Hearthpwn

4th God Tier meta deck in a row in casual while trying to complete 1 win with hunter quest.  Thanks assholes. Go fuck yourselves. 

Quote from davidwizard >>

You decided on a special, narrow meaning for the word "gambling" and refuse to recognize all other common meanings? Awesome! I'm impressed.

D&D is a great example (and, like Hearthstone, is also a form of low-stakes gambling). If you roll ones over and over, I laugh at you. If I roll ones over and over, I laugh at myself. It's a game! If you can't have fun while losing, that's your own personal character flaw to deal with - it's none of my concern.

And sorry big words frighten you, but until the dipshit police come along and cart me away for not catering to the lowest common denominator, I'll keep using the full range of the English language. Thanks for the completely useless tips, though! Keep on trying to drag the rest of the world down to your level - I'm sure it'll work someday.

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

 

 But is that answer a consistent no? No, it's not.  It is for you, and that's all you clearly care about.

Someone was trying to make a dollar, and messed up.  You can have empathy for that person still.  I understand you don't, because you' lack empathy.  But don't say that I can't be empathetic to someone who "gambled" and lost, just because you are not.  You are projecting your own values onto a situation.  

FURTHER to that, I understand why you may not feel empathetic, and that's fine. You do you, buddy.  The issue is when a guy is clearly down on his luck, and buddy comes along and kicks him while he's down, saying "grow a pair."  Really? That's pretty disgraceful. Be an ignorant a-hole on your own terms, sure. But don't come in here pretend to know what the fuck you're talking about. 

Thanks. 

No one "kicked him while he's down" - they said a very slightly mean thing to him after he got an EXPECTED RESULT from a gambling situation he entered into willingly. If he wasn't willing to accept a low-roll, he shouldn't have gambled in the first place.

If you want to extend your empathy to people who whine about completely predictable and entirely optional rolls of the dice, that's your business. But to think that all empathic people should be as ludicrously generous as you are is naive in the extreme. You're just setting yourself up for disappointment. And if you think people who lack empathy for gamblers must lack ALL empathy, well... I guess I just feel sorry for you and your simplistic Manichean worldview.

Thanks!

Quote from davidwizard >>

Analogies don't magically just become TRUE statements because you construct them - they're meant to clarify an idea. Since this idea didn't need clarification, your analogy is merely a reductio ad absurdum argument. This is an obvious logical fallacy in this instance, since obviously I was not stating a philosophy which applies to all arenas of life, but only to people who gamble with money, as Hearthstone players do.

An appropriate analogy in this instance would be "would you have sympathy for someone who bought a house without inspecting it with the intention of flipping it, only to find out it was full of lead pipes and paint?" And the answer in that case is consistent: no, I would not have sympathy for someone that incredibly stupid. Gamblers are not analogous to people who develop diseases. Cool talk, bro.

Ben seems cool, but I'm not sure why people are getting downvoted for suggesting that Hearthstone could stand  to move in a new direction.... It's been stale for quite some time, and I think it's at once of it's lowest points in terms of quality of experience. 

They clearly struggle with what should be routine updates on things like patches or cubelock.... Games like Magic: The Gathering put out paper car sets that can't be regularly updated, and in my 20+ years playing that game, I've experienced maybe 2-3 cards that took over the main formats.... Jace and Delver, I'm lookin' at you....

We've had a card like that in almost ever set. And what's worse, they leave it that way.

There has been no big new features in the game since Dungeon Run, and since then, I can't remember anything.  Where's the multiplayer? Card Trading? New and actually interesting brawls? 

We're paying premium prices for cards not only so they can develop new cards, but also so they can update the game.  There's been nothing now for a long time. 

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from pipicar >>

cry more dude... grow a pair

 

 You're a fuckin asshole bud.  42 packs is a lot of money if you paid for them, and getting 1 legendary kind of ruins your whole experience for the expansion.  The rewards system is clearly broken here, and maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to someone trying to have fun playing the exact same game you are.  People like you make me sick. 

I have no sympathy for someone complaining about the way that math works. Despite Blizzard not publishing the information, we know to a pretty high degree of accuracy what the odds are for pack outcomes. Complaining because you low-rolled within the expected range of any given RNG event is asinine. When you choose to play a game of chance, you implicitly accept the known mathematics behind that game. You and you alone made the decision that the potential gains were worth the investment. Thus, you are the only person to blame when you are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Now if you want to make an argument about the morality of exploiting cognitive biases for profit, that's a discussion worth having (as well as an incisive indictment of capitalism in general).

 

Let's say your friend smokes, and then he gets cancer. And then when he tells you, "Hey man, I have cancer" by your own logic, you would say "cry more dude, grow a pair."  I mean, he smoked, right? He played the odds and got cancer, so fuck him. Right? 

Eat lunch meat? Get ass cancer? Sorry dude, you played the odds. Don't exercise for 30 minutes a day and have a heart attack at 30? Sorry man, you played the odds.  

You're right. Life's about choices, and you choose to be an asshole.  Sorry you have to live with that. 

Yes, because getting cancer is exactly comparable to gambling with a couple of dollars. You really nailed that analogy in a very sensitive, thoughtful way. Kappa.

Quote from davidwizard >>

 

Quote from johnnyedge >>

 

Quote from pipicar >>

cry more dude... grow a pair

 

 You're a fuckin asshole bud.  42 packs is a lot of money if you paid for them, and getting 1 legendary kind of ruins your whole experience for the expansion.  The rewards system is clearly broken here, and maybe you could be a little more sympathetic to someone trying to have fun playing the exact same game you are.  People like you make me sick. 

I have no sympathy for someone complaining about the way that math works. Despite Blizzard not publishing the information, we know to a pretty high degree of accuracy what the odds are for pack outcomes. Complaining because you low-rolled within the expected range of any given RNG event is asinine. When you choose to play a game of chance, you implicitly accept the known mathematics behind that game. You and you alone made the decision that the potential gains were worth the investment. Thus, you are the only person to blame when you are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Now if you want to make an argument about the morality of exploiting cognitive biases for profit, that's a discussion worth having (as well as an incisive indictment of capitalism in general).

Quote from Harmonius >>

Every time I try wild I find it to be a less pool of broken combos and degenerate aggro. 

The main reason, whether people realize it or not, is Power Level. 

In Magic: The Gathering, from largest (and Oldest) card pool to newest (smallest card pool) you have Legacy, Vintage, Modern, Standard.  As you go back into deeper card pools, the power levels get much, much higher, including the opportunity for turn 1, and frequent turn 2 kills. 

Some people enjoy that power level, others do not.  Magic also has a format called "Pauper" which means only common cards can be used.  The power level in this format is VERY low, yet, it's a fun format to play since everyone is on the same power level, and you see cards that you wouldn't normally see. 

I think you can draw similarities between magic and hearthstone in that respect.  There are many more "broken" combos in Wild than in Standard....

My personal opinion is that Team 5 does just an atrocious job of card balancing between the classes, and we get broken combos like cubelock and priest which make Standard feel a lot more like Wild anyways. So I'm with you on the "why would you even play standard" thing, but, if you're lookin' for a reason. That's the one, I think. 

If they nerf Shudder and offer the full refund for that card, they should also offer a full refund for grumble, since many (me!) crafted the pair together.  If they nerfed shudder, there would be no reason to want grumble....  Kind of like the Raza thing. If they nerfed Raza, they should have offered a refund on Priest DK. 

Quote from pipicar >>

cry more dude... grow a pair

I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, I'm just saying that the power level of this set seems much different to me than previous sets which have sometimes had little to no effect on the meta.  I've been playing Shudder combo thinking to myself "oh man, I feel like I'm cheating" only to get blown out of the water by paladins, rogues and hunters filling the board with dozens of attack value by turn 4-5.  

Again, not saying this is good or bad, but man...

I have 3 words that are going to make this deck banned in about a week - Hemet, Jungle Hunter

Every piece of the combo is 4+, so you play hemet, and it wittles your deck to 3-5 cards, which are all part of the combo.  The rest of your deck can all be 1-3 drops that draw and help you stay alive. 

Yes.... there's not much else to say really.  Yes, it is. 

Why would you play this over Polymorph?

This is Assassinate but it uses your hero power.  I don't see how that's OP.