1
Quote from Live4vrRdieTryn >>No. It started after last patch. No problems before that. Tried every easy fix nothing helps. Contacted support they straight out told me they cant help
You should have said you are from China. Believe me, it works 100% of the time. :P
1
Blizzard took my money from Blitzchung.
Shoulda just banned him. No reason to withhold pay for the person who won the tournament fair and square.
2
Quote from Kaiser_Choulio >>So you ppl are mad cuz he decided to call for revolution on their stream about a (childrens')card game and they didnt like it? You rly think what he did was right by any shape or form seriously? And not to mention he did state what he state while knowing the tours rules and what would happen if he did so. Im not sure why you are mad at blizzard for doing what they say they would do if that happened,its their tour,their stream and politics have no place in such events anyway
True, but they also didnt took it too serious in Shaxy etc. incedents .
If they went stricktly by the rules for everyone, a lot of Players should have been banned before.
23
They took a whole year to ban Roger for cheating twice but banned Blitzchung in 3 days.
1
This has actually happened to me so yes it does counter flare. They can't really change the card text to 'when your opponent plays a spell that isn't flare counter it'
3
I tell you what, OP, you do the following for me:
Name the problematic Hunter cards in your opinion, offer and discuss adjustments that make sense, and compare information with the other users on this site. If you want things done, then offer solutions, if you want people talking, then create meaningful discussion. Otherwise, keep jamming a Hunter counter and don't waste a thread.
2
"We've implemented a new feature to reduce chances of matching against the same player and same class multiple times in a row."
Actually a clever way of freshening up what you see of the meta.
1
First of all, the poll choices are weird. I don't know in what context you judge whether a company is "better", and somehow I doubt it's the same context as mine.
Second of all, for anyone who is interested, the loot box practices are definitively NOT gambling under U.S. law UNLESS the items received from the loot boxes are transferable to other players AND have some expected value in real money.
In other words, if you could sell cards to other players, it would be gambling. If not, then not. If anyone is interested, I base this statement on the state law of Nevada and New Jersey, the two states in the US which most prominently feature legalized gambling. Yes, there are other states that have casinos, but almost all of them are on Native American land, and subject to weird offshoots of federal law that I don't know much about, and in any case wouldn't apply here.
Now, as to the question of whether there should be an age limit, the answer is it functionally doesn't matter. The vast majority of minors do not have their own income, ergo an adult, presumably a parent, is going to be supplying the money for such endeavors. We know that no gaming company is going to require a credit card as verification of age to play the game, as no one in their right mind would share credit card info as a means to gain access to an f2p platform. So, the age verification would only come into play when the minor wants to make a microtransaction.
If there is no age verification, the minor does the transaction with or without parent's permission. If it was with permission, then the parent would have acted as a proxy for the age verification anyway. If it was without permission, the same would be true, although whether or not the age verification was a thing would not effect that remedy for the parent. The parent could call the credit card company and dispute the charges, or just eat the cost rather than turn in their child for identity theft.
The only way this question could matter is if the company requires more age verification than "check here to signify you are over 18" at the start of the game. Since there's no federal driver's license database accessible to private companies (at least in the US), you'd have to ask for a credit card, which puts us right back at the question: In this day and age of massive and pervasive identity theft, who the hell would give that information out in order to play Hearthstone? The answer is "far fewer than play the game now", which means it's probably a bad idea for Blizzard to do.
2
Things have finally set into motion, and currently, a bill with bi-partisan support is proposed to strictly regulate what is now viewed as predatory business practices aimed at minors who are less capable to resist exploiting psychological impulses related to gambling - namely lootboxes. There are scientific studies that lootboxes are really capable of tricking people (and ESPECIALLY minors) into spending unreasonable amounts of money, that the number of adolescent gamblers quadrupled in the UK due to similar schemes used by mobile games, and thus, as a form of gambling, it should be both heavily taxed and regulated, i.e. inaccessible to minors.
According to Beligan law, lootboxes are already illegal predatory business practice.
All in all, it seems that the children's card game will soon become and adult only card game.
What you've said there is true and correct, but it does, however, miss a vital point when comparing to a game like Hearthstone.
In addition to what I said in my previous post, there is a reason Lootboxes are under scrutiny and that is because of the real-world monetary value that has been put on the items by the community itself.
For example, when you pay £1.50 for a loot box key and get a weapon skin for CS:GO (etc). You then go on to sell that on the Marketplace and find that because of the supply and demand for tat weapon, it's only worth 7 pence now. So you lost a chunk of money on the Gamble. This is considered real gamblin gin the eyes of the law, because you are left in a worse position financially (albeit through value of items you own), when there was the chance of getting a weapon that was worth hundreds of pounds like a flashy knife, etc.
Hearthstone doesn't have this problem (and likely never will) because of the fact that it cleverly has never allowed trading of cards, meaning that they will never reduce in real-world monetary value.
For that reason, there's not likely to ever be a concern that it will be put into the same position as lootbox games that provide actual tradable commodities. This is also why Hearthstone (contrary to what a previous poster scoffed about) does in fact follow the same pattern as buying physical packs of cards in a shop. Although HS is actually in a better position, because paper cards ARE tradable.
2
It's basically a casino game. I love it, but so much gambling is involved both in pack purchasing and in the gameplay. Is it worth having an age rating, maybe 5+ atleast? ThOuGhts?
I appreciate the thought on this, but having worked on this very issue with a large MMORPG game, the definition of actual gambling has nuances that this game manages to skirt around.
For it to be considered actual gambling for the sake of legality, there has to be certain guidelines that are met / adhered to. Otherwise you could easily say that any game with a randomised element in it could be considered a form of gambling. So it revolves around the use of real money and how that ties into the game.
In terms of Hearthstone, there is no actual gamble for your money. You can purchase card packs for the guarantee of at least 4 common cards and 1 rare card. Anything above that is considered a free upgrade (in terms of gambling) - which is something entirely different.
Gambling (in the serious sense) requires there to be the possible outcome of you finding yourself in a lesser position than you were when you started. So either losing your money, or ending up with something that is valued at less than the money you put in.
For example, paying £50 for a Mystery Box with the chance of there being a Playstation 4 or a Can of Coke inside.
In Hearthstone, the 5 bottom line cards that are pulled from a pack are valued at the price of the pack, so the worst outcome you can recieve is the exact value for money you put in.
So TL;DR - no, Hearthstone can't be considered actual gambling in the true sense of the word (though there are misinterpretations of the word that Hearthstone could fall under). Otherwise there would have been a legal issue surrounding this a long time ago.
Click on the buttons to change the PopCard background.
Click on the button to hide or unhide popcard elements.
2
Doesn't being able to calculate odds better make you smarter in that regard? It sounds like you're just contradicting yourself.
1
https://tempostorm.com/hearthstone/meta-snapshot/standard/2017-04-23
Zoo is under tier 3 on that list.
In any case, I've taken rush warrior to legend 3 times, and I dont remember it ever showing up at tier 3 or better. The difference in winrate between tier 4 and tier 1 is a lot smaller than people think, decks down there aren't even what I would consider unplayable.
2
The cost of other games will have no bearing on Hearthstone unless those games are good enough to poach a significant amount of players, and with the extremely low success rate of cards games in general i think that is unlikely to happen. Only time will tell.
2
I don't think he is necessarily OP or that he should be nerfed, but I'm not a big fan of cards that provide infinite value and whose winrate drastically changes based on when you draw it.
Take the hunter vs warrior matchup, if you play Rexxar on 6 you have a 66% chance to win, but if you play it on turn 15 you have a 32% chance to win. Compare that to Savannah Highmane, which if you play it on 6 you have a 59% chance to win vs 47% chance to win if you play it on turn 15.
That large variance makes the game much more about when you draw the DK than how well you played the game, and that's not fun for either side.
1
I hate ropers just as much as anyone, but I don't think a rule change is what is needed. I almost never get roped for a full game, because if someone starts roping me on purpose I just rope them right back. Once they realize I don't care they stop roping, then I stop roping. I think I've only been roped more than 3 times on purpose in a game once out of 20k+ games.
1
I can't say why others are not playing it, but I can say why I'm not playing it. I played even shaman and found it to be on the weaker side. I think the good winrate on hsreplay is probably boosted by the fact that the bad players who copy all of the top netdecks are playing something else. I was still able to achieve a positive winrate with it, but the winrate was much lower than what I was seeing with other tier 2 decks (I generally play mostly tier 2 decks because I hate playing mirror matches all day).
1
Some of the best games I've ever played have no replayability..... Being a one time experience doesn't mean a game is automatically bad.
1
I took out twig and had the same winrate as when I had it in, so it's not required. I prefer the build without it myself.
3
A control deck is generally a deck whose goal is to out value the opponent and win in the late game once they have exhausted their opponent's resources. A combo deck is a deck that stalls until they can assemble a specific combo.
Control decks can have a big win condition (such as N'Zoth, Boomship, Guldan), but their focus is more on exhausting the opponent's resources than getting their combo pieces together.
Another easy way to tell the difference: If both players hit fatigue, the control deck generally wants more resources left than their opponent, while the combo deck doesn't care how many resources they have compared to their opponent. The combo deck just cares about their combo.
1
There are a lot of inconsistencies in Hearthstone, but I don't think this is one of them. The mana reduction is not attached to the minion forever. Once it hits the board it is considered a 4 cost minion again.