Hearthpwn

Because he is annoying, his jokes are bad, and he literally plays hearthstone like someone who has never played before. His presence made the car reveals less fun. A Korean starcratf pro with out a translator would have done a better job.  

Day 9 is a professional rank 25 player. 

Quote from Horkinger >>

To My Side! is not the worst designed Card. By far not. It is probably the worst Card in hearthstone, no disagreement with that, but the design is interesting. Even if the condition could work (which I highly doubt) it is not an OP Card, but just a decent one (if you can choose the companions).

For me, the worst designed Card was pre-nerf Yogg-Saron, Hope's End by a looooooong shot. A Card that could change any game regardless of boardstate and in-game decisions up to the point when you played him. Everything that happended did not matter. Yogg could win you the game. And pre-nerf, the outcome was not even 50/50, but favored for the Player who slammed him down. There is no theoretical situation from which he could not have safed you.  And that were the worst games: Being in a winning postion after a hard fight for the board. Then down comes Yogg and he kills your board with double flamestrike, summons a call of the wild for the opponent and draws him 5 Cards. Maybe a fireball to your face as well.

I still don't like him, but at least he has now enough disadvantages to not see regular play.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Can we stop asking people to stop voicing an opinion we disagree with?

I'm not pleased that Control Warrior seems likely to make a comeback, but I'm not creating whiny threads about it, nor am I telling others they are not entitled to be happy about it.

Priest's past performance isn't a reason to make it OP now or in the future, but it's OK if those who like Priest enjoy the comparison.

But most of all, any discussion about the OPness of any archetype in a future meta is profoundly pointless. We haven't even seen all the cards yet, so we cannot know for sure how things are going to look.

Quote from FortyDust >>

Quote from CasmX >>

I'm not sure if it's just me, but I'm just not impressed by the 'recruit' keyword at all. At least not in the way Blizzard is implementing it for a majority of their cards. I think it's the 'or less' part of the majority of these recruit cards that's not doing it for me. Recruit a minion that is 4 cost or less. Recruit three minions that cost 2 or less. It's just not exciting. That's not to say these cards aren't good, but I think it'd be a lot more interesting if they simply said, 'recruit a 4 cost minion' or 'recruit three 2 cost minions'. Because this forces the player to make some very interesting choices when building their deck.

On the one hand, it's a pseudo nerf because now if you have a card that says, 'recruit a 4 cost minion' and you have no 4 cost minions in your deck, you get nothing. As opposed to this version where you can also get a 3 cost, 2 cost, 1 cost or 0 cost minion. However, it's a pseudo buff too in the sense that if you do have 4 cost minions in your deck, you would be guaranteed a 4 drop. The only way to force that with the current implementation is to literally have no 3 cost or less minions and only have 4 drops in the deck. Probably not a good idea in most cases.

 Your second paragraph is an explanation of why your first paragraph is incorrect.

Quote from Garlicnerd >>

Quote from water2770 >>

Quote from Garlicnerd >>

What the fuck are they doing? They gave Ice block to Rogues. The fucking psychopaths. It's all over now. Game Over

 here's the difference. if you play this turn 2 and the enemy pings you for 1 then that secret did nothing. 

 Well then you obviously don't fucking play it whenever you have 2 mana. You play it when you're going to die. That's the whole point of Ice Block.

I played magic for over 20 years, and spent under 10k, before I started selling my collection it was somewhere between 50-80k.

Anyone who played magic for a while and isn't terrible with their finances, probably has a similar story.  Some people may point out that that's probably not replicable anymore and that's the point I'm coming to.  As greedy as Blizzard is with HS, it's nothing compared to WOTC, heck the only reason that Hearthstone exist is that WOTC was so greedy with Magic online they left a wide opening in the market for Blizzard to take advantage of.

WOTC's main focus is standard, for standard they have made changes to it such that deck costs increased from $100-$300 to $200-$500 over a two year period, they vastly decreased the number of reprints in standard (the equivalent of Blizzard hall of faming all the classic and basic cards), and even tried to shorten the rotation time.  Short to say unless you're a good speculator or a shark standard is going to be a drain on your wallet.

The other formats such as legacy and modern, which are generally consider better formats, in the past at least decks tended to maintain or gain value. But between Wotc focusing less on these formats, and most of the focus that is given to them is Wotc getting into the secondary market and the every better forgeries of magic cards, which is prompted by some of Wotc polices. I wouldn't say getting your money back out of either of those formats is a sure thing anymore. 

If you really know what you're doing magic can be cheaper. Judging by the percentage of you that rated gnomeferatu as "meta defining" last expansion, most of you just have the occasional glimmer of what you are doing and are better of sticking to digital CCGs. 

Quote from BearSails >>

This is pointless and complicated. 

 

Blizzard has has already chosen the best way to reward dungeon runs, by offering no reward other than fun (and the card back). 

 

If if you find fun to be too small a reward, then you miss out on absolutely nothing by not playing. 

 

The logic is simple and brilliant. 

I'd actually say it worse, while they may be more "generous" give stuff out the best decks require rarer cards. Most of the best decks require many legendaries and in ESL many legendaries you can play 3 copies of in a deck, these legendaries are so efficient that they isn't really an replacement cards at lower rarities. This is even true for many of the aggro decks. Some of the legendaries are limited to one of per deck but these ones tend to win you the game when played (imagine deathwing+Y'shaarj and not having to discard your hand).

You need more legendaries and you'll be at a larger disadvantage for not having them.

You also don't get full dust refunds on cards when they are nerfed and they are even slower than HS to nerf cards despite there being for more problem cards in the game.

Then there are the gameplay issues. Despite having 50 card decks stating hand sizes are only 3 cards, meaning control vs aggro games are decided by opening hands 90% of the time. Many control vs Control games come down to who draws their super legendary fist. Despite having very few RNG cards they have managed to make their game more RNG based than hearthstone.  

I'd recommend spellweaver  if you want a digital CCG that is better than HS both money and gameplay wise. 

Quote from IserlohnND >>

I think a good idea for Explore Un'Goro might be to change the cost of Choose Your Path to 0 Mana... But change the text of it to "Discover a card. It costs (1) more.", thus balancing the total mana cost. And yeah, Auctioneer would be a problem but if you're running an RNG-heavy and generally bad card like Explore Un'Goro and you manage to have Auctioneer when casting Explore, you kinda deserve to draw up loads of cards. It might allow for Explore Un'Goro decks to actually exist.

So after nerfing buzzard/UTH they now bring it back - this card is the new buzzard. Confines ball of spiders to the bin permanently, not especially creative either - just another "give random shit - that's balance" card. Do not like.

I woud have preferred a straight up Jade Idol nerf too...the card was obviously a mistake, most players could see that before it was even released. But I'll take whatever I can get to discourage people from playing it at this point.

Could everyone PLEASE stop posting pictures of a card's perfect counter under EVERY new card released, just to fish for upvotes? 

And even if a Mage happens to have Flamestrike after you play Call of the Wild, you've still won the trade. Why? Because the Mage just used his most important AoE clear to get rid of a single card, and you still get a 5 damage charge no matter what.

Quote from ArgentumEmperio >>

Quote from yuriviroj >>

Quote from HavvkPwn >>

 

 

 Its not luck when you can't construct a sensible deck. Which you kinda proved by playing a resurrection priest with Argent Squire.

 

Quote from Zoeings >>

Quote from nashdiesel >>

Shadowflame wipes your opponents creatures.  It's not a global kill spell like Twisting Nether or Doom.    Cho into Shadowflame is a very powerful play paying 4 life and an extra card for effectively a massive Flamestrike.   If you have a couple other creatures on the board already it's ridiculous tempo.

Playing cards for "free" is an incredibly powerful ability.   I'm undecided if Cho belongs in every warlock deck, probably not zoo since it has few spells to begin with and 7 mana is defin the high end of it's curve, but in a control or mid-range lock deck it seems like an auto-include.

 

 As said if you have a board then you probably have another minion to cast Shadowflame on in which case you've just played a 7 mana 7/7 with battlecry: Discard a card, deal 4 damage to your hero and destroy a friendly minion and deal its attack to all enemy minions. It suddenly doesn't sound as pleasing as it did before hand.

To My Side! is not the worst designed Card. By far not. It is probably the worst Card in hearthstone, no disagreement with that, but the design is interesting. Even if the condition could work (which I highly doubt) it is not an OP Card, but just a decent one (if you can choose the companions).

For me, the worst designed Card was pre-nerf Yogg-Saron, Hope's End by a looooooong shot. A Card that could change any game regardless of boardstate and in-game decisions up to the point when you played him. Everything that happended did not matter. Yogg could win you the game. And pre-nerf, the outcome was not even 50/50, but favored for the Player who slammed him down. There is no theoretical situation from which he could not have safed you.  And that were the worst games: Being in a winning postion after a hard fight for the board. Then down comes Yogg and he kills your board with double flamestrike, summons a call of the wild for the opponent and draws him 5 Cards. Maybe a fireball to your face as well.

I still don't like him, but at least he has now enough disadvantages to not see regular play.

This idea was before release and is no longer being discussed.

How I can imagine a reward system that doesn't force people to Dungeon Run:

DISCLAIMER: Blizzard would never go through the effort to actually create a points system. I would, Blizzard. I'll do it... 

1. After each run, players gain Run Points. These are not a currency, and can be calculated from many variables:
   1. The difficulty of the bosses; Harder the boss, more points for defeating it.
   2. The value of the deck; Having a Flamestrike is worth a low amount of points while utilizing Demented Frostcaller can be worth more. The points per card will have to be really low, like 1, 2, or 3 points, as the longer you play the run, the more cards you have, and it's challenging to not scale exponentially. The points might have to be 0, 1, or 2.  This idea, while sounding fair when coming up with it, did get counter-intuitive as folks mentioned later on. This just causes players to pick not-so-good cards to achieve more points. Not the goal of my points system.
   3. The value of the passive chosen; Doubling your starting health could be all your warlock deck needs to never lose the game. Some passives will have more or less points.
   4. The value of the unique cards chosen; Same thing with Pyroblasting Randomly until someone dies. That one specifically may be worth a little more points than a few others, since it could kill you, but its also 10 mana "End the Game." which feels like you didn't do anything to actually end the game.
   5. The number of bosses defeated. This one is just a bonus reward for getting past 4 and 8. Off the top of my head, 15 points for getting past 4 and 40 points for defeating all 8.
   6. The class you used could have a point variable: Mages may be more successful (at everything) than, for example, paladins. This could be an alternative to having every single card be worth points -- instead, just make the classes worth points? Up to implementation.
2. Once you're done with your run, you're awarded a total sum of the variables above as "Run Points." This is not a currency. THESE DO NOT STACK. If you were to play another Dungeon Run, you'll keep the Dungeon Run with the MOST Run Points (for example, you DR and make 168 points. Then you DR and make 145 points. You still have 168 on record. Then you DR and bank 202 points. Now you have 202 Run Points). If the points were to stack, then the only thing determining the Run Points Leaderboard would be who can get more games in, instead of who actually does better in the Run.
3. At the end of 7 days, the Leaderboard is recorded. It is possible to look back on all Leaderboards to have existed just to see the standings in the past. At this time, each player when they log in will get a reward based on their placement: 
   1. Placed between 5000 and 2001 ~=~ Arena 2 wins.
   2. Placed between 2000 and 501 ~=~ Arena 4 wins.
   3. Placed between 500 and 101 ~=~ Arena 6 wins.
   4. Placed between 100 and 4th ~=~ Arena 8 wins.
   5. Placed at 3rd or 2nd ~=~ Arena 10 wins.
   6. Placed at 1st ~=~ Arena 12 wins.
4. What I believe this hopefully balanced system will do is encourage players to continousouly do Dungeon Runs at least once a week. This will not force players to ONLY do Dungeon Runs because players with more Run Points will have a tougher time getting a better score. If you want to keep running for the fun of it, no one will stop you. This system will not reward contstant play but simply your best play, and it wont reward it immediately, so you have to be patient.
5. To counteract this system, they probably could make Dungeon Runs cost 150 gold per week. This is because Arena costs 150 gold per attempt and immediately rewards you with similar as the above. Making DRs cost 150 per week would enable Blizzard to feel like they got their money's worth for giving rewards every week, AND it'll allow players to pay their one instance of 150 for infinite replay-ability that week. 

Obviously some numbers can change, and everyone likes having points in the thousands or 10 thousands, so its possible to just go crazy and multiply everything by 10, just so people can feel like their 8 win flawless game wasn't worth "only 150 points."

I went free to play when blizzard got rid of the adventures to make hearthstone more expensive. Before the change you could spend 40 a year on hearthstone and basically make any deck you wanted. Now you can spend 150 bucks a year and still come up short. No thanks. 

I'm a f2p player who has played since open beta. I've been able to keep up with the expansion playing the decks I want to (most of the time) and even have the luxury of keeping almost all my golden cards. However, during the Koft was the first time I've had to start disenchanting my wild and golden cards to keep up with the meta. Although what I am writing has little evidence to the arguement and numbers presented, I can safely say that the price of Hearthstone has certainly increased (and effects on f2p collection will continue to show as expansions ecome pack based rather than adventure).

I'm not complaining as I haven't spent a dime and can play pretty much anything in the game I want for free. However I will state that I have spent alot of time dedicated to this game, and in terms of collection it doesn't pay-off after a certain point, especially when you have to spend hours grinding arena/ladder to achieve nothing except some small rewards. What I would like to see is an improved ladder system with improved rewards which would give new f2p players more incentive to play and not be turned-off after hitting rank 20. What new player wants to play a game, disenchant all their "progress" and cards, to make one deck that becomes boring after a while?

It's not super relevant, but it is what f2p are really complaining about when they complain- they love the game, but are limited to ~1 deck and to make any progress takes alot of grinding in a system that doesn't feel rewarding. Even if they do decide to pay some money, after a couple of expansion wihtout paying they will be back to where they started. Paying £50 to play maybe 1/2 extra decks for 3 months doesn't feel to good after all.