Hearthpwn

Quote from rogerdodger >>

 

Quote from Dunscot >>

I think Murlocs are in a decent spot right now, since Bagurgle was added. They are pretty bad most of the time, but when you make it to 5, get Brann and Bagurgles and Primalfins, and maybe Megasaurs from triples, they can get very strong very quickly, and sometimes strong enough to beat everything else. They can't really stand up against anything in the midgame, but they have that unique massive lategame snowball potential. It's a risky strategy, that oftentimes won't work out, but you may end up with an invincible board..

This paragraph is amazing. 

murlocs are in a decent spot......they are pretty bad most of the time...if you make it to the endgame and high roll you can sometimes win.....they can’t really stand up to anything in the mid game.....they have snowball potion tail....that often won’t work out...but youcould get an invincible board. 

don’t sound so decent to me lol

 I think what they are trying to say is being bad most of the time balances out by being absolutely OP and unstoppable if you get lucky. It's all about finding the right balance. If you have a tribe that can build an unstoppable board in the late game you have to make that tribe weak in the earlier parts of the game.

The only strategies that really annoy me are pure aggro and heavy control. That generally translates to me hating Hunter or Priest when they are top tier.

Quote from B0n3d4ddy >>

Can we please get rid of Murlocs or revert the buff? Everyone and their mom is trying to get the same stuff and if you went for another route you might as well concede just because of how easy it is to stack them with loads of stats, poisonous etc.

Okay, it might be because of how little diversity this game mode offers. But it's very annoying that you're basically forced to buy specific minions to keep up with your opponents or kiss your ass goodbye. I stopped counting the number of games where I've been offered few to zero Murlocs early on only to get annihilated by everyone else who went for them.

 It is very rare for me to see Murlocs as a full strategy, it is too hard to get them into the late game unless you get very lucky. I feel like Murlocs are too weak in most games, and the player (or players) that go for them do well in the early game but are among the first to be knocked out.

In my experience the rank floors have a lot of people playing weaker decks as they are not worried about losing, so just keep queueing up until you find one. There will be plenty of players like yourself that are no longer playing top tier decks sitting on the rank floor. The more you lose the lower your hidden rank (don't remember what it is called, but it is the one they use to actually match you up) becomes, and the more likely you are to get matched up against weaker decks.

 If you think that flare should still get its effect when counterspell is in play, do you also think other spells should get their effects while counterspell is in play? For example, should deadlyshot kill an enemy before counterspell is triggered? Spells should be treated the same regardless of effect after all, it's not yugioh where you have different spell speeds.

The only games where I get stressed are the ones when I'm playing in a tournament. I think playing in tournaments really put things in perspective and desensitized me to any stress I would get on the ranked ladder.

Quote from LucasPassado >>

Quote from xOwleyex >>

Hello!!

 Dude, it's ridiculous how they print the same card for another class with the same mana cost but WAY better. 

 I don't know if I would say it is WAY better. The lifesteal mechanic is more impactful for warlock than it is in priest.

Quote from RabiezMiddleFinger >>

Better for the game. The ladder should improve and get way more versatile.

 How do you figure that is going to happen?

From my experience I have found aggro (and aggressive midrange) generally easier to learn and a lot easier to teach newer players to play correctly. That's not to say that all of them are easier to play, but in general I have found it much easier to get a player to legend by teaching them an aggressive deck than a more control style deck.  I have found every style to have some skill to them, so I wouldn't call any of them completely skill-less.

Here's the way I see it:
Nerf: Attempts to fix an immediate problem. Very low chance of causing issues.

Buff: Attempts to fix a problem that is not immediate. Very high chance of causing issues.

If a company is very very very good at game balance then buffs may be fine, but Hearthstone has historically had issues with balance and  with that in mind I will vote for nerfs over buffs in Hearthstone 100% of the time.

Quote from VanJeans >>

Well that's one way to kill half the player base when it becomes even more pay to win.

Also.. don't give Blizzard ideas :/

 That wouldn't make it any more "pay to win" than it is now.....

Quote from C_A_W >

Blizzard can give 50%+ wr tier 2 deck to all classes, just one month ago all classes had at least 1 tier 2 deck (Shaman was very bad but it still had Even Shaman).  

 Was that Blizzard skillfully "giving" all classes good decks, or did they just get lucky?

I think it is wrong to say that these cards always find a way to be abused. There have been plenty of metas where these cards saw very little to no competitive play at all. They only pop up when broken cards are introduced that allow them to be abuse, and I think that shows that they are not the cards that are broken, it is the cards that allow them to be abused that are broken.

Quote from The_Duke >>

Just a question for the `I hit legend on all servers every season`players.

What is it that motivates you to do the grind every month for such a little reward. I was actually very relieved when I hit legend that I don't have to play so very many games beyond the point it stops making fun. Since then I am perfectly happy to reach rank 5 every time and enjoy the 500 dust. The ratio of time I'd have to put into the game for the small reward just doesn't do it for me.

So again, is it just that you have too much time or is it for your personal feeling of achievement that you grind so many games? 

Personally I just enjoy the game. I look at it like this: I don't play the game to hit legend, I hit legend because I enjoy playing the game. For some people the grind is enjoyable and not something we have to force ourselves to do for a reward, just playing the game is all the reward needed.

If I could play casual with a full collection then what incentive would I have to buy things? I've already reached legend countless times so ladder has very little incentive over casual for me, so if I could play play casual with a full collection I would drop ranked in an instant and quite paying money into the game. From a business standpoint that would be an absolutely terrible decision.