design.  The only card that isn't annoying that makes your Hero Immune is Time Out!, imo.  Paly exploits Immune less well than Warlock and Mage can.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Why are Mage and Rogue so popular?

    I think it's because maybe they're the most tricksy classes?  Like, you have a lot of flexibility in competitive and casual deckbuilding to be really experimental or Timmy-ish, or build a deck that's extremely competitive and good.

    Like, Rogue can build some really Timmy stuff, and Mage has really high levels of RNG, I know two people who only play Mage because Casino Mage is fun for them, so they both appeal to the inner Timmy within all of us.  I played Rogue for years because it was the class you can durdle around the most with in game, which is fun for me.

    Could be a lot of reasons, stuff like this is subjective.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 7

    posted a message on Wailing Caverns Mini Set - New Cards

    Primal Dungeoneer is absolutely awesome!  A potential Arcane Intellect on a 2/3 is nothing to scoff at, and if you build the deck with only Nature spells (most of Shaman's best spells) you're guaranteed a draw 2.  What a cool card, this might actually help Shaman in some way.

    Posted in: News
  • 0

    posted a message on Core set buffs i'd like to see
    Quote from ShadowAldrius >>
    Quote from Haedeius >>

    I didn't agree with every inclusion in the core set, and I still really don't. I think King Krush could use a small buff I guess; though the card is in a Hunter OTK deck so I dunno what that should look like.

     As the resident "guy who likes Hunter too much" I'd say best thing for ole King Krush is a cost change.  He's an inferior version of that Illidari Inquisitor in DH that you can only have 1 of; and a change in cost won't remotely effect the way it's implemented in OTK decks that don't pay for him anyway.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Core set buffs i'd like to see

    Solid ideas all around.
    Just because a card was recently changed, that doesn't mean they shouldn't take another look at it, especially if it's not doing well.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Why is HS so f***ing slow?

    It is weird to me how everybody's just assuming that OP is an aggro player when they just think the games animations are slow.
    Like, sure, I could see the argument that the mulligan is slow.  The cards move really slowly.  First draw of the game is slow.  OP is impatient, sure, but we can't really make any assumptions about them other than that, can we?

    Like, nobody's really said anything to disprove that the game is slow, either.  Turning a page in the collection?  Takes a second.  Going between screens?  Takes a few clicks and some time.  Like, yeah, Hearthstone could stand to be a bit more hasty with its transitions and animations.  I feel like that's a pretty unproblematic stance to take.  Personally I find it incredibly frustrating that PC users can't use the keyboard at all to navigate screens.  Escape brings up the options menu, and that's it.

    People aren't made out of time, ya know?  Some people just don't have enough time to squeeze in a game of Hearthstone, a game they like, while they're on break at work or something.  They gotta get through all these slow animations and stuff just to get a game to start.  That could be better.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Why is HS so f***ing slow?
    Quote from Skyi101 >>
    Quote from Pas >>
    Quote from Grubelmonster >>

    At least the first 4 turns shouldn`t  be longer than 15 secs. I played several times with control to legend and even with a control deck there is no need to have longer turns. You have enough time to think about your turns while the enemy have his turn.

     Normally aggro decks require more time in the first few turns than control deck.

     Yep, spewing your hand takes a lot more thought? Specially in an agro heavy meta with consistent t4/5 wins.

    Overselling hard today.

    To go face or not to go face, that is the question! Good sir me thinks, you thinketh too much!

     Ah, the classic Control player who thinks aggro is for dumb idiots.  What a productive and completely unexplored avenue of discussion!

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on So they're not going to fix Mage then...????
    Quote from SinAscendant >>

    As has been said before, the game is not balanced around Wild. That is the entire point of Wild. 

     

     

     Perhaps, then, that should change?  Just because that's the way that it is doesn't mean it's good, or that we can't say we don't like it.

    Posted in: Wild Format
  • 2

    posted a message on So they're not going to fix Mage then...????

    If they won't (and they probably won't) make adjustments to Mage in Wild, I say let the other classes eat cake and make everything broken in Wild.

    Posted in: Wild Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Has Hearthpwn lost its charm? Is there any way to recover it?

    An unfortunate side effect of creating a space where people gather and discuss a single topic:
    You eventually run out of things to talk about.

    Posted in: Site Feedback & Support
  • 0

    posted a message on Honestly I don't understand why people play this game anymore.
    Quote from 3nnu1 >>
    Quote from TallStranger >>
    Quote from 3nnu1 >>

    Happy, don't be surprised by the attacks. There are some blizzard defenders on this site who think the way to promote positive discussion is to attack and mock anyone who is critical of Hearthstone. Remember, when you get flak, it means you are over the target. 

     He's not said one thing criticizing Blizzard. Ergo, no one who disagrees with him is defending Blizzard.

    You're just trying to start a fight. Grow up.

     It is so fun to see all the same names attack anyone who is critical of blizzard. It is really fun to see them try to pull semantic arguments and  act as if they made a valid point.  

     

     When somebody actually starts defending Blizzard on here we'll let you know.  In the meantime, we'll be talking about what OP and other people on here were actually saying.

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