Hearthpwn

Quote from SchruteBucks >>

In other words, "play an entirely different deck."

 You don't just tech in Humongous Razorleaf + Silence.  You create Silence Priest, an entirely different deck. 

@ShruteBucks; I literally just told you how to do exactly that. Want a slightly better winrate as Control vs Quest Rogue? Put something in your deck that isn't reactive and mulligan for it to apply early pressure, on top of using your reactive tools appropriately. I'm not the one who's misreading anything.

Not sure I can be more clear about this either; if you're going to ask how to tech for something and then proceed to ignore a laundry list of suggestions, you're not really trying that hard to beat Quest Rogue. Which would be a fine approach, if the complaint wasn't "but but but there's no way to tech for it". 

@4wd; ah, fair enough! I can definitely see how Gwent's approach can be a lot better for that kind of mindset too, I'd be lying if I said I loved every quest I ever got in Hearthstone. Play 5 Tavern Brawls legitimately makes me reroll instantly unless it's something like Top 2/3 where I can approach it semi-competitively. Just getting gold for winning rounds is totally something I do love about Gwent's f2p system, because it just fits the PvP mindset a lot better.

I'll have to finish up the challenges this week/weekend, I just hate playing against AI for the most part lol. I think it was Skellige I was playing and it seemed like a lot of fun, I just wanted to finish the AI garbage and open all the packs before summarily deleting everything and getting down with deckbuilding.

@Jainaishot; and maybe that's where we differ on opinions as well, I don't find randomized events too frustrating to lose to because I generally can accept that I'm playing a game where randomized effects will happen.  Like it's a bit tilting to lose to mana screw in Magic, or someone getting exactly the spell they needed from Babbling Book... but in those cases it's, at worst, a few minutes of analyzing my own play in that game to ascertain if it was truly a bad break or if I could have taken a different approach for different outcomes. To me it really still just boils down to the fact losing is frustrating, even in something like Chess, but I'd rather spend the energy getting better and improving.

Like I said, you seemed disgruntled with Blizzard, and I get that you have your own reasons to be. I still like WoW's direction for the most part, D3 was a good game in its own way (outside of the awful RMAH), and Overwatch/HotS are games I don't play a lot but have a lot of fun whenever I do. So I'm critical of their choices generally, but for the most part they still haven't burned any bridges with me because I enjoy the games they make. Something like the currency thing is hard because I agree with people that it's an extremely raw deal for EU players, but I also don't think it's a crime to move things in line with exchange rates when you're operating globally. Like of all the crappy things that companies do in pursuit of the bottom line, that's one thing I don't really attribute with being purely out of corporate greed.

Overall agreed though, even in disagreement it was a good discussion to have. Like I said, definitely wish you the best with Gwent! I do really think it's going to do well and the guys at CDPR seem like they have a good vision and attitude, which means no matter what happens Gwent players are probably in really good hands.

@ShruteBucks; You could certainly tech in Eater of Secrets or (more accurate to the time frame) Kezan Mystic. Tell me how well that worked for people, because outside of Tournies where you're trying to target something it was an awful plan and you were better off forgetting the cards even existed. For those Control lists you generally simply wouldn't apply enough pressure to even be able to even be in a position where destroying Secrets would have mattered. 

Auchenai/Chow/Chow/Flash Heal/Circle was definitely a legitimate way to shore up the matchup with Handlock as Priest. Except you still generally died because Handlock could just avoid Jaraxxus once that got popular and beat you into the ground while you held onto your 5 card combo. It was not a tech against Freeze Mage, and it wouldn't have saved you against Anyfin Paladin. It really didn't save you against Malylock who basically just did Handlock things with a burn finisher. So I'll concede it made the matchups slightly more favorable, but if you think all of a sudden Priest was winning more than losing... I don't really see how.

The tech cards against Quest Rogue are legitimately just to have proactive threats, not unlike Jade Druid. And yes, most Control lists can be teching in proactive cards right now if they really wanted to lower their curve a little... but the Quest Rogue matchup is sparse enough on ladder and it weakens your list so substantially that it's not really worth it. In Priest's case, you're better off running with a Silence build. In Warrior's you've got access to stuff like Kor'kron Elite or Pirates (some Control lists were actually running N'Zoth's First Mate and Patches back in MSoG) to add some pressure at that lower end of your curve, and Dirty Rat to pull cards from their hand that you have a million ways to deal with. Shaman has a very reactive early curve unfortunately, but I've done alright by Hexing/Devolving their key cards and then trying to get something midrangey out with the time I bought. Control Paladin can easily be slanted to hybrid builds, it's one of the key reasons the class is so good right now. None of these are going to make you favored against Quest Rogue, mechanically Quest Rogue hits far too many weak points in Control's gameplan to do that; they are however options to shore up the weakness of being too passive without giving up a significant number of slots. None of these are worth bothering with simply to beat Quest Rogue, because that's the reality of the meta. 

Considering you suggested that a tech against Priest was simply to "run more 4-attack minions", it's not really any different of a concept.

Quote from SchruteBucks >>

Quote from nevr3000 >>

Quote from SlickRick >>

Simple. Because they play it.

Or because they look at the actual winrates of the deck, or because they play decks that are favorable against quest rogue, or because they realise that in a rock paper scissors meta you'll always have a few matchups that are near unwinnable...

 The wr was never the reason it was a problem.  The problem lies in the experience of playing against QR.  You're largely playing solitaire the entire time.  And there is no way to tech against it other than simply playing a different deck.  I am fine with losing most of the time with a control deck against QR.  I am fine with Freeze Mage losing most of the time to Control Warrior.  The difference is, with the latter, you could tweak your deck in such a way to at least increase your chances, even if you were still hugely unfavored.  Not so with QR.  There is no card or cards that can increase your chances, besides 30 different cards. 

@WraithM; yep, that was actually the article I was referring to! It's been re-worded elsewhere a bunch, but you can pretty much apply that to almost any card game with combat mechanics so I usually point people to the original.

Quote from n3r0s1 >>

Since Blizzard still haven't changed Jade Idol I guess they won't nerf Quest Rogue. They just let shit be. Really hard to understand why they will make their customers so frustrated. Overall the Quests was a good idea that went wrong. It should have been smaller things.

Quote from 1xbenx1 >>

Fun thought: What current card do you think has the most future potential to break wild? My vote goes to the mage quest.

Quote from Orbis >>

How on earth can it be fun to play (against) these quest rogues.

Just finished a game where on turn three he had 6 5/5 critters. I know you have to have a perfect draw to do that but it happens often enough.

I think I win 1 maybe 2 in 6 games just by having the perfect opening draw and drawing perfect after that. It seems so unbalanced...

Quote from TallAr92 >>

I tried but its not like i am the biggest fan of TCG. I just like hearthstone design (graphic quality, cards graphic, community etc) and im big fan of warcraft.

Ive played this game for too long to give up because of some idiotically designed cards. Anyway what is there to like when your opponents wrecks you with PURE luck and it turns out that all of your plays didnt matter, like the game didnt exist, the game was unbeatable because SOMEONE IS JUST A BETTER PLAYER. What is there to like when the game is frustrating can you explaion me how cna you enjoy when some1 wrecks your balls with random generated card and thens tand above you laughing with those retarded emotes? 

What is there to like tell me please. Because after 2 years of babbling book/cabalist tome/swashburglar i cant find anything funny about this.

This is 10% luck
20% skill
15% concentrated power of will
5% pleasure
50% pain
And a 100% reason to remember the opponents name! 

Quote from TallAr92 >>

Last 2 weeks were terrible. I cant get myself to play mroe than 3 games because there are too many mages, rogues with their retarded random cards. Each game im losing is due to swashburglar or babbling book... sometimes cabalist tome.

Game is shit again. Thanks blizzard for those interactive cards and strategies.

Fun isn't something that's black and white. Something isn't 100% SUPERFUCKINGFUNTIMES or not fun at all, it operates in shades of grey.

If I am having enough fun to want to use my spare time playing then I play. If I find I'm not enjoying the experience, I stop playing. If I find I dislike playing against, or with the majority of the popular decks I will leave the game alone for a while and check back later to see if anything has changed.

At the moment I'm having enough fun to continue playing. So, yes. I like the current meta.

I personally think this meta is one of the best we've had in a long time. I believe the reason for this is that with the Year of the Mammoth rotation we gained Un'Goro and removed Blackrock Mountain, League of Explorers, and The Grand Tournament. The sets that rotated out were not helping deck diversity. Blackrock didn't add much except dragons which only manifested in one class (Priest) and Emperor Thaurissan who mainly popped up in OTK style decks (which are one of the styles of the deck that are the least fun to play against and which Blizzard has said they want to remove from the game). League of Explorers eventually got reduced down to Brann Bronzebeard and Reno Jackson being the only cards which saw pervasive play and I think we all got plenty sick of being Reno'd this winter and having our opponents double up on their Jades with Brann. The Grand Tournament is probably the worst expansion in the history of the game. The themes of that set (Inspire and jousting) never caught on competitively so there were no strong deck styles to help broaden diversity that emerged from it, it just got swallowed up by the stronger themes in Old Gods and Mean Streets. With Un'Goro replacing those sets and with Un'Goro having been better designed with stronger themes that can hold up against those in the other Standard legal expansions/Classic we're seeing a much better deck diversity.

Quote from Tze>>

@iandakar; Day9 in general is one of my favorite speakers, he's a smart dude. You could probably also get a lot of the same information from Mark Rosewater (the video Cogito_Ergo_Sum linked is brilliant), Ghostcrawler, and I'm sure there's a couple others I'm missing who have put out a lot of writing on their own experiences with game design. 

Oh meh, I knew Day9 for a few years now, though only after he stopped played Starcraft.  Long after I stopped playing I still watched his dailies just due to how he explained the game.  I didn't realize how much I missed it till he recently did his BW rant, given that his HS play has very little explaination and more..well, casual talk.  Note that I have a hard time watching anything HS that isn't a tournament (OTOH, I have Dreamhack games on my phone going right now. Haven't looked at the screen in a while but just letting the announcers talk about the games as background sound.  I'm...odd)

I think I mentioned it before, but MSoG reminded me of Affinity in Magic and the nerfs that went alongside that. The numbers for MSoG were probably great, and the idea that there were a ton of options even if they used a lot of the same cards ("stacks" I think they called them?) was one that they seemed content with from a design perspective. But even though I agreed with both of those things I thought it was pretty awful once it reached a settled state, as did a lot of people it seemed. I think in one of the Q&As they also admitted that numbers being good wasn't the only indicator of a healthy meta, and I hope it's a philosophy they stick to in the future. This is also why since then I'm still insistent on calling people out on logical inconsistencies, but found that sometimes the answer really is "I know the data says X, but I'm feeling Y". Sometimes being data-driven works against you.

I have a saying: Feelings are valild, but they aren't facts.

The statement is to try to get around two very extreme ways people view feelings.  Some people take their feelings as fact.  For years people would come here and swear that going second was imbalanced and need fixing due to the impression they get over the coin.  They Felt that the coin was too powerful and, thus, deemed it as absolute fact no matter what data comes to work agiainst it.  That's where the second part plays in.  Just because the game feels 'wrong' doesn't mean the game is, datawise, wrong in the specific way.  You need the facts beyond how you feel.

The OTHER way people view feelings is as worthless delusion.  For them, if the facts counteract the feeling then the feeling is just wrong.  This is also wrong.  The point to an experience like a game is to enjoy it.. to gain positive feelings off of it.  I doesn't matter how much data you can show to prove that the game should be fun and enjoyable to everyone, if you don't 'feel' the fun then that feel is valid.

Feelings are valid.  They determine when someone is working right or wrong.  This is actually the basis behind 'good bugs' and 'bad bugs'.  All bugs are technically wrong.  However, many bugs result in the game being more enjoyable. For example, combos in fighting games started off as a bug.  However, it created a fun experience so it was best to not only keep it but refine and enhance it.  

Feelings are valid, but they do not provide facts.  If you feel that the game is too full of aggro then that matters.  But don't be surprised if, when you look at your played matches, you actually fough t against 3 aggro decks and 10 control, but only really remembered the 3 aggro.  

This doesn't make the feeling invalid, but it DOES mean the solution might be somewhere else.  It could be that it's not really just 'aggro' that you dislike.  A lot of folks confuse Tempo with Aggro.  However, after listening to them you realize that even if they got the terms right all it'll mean is that they really dislike Aggro AND Tempo, effectively any deck that can kill you early.

Meanwhile the folks who seem to always deem 'all decks' as aggro tend to have a common theme: they really like VERY slow 'fatigue' style decks.  Such decks not only suffer to aggro but also Combo and Midrange.  Thus 'I hate aggro' actually means "I want to play fatigue and all of these things stop me.'  

The issue could be real and just a part of a separate issue (i.e. Ranked encouraging fast decks or a real problem with Tempo decks), it could be simply disliking the counter deck style pllaystyle that can make your preferred achetype unplayable at times.  It could actually be the person looking for a style of play that actually doesn't fit into HS, or card games in general.  Thus the solution to the wrong feeling could really be realizing hearthstone isn't the game designed for you.  I've had to leave some games that seems so close to what I want but really isn't made for me.

Thus if you feel that something is wrong, don't ignore it, but realize that feelings don't immediately mark the cause.  You may have to look up the data, realize that you might be wrong in your hypothesis, then realize the cause of your feeling is something else.

Which gets back to the method of offering feedback.  When speaking to developers, according to the statements made, you really should be giving off the feelings you are getting and whether you prefer or don't prefer those feelings, along with where they seem to be coming from.  The causeand solutions are for the developer to locate based on the game design they are after and the data they have collected.

I do absolutely agree that discussing potential solutions is still good to do, and I wouldn't want to change that for the world; outlining what you'd change and any effects it would have on current gameplay is completely respectable, and like you said that kind of theorycrafting gets people chiming in and saying "well the change doesn't address what I think is the real problem". As long as there's dialog it's not like it's any worse than showing off a custom card design you have. What we do have to do is understand that, similar to custom cards, there's no obligation on Team 5's part to implement or acknowledge them.

Team 5 absolutely needs us to find the problems I think, and as long as they're actually responding (albeit slowly) to what seem like underlying issues I do think they're doing their job. Un'Goro isn't perfect but, like your example regarding the pushed neutral card pool being a lot smaller, it's a huge improvement. Some solutions are going to be worse than others (RIP Molten Giant), but unless they're completely gamebreaking something is almost always better than nothing.

We should hash things out with numbers and logic in addition to how things feel. My biggest issue is that we tend to skew one way or the other, myself included, and that's been the biggest barrier for moving conversations forward. Being factually incorrect doesn't justify feeling bad any more than being factually correct justifies feeling good, if that makes sense. If everyone tries for this I imagine we'll actually get some pretty good feedback produced, and at the very worst we'll at least be a community that doesn't hate each other. :P

^^

"Streamers are part of the 'rich' and influential keeping the global system of exploitation running..."

Nice man. I think I've heard that before somewhere, but... please tell us more. :)

With the next expansion pack: they'll release new Adventure-like content with each new set.

Day9 actually had agreat video on providing feedback that I think summed it up phenomenally. It also went into the mindset of the person receiving feedback, and how generally their entire goal is to pull out the core issue of something and implement a fix instead of implementing suggested fixes. For the people who really want their feedback to not be ignored, the approach outlined in the video is going to get you a lot farther than spamming rage posts

That video was awesome.  

It also helps to explain the interesting messaging from blizzard vs the community around the time of MSG.  

The community was screaming about how the game was so samey and how the same decks kept hitting you over and over again. It aws just Pirates and Jade pirates and jadeandpiratesandjadeand you get the idea.  

Blizzard, though, said that there's a lot of different decks out there with multiple variations. They also stated that the win rates of those decks weren't overwhelming like, say, patron warrior was.  

Eventally though, they said this:  That the problem wasn't quite so much that the same decks were hitting you, but that multiple decks LOOKED the same.  Sure, tournaments could go into detail of how many different versions of warlock there wre and how it changed how the deck operated.  But in the end you saw the Reno and the potions and yawn.. Renolock again.  

For Jade/pirates it was worse. When turn 1 was always Small time into Patches it was 'THAT #*$*# PIRATE DECK AGAIN!" nevermind if it was face warrior or a control styled rogue.  It was 'THAT PIRATE DECK!'  

Basically it wasn't so much that the DECKS were the same but their key elements made them all 'feel' the same to the community.  

And what do we have now?  Everyone getting completely different quests and a MUCH smaller lineup of key neutral cards.  It also helps to explain why Elemental only really works for certain decks.  Chances are, Triclass cards will go the way of Joust.

Overall that mindset day9 brought makes the community's goal easier.  It shows that we don't need to spend so long hunting for solutions as much as we need to make a firm finding of the core problem, then rely on Blizzard to offer solutions to which we can try and accept or reject.  It does go back to trusting blizzard not so much to find the problems or even getting it right but to be wiling to listen and change course if what we state isn't what they are after.  

Though talking about solutions IS useful to the community given that the theorycrafting can help determine the real problem.  For example, in early MSG, the suggestions of having Patches not have charge seemed unsatisfactory since pirate warrior would be just as powerful without that 1 extra damage.  Thus it can be concluded that the real issue was in another card (Small time) rather than patches itself, no matter how much your eye is drawn towards the guy 'in Chaarge!'