Hearthpwn

Quote from Kaladin >>

 We're the players, not the game designers.  It's not our job to come up with tournament mode.  It's the job of the game devs to come up with something, give it to us, then listen to feedback on how to make it better.  

When the playerbase is able to dictate what they want, like say, more loot in a looter or for card games to be dictated by more than just what RNG and your deck choice dictated, then designers have a clear goal and plan that they can aim for and can build accordingly.

When the playerbase screams and demands for a very vague term like Tournament Mode, or 'a good meta', that said community can't agree on, it becomes difficult to just expect the designers to figure out what you like when you don't even know what that is.  

And if said game dev then tries and realizes there isn't any design for a 'Tournament mode' that said public would actually like then their best answer is to NOT do it and instead focus on features that are they believe have a better handle of , like a better PvE experience.

To put it simply: If you can't figure out the solution, and the expert you ask to look into it says there isn't a solution that's viable, there's not much to do but accept that.  

Quote from XoBoater >>

Many of the other digital card games use buffs quite regularly, and the results are usually positive. Hearthstone is the only game I play that pushes the nerf panic button waaay too much, and as OP said, it's a temp fix until the next most broken deck takes over. Hearthstone nerfs are like a broken record, it's always the same result afterwards, the game never gets healthier for the long term.

 This is news to me.  What card games have buffed their cards with positive results?

Years ago, I think during TGT, when I was one of those folks screaming for Tournament mode, I listened to a major Blizzard dev speak on a podcast about it.  They said that they knew it was highly desired and wanted to add it in.  However, they then realized the difficulty of the above question: What, the @()#) would an actual 'tournament mode' look like?  They never could find an answer.

Intrigued, I then started asking on forums and reading other people's opinions on the matter.  I've come to the same conclusion:

You guys have no (#$)#)( idea what you want.

A few of you, individually, MAY have an actual cohesive mentality that could actually be implemented.   Far Far **FAR** more of you do not. You have some vague image or, at best, a small trailer of content of some sort of 'Tournament system' that quickly glosses over the major design issues, sort of like listening to a 10 year old complain about why we aren't all riding in flying cars yet.  Some don't even have that and just want either "what I see on twitch stream, but IN THE GAAAAAMMMMMMEEEEEEEE!" or else REALLY want some other feature, like banning or a best of 3 system, or 'no netdecking' and using 'tournament mode' as a replacement term for it.

Many of the actual ideas tend to be rather dull (just like arena, but you make your own decks) or has a lot of problems for anyone outside a VERY small niche of people (most people don't have time to sit in a 3-5 hour series of games, especially if it involves a lot of waiting for other players.  Most people that CAN do so are already playing the many online tournaments already available through third parties).

Lastly, I got to see the absolute disaster of a Tournament mode that Class Royal did a few years ago and realized that a bad system is NOT better than no system at all.  

So, I'll be honest, I think the big mistake of last year with Tournament mode wasn't in canceling it; it was in announcing it in the first place.  Even if they WERE working on it (I think they were) they should've held that close until they were close to a demo.  

No, actually they shouldn't' have bothered.  As said, we HAVE a fully fledged tournament system in HTC (now Masters) and a lot of side tournaments that pop up elsewhere.  MUCH better marketing so that folks can find them would be greatly appreciated, but what's more needed are tools to help tournament runners RUN their tournaments rather than trying to make some automated thing in the client.  What's needed a WHOLE lot more is social elements.  I'd take a guild/clan system by far over a 'tournament' system anyday.  THAT can be much better pictured and is something not already handled by outside systems right now.  And a guild can make their own private tournament much easier than we can make organized groups right now.

In any case, the point is that this really is a case of 'the customer doesn't know what they want, but by God they want it!'  

Just a bit to add into the conversation:

A long time ago, Inner Fire and Divine Spirit were considered not only worthless but newbie traps to teach them about 'bad cards'.  

Nourish was also considered worthless and thus would be put into buff lists like those recommended here to give druid 'more options'.

Hadronox was also considered pack filler and also was deemed 'in need of buffs'.

I just finally caught up to watching the World Championships and just saw Ancestral Spirit put into a deck and became a primary reason why the world champion won his final game.  

IMO, the best way to 'buff' a card is to add in new synergies that make it a good card.  Buffing a card now because it's not useful NOW means a nasty card you need to nerf later on once synergies help it.

Note: when the game goes to a draw, you see both players explode and the game will declare a 'loss' for both players.  Don't be fooled, it's officially a draw.  You won't lose rank or get a loss in Arena.  

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from iandakar >>

So when are you good?  Personally I'd say if you can make serious attempts at the top 200, even if you can't break it in the end.  There's probably other symbols as well, such as winning tournaments or high averages in arena.  But as far as ranked, that's where I see the bar.

 

 So, for you, "good" doesn't start until you're in the top sliver of a fraction of a percentage of all players on your server?

That seems better than just "good" to me. You need more adjectives in your life.

I feel that 'good' isn't based on a percentage.  It's based on capability and qualities.  You can have 90% of a population be 'good' at something.  Every person who went to the world championship is far more than just 'good', which puts it at 100%.  I believe 'good' means you know and are capable of wielding all of the basic and most of the advanced features of the game.  If 100% is 'god level, no longer need to learn anything new' at the game, 'good' to me, would be 80%.  Far FAR above average.

I believe that the vast majority of people who play a game are playing poorly at a fundamental level and are only winning games and feeling successful because the ranking system quickly ships everyone who CAN play 'good' far FAR away from them.  It's why a good number of the playerbase had to literally run away from Ranked during the first few days when EVERYONE got dumped into rank 16 and was forced to play up to Legend.  

We insult ourselves by declaring 'good' at such a low level, and belittle ourselves in demanding that people MUST be at a 'good' level to be able to play the game.  A group of friends playing football in the park are technically horrible at the game, but there's no reason in the world why they would NEED to be 'good' at football to play in the park. It DOES mean that if you put them against people who have trained up enough to be 'good' at the game that they would be torn to pieces.  

What I'm doing is respecting those who HAVE put in the effort to learn this game.  It MEANS something to get to rank 5.  It MEANS something to be able to reach legend multiple months in a row, and it's not JUST "oh you have the time to play".  It also MEANS that you have far more to learn as well in order to master this game.  And you'll FEEL that difference if your 'just got into Legend' self start actually trying for rank 200.  

Whether you want to call it 'good' or 'great' or 'awesome' is semantics.  I jumped on the 'just wanted to see what people thought of things' as an invitation to put my 2 cents in.

Quote from SilentBlackStorm >>

I just hit legend for the third time ever (I've been playing since GvG) but this is the first time I've made it to legend in back to back months.  Looks like I'm gonna finish somewhere in the 3000's.   Now I know that's not the BEST, and far from the top, but would I be considered a "good" player?  What, in your opinion, is a good rank?  

(Also, there are many different skill levels here on this forum, so don't be jerks to each other.  Just thought it'd be a fun discussion to find out what people consider to be good.)

 I guess I see it more of how much you are putting into the game.. a more 'casual/competitive' standpoint.. that said:

Ranks below legend is basically the Casual rankings.  A completely new player will be struggling to get to rank 10 and can consider themselves no longer a new player if they CAN reach rank 10.  Note 'CAN'.  Just because  aperson never does doesn't mean they CAN'T.

That's because after that point, it really is a matter of how casual you are in the game.  If all you do is play your quests and maybe a little more you will find yourself floating around the 20-12 ranks.  Folks who play more but focus on playing whatever deck they find interesting with no care of the results would be honestly just as casual a player, just with more time.  Such play will NEVER get past rank 10 and never really plans to do so. In fact, I recommend anyone who 'just wants to play the decks they like' should consider this range their home.  It's more varied than Casual and still presents a nice range to test decks with.  

Rank 5 is what, as I saw someone call it and LOVE, 'dad legend'.  If you honestly think that you are 'above average' and that time or a lack of desire to grind is holding you back, this is where you should be.  If you honestly cannot reach this rank then either you are too fundamentally too stuck on your 'special deck' to actually consider playing something that's not worthless or have a fundamental issue with playing the game that needs to be fixed.

Don't read that as "must netdeck". If you honestly MUST netdeck to reach rank 5, and the meta isn't fundamentally THAT broken (which is rarer than most rant) you should NOT have to netdeck up to rank 5 if you have a good clue on how deck design works.  

Reaching Rank 5 is the top of the 'casual' ladder.  Hitting here means you are above average as far as hearthstone players.  In real life terms you graduated from school, no honors, no specialities, just a diploma.  

Rank 5-legend is the Trial.  It requires a combination of a bit more than rank 5 and to no longer play casually. You CANNOT be a casual player and hit legend.  However, you cannot reach anything else if you can't put enough time into the game to reach this point.  You aren't going to find serious players who know enough about the game to try for top 100 or win higher end tournaments AND have so little time/willingness just to grind to legend at least once.  You'll find many who claim there's no difference between top 100 and rank 5 who've never hit top 100.

I honestly put rank 3 as the "I'm good enough for legend but THE GRIND!"  The meta changes a bit before then, so if you are flat out stuck at rank 5 then it's possible that no amount of playing will get you to legend.  But if you can reach rank 3 then it means you have the capability if you just keep going, even if you drop to rank 5 in the meanwhile.  So the difference between rank 3 and legend is how much time you have and how much yo ucan handle grind.

Reaching legend rank doesn't mean you are GOOD at the game, but it means you have the ability to prove you are.  You spend enough time into the game to have the practice in and you know enough about the game to not get stuck demanding that your murloc control priest MUST beat the meta for the game to be worthwhile.  You're at the first step in the Hall of Advanced play and are stepping in.  

So when are you good?  Personally I'd say if you can make serious attempts at the top 200, even if you can't break it in the end.  There's probably other symbols as well, such as winning tournaments or high averages in arena.  But as far as ranked, that's where I see the bar.

So basically:

Newbie <10

Casual play 20-6

Above average/Best casual : 5

"I CAN make legend": 3

Beginner in Competitive: Legend

Good: in competition for Legend rank 200+

Quote from endlesstides >>

Quote from BA5 >>

 Pick your poison dude, but the fact is that all CCG's haveuch the same problems as Hearthstone. 

Not true. MtgA got waaaaay more game modes.

And also HS is so minion focused, not able to answer a wide board is almost an auto-lose due to the lack of AoE (again compared to MtgA).

 Very true. Go do some research guy. There's as many people fed up with MTGA as Hearthstone as Eternal as Shadowverse etc. 

 The fact is that as much as you seem to laud it, MTGA has flaws and WoTC want your money just as much as Blizzard. 

 Don't hold up MTGA as a shining exemplar of all that's right and good when it isn't. 

 He isn't and he is correct.  

Other card games do NOT have all of the same problems as HS, and HS doesn't have the same problems of other card games.  For example, MTG does have a lot more game modes as was said.  HS, meanwhile, doesn't have MTG's mana system which takes the worst of GvG era RNG and turns it into a core mechanic for every game.  

If your issue is netdecking or not having full control over the outcome of your game (i.e. your win/loss being heavily determined by what card you drew) then you have an issue with the core elements of the genre and probably need to find a different strategy style.  

If your issue is in how the game is balanced or the game modes then that's a HS issue and you should probably look into other card games as there are SO MANY and most of them are very good at their own things.  

And of course if you are fine with this game then stay.  

Quote from Gitsnirk >>

Honestly not sure. It's all just neanderthal netdecking these days. Been playing since day 1 but it's probably time to quit. Any better card games where originality is rewarded?

 Serious statement, pick another genre.  As another said, netdecking, tier lists, people playing what's popular is a natural element of the genre.  It's like raging over build orders in a RTS or camping in a FPS.  

There's things that other card games do/don't do that hearthstone does/doesn't do, so there's reasons to want to play here or not.  But the reasons you are stating are pretty common in all card games.  It only 'feels' like it isn't when you join a new game since you are too new to really know the competitive scene and EVERYTHING feels 'fresh'.  After that period, you'll find the same trends. The issue is really that it's not carefully crafted challenges by the AI that's tooled more for providing a unique experience rather than winning.  Good game AI isn't about trying to beat the opponent, but pretending to act like it wants to win and instead wanting to challenge and entertain.  THAT is when you get fresh experiences.

VS players, especially thee general public, they are aimed at winning, NOT entertainment, so they will play what's popular, what's best, and will gladly do what's not fun for their opponent.  

So in full honestly, I'd go with games with an AI opponent.  Single player or multiplayer vs AI games.  

If you want to play with other people, and they aren't close knit friends, then originality will come from you finding new and unique ways of fighting the same challenge.  

As for why I play.  I enjoy the game, and the game is so low in demand that no matter how little time I have I manage to find a way to 'keep up' with the game, even if it's just 1-2 games every 3 days. Meanwhile I'm not concerned with going competitive or my opponent entertaining me.  What I want is new unique ways to test and tackle the same challenge and seeing how well they work.

Quote from willislau222 >>

Definition of midrange deck from Gamepedia:

"A midrange deck is a type of deck somewhere between an aggro deck and a control deck in pace, seeking to attain victory during the midgame. Midrange decks generally try to control the board during the early game, before moving into a more aggressive role mid-game with medium-costing minions and spells, with the goal of winning before the late game. Midrange decks focus on cards with good overall value, for efficient trading, top decking and card advantage."

https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Midrange_deck

I've heard a lot of arguments between aggro druid and control warrior in ROS. How about midrange archetypes? 

 If it helps 'midrange' in hearthstone isn't 'midrange' in MTG.  The closest thing to MTG midrange, I think, would be how Tempo decks work.  It grabs the board early, then uses consistent pressure to keep control of the game until the opponent isn't able to hold on, then aims for the kill.  Due to how the mechanics of hearthstone work, such decks are more quicker and aggressive than I bet you'd expect from MTG.  Tempo is more tha nwilling to kill you early or midgame since there's attacker's advantage and so forth, but it's more than willing to keep the game going to late game.  

Tempo Druid, in that case, would fit that definition, especially since it's literally using an 8 mana spell that fills the board and lets you play another 8 mana spell that fills the board.  I'll be blunt, virtual slap anyone who can honestly call any deck with a double 8-drop play that doesn't end the game on play 'aggro' :P.  

Sidenote 'Midrange' in hearthstone terms is  different deck: an anti-control deck that focuses on not dying in the early game then pushing for a  midgame push that goes off just as Control switches between defense and offense.  Deathrattle Hunter of last rotation was a perfect example.

Quote from thepoxbox >>

I have to admit that if there were no daily quests, I would never play hearthstone ( outside of adventure mode )
If there were no arena rewards, I would never have played arena. I.e. if arena was free to play and had no rewards, I would not have played thousands of games of it. I currently am not playing arena because I have all the cards I could possibly ever need and all the dust to craft new cards I'd want. 
There is no "reason" to play it. But... why would I need one if it's a "game"? 

I think a big reason why people keep playing hearthstone is loss aversion. You don't want to "lose" your progress on your account by abandoning it. I'm really not playing hearthstone anymore, I'm just building a hearthstone account. I do daily quests because if I don't, I "lose" them, thus losing value on my account, value that is literaly worth some amount of money. If I do a 40g daily, it's like I just got 30cents. Yay! I frustrate myself and waste my time for 30 cents and that's really sad, but the mental satisfaction of piling on gold is really addicting.

 I used to have that reasoning for games.  Then one day while trying to get myself to log in to do my dailies I realize: WTF am I actually grinding FOR?  

To put it this way, progression is meant to be for an actual purpose: something you want to do.  You level up in an RPG because you want to see more of the story and beat the strong bosses.  You find loot in a looter because you want to build an awesome character.  You hunt for random cake drops because watching that pretty waifu smile makes the evils of life go away.  Some goal makes you happy and watching yourself get closer to that goal also makes you happy.  

So I sat there at that game I was about to grind and asked

"What IS the purpose of logging in?"  

"So I can keep up and keep building my account."

"So what am I building it up to DO exactly?"

Then I realized... nothing.  I didn't enjoy the game.  If I kept playing my characters would be stronger and be able to...keep doing things that I don't enjoy.  I wouldn't be suddenly doing something that WAS fun, just more of what I was doing now?   Meanwhile there's games I haven' tried yet, youtube videos I haven't watched yet, books I haven't finished, entire seasons of anime I have missed.  All to ...do something I hate so I can ..do more of something I hate.  

That realization ended that entire 'loss aversion' reasoning for all games.  

Nowadays, I put all of my entertainment in one small area, and I ask myself before starting a game "do I want to be doing something else instead?"  If not, I start it THEN start worrying about dailies.  If yes, I do that instead.  

As far as the 'keeping up' business, it goes like this: if I ever *EVER* feel like I'm 'not keeping up' with the game, I dump it.  I've dumped games I enjoyed purely because I didn't have time to keep up with the dailies and felt I was 'falling behind'.  That means I don't have time for the game and, thus, the game isn't for me.  The game *MUST* meet my time constraints to be acceptable.  If it doesn't, it's gone, fun or not.  

Oh, and F off any talk of ""playing because it may get better".  If your game isn't ready then I'll wait till it's ready.  If I forget you then next time BE READY for me.  If, when it's better, I can't play because "I won't be able to catch up" that THEIR problem, not mine.  

Right now I play epic seven, which has a lot of dailies but an auto-system that lets me play it while doing other things (like write this post).  It's locked in right now.   I'm trying out Revue Starlight because Waifus and finally gorging on the anime.  Hearthstone......is in an odd spot.

I haven't had a chance to really know if I like or dislike the meta.  I have 54 packs, all pulled from arena runs, and 5k gold still sitting.  I haven' topened a pack yet.  I was seriously considering dropping the game.  Then I watched the world tournament on youtube yesterday and I'm really REALLY wanting to make some decks.  But that requires being able to sit still long enough to do that.  I haven't had the time to do that. Also I can't autogrind matches like I can auto levels in Epic Seven or just skip-grind like I think I can do in Revue so I don' thave time to play matches.  Given that, Hearthstone almost was lost due to disinterest, but I'm interested but it might not pass the Time constraints.  The one saving grace is that it doesn't take much to 'keep up'.  But still I'm on the fence.

I've spent 5 years of my life building my collection.  But I have not an inch of issue putting it away.  You make use of your time, then you move on.  You MUST move on from your past.  You MUST let go if it's no longer something you need or want.  A fun game you put away after years is a wonderful thing with memories you can go through and experiences you can use later on.  A game you stay 'because you put so much time into it' ruins the point of that time and tarnishes it.  You'll grow to hate 'the time you wasted' on it and regret staying. 

If the only reason why you are here is due to 'the time invested'.. it's time to go.    If you feel you will be hurt if you do or feel you have a hard time doing that then RUN.  Delete the program.  Stop coming to the forum.  unsubscribe from the channels hosting it.  RUN and don't come back later.  

Games should always ALWAYS be games.  Enjoy games. 

Addictions should be fought off.  Never accept a bad addiction.  

If Hearthstone is a game. Play it.  If it's an addiction. leave it or get help to help you leave it.  But leave it.

Quote from GentilleMouche >>

Quote from darkhunter94 >>

Quote from AntonydusWurm >>

in most likely 3 weeks, which is really pathetic

 I'm very interested in knowing how you've determined that taking additional time to polish content is pathetic.

 Polish what content? Content is ready for years lol, they already have the pve content for 2020 and 2021. They do this every time with pve content, for one reason alone. Make players buy more packs for pvp.

If they release pve content on expansion release, trust me they wouldn't make the same amount of money with Hearthstone.

I'm not blaming Blizzard for this. Just saying, this is what they do, stop living in a dream world where money makers don't care about money. 

 Serious question: how does delaying the expansion give them more money?

Both packs and the expansion are picked up with gold or cash.  Waiting a month means you can dump all of your gold into the expansion and still have 1400 gold or more when the expansion hits by saving up afterwards.  That makes it MUCH easier for people to buy the expansion with gold rather than cash.

Given that, how does the delay offset that AND give them additional cash on top of it?  

Quote from Qulx >>

Quote from oyabun >>

People don't care about winning. Dust is just not infinite. Give 100k dust to everyone, i'm sure no one will play the top meta deck and people will try funny deck with all the cards available. Unfortunately, dust is scarce and hard to collect, that's why you only craft a deck that can be played in the long run aka top tier decks.

Well that makes sense. 

 It's also not true.  Yes, there's a good few people who are forced to play That One Deck in order to succeed it won't be enough of them to counteract the traditional meta. 

Along with that, removing deck trackers won't change anything either.  Just like how not having an internet didn't stop it from happening back long LONG ago in Arcades over fighting games or card games such as MTG. 

Most people will go with the flow of the community.  It's the basis behind clothing Fads, the way that odd phrases turn into Memes, the basis behind media going 'viral' and why we all jumped on to hearthstone and not the many MANY niche titles of games out there.  Things get popular, then people hear about them because they are popular and consider it a good idea to believe that the popular thing is popular for a reason and go make it even more popular.  This continues until the next trend happens.  And the  next.  And the next.  

As for your answer about deck tracking, it's pretty easy to mess them up.  The reason why they even work is because Blizzard has an active Log file that literally tracks how the entire game goes.  Deck trackers mostly use that log file to track games, along with visual information on top of it.  It's less a matter of them turning a blind eye as it is flat out making it easy for them to do it, then literally saying that it's fine for them to do it.  

So basically removing all that would make deck tracking A LOT more annoying, though not impossible.  You could probably make it, not impossible, but definately not popular by actually taking steps to make it tricky to track things then telling everyone it's not allowed.  Similar to how Botting is technically possible but not highly popular.  

But again, that would do nothing for netdecking.  The only way to actually stop THAT is to make the game highly unpopular to the point where only the ~10% of the people who like to play 'for fun' remain.  No I don't mean "the things you will do will make the game unpopular." I mean purposely kicking out most of the population.  

Or let you virtually do that by having private groups easy to manage so you can play among like minded people.  Similar to how most games have other ways to play other than 'pub matches'.

Quote from Valcyria >>

Am I the only one that kind of enjoy the meta as it is right now? Pogo Rogue is quite op atm but I dont face it too often and there is alot of new decks to play with!

 

 

 I don't have much of a horse in this race (this is my "spam arena to spend my gold" phase and arena has been very interesting for me) but the impression I'm seeing is:

1. If you wanted a varied matchup, as in where everyone is playing a bunch of different decks, you hate this meta..as you probably hate every meta.

2. If you have a particular deck that you love and it isn't doing to well against the meta, you HATE it.

3. If you like having a mix of different decks to try out then you love the variety of the decks.

4. If you are the competitive types that mostly fear that "OP OP deck that can't be beat" then you love the meta as the top decks are stoppable.

Quote from cassetto >>

 

Quote from Dorrian >>

I can only imagine how much fresher this game would remain if people didn't feel the need to copy decks. And you would think its just Ranked where this happens, but no. People are netdecking in casual as well, with T2 and T1 decks. It just doesn't make sense, rip.

 
Unless the entire HS player base would have 15 hours a day to spend deck crafting, you'll always see people netdecking. And there's nothing wrong with that cause again, Twitch celebrities aren't inventing anything new or revolutionary.

 this is a biggy.  Fact is, most people aren't big on hand crafting effective decks.  As such, if you could somehow remove netdecking (which, to note, was a regular thing before there was even an internet) most people who would netdeck simply won't play.  People don't change that easily.  They just change games.

So instead of 80% of the population netdecking, you'd have 80% of the population netdecking in a different game.  It's not that much different from companies looking at the F2Pers and thinking "if I make it impossible to F2P they'd all pay."  

Games avoid the feeling of 'netdecking' by letting you play with friends.  Think of those small town shops with a few folks playing MTG with their own decks.  

If you want your world to be without netdecking, you want the ability to organize small groups.  Demand updated social tools and guilds/clans.