Deadly Cupcakes

Game Discussion => Outside Azeroth - General Chatter => Topic started by: Cree on October 04, 2013, 12:37:12 PM

Title: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 04, 2013, 12:37:12 PM
Sorry if there is already a thread for this, I did a quite search but didn't see anything.

I got a hearthstone beta (and consequently a battlenet desktop beta) and thought I would start a thread for anyone else who are trying these out.   I'm still downloading so I don't have any revelations yet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 04, 2013, 01:41:50 PM
After playing for a bit.... you may not see me playing anything else for a while.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 04, 2013, 08:18:47 PM
I have been beta-testing the battle.net desktop launcher for some time and like it. I have applied for Hearthstone beta but not gotten in.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 05, 2013, 03:55:02 PM
Do Arena! it's good value and fun.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Andraax on October 07, 2013, 08:26:46 AM
Can anyone compare Hearthstone to Solforge?

-Andraax
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 07, 2013, 01:34:34 PM
Though it's a bit biased, Brian Kibler can (http://bmkgaming.com/look-hearthstone/). He brings up some good points that I believe will keep Hearthstone on the casual end of online TCGs (not necessarily a bad thing!)

- The interface is very polished, and games are fun to watch
- The tutorial is very long and sloggy, and is unskippable. This is good for players new to CCGs, but for veterans, it's unnecessary (Leveling in Hearthstone is similar to leveling in WoW, big surprise!)
- Hero abilities contribute to a lot of sameness in games
- Being forced to use every card you draft in Arena will stifle innovation, and incentivize players to draft relatively vanilla decks of good individual cards rather than trying for synergy or rogue strategies (a hallmark of a "classic" or "deep" MTG draft format)

Personally I'm excited for Hearthstone, as its interface, network infrastructure, and gameplay are more polished than Solforge. I expect, after they get through a lot of technical kinks and release the full game, Solforge is a better long-term bet.

(I just need to find a deck that beats Shapers/Savants...and I'm not that innovative.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 10, 2013, 07:36:31 PM
So here are my thoughts now that I've gotten over my giddy stage.

It's a little weird to never have to be entering my password into WoW or hearthstone.   I do like how this speeds up switching games.  I like the battlenet desktop a lot in general (though it doesn't really change THAT much about the end user experience.)

Hearthstone seems to be a solid TCG.  I don't think it's going to blow anyone away with novelty, but it's fun and fairly polished.   I also really like that it will be free to play and possible to play with out paying at all.

The arena is the place to spend gold, not directly on packs.  It's kind of fun to have to work with the deck that you get to make out of cards you haven't necessarily collected.  So far I've gotten a pack every time, even though I never win in the arenas for some weird reason.

I like that the daily quests force you out of your comfort zone and make you play one of two classes. I don't have all the classes leveled, so it's a little annoying to play with an unleveled class, but not horribly.

I don't see anyway to challenge a friend, but maybe I'm missing it.  If you can't that's a bit of a draw back.

I have a feeling that when it goes live, you'll get a bit of the problem that I'm seeing with pet battles.  You'll run in to the same strats over and over and you'll know that some of them you just can't beat with the deck you have.

I still like it, but I'm no longer quite as addicted. some of that might be because it's still in beta and I know I'll loose my progress.  I am enjoying that I'm start to feel like I actually understand what 's going on better. (Though I still sometimes attack myself by accident.)

If you do play, don't forget to play with the board when you are bored.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 18, 2013, 10:32:16 PM
I like to think of myself as a decent TCG and Limited player. I don't enjoy constructed Magic, so I wish I could just completely avoid the "Play" section as I'm always just going to be smashed by someone's much better deck.

However, I find Arena surprisingly frustrating. I felt like I drafted a C+ average Druid deck with some nice tricks, but came away with only 1 win. My losses don't seem to be stemming from play skill on either side, rather coming from strict variance.

I like how smoothly the draft goes, even if there's no sideboard and sometimes you just get a stinker set of choices. I like how quickly a game goes and how the 1-game rounds speed things up even further, and especially how the mana crystal system mitigates the variance quite a bit. However, I feel like I get boned by getting out-drawn a lot, or by someone getting a bomb rare out and me never seeing mine (or never getting any).

I'll keep plugging away, but I'm not really loving it. Maybe I'm just not interested in spending $1.99 (or time spent with dailies getting 150g) to lose 3 times and get a pack I'm not going to use for anything since it can't buy me back into the Arena. Maybe I'd like it more if I were willing to dump a ton of money on it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 19, 2013, 12:57:38 AM
I like to think of myself as a decent TCG and Limited player. I don't enjoy constructed Magic, so I wish I could just completely avoid the "Play" section as I'm always just going to be smashed by someone's much better deck.

The matching system, after it gets a feel for your deck, should mostly avoid this.    I have been wondering if the arena has a smaller pool and the matching system doesn't work as well or if arena's aren't matched.

You might try other classes as well. I started as a rogue, but I've being coming to enjoy Shaman because even if you have nothing good to play, you can always summon a totem.  Bloodlust can also be devistating if you've managed to keep enough minions on the board.

I've found that I've learn a lot about the feel of the tempo and gotten much better at feeling more in control over what's going on.   That's  not to say I stomp everyone I meet, but I'm ok with that.

I've lost a lot in the arena, but I'm finding the game it self interesting enough that I mostly view it as a more fun way to get my pack from my 150 gold, even if I loose three in a row. (I got three whole wins today!)   I also kind of find that you can get some very weird decks, which is sometimes good, sometimes bad.  I got three frost armor cards today in my arena deck today, for instance.

I never played much magic, so I could see someone who has seen it all not enjoying it as much.  

I like the crafting system idea, too, even though I've only played with it once.  The idea that if there is a card you really want and you have many cards you don't want, you can turn the unwanted cards into the one you want.

I am hoping that live will see a regular schedule of the addition of new cards. I'd like to see more a variety in what gets played in the long term.  

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
I agree that the crafting system is one of the best "trading" systems in any game I've ever played. I love that I can just find the card I want/need for a deck and just "buy" it with other cards. Once my collection gets big, I can always just dust my excess or terrible cards (Eye for an Eye, I'm looking at you!).

My last post was, if you couldn't tell, while I still had some frustration about my Arena performance. I did in fact make a few play mistakes and misinterpret my role as beatdown/control (from a very classic MTG article (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/fundamentals/3692_Whos_The_Beatdown.html), if you can get past the outdated card/deck references). I'm definitely not a perfect player-however, correctly playing these mistakes would not have won me the matches.

I think I just need to work on my drafting skill and stop hoping play will make up for it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 22, 2013, 09:27:42 AM
Linkdump on Arena:

Guide on the official forums-a good intro to Advanced Topics: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/9742094161

Top player's neutral card rankings: http://ihearthu.com/trumps-arena-card-rankings/
YMMV, but it shows that some good-looking cards (Raid Leader, Core Hound) are actually quite weak.

Video podcast with a long segment breaking down the Paladin class cards (they'll talk more on other classes in future eps): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6RS1qUzWhk#t=873
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on October 22, 2013, 01:52:23 PM
Here's the host being coached by top players Kripparian and Trump through a draft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-aHz70XxiE

And here's the games he plays with the deck. His play isn't super tight, but the draft helped him a lot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JmbKOJiwCw
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 22, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
Wow, I picked ALL the wrong cards while watching that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 14, 2013, 07:49:54 AM
You may have seen this already, but apparently Blizzard issued Hearthstone beta keys to anyone who was in the battlenet desktop beta.

If you did not get an email with a beta key you might want to check your spam folders.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: bleunienn on November 15, 2013, 02:43:04 PM
You may have seen this already, but apparently Blizzard issued Hearthstone beta keys to anyone who was in the battlenet desktop beta.

If you did not get an email with a beta key you might want to check your spam folders.

I have not gotten such an email, even in my spam folders, and furthermore the last desktop beta update seems to have broken the app.  When I try to launch WoW the app crashes.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on November 15, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
http://blue.mmo-champion.com/topic/280413-battlenet-desktop-app-issue/ explains how to work around the app being broken on XP, although the workaround is apparently "uninstall the dekstop app."  Cree uses XP and didn't have any trouble launching Hearthstone recently, but hasn't tried to launch WoW since 1pm or so.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: bleunienn on November 15, 2013, 02:59:25 PM
I have Windows 7, though, not XP.  I just closed everything and rebooted, and now it's just yelling at me about my graphics drivers.

Which I guess is an improvement?  We'll see if it loads after the drivers update.  Meanwhile, Pandora has a Warcraft soundtrack channel.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 15, 2013, 03:09:18 PM
So is it just me or is this game (too) susceptible to zerg rush?  By this I mean you fill your deck with lots of cheap cards and get a bunch of things out on the field quickly. This tends to beat decks with combos or big creatures almost all the time.  This is a problem I've seen in the few card-battle games I've tried.

I see that Hearthstone has some mechanics that try to counter this - cards that deal a small amount of damage to every enemy creature and the taunt mechanic but it feels like those are both mandatory and depend on too much luck to draw at the right time.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 15, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
I've not found many people who use that strategy against me, but I usually have some form of AOE, multi-target spell or hero power that keeps it at bay.   Plus the 7 minion limit should make doing that with 1s and 2s not really worth it.

I play a shaman deck that kind of depends on having enough minions out to make bloodlust worth while.

I'm also not the best player in the world (I kind of wish, and kind of don't wish, that I could see my hidden rating) so my view might be skewed by where I am on the ladder. 
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 15, 2013, 06:59:51 PM
Ah, I guess I will get to see that soon:

http://wow.joystiq.com/2013/11/11/blizzcon-2013-ranked-play-changes-coming-to-hearthstone/

ANGRY CHICKEN!!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on November 18, 2013, 07:03:23 AM
So is it just me or is this game (too) susceptible to zerg rush?  By this I mean you fill your deck with lots of cheap cards and get a bunch of things out on the field quickly. This tends to beat decks with combos or big creatures almost all the time.  This is a problem I've seen in the few card-battle games I've tried.

I see that Hearthstone has some mechanics that try to counter this - cards that deal a small amount of damage to every enemy creature and the taunt mechanic but it feels like those are both mandatory and depend on too much luck to draw at the right time.

Every card game has a weenie/aggro strategy that will beat anyone with a slow draw or who doesn't have some mass removal. The counter is built in in the form of taunt and mass removal. If you sacrifice that to get your combo off, then you just have to accept losses to aggro decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 18, 2013, 07:19:11 AM
OK that's what I figured. So far this is the most fun I've had playing a game I utterly suck at.  Pogue asked me why I'm enjoying it so much and I think it's a combination of familiar elements, simple enough mechanics and relatively quick gameplay, and the fact that it's unlike any other game I'm playing.

I do have Solforge but I just completely do not get how that game works. I've watched videos and had people try to explain it to me, but apparently I'm a dummy because I do not understand "deck building within-game" as opposed to how decks are made in Hearthstone (and other similar choose-M-of-N games).

I am currently finding it a very good replacement for pet battling in WoW - it's taking up the same 20-30 minute blocks I used to use on pet battles.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on November 18, 2013, 07:34:54 AM
Do you have anything running iOS?  I like Ascension for deck-building-within-the-game.  The UI is super friendly, so you don't have to know anything at all about rules or strategy to get started.

I think Dominion is another game in this class.  You probably know someone with a cardboard copy.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on November 18, 2013, 08:07:51 AM
I do have Solforge but I just completely do not get how that game works. I've watched videos and had people try to explain it to me, but apparently I'm a dummy because I do not understand "deck building within-game" as opposed to how decks are made in Hearthstone (and other similar choose-M-of-N games).

I feel like this may be my fault. I was trying to explain why you discard your hand at the end of a turn in Solforge (it's a mechanic from deckbuilding, or "deck-building-within-game", games). That doesn't make Solforge a deckbuilding game.

Solforge and Hearthstone are TCGs, with traditional elements of constructed TCGs, where you build a deck before the game and play it with the goal of racing your opponent (generally by reducing their life total to 0 before they reduce yours to 0). Ascension and Dominion are deckbuilding games, where all players start with a deck that they improve over the course of the game, with the goal of having more victory points at the end of a game than all opponents.

The difference in feel between Hearthstone and Solforge is the resource mechanics, since there's no mana-type resource in SF. Your resources are moves (2 each turn) and cards in your deck (leveled-up cards are more powerful). You spend moves to improve both your on-board position (creatures in play relative to your opponent's) and your deck (playing a card levels it up), helping you draw more powerful cards later on. Cards in Solforge are not a limited resource since you completely refill your hand every turn.

Hearthstone is more Magic-like, where you spend mana and cards to improve your on-board position only. Cards are limited, in that when you spend 2 cards but only draw one per turn, you eventually run out of "gas." Hearthstone differs from Magic in that you neither draw a land nor are required to draw lands, so each draw is a card that does something ("gas").

Your ideas about what's good in Hearthstone will probably translate to Solforge more than you may think :).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Grace on November 18, 2013, 09:14:07 AM
Do you have anything running iOS?  I like Ascension for deck-building-within-the-game.  The UI is super friendly, so you don't have to know anything at all about rules or strategy to get started.

I think Dominion is another game in this class.  You probably know someone with a cardboard copy.

Or you can learn/play Dominion online: http://www.goko.com/games/Dominion
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on November 18, 2013, 09:29:05 AM

Or you can learn/play Dominion online: http://www.goko.com/games/Dominion

Productivity just went to zero, thanks grace.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on November 18, 2013, 10:23:16 AM
The coolest part about Dominion Online is that it will only cost me another $150 to play the cards I already own in real life.

And no, I didn't fall for MTGO, either.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 19, 2013, 06:21:15 AM
OK, yes, I was confused about the discussion of Solforge.  I still don't see how to improve my deck there - in Hearthstone at least the combinations are clearer and the chain of events makes sense.  Cards I haven't seen surprise me, and people think up clever combos.  But in Solforge I can't even beat the trainer and I have no idea why. It just always seems to have rank 2 cards much sooner than I get them and rank 3s while I still draw rank 2s.

And the need to discard my hand at the end of every turn in Solforge means I can't think about combos in the way I can in Hearthstone. It just feels like I'm flailing at random.

The kids have iPads - I may try Ascension there, or Dominion online if I have the time.  Thanks for the pointers.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on November 19, 2013, 07:11:44 AM
You shouldn't be thinking combos so much as synergy, in both Hearthstone and Solforge.

For instance, Energy Surge and Metamind Adept draw extra cards in SF. This synergizes well with Steelforged Avatar, whose power and health scale with how many Alloyin cards you have in your hand. It's not a combo, per se, but it's synergy-Steelforged Avatar is already respectable if you only have 4 other cards in your hand.

You want good cards that are better with other cards/situations. One quick example in HS is Acidic Swamp Ooze. Yes, it's backbreaking when your 2-mana creature destroys an opponent's Truesilver Champion or Arcanite Reaper-but it's also a solid 3/2 for 2 if they have no weapon, so you can play it against anything, not just Shaman/Warrior/Paladin/Rogue.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 19, 2013, 11:03:14 AM
I think of combos in Hearthstone particularly because many things are sequence dependent.  For example, there's a great combo where you play the guru zerker followed by a cheap 1-mana thing that does 1 damage and you use that to shoot the zerker.  Or you use the spell that gives +2 health, then the spell that doubles health.  Annoying minions with Taunt-R-Us!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 25, 2013, 07:43:49 AM
(I think it's hilarious that the character in Hearthstone I seem to be worst at is Rogue. There are some balance issues which may be part of it, but oh dear does my rogue deck suck.)

More serious question: For a long time WoW has supported "drag-and-drop" install.  Meaning I can just copy my WoW folder onto a stick and play it from whatever PC I have available without needing to install on that machine.

Does anyone know if Hearthstone and the desktop launcher follow that same paradigm?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 07, 2013, 02:41:03 PM
I have a paladin arena deck with lots of blessing of mights, blessing of kings and most importantly blessed champion (which doubles a minion's attack.) This is resulted in a number of rounds where I've attacked with 20+ attack minions.  The last game I got to play gruul.  The opponent didn't kill it, so it started my turn as a 9/9, I gave it +4 and then doubled for 26.  The opponent was at 24 health when I did this.   I had no idea a pally deck could do that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 08, 2013, 02:02:47 PM
I have a paladin arena deck with lots of blessing of mights, blessing of kings and most importantly blessed champion (which doubles a minion's attack.) This is resulted in a number of rounds where I've attacked with 20+ attack minions.  The last game I got to play gruul.  The opponent didn't kill it, so it started my turn as a 9/9, I gave it +4 and then doubled for 26.  The opponent was at 24 health when I did this.   I had no idea a pally deck could do that.

Holy crap that sounds fun! It seems like Pally is the best at buffing minions so it sticks in arena-they get out of range of most removal pretty quickly, and on the cheap, so you can store up your buffs and dump them all in one turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 09, 2013, 06:38:21 AM
My pally deck isn't that uber, but it does OK except it falls to zerg decks and denial decks a lot.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 10, 2013, 01:17:03 PM
The patch went in today. Warning if you play ranked. it's kind of demoralizing right now.   Hopefully it will be less so once everyone isn't an angry chicken.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 11, 2013, 07:27:14 AM
Is there a convenient link to patch notes?  I got a notification saying that one hunter card had changed (and it's a major change - watch all the new hunter zerg decks appear) but I have the feeling more things in game changed than that.

Also I'm kind of sad that I'm no longer an angry chicken.  Or even a leper gnome.  OK, maybe i"m not sad about that. I'd really like some kind of rank system that was separated from my visual representation, though.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on December 11, 2013, 08:17:12 AM
I thought the hunter change was a nerf.  Anyway, here:

http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/11868609/hearthstone%E2%84%A2-closed-beta-patch-notes-1004217-become-a-legend-12-10-2013
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 11, 2013, 10:15:26 AM
Patch notes for Blizzard games are generally posted on the game's Battle.net page with a minimum of searching.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 13, 2013, 06:27:58 AM
I thought the hunter change was a nerf. 

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure the change was a nerf so much as a change that blocked a single broken combo.  The card in general wasn't that good outside the one combo.  The change is a vast improvement.

That said, I've been crushed recently by people playing warlock decks with what also seem to be majorly broken cards, one of which lets the warlock summon a 6/6 demon every turn for 2 mana.  Seriously??

I continue to suck at this game.  I haven't kept track of how much I suck at ranked play, but Arenas are easier to track.  I'm 7-12 in Arenas and my sense is that's about how I play in Ranked.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 13, 2013, 10:05:04 AM
I thought the hunter change was a nerf. 

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure the change was a nerf so much as a change that blocked a single broken combo.  The card in general wasn't that good outside the one combo.  The change is a vast improvement.

That said, I've been crushed recently by people playing warlock decks with what also seem to be majorly broken cards, one of which lets the warlock summon a 6/6 demon every turn for 2 mana.  Seriously??

I continue to suck at this game.  I haven't kept track of how much I suck at ranked play, but Arenas are easier to track.  I'm 7-12 in Arenas and my sense is that's about how I play in Ranked.

Huh, I've only been jaraxas'd once ever.  I think I was playing something that had sheep/hex/mind control, so the internals didn't bug me much.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 16, 2013, 05:28:45 AM
Yeah if I have unblockable removal in hand when Jaraxxus appears then you can deal with him.  If not, it's GG. He's just way more powerful than other cards of similar rarity/cost.

Actually I was thinking of a different card, the name of which eludes me.  3 mana demon, you play it and it "eats" the two cards to either side of it, gaining their attack/health.  I've died twice to decks that use that.

Currently running 8-16 in arenas.  Sigh.  At least it's a chance to do something different.  I chafe at the 9-decks-max restriction since it prevents me from trying lots of whacky things.  I would love to have my standard X deck (mage, paladin, hunter, etc) and then fool around with other builds for the same character.  I'm leery of dumping my standard X decks because when the quest pops up to win N games I want to just pull out a deck and know how it'll work.

(Of course, this is all because I'm a cheap bastard and don't want to pay cash for Arenas.  So I do quests and play games until I have enough gold for an Arena entry.  Then I go play my 3-4 games there and am done.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 18, 2013, 10:26:39 AM
Here's a good coaching series on Arena: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPgqoxaNatw&list=PLDQ9l4dJYWnM0RRvyfGQr-cZ_OXq2CEt7&index=1

It's super long, and I apologize for the heavy British accents.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on December 18, 2013, 11:21:15 AM
I got my beta the other day and tried my hand at arena... I ended up winning 1 game going in blind and was 1 turn away from winning 2/3 of my losses when I got ragnaros'd... which I'm going to throw in felt kinda BS, I didn't see raggypoo or any equivalent card in my draft so I felt pretty disadvantaged. That said it seems pretty fun, but there feels like there's too much luck involved in drawing the right card, that could just be me tho.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 18, 2013, 11:46:30 AM
I got my beta the other day and tried my hand at arena... I ended up winning 1 game going in blind and was 1 turn away from winning 2/3 of my losses when I got ragnaros'd... which I'm going to throw in felt kinda BS, I didn't see raggypoo or any equivalent card in my draft so I felt pretty disadvantaged. That said it seems pretty fun, but there feels like there's too much luck involved in drawing the right card, that could just be me tho.

The arena picks have some weird rules, like your first and last (and something in the middle) picks will always be epic or legendary, for example.  It is a bit of luck, but you don't ever be completely screwed with common only picks, for example.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 18, 2013, 12:41:12 PM
The arena picks have some weird rules, like your first and last (and something in the middle) picks will always be epic or legendary, for example.  It is a bit of luck, but you don't ever be completely screwed with common only picks, for example.

In addition to those 3, you have a chance of getting Epic or Legendary picks elsewhere in the draft.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 19, 2013, 06:21:44 AM
In one of the recent patches they changed the sound so that when the draft presents you with rare or epic card choices you get a different sound.  That said, there's a WIDE variability in the usefulness of these cards. Jaraxxus for example is severely OP.

Thanks for the link to the tutorials (gods, an hour apiece?).  I find these days I lose a lot of ranked games to people who have rare-heavy or epic-heavy decks.  Then again, I lose a lot period.  I'm currently 9-20 in arenas.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 19, 2013, 11:22:19 AM
Ribbo: Gain 8 life is "awful?"  Say what?

Also, "you rarely run out of cards in Hearthstone".  Orly?  I run out all the bloody time.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 19, 2013, 12:19:10 PM
Ribbo: Gain 8 life is "awful?"  Say what?

Also, "you rarely run out of cards in Hearthstone".  Orly?  I run out all the bloody time.

One of the thing I'm still learning is how to prevent myself from getting card starved without stacking my deck with draw extra card cards. Still don't quite have the hang of it.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on December 19, 2013, 12:27:26 PM
Also, "you rarely run out of cards in Hearthstone".  Orly?  I run out all the bloody time.
Do you mean you run out of cards in your deck and get fatigue damage, or that you run out of cards in your hand and can only play one card per turn as a result?  I see the latter frequently when Cree plays, but rarely the former.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 19, 2013, 01:04:28 PM
I run out of cards to play and have more in the deck.  I rarely run out my deck unless I'm playing warlock and the other guy has a denial deck of some kind.

Having watched how he plays in arenas I see what he's talking about, though.  Very interesting.  I will go tweak some decks and try again.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 20, 2013, 09:34:03 AM
Ribbo: Gain 8 life is "awful?"  Say what?

I'm not sure exactly what card you're referring to, but this is a common question new MTG players ask, as well. You see a card that says "Gain 8 life" and think "that's great!" It seems great! You're playing HS and you get down to 4 life, then you play a card that gains 8 life, now you're at 12! Plenty of time to draw another card that will win.

But what this indicates is an opportunity cost. If you cast a spell, like Ice Armor, which (effectively) gains 8 life, you are also NOT casting a spell, like Fireball, that deals damage. Or you're not casting a minion. Or if you're casting, say, Guardian of Kings, which gains 6 life and leaves you with a  5/6, you're NOT casting Stormwind Champion (6/6, +1/+1 for your team) or Ravenholdt Assassin (7/5 Stealth), which both are better at closing out games, getting a two-for-one, or trading up.

Gaining life by itself isn't often worth a whole card or draw step. It doesn't advance your plan of getting the opponent down to 0, it just delays losing. And no matter how well you delay losing, if you don't have something that can eventually win that makes up for all the delay, your opponent will run you over.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 23, 2013, 05:31:16 AM
I think the comparison is inapt because of the disparate costs.  I'm getting 8 life for 3 mana, plus it's a secret that causes my opponent to have to change his strategy.  All the cards you list are 6+ mana and I agree they're superior to 2xIce Armor but not to 1x.

THAT said, I've taken a lot of Ribbo's advice to heart and stripped out almost all the draw-card things from my deck.  The 5-mana rare drake that gives +1 spelldam, draw a card and is a decent 4/4 or 4/5 stays, and I like the 5 armor/draw 1 that warrior gets but I pulled out all the el-cheapo draw cards.  I'm also much less likely to play 1 health minions now, swapped out bears for Taurens in all decks except the hunter, etc.

My win rate is slowly creeping back up - I'm definitely over 1 in 3 now and may be approaching 1 in 2.  I went 2-3 in my latest arena despite having a craptastic hunter deck. I think I need to stop playing hunter in arenas.

I'm now losing to people with a lot more rare/unique cards and to people who just play better and have good decks/good draws.  Any suggestions on which vid to watch next?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 26, 2013, 03:41:48 AM
I've now tested the "does Hearthstone run from a memory stick" and the answer is "yes".  There's a slightly weird interaction with the battle.net launcher but I suspect that's because I had the launcher first and installed Hearthstone afterward. I think if you just got Hearthstone and stuck it on a memory stick it would work properly.  +1 to Blizzard again for that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 27, 2013, 01:08:47 PM
I think the comparison is inapt because of the disparate costs.  I'm getting 8 life for 3 mana, plus it's a secret that causes my opponent to have to change his strategy.  All the cards you list are 6+ mana and I agree they're superior to 2xIce Armor but not to 1x.

1) I admit to (purposely) disregarding cost in my post, but Fireball is 4 mana, not 6+. A much smaller difference between FB and IA, and a premium card.

2) Cost would only matter if you had all the cards available and you could only cast one and not the other. Yes, I'm certainly agreeing that a lower curve is better, because in the early game you have access to more cards and are constrained on mana. In the end of a game of HS, though, you are generally in top-decking mode with 8+ mana, so a card that gets you closer to your goal is better than one that merely staves off the inevitable.

In fact, a higher cost in HS is even less of an issue than MTG (where most of the TCG strategy theorycrafting comes from), because getting to 5, 6, 7+ mana in MTG is not an inevitability. In HS, it is, so you can expect to eventually cast your bigger cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 27, 2013, 04:05:17 PM
Interestingly, Ribbo is also down on fireball.  It's rare you need to do 6 damage and I find he's right.  I'm using it on 4 or 5 health minions.  I think I still have one in my  mage deck but not 2.

I also don't know that a card-to-card comparison ignoring mana is apt even at high mana.  If I have a 3 mana defense that allows me also to play a 5-7 mana minion in the same turn. I can't play two of those under most any circumstances so the question is what am I going to do with that 3 mana?  Getting 8 points of life seems pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on December 28, 2013, 12:03:33 PM
Ribbo is wrong about Fireball. It doesn't matter if you deal 6 damage to a 4-health minion unless, somehow, you were able to deal 4 damage instead for less mana. That opportunity does not exist for mages. The important thing is that you spent a card to eliminate a minion and you can, in the absence of a minion you need to eliminate, send that 6 damage to the opponent's face.

You're assuming you'd have 2 cards to cast-Ice Armor does not gain life AND draw a card. Cards are a resource, just like mana and life. In Hearthstone, cards are a scarcer resource than mana.

Life gain isn't bad in all cases. You just need to have a reason to play it. If you're holding out to cast a huge bomb, life gain is a tool in the control toolbox. However, in most cases, especially limited/Arena, cards that only gain life are weaker picks, since you can't count on sculpting a control strategy.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 30, 2013, 09:26:20 AM
Sure, I would generally not take Ice Armor in arenas.  The one time I did the choice was IA, something about murlocs and a card related to weapons.  I'm like, "Dude, I'm playing a mage here - wtf?" and took the ice armor.

I continue to suck at this game, though I'm sucking somewhat less.  I've realized (derp) that you can mouse over the right side and see how many cards you and the other player have left to draw. I am often seeing the other guy run nearly his entire deck while I have 8-12 cards un-drawn.  I tend to lose these games.  These things tend to happen when the other guy is playing a midget deck or my draws are terrible.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 02, 2014, 12:48:44 PM
Another good advice post I got linked to from another forum: http://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/1tzubq/arena_8_win_average_player_offering_some_advice/

The most insightful piece of advice is the "pyramid" style of mana curve. It's not a hard-and fast rule, obviously, but it is a good starting point.

I drafted a mage deck with no sweepers and no polymorphs, but I did grab 2 fireballs and a pyroblast. We'll see how it works out. I picked Questing Adventurer over Blizzard twice, shaping the whole draft around cheaper cards.

[Lots of] Random thoughts:

- I feel like Arena really lends itself to midrange strategies. It's hard to craft aggro or control decks with the limited available choices (i.e. 30 out of 90 cards compared to MTG's 45 out of 276, of which you play 22-23), so every deck has to hedge toward the middle. This feels closer to MTG Sealed Deck than draft, because the field is a lot more unpredictable.

- You also don't see the cards other players get, so it's difficult to have any idea what anyone else has. Right now I can expect a trick or spell because of the small cardpool, but once the cardpool grows it will be difficult to guess what any opponent has. They will likely implement "sets" and other limitations on Arena to keep the massive amount of possibilities down.

- I played 4 rounds of constructed ("Play" in Casual) to ping my dailies. I have an aggro Paladin deck built from mostly base cards and a few commons, and I threw together a Druid deck to bang out 2 dailies at once that skewed more midrange. I decided to play my cards out conservatively, which is not my normal MO-trading life and early-game advantage to conserve cards felt very strong. I was able to bluff having 2 blanks in my hand without trying-my opponents just assumed I had nothing because I wasn't snap-casting what I had mana for.

- In MTG, there's a theory called Stock Mana (http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?ID=8738), which is, quite [over]simply, "the player who spends more mana over the course of a game is significantly more likely to win." I'm not sure this is true in Hearthstone Arena, especially with so many pros advocating for 2/3/4-drops over 6/7/8-drops.

What's more important is the theory of Card Advantage (wayyyyyy to many articles to link, but it's got it's own Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_advantage)). The idea is that the player who plays more cards over the course of a game is a favorite. Card advantage comes from drawing more cards (Arcane Intellect, Gnomish Engineer), denying your opponent cards (making them discard), getting more than a card's value out of a card (Loot Hoarder trades with an x/2 and draws a card, thus you spending 1 card to get -1 for the opponent and +1 for you for a net of +1 card for you), and negating multiple of your opponent's cards with fewer of your own (sweepers, tough taunters).

HS, like chess and MTG, is a game of limited resources. The strategy is in spending those resources in the most optimal way. Further, you need to spend the most precious or rare of those resources more carefully. In MTG, mana is a precious resource. It's constrained by color, and advancing your mana comes at the cost of card advantage* (drawing a land helps you play a spell, but also reduces the chance of you drawing that spell). In HS, mana is not precious. Gaining mana does not replace a card, getting to higher amounts of mana is a near certainty (barring losing to a bunch of Ice Lances (http://www.twitch.tv/trumpsc/c/3416794) toot suite) rather than a possibility. Cards in HS are more precious than mana, so spending them wisely and accruing advantage will favor you to win.

*Actually, it comes at the cost of virtual card advantage, in some twisted ways, but I'll save that for Card Advantage 201
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 02, 2014, 03:05:45 PM
AI seems so worthless to me. It's basically draw one card since AI is a card.  Seems like you'd rather have one of those draw a card gnomes in your deck instead.   Am I missing something?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 02, 2014, 03:54:21 PM
AI seems so worthless to me. It's basically draw one card since AI is a card.  Seems like you'd rather have one of those draw a card gnomes in your deck instead.   Am I missing something?

You aren't missing something! I don't think AI is good, or even playable-I was just using it as an example of pure card advantage (spend 1 card, receive 2 cards). I agree that Loot Hoarder is better. It's also usually a 2-for-1, and in the absence of anything for it to kill it can go to the face. good in control, midrange, and aggro!

A 3 mana draw-two is a good card in MTG because you can use it to dig for lands. In HS, there's lots of better cards for 3.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 03, 2014, 04:35:50 AM
I continue to run about 2-3 in my arena rounds.  I'm definitely aware of the mana curve/midgame issue and it's one reason I never take priest in arenas. Every other class has something to do with 2 mana if you get a dead draw but priest has to just sit there.

I would like to see them do something about the RNG in drafting - just take out the murloc and pirate buff cards for example.

In other news it seems like EVERY warlock deck is now a midget/murloc deck and I'm seeing lots of murloc decks elsewhere.  I've put much more AOE into my other decks to deal with it but it's a crapshoot if I draw mass removal at the right time.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 03, 2014, 10:52:27 AM
It's a little more PC to call it a "weenie" deck rather than a "midget" one :).

The deck I just drafted went 4-3, which is probably better than I could have expected given some bone-headed picks, but one thing that really saved me was an abundance of 2- and 3-drops. I almost never had a dead draw, and when I mulliganed 4's and 5's I was more likely to get 2's and 3's instead. Are you mulliganning away your high-cost cards so you have plays before 4th turn?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 06, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
I try to mulligan.  I never keep 5 or higher and only keep a 4 if I'm going second and it's something I would want to coin into on turn 3 (e.g. the sen'jin taunt blocker or the arathi weaponsmith that's 3/3 and gives you a weapon as well).  Or if I've gotten obvious 1/2/3 plays I'll keep a 4 esp if I'm going second.  I also mulligan out anything that's <4 mana but depends on other minions (e.g. rampage, hand of faith) or that depends on multiple minions (hunter's multishot, most AOEs, etc.)  It's not that I mind those cards, but I want to have them after I've gotten minions on the field.

I threw away my shaman deck (my worst) and built a weenie-killer deck.  It's hunter powered, has a lot of fast-playing cards and decent removal along with enough block, particularly "give a beast +2/+2 and taunt", that weenies have to batter past it.  Usually I can clear the opponent's weenies and leave him with only 1-2 cards in hand while I have 1-2 minions on the field usually 3/2 or better and 4 cards in hand.  The deck falls to power-killer plays (warrior decks with lots of charge, mage decks with high spell power) but I'm currently 5-2 with it and thinking I might try it in ranked play.

My priest and rogue decks continue to suck.  Both have ways that ought to work to win but don't seem to materialize.  Must continue to experiment.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 06, 2014, 06:39:21 AM
I consider turn 1 almost a no op.  I actually will keep 4s and 5s if I already have a three or two already.    My current deck I think has only spells at 1 mana and no 1 mana creatures.  That way I have some removal if I happen to be playing against one of those "let's try to win on turn 5" decks.

I'm still not great, but I have been slowly climbing the ranks (though that might be that the ranking system tends to filter top people out into the legendary rank.)

As a side note, i think like the mind control tech (http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/368-mind-control-tech) more than I should.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 06, 2014, 07:43:21 AM
MCT is pretty cool, except that your opponent still has 3+ minions :). The taken minion doesn't get Charge, so they have a turn to deal with it. However, you could do worse than a 3/3 + something for 3. I wouldn't value it over a premium rare, but it's definitely better than Angry Chicken.

You just have to make sure you aren't just going to lose to their 3 minion board.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 14, 2014, 05:52:58 AM
Looking at the changes (http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/257-upcoming-changes-to-hearthstone-unleash-the-hounds):

Dropping the cost of Unleash the Hounds may make it OP.  At 4 mana it's a poor AOE but has some nice synergies.  At 2 mana it's probably OP.  Compare with Fan of Knives, which does 1 to all indiscriminately.  FoK buffs from spell damage and gives you a card draw but has no focus-fire option and is gone afterward.  Hounds don't die and can be buffed easily into 3/3 taunt minions.  Or you can choose to focus two of them on a target, etc.

Raising pyroblast's cost to 10 is reasonable, but it'll still stay as the direct killer in most mage decks.

Nerfing blood imp is a HUGE improvement.  I swear to gods I am so sick of seeing warlock-murloc weenie decks.  They even beat my weenie-killer deck a lot of the time, particularly if the other guy has the purples and oranges.

The extra nerf to Warsong Commander makes it nearly worthless.  Warriors just don't have that many options for 2-damage minions.  This will stop the charging-corehound decks, but those weren't that common anyway. In combination with a massive nerf to the 0-cost Charge card this takes away a huge amount of momentum from warriors.

Abusive Sergeant gets a small change that removes a lot of its flexibility (doing 1 damage can be helpful synergy, esp for warriors) and Dark Iron Dwarf gets nerfed into worthlessness.  At 4 mana a temporary battlecry is... OK I guess but it's a rare card and should be better, imo.  I'm already pulling out my dwarfs for 4/5 yetis or 4/4 silence minions and this seals the deal.

Defender of Argus gets a minor nerf but it's still a fantastic card.  Taking away 1 attack power doesn't change much.

Novice engineer loses one health - meh.  I'd already pulled it out of most of my decks as I've been trying to play without card-draw.  I'm starting to be tempted to put in Loot Hoarders though.

Sylvanus going up a mana cost is... who cares. If you have her you play her, but she hasn't given me much trouble. I would rather see a nerf to some of the other mid-cost epics. Hogger in particular is OP - spitting out a 2/2 taunt every turn means you have to have double removal when it hits the board or you're toast.

We're still going to have too many warlock-murloc nonsense weenie decks running around. Maybe if I double down on Hounds I can beat more of them, but I doubt it.

ETA: commenter Viniter (at the bottom of page 1 as I write this) has a good point: Blizzard is spending a lot of time on small tweaks to balance a relatively tiny card pool. One of the main reasons that people play the same decks over and over is because there aren't a lot of other cards to choose from, not because every card that's popular is necessarily OP.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 14, 2014, 09:21:32 AM
Something happened after the reset and now I can no longer win in arenas. It's kind of weird.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 14, 2014, 09:34:45 AM
If you read the comments on Warsong Commander and Charge, those were changed to prevent 1-turn combo kills. This is a quite common adjustment-it won't kill Warrior, it will just weed out a lot of the kinds of decks that make a format toxic.

If a warrior can just sit back and play minions without trading or interacting and then just dump its hand for a 1-turn combo kill, there isn't much interaction with the opponent. This shouldn't be completely eliminated, but it can be discouraged.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 14, 2014, 10:04:17 AM
I don't see how that follows.  Warsong commander is ?3? mana for a 2/3 that grants charge.  Assuming you hold your warsong 'till full mana (and don't get nuked in the previous 9 turns) you play that, leaving 7 mana.  You play a heavy hitter, like the corehound, for ?6?  ?7? and hit for 9 points.  If you happen to have the "do 1 damage and get 2 attack" you might get up to 11 damage.  This puts you slightly ahead of pyroblast (10 damage) at a cost of 3 cards.  And your 3-card combo depends on the other guy not having a blocker.

Splain this one-turn win to me, please?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 14, 2014, 01:28:12 PM
I understand you're being cheeky, but the explanation is actually in the article you linked, so I'm not going to explain the win. I don't know the mechanical specifics, but I trust the dev who wrote the blue post does.

Quote
Warsong Commander
...
Charge
...
Both of these cards were key components in “One Turn Kill” or “OTK” decks that kill your opponent in one turn without requiring any cards on the board. We want the game to be about playing minions and fighting for board control rather than just waiting until you can play your big combo and win in one turn with no interaction from your opponent.

Emphasis mine.

The actual meat of my above comment is building on that statement, and gave a perspective I've gained from MTG formats such as Modern and Legacy where they've used strategic bannings to limit decks they see as non-interactive or degenerate. MTG does not have the luxury of rebalancing cards, so this is HS's form of changing the environment to diversify the metagame and make it a more welcoming place for new players.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 15, 2014, 06:45:42 AM
I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. The statement that cards are used in a one-turn-kill is what appears in the linked article but not the explanation.

Googling I find that the warrior one-turn-kill is based on having multiple molten giants and/or faceless manipulators with brewmasters to recycle them.  Those hit for 8 and can be deployed for 0.  You then use a brewmaster to recycle them.  That seems like the broken combo and I would rather see Blizzard deal with that (e.g. give Molten Giant a min cost, or limit Brewmaster's ability so it only works on minions with attack < 6) than break all Warrior charge decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 15, 2014, 07:07:14 AM
I'm not trying to be a wiseguy. The statement that cards are used in a one-turn-kill is what appears in the linked article but not the explanation.

The explanation for the nerf, not the explanation of a certain combo.

Quote
Googling I find that the warrior one-turn-kill is based on having multiple molten giants and/or faceless manipulators with brewmasters to recycle them.  Those hit for 8 and can be deployed for 0.  You then use a brewmaster to recycle them.  That seems like the broken combo and I would rather see Blizzard deal with that (e.g. give Molten Giant a min cost, or limit Brewmaster's ability so it only works on minions with attack < 6) than break all Warrior charge decks.

The ability to deploy and redeploy Molten Giants isn't broken. The ability to grant them all Charge at no cost is. If you bounce and replay a Molten Giant 5 times, but it can't attack until next turn, you're no more better off than if you'd just played it. Nerfing Commander and Charge break the combo without breaking other MG control decks.

For 7 mana, with Commander + MG + YBrM x 2 in hand you can deal 30 damage from an empty board (MG 8 + YBrM 3 + MG 8 + YBrM 3 + MG 8 = 30). Unless there's some kind of hand destruction your opponent is doing, it's not that hard to cantrip into that hand. Crafting a situation where you have 10 or fewer life is easier than you think. Sure, it won't happen every game, but the games where it does happen are going to be demoralizing to the opponent, who cannot easily interact on your turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 15, 2014, 03:36:34 PM
click on "show spoiler" to see cards:

http://www.liquidhearth.com/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=575
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 16, 2014, 11:48:53 AM
Haha, nice.

more from the Horse's Mouth: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/12383909/hearthstones-card-balance-philosophy-1-16-2014
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 21, 2014, 02:58:51 PM
Open beta has started:

http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/12440010

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 21, 2014, 03:36:02 PM
And lately I do feel like it is a lot more pay to win.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on January 21, 2014, 03:43:19 PM
How would pay to win work with their matching system?  Or with the arena games?

I agree that I'm losing more often than I expect to lately.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on January 21, 2014, 07:01:36 PM
Constructed is as much Pay to Win as any other digital game I've seen. Arena is where the fun is, for me, since it's a level playing field, for the most part. I do dislike that there is a lot of randomness in it, though, in that you can get crappy card choices for a crappy tier class, where someone else gets Legendaries for a top tier. The Arena drafts ought to be similar in that you always get 1 Legendary, 2 Epic, etc.. There would still be variations in which.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 21, 2014, 07:39:47 PM
How would pay to win work with their matching system?  Or with the arena games?

I agree that I'm losing more often than I expect to lately.

I guess I'm just at a point that when I loose I tent to either loose to a mage or to someone with lots of epics and legendaries (usually rags.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on January 21, 2014, 09:24:41 PM
I think you will win about 50% of your non-arena games whether or not you pay to get a bunch of epic and legendary cards, in the steady state.  But you may feel less in control of your losses if you don't, if that makes sense.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on January 22, 2014, 02:06:44 AM
I think you will win about 50% of your non-arena games whether or not you pay to get a bunch of epic and legendary cards, in the steady state.  But you may feel less in control of your losses if you don't, if that makes sense.

Since the last patch I've had a long losing streak, to the point where the game is not very much fun.  Could be just random chance -- if so, they probably need to adjust their match picker.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 22, 2014, 07:54:03 AM
I do feel like the match picker is not adjusting as quickly as it used to.  I used to resettle in only a hand full of games, now I feel I do much longer streak before it levels out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: ghoselle on January 22, 2014, 08:02:30 AM
I do feel like the match picker is not adjusting as quickly as it used to.  I used to resettle in only a hand full of games, now I feel I do much longer streak before it levels out.

I wish the picker would take in to account what deck I'm playing.  If I'm not playing a deck with 4 legendaries in it, it kind of sucks when I beat because the other guy plays that many.

Or maybe, my decks vary in strength a good bit.  It'd be nice if the matchpicking was including which deck I'm playing in its calculations.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 22, 2014, 08:21:53 AM
If the match-making system had any knowledge of what deck you're playing, how could you properly test a deck against a realistic field?

Ranking mitigates this somewhat, in that you are matched based on previous win record.

I encourage anyone who feels they're losing more to actually take note of wins/losses. The human brain is both more apt to find patterns where there are none (e.g. I'm losing more since the patch.) and more likely to note unexpected results (losses) than expected results (wins, because if you play not expecting to win, why are you playing?). This matches what Marco was talking about.

I don't play nearly as much HS as you guys do, but I've had success banging out dailies with aggro and midrange constructed decks. It's easier to build a consistent deck that wins relatively quickly with the base cards-it's harder to craft a control/slow deck that can compete with the other slow decks if you have fewer legendaries than your opponent.

If you want a cheap control deck, though, there's always the Dr. Draw (http://www.hearthhead.com/deck=25/doctor-draw-(basic-only,-by-top-50-in-north-america-for-constructed-pre-wipe)) style decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 22, 2014, 11:49:34 AM
It's my sense that some of what we're seeing is due to the sparseness of the player base.  I'm definitely at that edge where if I win a few games suddenly I'm facing decks full of legendaries, then I fall back to the level where people don't have so many and I start winning again.  I've also seen videos where people all over the ranked ladder end up playing two or more ranks up or down and are making the claim that there's just nobody online near their rank when they go to play.  Presumably the larger player base will help smooth that out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 22, 2014, 01:28:53 PM
I feel like right at the start of me playing I was winning about 50% of the time, but now I feel like it's not adjusting fast enough or something weird like that.  I was trying to get my quest done today and I don't know how many games I lost.  I still haven't one the two games I needed to.

I also feel like what time of day I play matters a lot (I seem to be able to win more easily on Sunday, for instance), so we might be actually seeing the larger player base meaning that time of day changes the nature of the player pool more substantially.

I almost wonder if they've split the matcher between casual, arena and then the ranked matches you by ranked and part of what I'm seeing is the frustration of switching between the three modes and having the player pool change between times (I no longer play casual often, and I only play arena when I have the gold.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 22, 2014, 10:08:31 PM
Really excellent article on tempo: http://www.liquidhearth.com/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=625

The author equates mana to damage, and talks a lot more about spending mana efficiently than I have in this thread. I still think card advantage and board advantage will gain you more tempo than mana efficiency, but the author does do a good job of explaining why strong vanilla minions like Chillwind Yeti and Boulderfist Ogre are so important to a deck in Arena in relation to mana-damage ratio.

I love the pick priority at the end-it's a lot more useful to bring something like that into an Arena than a pick list. It also helps a newer player begin to abstract cards and value them relative to other types of cards, which is an important skill for when new sets come out. One of the fellows from the Limited Resources (MTG) podcast even goes so far as to randomize the packs used in a draft, so that players don't think too much about the specific draft environment and get better at drafting in general.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on January 27, 2014, 12:03:32 PM
I also feel like what time of day I play matters a lot (I seem to be able to win more easily on Sunday, for instance), so we might be actually seeing the larger player base meaning that time of day changes the nature of the player pool more substantially.

anecdotal experience...

I also noticed this. I played my first arena late at night and went 1-3 on a mage (didn't get a single fireball, arcane explosion, or pyroblast). Then I played a shaman, lost two games in a row. I started playing earlier the next day and won 6 games in a row, ending with a record of 6-3. I started another game late at night, as a shaman again, and went 1-3.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on January 27, 2014, 12:17:16 PM
The arena players are, from my experience, far better at the game than those who play constructed. I've won several constructed games thanks to players making mistakes. I've lost a few arena games based on poor play on my end...and not realizing the coin counts as a spell (which I think is BS). I had a few 5+ winning streaks in constructed using northshire cleric tricks. There's been several times where I've had too many cards (>10).

I think MTG tactics can inform some decisions, but overall the math/strat behind the game is different because there isn't a cleanup phase and you can attack minions directly. All creatures can be "board control," which is something I'm still adjusting to. I feel like drafting MTG is a bit more strategic and less about luck; but I should play more arena before making such conclusions.
Title: Re:
Post by: Ozara on January 27, 2014, 08:34:26 PM
I've also seen a lot more legendary in casual Vs ranked. Granted I am just level 17, so that may change.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 28, 2014, 07:08:34 AM
Dang you guys are way better than I am.  I just had my first 4-3 Arena deck, largely by playing against type.  I played a mage, but loaded up on heavy minions (2 ogres, Ravenholt, and a Faceless that let me clone one of the other heavies). Opponents seemed to expect me to use spells so they wasted a lot of removal on my mid-game minions and had nothing in hand when I dropped the heavies.

Yuins I'm not sure if I have your b.net ID - feel free to snag mine out of the thread if you want to play some friendly matches.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 30, 2014, 08:17:17 AM
I am having a ridiculous amount of fun thrashing people who think they can pay to win.  Ragnaros, faceless, Ysera.  chomp chomp chomp.

Of course in the hands of good players these are game-winners, but it's a sincere pleasure going up against someone who thinks throwing a few orange and purple cards into their deck makes them good and then beating them.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on January 30, 2014, 09:35:44 AM
See? You can beat oranges with basic cards!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 30, 2014, 10:08:40 AM
Back in the bad old days of nettrek we had a saying: "Anything works against twinks."  That said, one of my best decks uses no oranges and only one 1-mana purple.  But these guys remind me of people in WoW who used to buy fully leveled characters on eBay or something and then show up with no idea what buttons to push.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on January 31, 2014, 06:11:23 AM
I've sent you a realid invite, snique.

I've killed two players using oranges I've "thought steal" from them on my priest. Most recently using Leeroy Jenkins. I was lucky to pull a rags from a pack, so don't hate on me ;)

My arena score was 3-2 last night, which wasn't bad considering my pulls. I've played against some amazing druid decks in arena that I deserve to lost to. I'm going to try a new strat tonight and see how it works out.

I've also been putting together a shaman swarm deck with cards that buff minons (Raid Leaders, Flame Tongue, etc.) coupled with blood lust for the kill. I won two games in casual in a row with it last night, but my opponents played poorly so I'm not sure how I feel about the deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 31, 2014, 07:45:31 AM
I play with a bloodlust deck, though I don't use raid leader.  I actually stack a little bit for cards that give multi minions (violet instructor, silver hand knight.)  My biggest issues with my deck is it's not a zerg deck and not particularity strong in the end game, so I tend to have the worst of both worlds.  I've been considering removing one of my bloodlusts for something a little more powerful for end game.   I should possibly also swap in a young priestess.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 31, 2014, 03:04:09 PM
Got it Yuins.

I hate Thoughtsteal.  It always seems to get my best cards while I'm drawing useless crap.

I've tried shaman swarm but it's hard to keep the swarm alive long enough to be useful against anyone clueful. I gave up on the swarm in favor of shaman-frostwolf.  I can usually get a 7/7 sometimes an 8/8 this way.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Vylin on February 03, 2014, 07:13:19 AM
Just started playing this over the weekend once I heard it was open Beta. Its a pretty fun little card game. I'm a total noob, but its still pretty cool when the RNG gods are nice and everything lines of perfectly. The daily quests also seem pretty well designed, I just wish there were more of them. I don't have time to win enough games to max out the 100gp/day, but I'd like to keep getting card packs a little more regularly.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 03, 2014, 07:44:44 AM
Vylin feel free to send me a realID if I don't already have yours.  I'll try to help.

There are several (currently hidden) quests in the game that you can do to get gold/packs.  For example, you get your first Arena entry for free and even if you go 0-3 you get a pack.  There are gold/pack rewards for leveling one character up, for leveling all, for getting all the basic cards, etc.  All these can be done against the trainer at whatever pace works for you.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Vylin on February 03, 2014, 07:51:53 AM
Cool, will do. I can't recall my RealID offhand, but I'll update in this thread once I get home and figure it out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 03, 2014, 08:02:08 AM
In the land of disgusting plays, I recently lost to someone playing holy wrath (http://hearthstone.wikia.com/wiki/Holy_Wrath) and getting lucky enough to get a molten giant.  20 points of direct spell damage for 5 mana.

Then I bought a guy who faceless manipulatored his rags, so I had TWO rags plinking at me.  That game went down hill fast.

I've switched this month from shaman to hunter because release the hounds is gross (when paired with the buzzard, the hyena or the timber wolf) in a way that makes me thinking about playing more than with shaman.  I'm much more enjoying the games because I have to be so more thoughtful about what I play and when.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 04, 2014, 05:48:53 AM
I played that guy (or that deck) last season.  Fortunately I was playing Rogue so I used Betrayal to have one of his Rags kill the other, then I assassinated the other one.  Wish I could've heard the other guy cussing.

Separately, what do people think about creating a Hearthstone forum here? We seem to have a set of Cupcakes who play and more coming.  This thread is up to 7 pages long.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on February 04, 2014, 08:48:51 AM
I played that guy (or that deck) last season.  Fortunately I was playing Rogue so I used Betrayal to have one of his Rags kill the other, then I assassinated the other one.  Wish I could've heard the other guy cussing.

Separately, what do people think about creating a Hearthstone forum here? We seem to have a set of Cupcakes who play and more coming.  This thread is up to 7 pages long.

I've encountered more legendaries now that the rankings have reset. In response, I've swapped in two mind controls on my priest deck; although when someone drops 4 in one game this isn't very effective.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 04, 2014, 09:29:43 AM
Separately, what do people think about creating a Hearthstone forum here? We seem to have a set of Cupcakes who play and more coming.  This thread is up to 7 pages long.

I'm keeping an eye on the flow of activity on the thread-if it gets to unmanageable I will create another forum.

I just want to avoid the issue we've had with SW and D3 forums dying.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Vylin on February 04, 2014, 10:36:04 AM
Thus far I've noticed (and I didn't get to play any last night due to getting caught up with Walking Dead), that everyone picks Rogues and Priests along with Mages and a splattering of Priests. I think I've played 1 Shaman too. Are the other classes no good or is it that people at the Noob level just haven't unlocked much?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 04, 2014, 10:51:06 AM
I think it's just clumpy.  I don't see that many rogues when I play.  I see lots of mages, warriors, paladins and druids lately (I didn't see any druids at first.)   At this point, though, I don't think there's any one class that I feel no one plays.  Though if I do see a warlock, it's often a merlock deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 04, 2014, 11:09:07 AM
For those of you who were frustrated with the basic card set and felt like you had to buy packs, I've been quite enjoying my current hunter build which only has a handful of non-basic cards and they're common (unleash the hounds being the most critical of those, scavenging hyena being the second.)   It wasn't my intention to build the deck out of basic cards, just ended up that way.

I can't say I'm wiping the floor with it (I'm still only rank 19/20) but it feels as good as my shaman deck with a whole lot more rare and epic cards in it.  I also like it because it requires me to think a lot harder than my shaman deck does. 

So if you feel you have to pay to win, level a hunter to 10 and give a hunter beast deck a try.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 04, 2014, 11:10:45 AM
Thus far I've noticed (and I didn't get to play any last night due to getting caught up with Walking Dead), that everyone picks Rogues and Priests along with Mages and a splattering of Priests. I think I've played 1 Shaman too. Are the other classes no good or is it that people at the Noob level just haven't unlocked much?

This is probably a case where the playerbase is influenced by statistics. You've probably run into cases of this in PvP FotM situations-some streamer says "Priest is the best" and then everyone plays priest. It could be that "best" is defined by 1 or 2 percentage points, but the statistics websites see show a much wider margin in classes played.

This is probably why Nate Silver didn't publicly call the Super Bowl.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on February 04, 2014, 01:42:02 PM
Thus far I've noticed (and I didn't get to play any last night due to getting caught up with Walking Dead), that everyone picks Rogues and Priests along with Mages and a splattering of Priests. I think I've played 1 Shaman too. Are the other classes no good or is it that people at the Noob level just haven't unlocked much?
Does everyone start as a mage?  If you finish the tutorial with a level 5 mage and everyone else at level 0, then more new players would play mage.

I started as a mage and switched to rogue because it has a slightly less offensive (to me) female avatar.  People picking a class based on the pictures on the screen or WoW history may be biased toward certain characters.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 04, 2014, 01:51:28 PM
She conjured a blizzard, but led you out of it?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on February 04, 2014, 03:46:05 PM
She conjured a blizzard, but led you out of it?
She was just so proud of her king.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 05, 2014, 03:51:19 AM
I think there is a tendency (esp among new players) toward heroes that have obvious "things to do": rogue, warrior, paladin, mage. I still find priest hardest to play, though my priest deck is coming along nicely now. My shaman deck went nowhere until I crafted two spirit wolves (rares) for it.  I think that's one of the best cards in the game right now and a great illustration of why many guides advise 2/3s over 3/2s.

I agree with Heidi that many of the female images in the game are outright offensive, particularly the warrior-class minions.  BEWBS!  BEWBS I TELL YOU, BEWBS!  *sigh*

Ranked play right after a reset is likely to get you a lot of orange-heavy opponents.  I don't mind because you can't lose stars for the first few ranks anyway and sometimes I can beat their Rags.  I will usually play a class with one-card or two-card removal (shaman, mage, warrior, rogue) to give me a better shot at these things.  I am also thinking of crafting a Big Game Hunter except that doesn't work against either Hogger or Ysera, both of which I find very powerful.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Vylin on February 06, 2014, 04:29:54 AM
I haven't really played much of Hearthstone this week due to other things going on, but I'm going to try and get some more games in this weekend. My RealID is warpedacorn#1238.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 06, 2014, 05:21:13 AM
Sent you a friend request. My tag is in the battlenet tags thread in these forums.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: bleunienn on February 06, 2014, 01:29:34 PM
I agree with Heidi that many of the female images in the game are outright offensive

And there aren't enough of them.  Or at least I'm disappointed that of N heroes, only two are women.  I mean, Anduin is the priest hero?  Really?




Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on February 06, 2014, 06:21:08 PM
Just got 8 wins in arena - lots of gold and one pack. My new strat was just to ignore the mana curve and take what I thought was best. It worked out pretty well. Shadowform was amazing. 
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 07, 2014, 07:24:59 AM
DOOD!  8 is fantastic, congrats.  4-3 is my best so far.  I am a little hesitant to ignore the mana curve entirely but I am willing to distort things a bit when the choices I get are clearly inferior/ridiculous.  I still don't understand why murloc or pirate cards EVER appear in drafts.  And if you take a character with no weapons why do you get minions that are based on weapons?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 07, 2014, 07:43:10 AM
And if you take a character with no weapons why do you get minions that are based on weapons?

Because the game can't do all the thinking for you. There need to be decisions in the draft that demonstrate the player's mastery (even if only to him or herself), or there would be no compulsion to refine that mastery. A player who picks a pirate card but has no weapons in his deck needs to be able to learn that that was a suboptimal decision.

For further reading, When Good Cards Go Bad (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5) is a classic (also long) MTG design article that explains why "bad" cards need to exist. The concepts are, of course, not specific to MTG. It also explains why MTG puts bad cards at rare, which is the same reason Angry Chicken and Ancient Watcher are Rare.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 10, 2014, 06:45:59 AM
Apparently I have a lot to learn.  I've hit some kind of massive skid lately.  I'm 3-19 in casual recently (I didn't count the one win where the other guy quit on turn 4).  I seem to have moved into another tier of opponents where I'm hitting people with substantially better decks.  One of those losses I counted the other guy playing 11 rare or better cards in a row and most opponents seem to have at least 2 oranges per deck.

Grinding out today's 7 wins is going to be... painful.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 10, 2014, 07:55:50 AM
You don't have enough cards/dust to make the legendaries you need yet? You seem to play a lot, and if not, then I fear for the economy of the game.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on February 10, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
Last night, playing casual unranked, was the first time I encountered a deck with a ridiculous amount of legendaries. He must have played 10 or more throughout the game. I did okay until the very end, but I simply ran out of removal and such. I don't like it when I run into a deck like that in casual, as I feel it belongs more in ranked play, but I get the idea of testing it out or whatever first. A game takes a few minutes to play, so it isn't a huge investment wasted.

But yeah, it makes me realize I will likely never play ranked. I have maybe 4 legendaries, and they're none of them really good ones. I have trouble just getting the rares I need.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on February 10, 2014, 11:46:15 AM
And if you take a character with no weapons why do you get minions that are based on weapons?

Because the game can't do all the thinking for you. There need to be decisions in the draft that demonstrate the player's mastery (even if only to him or herself), or there would be no compulsion to refine that mastery. A player who picks a pirate card but has no weapons in his deck needs to be able to learn that that was a suboptimal decision.

For further reading, When Good Cards Go Bad (https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5) is a classic (also long) MTG design article that explains why "bad" cards need to exist. The concepts are, of course, not specific to MTG. It also explains why MTG puts bad cards at rare, which is the same reason Angry Chicken and Ancient Watcher are Rare.

I'd agree that the article applicable to Hearthstone, but power creep has created such a rift between good and bad cards in MTG that it just became not worth playing anything other than sealed/draft for me. Hearthstone's arena has revealed to me cards that have a lot of potential for drafting, like that 3 drop undead creature that gets +1/+1 every time a minion dies.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 10, 2014, 11:54:22 AM
yeah, part of why I don't mind loosing in arena (which I've been doing a lot of lately) is that it forces me out of my box to try new cards and heroes.  I'm sometimes really surprised by how cards will interact.   I would love to say I'm learning a lot, but I'm only learning slowly.
 
like that 3 drop undead creature that gets +1/+1 every time a minion dies.

It only gets +1/0, but it's when anyone's minion dies.

http://www.hearthpwn.com/cards/610-flesheating-ghoul
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on February 10, 2014, 12:03:41 PM
You don't have enough cards/dust to make the legendaries you need yet? You seem to play a lot, and if not, then I fear for the economy of the game.
My experience has been that casual players can't craft cards.  I think I managed to craft one when I first started playing, and since then I've saved up about 40 dust.  I see how this is incentive to buy cards and dust them, but it would be nice to feel like it's possible to be competitive (even if at a lower level) without paying for decks.

Having an ability like crafting which is effectively only open to paying players changes my attitude toward the game.

Does this game even have an economy?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on February 10, 2014, 12:21:45 PM
My experience has been that casual players can't craft cards.  I think I managed to craft one when I first started playing, and since then I've saved up about 40 dust.  I see how this is incentive to buy cards and dust them, but it would be nice to feel like it's possible to be competitive (even if at a lower level) without paying for decks.

Having an ability like crafting which is effectively only open to paying players changes my attitude toward the game.

Does this game even have an economy?

With no way to trade cards or resources, no. It's strictly what you earn/purchase for yourself. There's definitely the drive to get people to purchase cards. However, the game is still fun for me to play Arena in.. I have found it fairly easy to complete the quests each day, earning me sufficient gold to have Arena available whenever I want. The packs from my Arena wins slowly increase my card and dust collection. It will never compete with those who have 10-15 legendaries in their decks, but it's still fun to me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Vylin on February 10, 2014, 12:30:00 PM
I've been caught up in both Civ 5 and Skyrim and haven't had the time to sit down with Hearthstone lately, but this talk about casual players being outclassed by those with "better" cards is disheartening. P2W is probably the worst insult you can lob at an online game these days, but its almost sounding a bit like Hearthstone is heading in that direction. Although, I kinda like Varyl's idea of just going for Arena matches where the deck can't get stacked against you (pun intended).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 10, 2014, 01:13:09 PM
Depends on what you mean by competitive.    I'm still finding my common/basic hunter deck enjoyable, but I'm only rank ~17 which is nothing terribly amazing.

It would be interesting to actually see what the highest ranked decks look like.   There are posts about people bragging about low legendary decks, but it would be nice to see the data.

I think the game is still fun unless you want to be legendary ranked.  I will admit I find it less fun to lose against someone who has stacked his deck with legendaries (though some are lame,  I've seen people lose with Leroy as much as win.)   And I'm actually not putting them in my deck because I'd rather lose more than win with cheese.

To tell the truth, I can't tell you if it's P2W or not because I don't play at the top ranks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 11, 2014, 05:14:13 AM
You don't have enough cards/dust to make the legendaries you need yet? You seem to play a lot, and if not, then I fear for the economy of the game.

I've never had enough dust to make a legendary (1600). I've crafted a handful of rares and I'm sitting on a bit north of 250 dust right now. There are a few more rares I'd like to have (Argent Commander and that OP paladin sword that gives five minions +1/+1 being near the top of my list) so I might make those. Part of it is that I play nine different decks, none of them all that good.  My best deck has no oranges and only one cheap purple.  I've gotten Cenarius and Jaraxxus from packs and have fun with them, but neither is game-changing.

I bought two packs of cards so I could get the special reward card; all my other cards and dust have come from gold and arena rewards. I don't think you can say that Hearthstone has an "economy" as such.

In other news I hit a good run with my rogue deck and improved from 3-19 to 19-24 in the past couple days. I'm playing closer to .500 now.

I wonder how geographically distributed your opponents are. Based solely on the names of the players I would guess I was seeing people from Italy and China around noon Eastern.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 11, 2014, 05:16:41 AM
It would be interesting to actually see what the highest ranked decks look like.  

http://www.hearthpwn.com/ often has links to deck lists.  Obviously you don't see season high decks until the season is over, but you can often see what decks won arena-type tournaments and sometimes other tournaments people enter with crafted decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 11, 2014, 07:39:52 AM
I don't think you can say that Hearthstone has an "economy" as such.

I was referring to the income of dusting unneeded cards and from Arenas versus the cost of dust to craft competitive cards. It's more a PvE economy than, say, the AH. I didn't realize it was so expensive to get Legendaries.

However, I do hope you could find a deck type you like, craft a few rares or epics for that deck, and play it competitively in Casual. If you can't, then, like Yuins and I, Constructed just isn't for you. I'd stick with Arena.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on February 11, 2014, 08:13:29 AM
You'll never really know if you're playing casual mode "competitively," since it's matchmade and the MMR is hidden.  You're always going to see players with legendaries you don't have; presumably they are worse players if they're at your MMR with better cards.  If you get a big losing streak, that could be bad luck (coin flips are pretty streaky) or it could be an effect of different player pools play at different times of day or week.

Ranked mode is also matchmade in a sense since you are matched against other players of similar rank, and you can see what rank you're at.  But there are weird effects there: each month the ranks reset, throwing the matchmaking system into temporary disarray, and during the month players are being steadily siphoned out of the top into the legendary pool, drawing other players upwards.

You can't stick to arena exclusively (without paying money) because it costs gold to play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 11, 2014, 09:27:48 AM
Yeah, I do play Arenas as often as gold allows.  That's usually once per two days unless I get very lucky.  My arena runs tend to be 3-3 or 4-3 these days which often nets me some extra gold or dust. Plus I'm dusting most of the cards from the reward packs these days; I'm up to 460 dust currently and considering whether I want to craft one expensive card or sprinkle a few more rares over the decks I'm currently using.

As a purely self-congratulatory aside: there's not much more better for restoring one's ego than beating a deck where someone played Ragnaros, then Deathwing, then Ysera in a row, followed by thrashing some cookie-cutter warlock-murloc deck.  Both with my warrior deck that has 4 blues and 1 purple in it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on February 11, 2014, 12:49:48 PM
You can't stick to arena exclusively (without paying money) because it costs gold to play.

I'd disagree with this. I think it depends on how many matches a day you want to play, since I manage to do Arena consistently without paying anything. Between daily quests, and Arena rewards, I've had no trouble building up to ~1500 gold.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 12, 2014, 06:48:48 AM
Although Arena games do count for quest requirements if you happen to line those up, it's likely that you need to do other casual or ranked games to fulfill quest requirements.

Congrats on your 1500 gold.  I've rarely had more than 250 at a time, which I then tend to dump on a pack and an arena. I haven't seen a reason to hold onto gold, and my performance isn't good enough to get me as much gold per arena run as it costs to enter.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 12, 2014, 07:08:50 AM
Never buy packs! Always Arena!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on February 12, 2014, 07:48:16 AM
Why?  Isn't that a lot like flushing gold down the toilet if you're not good at arena stuff?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 12, 2014, 08:06:15 AM
Besides the fact that doing something and failing makes you better at it, so you will start winning, Getting 4 wins in Arena is very likely worth more than buying a pack and a half.

http://arenamastery.com/sitewide.php?date=10

This shows that, on average, you receive 66 gold and 1 pack for 4 wins, which is more return on your 150 gold investment than a pack and a half. 3 wins gets you 41 gold and a pack, which is only a loss of 9 gold, and you both got better at Arena and had fun.

6 wins gets you a second pack for your 50 gold increased investment, but when you get to around 7 wins, your next arena is free! You don't even need to get 9-12 wins to go infinite, just a 70% win rate.

And again, the more you attempt arena, trying and failing, the better you get.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on February 12, 2014, 08:19:53 AM
If you are advising all Hearthstone players, you cannot assume that they will all get to an average of 4:3 or better, because that's mathematically impossible.  Experienced players may average better than 3:3 because of new players coming in, but the global long-term average is necessarily going to be 3:3.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 12, 2014, 08:25:41 AM
I almost never get 3:3.  I don't know if that's my horrible draft picks or what, but lately (didn't used to be true) I leave the arena with 1 win. 

I'm really sad they changed the pricing so pack != arena any more.  It was nice to know I wasn't losing anything thing even if I failed miserably.

That being said, I still always use my gold on arena, because I enjoy it, so losing ~20-40 gold to play is worth it to me.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 12, 2014, 08:33:30 AM
If you are advising all Hearthstone players, you cannot assume that they will all get to an average of 4:3 or better, because that's mathematically impossible.  Experienced players may average better than 3:3 because of new players coming in, but the global long-term average is necessarily going to be 3:3.

I'm advising those who care enough to post on a forum and ask how they can improve.

EDIT: Also, Cree is right. If it's worth the 20-40 gold in lost value to do an arena, then that's way better than 20-40% of a pack of cards you may not use.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 12, 2014, 09:43:08 AM
Here's an anecdote on why I play arena: I just rolled a deck with 5 "release the hounds" cards.  I'm curious to see how the deck plays out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 13, 2014, 05:29:35 AM
I hope you got a crow and a hyena with those hounds.  That's becoming the new standard hunter deck, which amuses me as it's the deck I built.

I also put charging boars into that deck and drop them immediately after a hyena.  Usually there's something of the other guy's on the board I can run them into, which gives me a 4/3 minion for 3 mana.  It's a loss of cards but a 4/3 with snowball possibilities is scary enough people will usually stop what they're doing to try and kill it.

I had my first-ever 5-3 arena run last night and got 75g out of it.  I think that predicting average gold payout might be tricky because there seems to be a RNG element.  It appears you always get a pack, then a second thing, which is usually some gold.  After 4 wins you get a 3rd "thing" which is sometimes gold, sometimes dust, and sometimes a single card.  The amount of stuff in the third "thing" seems to go up as you get more wins.  I'm not sure where the breakpoint is to get a 4th "thing" except I'm not that good.

The deck should never have done that well - I got zero polymorphs offered to me and no minions with silence.  I got one purple with such bad choices I had to take the 3/3 pirate.  My only "big guy" options were a sea giant and a ravenholt.  On the other hand, I got to play the sea giant on turn 4 against a weenie deck, which was kind of funny.

As to "why buy packs" - mostly so I had enough cards to win casual games for quest rewards. I did the 2-packs-for-cash thing to get the reward card. Now that I've gotten a lot of what I need I'm not buying any more packs, and I'm dusting much of what comes out of the arena packs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 13, 2014, 08:33:21 PM
I had my first-ever 5-3 arena run last night and got 75g out of it.  I think that predicting average gold payout might be tricky because there seems to be a RNG element. 

I think you misunderstood my post. The site I linked says, on average, 5 wins will get you 81g and a pack, plus some dust. Which is more than your 150g entry in value, if you were going to buy a pack for 100g (so an Arena is 1 pack + 50g to enter). 75g for 5 wins is lower than the average, but not that much lower, and 75g +  pack is still more than your entry fee.

And I emphatically disagree that predicting an average with a huge data set is tricky just because the numbers are randomly generated. The tricky part is being okay with the fact that your actual outcome may be higher or lower than the average.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 16, 2014, 03:43:48 AM
This is one for the books.  I wish I'd been recording it.  Me mage against casual druid.  I had a lot of crappy draws and the game dragged on.  Eventually he has me 21-16 and he drops Ragnaros, which blasts one of my mirror images.  So I Pyroblasted it.

Then the bastard dropped Ysera.  I dropped a Gurubashi zerker, plinked it to enrage it, and a wee little Sorcerer's Apprentice.  Still not enough to take down 12-health Ysera, but getting there.

Then he drops TWO Faceless Manipulators and copies Ysera.  So I'm facing 3x Ysera and he's got to be laughing his ass off.

So I plink the zerker again, bringing it up to 8 attack, hit him in the face with that, two fireballs, and finish him off with the 3-attack Apprentice.  Gnomes FTW!  Pay-to-win ftl.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 21, 2014, 06:19:05 AM
For those tired of pay-to-win there are now fairly regular "limited" tournaments in which peoples' decks cannot contain lots of top-end cards.  Some forbid any purples or oranges at all.  Hearthpwn has some decklists of the winners at a recent Limited format tourney:
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/342-low-budget-tournament-decklists-managrinds-friday

You'll see that Argent Commander, Defender of Argus, and Azure Drake remain extremely popular.  But these all seem like eminently approachable decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 11, 2014, 05:48:48 AM
hearthpwn.com is claiming that this is the last beta season and first live season will be in April.

Today's patch introduces a couple minor changes (Tinkmaster gets a small buff, Nat Pagle gets a big nerf) and a change to ranking resets: your starting rank at the beginning of each season will be increased based on  your performance in the previous season.  The listed starting ranks go up to Rank 17 for people who were #1 in the previous season.

I view this as a good change.  Each season I tend to stay out of ranked play for a couple weeks until the people with craptons of legendaries sort themselves out and I can play comparably powered ranked decks. I am sad that one of the few legendaries I own got nerfed but I see the reasoning.

Also, I need to (re)learn how to play druid arena.  I went 0-3, 2-3, 0-3 with my last three druid arenas.  Feh.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ungrimmar on March 11, 2014, 08:23:53 AM
In arenas, do you end up facing other arena decks with as many wins as you or is it all random arena opponents? I keep having this problem where I go 2-0 and finish 2-3, I'm not sure if I just got lucky on the first 2 wins or if I'm facing 3 mages in a row at that point because mage decks are winnars! and they pair winning decks against each other?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on March 11, 2014, 08:56:47 AM
In arenas, do you end up facing other arena decks with as many wins as you or is it all random arena opponents?
Developers have said that the arena puts you up against opponents with similar win records to your own.  I think the current working theory is that this is only the win record within your current arena, not a long-term win record.  So it's kind of a crap shoot initially, but you should expect to get harder opponents if you're 2-0 than when you're 0-2.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 11, 2014, 12:59:56 PM
I have the same experience - facing more skilled opponents after a few wins, generally.  Not much you can do about crappy draws though (after a full mulligan you draw 4-6-4 mana cost cards and your next draws are 8-6-4 by which time it's gg).

I got to noodle in a couple games this afternoon after the patch. It looks like they added a bunch more animations. The pop-up only says that Nat Pagle got changed so I'm wondering if they reverted the Tinkmaster change for some reason.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 12, 2014, 06:59:59 AM
Apparently the game is now "live".  Other than adding in the WoW reward mount I'm not sure what effect this has.  There's a new start-up hint that says you get a season card back for achieving rank 20 in a given season.... *yawn* and you get gold hero decorations for 500 ranked wins with a given hero... *yawn*.

To me this smells suspiciously like Blizzard has figured out the vast majority of people don't give a rat's ass about ranked play and they're afraid of having too small a player base there.  On the other hand I don't know what they can do to add a meaningful motivation to play ranked because the top players are already pay-to-win stocked on all possible cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 12, 2014, 07:50:56 AM
If you don't care about the cosmetic changes you earn for achieving a certain rank, don't strive for them. That's opinion.

If you think that offering a visible cosmetic change doesn't successfully motivate F2P players to play that game type, you are wrong. That is a fact. Ask Riot-they'll answer you when they wade through the piles of money they have from selling completely cosmetic skins.

Stop complaining about Pay-To-Win. Either stop playing constructed, accept that you'll lose to a Legendary you don't have, or start paying. Constructed players who are willing to dish out money or who get lucky in their pulls from blind packs are always going to have an edge on players who don't invest that money. It's not 100% certain, as HS is still a game of luck and skill, but the edge exists in every CCG that ever got past the planning stages. If HS were $90 in box sales plus $15/month subscription like WoW, you could argue that you pay as much as anyone else, so you deserve a fair shake. The only reason HS exists as a fully-realized F2P project put out by a publicly-traded, for-profit company is because it can prove profitability.

It's not all doom and gloom. There will always be a Dr. Draw/Beast swarm/RDW/White Weenie style deck that uses common or cheap cards to achieve a better-than-50% win rate. But those decks also lose 40+% of the time, often to decks that are stocked with expensive cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 12, 2014, 12:43:11 PM
What makes you think I'm complaining about pay-to-win? I just think it's inevitable in this kind of game.

That aside, what I was saying is "If you think there are too few players in ranked, what can you offer them to participate?" I think that card backs are unexciting - you just don't see them much, unlike a cosmetic gear effect in an RPG.

Golden heroes might be more exciting - a lot depends on whether it's just a border or whether you get a cool animation like golden cards do - but at 500 wins to get them it's a long way off and a lot of work that doesn't seem very significant. But on the gripping hand, I don't have a better idea right now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 12, 2014, 01:15:17 PM
What makes you think I'm complaining about pay-to-win? I just think it's inevitable in this kind of game.

On the other hand I don't know what they can do to add a meaningful motivation to play ranked because the top players are already pay-to-win stocked on all possible cards.

That's what I'm talking about. The top players are using a lot of legendaries, but that doesn't mean they paid an inordinate amount of money for them-you can earn a lot of packs in Arena with minimal monetary investment if you are very skilled at it. yes, money is one route, but it's actually a lot easier to "go infinite (http://www.starcitygames.com/article/25408_Beginners-Guide-To-Going-Infinite-On-Magic-Online.html)" in Arena than on, say, Magic Online.

For those tired of pay-to-win there are now fairly regular "limited" tournaments in which peoples' decks cannot contain lots of top-end cards.

And that (http://www.deadlycupcakes.org/forums/index.php?topic=3289.msg45348;topicseen#msg45348). You seem to be talking about a perceived injustice (I'm tired of losing to those who paid to win, you may be, too, to paraphrase) where there is actually only by-design inequality. The player who spends $0 and a casual amount of time playing the game will hopefully lose to the player who invests more resources (time and money) into the game more often than not*. Winning regularly is the reward for investment into the game. Any game where those two types of players each have an equivalent chance to win certeris parabus is just a coin flip. How many Coin Flip fans do you know of?



I don't think the HS folks believe there are too few people playing ranked, unless you can find a blue post to that effect. They're offering a reward to those who want to invest in Ranked play above and beyond internet numbers. A more permanent reward for winning in Ranked before ladder resets is the perfect type of reward.

*"More often than not" can be anywhere from 51% win rate to 80+% win rate, but by no means is it ever 100% win rate. Because there is no public ELO in HS yet, nor will there ever be a public statistic for how much a player has spent on the game, it's impossible to see just how much more valuable buying all the cards is compared to practicing the game. There is comfort in knowing that sometimes the Gnome deck of no legendaries can beat the god draw of a legendaried-out opponent (http://www.deadlycupcakes.org/forums/index.php?topic=3289.msg45288;topicseen#msg45288).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Aviel on March 13, 2014, 10:18:35 AM
Just started playing... can we trade cards yet? I am guessing no.
I want to play my Paladin deck, but I keep getting warlock and mage cards. :p
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 13, 2014, 10:24:18 AM
There is no trading in HS. You can DE cards to get dust and craft other cards from your dust.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 13, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
I actually think the lack of trading is one of the best aspects of the game, along with the crafting. I'm at the point where I dust 80% or more of my winnings but at least I can make some blues and purples I want.

I'll reply once to Edalia and after that we'll agree to disagree.  I think you misread me. While I admit that it's mathematically possible that people who play decks stacked with oranges got that way by luck I find it vanishingly unlikely. You buy packs, dust the crap, and either get or make the oranges. The power level of these cards is such that a single one can easily tip the balance between two players of equal skill, and playing a deck stacked with them gives one a significant advantage even against a more skilled player. That's more or less the definition of "pay to win": a person can use cash to overcome a skill deficit.  It's got zip-all nothing to do with coin flipping.

I posted a link to a limited tournament in response to someone (Thana?) who was unhappy about playing constructed but coming up against people who had more powerful cards.  I haven't myself played any tournaments, but if I do I might try a limited format.

Quote
I don't think the HS folks believe there are too few people playing ranked, unless you can find a blue post to that effect. They're offering a reward to those who want to invest in Ranked play above and beyond internet numbers. A more permanent reward for winning in Ranked before ladder resets is the perfect type of reward.

The evidence in front of me is that when I play ranked my wait times are much longer than Arena or casual, and more often than not I'm matched against someone who is up to 3 ranks different from me. Also, watching commentaries on YouTube from some of the top ranked players in earlier seasons I heard a great deal of comment about the paucity of opponents.

Furthermore, I reason that as a game designer you put in a reward to get people to do something they're not doing based on the current reward system. Since Blizzard is putting in extra rewards to encourage Ranked play it seems uncontroversial to assume that they think people need to be encouraged in that direction.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 13, 2014, 01:26:55 PM

The evidence in front of me is that when I play ranked my wait times are much longer than Arena or casual, and more often than not I'm matched against someone who is up to 3 ranks different from me.

That's weird because I almost always play someone my rank or one rank below or above me and usually only if I'm at 0 or max stars.

I don't remember the last time I played someone more than one rank different that I was.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 13, 2014, 03:26:12 PM
I'll reply once to Edalia and after that we'll agree to disagree.  I think you misread me. While I admit that it's mathematically possible that people who play decks stacked with oranges got that way by luck I find it vanishingly unlikely. You buy packs, dust the crap, and either get or make the oranges. The power level of these cards is such that a single one can easily tip the balance between two players of equal skill, and playing a deck stacked with them gives one a significant advantage even against a more skilled player. That's more or less the definition of "pay to win": a person can use cash to overcome a skill deficit.
 

If that's your definition of "pay to win," then I suppose I did misread you. It sounded like you thought that players being able to mitigate luck and gain an edge where skill is lacking through money was a bad thing.

I have tried numerous times in this thread to state delicately this next point, but I will make it more targeted:

You (Snique) are losing games and arenas more than you'd like to, as you report. This is not because other players invest more money into the game. You complain about the bad beats. You're frustrated because X card you don't have is OP.

This is what is called Results-Oriented Thinking (http://pokerterms.com/results-oriented-thinking.html), and it loses people money at the poker tables every single day. It doesn't matter that you made a decision and the result was bad (I played X card for the win but the villain played Y Legendary and beat me!)-it matters that the decision you made was the right one for the right reasons regardless of the result.

I see that you're frustrated, and I want to help you get better at this game you clearly enjoy. You need to shift your focus from the results to the decision. You need to identify mistakes and learn from them. Playing a 4th 2-toughness creature into a board against a Paladin with a grip full of cards needs to be taken as a decision point. What is the likelihood the Paladin has Consecration? Did you need the 4th Minion to hit the board or would it have been okay to save it and pop your hero power instead? Are you drawing out the second Consecrate you know he has? Things like that. I'm not saying you need complex poker-like analytics, just a framework to judge your decisions and identify your focus points.

Quote
It's got zip-all nothing to do with coin flipping.

If you'd like, I can elaborate on the Coin Flip analogy later, but I don't think you understood my meaning. I simply said that players do not become mentally invested in a game that has close to even odds, no matter the player's skill or resource investment, e.g. War.

Quote
I posted a link to a limited tournament in response to someone (Thana?) who was unhappy about playing constructed but coming up against people who had more powerful cards.  I haven't myself played any tournaments, but if I do I might try a limited format.

Arena is a Limited format tournament that you've tried. It is also one where no player can pay more than any other to gain a non-skill-based advantage. Obviously a player can invest time and money into more Arena practice, but the cards are the cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 14, 2014, 08:54:05 AM
If that's your definition of "pay to win," then I suppose I did misread you. It sounded like you thought that players being able to mitigate luck and gain an edge where skill is lacking through money was a bad thing.

It is a bad thing, in the abstract. If a game claims to match two people based on skill and winning is a function of that skill match, then introducing a deliberate bias in favor of people who invest money rather than improving their skills is, imo, a bad thing.  There's always some bias - someone has a less-laggy net connection, or a high-priced gaming PC, but those are not per se the game's fault. In a game where the basic elements of the game are purchasable it's inevitable.

Quote
You (Snique) are losing games and arenas more than you'd like to, as you report. This is not because other players invest more money into the game. You complain about the bad beats. You're frustrated because X card you don't have is OP.

Yes, and no. Of course I'd like to win more, but relatively few of my losses these days are to orange-stacked decks. I take steps to minimize my exposure to such decks. There are a few games I would have won based on quality of play but lost due to specific cards coming up, often oranges. Those annoy  me, but I accept that it's inevitable given the game.

Quote
This is what is called Results-Oriented Thinking (http://pokerterms.com/results-oriented-thinking.html), and it loses people money at the poker tables every single day. It doesn't matter that you made a decision and the result was bad (I played X card for the win but the villain played Y Legendary and beat me!)-it matters that the decision you made was the right one for the right reasons regardless of the result.

Sure.  You play the hand you're dealt (or draw or mulligan).  One of the reasons I went 0-3 in my second druid arena was that I mulliganed into 6-4-6 then topdecked 8-6-4 by which time the game was effectively over. That's just the luck of the draw.

Quote
You need to shift your focus from the results to the decision.

Sure (though I'm at the point where I don't know how to improve much more).  Like I said, I have to re-learn druid arena because somewhere along the way I seem to have lost it.  When I draft Arena I keep three rating pages open and check them before picking my cards.  My best run was 8-3 but I've not been able to duplicate that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 14, 2014, 10:41:14 AM
It is a bad thing, in the abstract. If a game claims to match two people based on skill and winning is a function of that skill match, then introducing a deliberate bias in favor of people who invest money rather than improving their skills is, imo, a bad thing.

Emphasis mine, and I think this is where you are incorrect and the exact point at which we have to disagree. You have it backwards. Matchmaking uses win %, a quantitative value*, as the metric to determine matches, not relative player skill, which is a qualitative concept. Win % is a function of luck, skill, and money, so it's a decent estimation of relative player skill, but it is calculated.

Quote
Sure.  You play the hand you're dealt (or draw or mulligan).  One of the reasons I went 0-3 in my second druid arena was that I mulliganed into 6-4-6 then topdecked 8-6-4 by which time the game was effectively over. That's just the luck of the draw.

No, ROT is not simply "play the hand you're dealt." HS is not nearly as "solved" as poker from a percentage standpoint, but I don't know how much you know about poker to give a specific example. Here (http://www.onlinegamblingsites.com/poker/results-oriented-thinking/) is a decent column on it without too much poker talk. At least read the first paragraph or so, it's a better example than my previous definition. Folding 63o is always a good decision, since you are going to lose something like 93 times out of 100**. If you see that you would have won if you'd kept in the hand, then the next time the decision comes up you think "maybe I should call and stay in," that's ROT and it makes you a weaker player.

Say every time you play Hellfire and get 4 or more of your opponents' creatures, you win the game. Every time you play Hellfire and get 3 or fewer, you lose. Therefore, you should only play Hellfire if there are 4 or more opposing Minions or else you will lose. That is ROT.

The fact that you describe your 0-3 Druid loss as "luck of the draw" yet still talk about it like that fact matters is ROT. There were more factors that went into that game than that series of 6 draws. Every decision you made in the draft leads into that series of draws. Was 20% of your deck cards that won't come down before turn 4? Were they the only ones, or was 40% of your deck slow? 50%? 60%? Did you mulligan a 3-drop away that you probably should have kept?

And the other two losses in that Arena run have nothing to do with that draw. Focusing on what your opponents drew and how lucky they were is more ROT. You can't affect what they have or draw, so thinking about it won't improve your game***. You can only affect what's in your deck and how you play. Focus on the latter two factors and you will improve.

Quote
Sure (though I'm at the point where I don't know how to improve much more).  Like I said, I have to re-learn druid arena because somewhere along the way I seem to have lost it.  When I draft Arena I keep three rating pages open and check them before picking my cards.  My best run was 8-3 but I've not been able to duplicate that.

Reading ratings pages is a great start, but you need to think about decks as a whole rather than a collection of good cards to get to the next level. You need to understand why cards are rated the way they are so you know you're using them in the most optimal way rather than just taking another person's rating. This will also help you evaluate new cards as they are released.

Here's an exercise: without looking at any rating website, using just the knowledge you have (you have a bunch, you play a lot more Arena than I do), can you tell me why the following cards are good or bad in Druid Arena?

1. Chillwind Yeti (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=90/chillwind-yeti)
2. Druid of the Claw (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=692/druid-of-the-claw)
3. Knife Juggler (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=1073/knife-juggler)
4. Power of the Wild (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=503/power-of-the-wild)



* Matchmaking systems are obviously more complicated than straight up win %, incorporating things like Power Rating and ELO-style weights, but when you boil out all the bells and whistles, the computer only knows how many times you've won, how many times you've lost, and whom you won or lost against.

** Holy shit, I just guessed 63o was a 7% chance to win with a full ring, but apparently that's it's exact win percentage (http://www.beatthefish.com/poker-strategy/texas-holdem-poker-hands.html) with 9 players. This also means that, if you somehow have to wager $1 to win $14, then it's actually not a bad decision to call, but pot odds is not a discussion for the HS thread.

*** In fact, it clutters up your head. Google "on tilt".
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 14, 2014, 12:19:18 PM
Ed your tone varies between aggressive and patronizing. It's hard to continue to respond when I read you as misreading me and also assuming I'm stupid.  For example, I said that part of the reason for losing that particular arena was a bad mulligan followed by a bad topdeck. (And by 'bad' here I mean "unfortunate".) You don't know what my mana curve looked like for that deck, nor what options I had when drafting. But you write as if I had no idea what a mana curve is and by the way I'm a moron.

You have it backwards. Matchmaking uses win %, a quantitative value*, as the metric to determine matches, not relative player skill, which is a qualitative concept. Win % is a function of luck, skill, and money, so it's a decent estimation of relative player skill, but it is calculated.

Well, yes. But first of all that data is not available to players, and second of all that's not how the game is sold. You're told (particularly in Ranked, and implied in Arena) that you're matched against players of equal skill.

Quote
The fact that you describe your 0-3 Druid loss as "luck of the draw" yet still talk about it like that fact matters is ROT

As noted, you seem to fixate on about half of a sentence I write, without reading the rest of it. I have a hard time responding to that.

Quote
Here's an exercise: without looking at any rating website, using just the knowledge you have (you have a bunch, you play a lot more Arena than I do), can you tell me why the following cards are good or bad in Druid Arena?

1. Chillwind Yeti (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=90/chillwind-yeti)
2. Druid of the Claw (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=692/druid-of-the-claw)
3. Knife Juggler (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=1073/knife-juggler)
4. Power of the Wild (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=503/power-of-the-wild)

Yes.

Oh, you wanted me to prove it?  Sure.  Chillwind Yeti is one of the best cards anywhere for anything. It's hard to one-shot and so often trades 2-1 or it'll soak an expensive enemy removal spell. Being in a druid deck doesn't change that much, up or down.

Druid of the Claw is a phenomenal minion. The option to charge or block is unique and I'd draft it over almost anything that gets offered with it, unless I've got too many 6s already.

Knife Juggler is sort of amusing, but druids don't have a lot of cheap options. I tend to skip it in druid drafts unless I'm offered worse rares against it. The big advantage of this thing is that it annoys the hell out of the other guy. It's like it has the word "taunt" written on it in invisible ink.

Power of the Wild is also a phenomenal card. It's fine to coin into early, but it also gives you the option to buff other minions that you want to keep alive. I'd draft that over pretty much any other 2-cost minion. However, other than PotW being a druid-specific minion, there's nothing that makes it radically different in a druid deck.  (And for the record in both of my 0-3 druid runs I got offered zero PotW. Also no Swipe.)

So what's your point?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 14, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Ed your tone varies between aggressive and patronizing. It's hard to continue to respond when I read you as misreading me and also assuming I'm stupid.  For example, I said that part of the reason for losing that particular arena was a bad mulligan followed by a bad topdeck. (And by 'bad' here I mean "unfortunate".) You don't know what my mana curve looked like for that deck, nor what options I had when drafting. But you write as if I had no idea what a mana curve is and by the way I'm a moron.

I'd like you to respond less defensively. I'm not patronizing you, and I admitted that you have more actual Arena experience than I do. I don't think you're a moron and I know you know the definition of mana curve. However, you are focusing on the results, not the decisions.

You're right, I don't know what the curve was in that deck. I want to know. I'm trying to point out that your mulligans and bad beats are not important to learning how to become better at Arena. If you want help or advice on how to improve, then we should discuss the curve more than your bad beat stories-but all I ever hear is bad beats and end results. Fixating on going 5-3 or 0-3 is not going to make you better at HS.

Quote
Quote
The fact that you describe your 0-3 Druid loss as "luck of the draw" yet still talk about it like that fact matters is ROT

As noted, you seem to fixate on about half of a sentence I write, without reading the rest of it. I have a hard time responding to that.

The entirety of your post is a bad beat story. I did read all of it.

I have the same experience - facing more skilled opponents after a few wins, generally.  Not much you can do about crappy draws though (after a full mulligan you draw 4-6-4 mana cost cards and your next draws are 8-6-4 by which time it's gg).

There is no context. I do want to know about the mana curve. I'm just asking about the context and saying that yes, there is, in fact, something you can do about bad draws-it's all in the drafting stage. I'm saying you should be talking about the whole draft-I'm actually quite interested in post-mortems for drafts. I watch a lot of draft videos.

Quote
Quote
Here's an exercise: without looking at any rating website, using just the knowledge you have (you have a bunch, you play a lot more Arena than I do), can you tell me why the following cards are good or bad in Druid Arena?

1. Chillwind Yeti (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=90/chillwind-yeti)
2. Druid of the Claw (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=692/druid-of-the-claw)
3. Knife Juggler (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=1073/knife-juggler)
4. Power of the Wild (http://www.hearthhead.com/card=503/power-of-the-wild)

Yes.

Oh, you wanted me to prove it?  Sure.

Cheeky. Dial it back, I'm not quizzing you. You did say "I'm at the point where I don't know how to improve much more." I took that as asking for help. I don't need you to "prove it," it's a thought exercise, a place I thought we could steer the discussion in a more productive way.

And rather than take my following responses as patronizing, please understand that I want to discuss this civilly. I don't think you're stupid. I also watch hours of pro Magic players drafting and listen to hours of drafting strategy podcasts a week, so I do, in fact, have some knowledge to impart. In short, don't think I'm stupid, either.

Quote
Chillwind Yeti is one of the best cards anywhere for anything. It's hard to one-shot and so often trades 2-1 or it'll soak an expensive enemy removal spell. Being in a druid deck doesn't change that much, up or down.

Nice. This is exactly how I feel about the card, and I like that you said that being a Druid deck doesn't matter (it doesn't).

Quote
Druid of the Claw is a phenomenal minion. The option to charge or block is unique and I'd draft it over almost anything that gets offered with it, unless I've got too many 6s already.

Also a great analysis (the first two were easy premium picks). I'll do a Six Sigma trick and ask the follow-up: how many is too many 6s?

Quote
Knife Juggler is sort of amusing, but druids don't have a lot of cheap options. I tend to skip it in druid drafts unless I'm offered worse rares against it. The big advantage of this thing is that it annoys the hell out of the other guy. It's like it has the word "taunt" written on it in invisible ink.

This one was sort of a trick, because it is a rare with a useful ability that's amazing in some decks. Repeatable damage like this is often at a premium in draft.

You hit the nail on the head, though-it's not great in a Druid deck, because Druids go tall (few powerful minions and hero buffs) rather than wide (swarm-style), so you won't be triggering it often. However, it's perceived as a huge threat, so it has some value as a lightning rod for removal. Icy-Veins listed it as "average" for Druid, which I think is perfectly apt.

Quote
Power of the Wild is also a phenomenal card. It's fine to coin into early, but it also gives you the option to buff other minions that you want to keep alive. I'd draft that over pretty much any other 2-cost minion. However, other than PotW being a druid-specific minion, there's nothing that makes it radically different in a druid deck.

I think phenomenal is a bit strong, but I agree that the fact that this card is good early and good late makes it a high pick. It's never a dead card, it's a 2-drop, and it's a common. What's not to like?

Quote
So what's your point?

Don't be defensive and I'll agree to stop being as aggressive, and maybe we can actually communicate. We seem to be on the same page about all 4 of the cards above.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 15, 2014, 03:53:52 AM
Quote
I'd like you to respond less defensively. I'm not patronizing you, and I admitted that you have more actual Arena experience than I do. I don't think you're a moron and I know you know the definition of mana curve. However, you are focusing on the results, not the decisions.

I'll try. I take you at your word.

Quote
You're right, I don't know what the curve was in that deck. I want to know.


That particular deck was really weird.  I got a lot of good 4 options and a lot of good 6s and about zero 5s.  Low on 3s as well.  Had a lot of good 2s and about 4 high-end punchers (2 of the 8/8 taunts, a giant and an ogre). The "curve" looked like a mountain range.

Quote
I'm trying to point out that your mulligans and bad beats are not important to learning how to become better at Arena. If you want help or advice on how to improve, then we should discuss the curve more than your bad beat stories-but all I ever hear is bad beats and end results. Fixating on going 5-3 or 0-3 is not going to make you better at HS. ... The entirety of your post is a bad beat story. I did read all of it.

You are reading but not understanding. I get that there's an importance to doing the right thing and that statistically you play the odds. Right decisions are still right even when outcomes are bad.  Frex, I just lost a game on my 'lock to a shaman. I had a great mulligan but he dropped an early Mukla and windfuried it on turn 3.  I had no way to knock out a 5/5 on turn 4 so I lost. That's annoying but it doesn't change that I still mulliganed correctly. (I had coined into an Amani on turn 1 that he killed with a weapon, tapped on turn 2, then had the harvest golem as my only play. I was also holding a yeti, which was supposed to be my turn 4 play.)

But honestly, reading that is boring. I suggested a bit ago that this thread might show enough interest in Hearthstone play for a forum but that might be premature so we just have one thread. If I fill up this thread with mundania such as the above it's going to cause a snoozefest, including with me. So I don't bother. I write about the exceptional stuff or the stuff that annoys me enough.  What I mean by assuming I'm an idiot is that you write as if the exceptional posts were all that was going on.

Quote
I'm actually quite interested in post-mortems for drafts. I watch a lot of draft videos.

I watch some - TB's mostly, but he makes decisions that seem contrary to the guides I see elsewhere. Like, he drafted a second Sprint in a rogue deck over an obviously powerful minion (ogre, maybe?).

I'll try to write up today's draft and hope it doesn't bore the pants off everyone else.

Quote
You did say "I'm at the point where I don't know how to improve much more." I took that as asking for help.


The last time I said that someone replied, "You should watch so-and-so's videos on YouTube." That turned out to be helpful, though they're long and he chatters a lot so I didn't want too many of them.  Likewise, I read the decklists on hearthpwn, but maybe there's another decklist site people know about?

Quote
I'll do a Six Sigma trick and ask the follow-up: how many is too many 6s?

It Depends(tm).  I try not to have more than 3 but sometimes you get offered a late Argent Champion or Leeroy and those are so vastly superior to your other options that you take them. Druid is also tricky as two of the best removal cards are 6s (Starfire and Force of Nature).  I don't like FoN but if I've got a deck that lacks good removal I'll take it. Also if I don't have any good 7+ options in the draft I'm more likely to take an extra couple 6s.  I just finished 4-3 Shaman arena with a deck that had only one 7+.

Quote
Icy-Veins listed it as "average" for Druid, which I think is perfectly apt.

I-V is one of the three references I use when drafting but I'm less fond of it for rares. I don't think they do enough of this adjusting the relative value of a card for the hero you're playing. That said, I don't know another site that does relative rankings.  Most are like Freethinkr's rare-card rankings (http://freethnkr.com/hearthstone-arena-rare-card-rankings/) which are pretty context-free.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 16, 2014, 03:43:17 AM
WTF do warriors do against swarm decks?  I mulligan aggressively to get a Fiery War Axe in my hand but that only lets me take out two things then it's gone. I've also put in one Brawl but two seems excessive.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 17, 2014, 07:42:18 AM
My problem with Legendaries isn't that people have them and I don't.   It's that they feel a little like an "I win" card.  If you get the card and the other person has no removal or silence, they can go from a huge disadvantage to winning.  It's not even ALL the legendaries, but a small handful, like Rags, the stupid Mage one, Yersa, etc.

To the point where I don't think I would put them in my deck if I had them.  It just feels too cheesy and too much like I'd play thinking, "come on, where is my Rags. Where are you? Come on Rags."   Though I guess I do that with my Thunderstorm and blood lust sometimes.

I just don't like the feeling of "you only won because you played that one card."
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Brynndolin on March 17, 2014, 10:45:19 AM
Reading this thread, it's almost impossible to want to pick up the game and start playing. Does anyone have fun playing???
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Draeven on March 17, 2014, 10:49:57 AM
Reading this thread, it's almost impossible to want to pick up the game and start playing. Does anyone have fun playing???

I have not played that much but I have found it fun. No arena play but I am playing matched games. I made a deck from basic cards and I found that I am matched with similar cards and that with good strategy I can win. For example I got the three wins for the WOW mount in 4 games. Then again I have never seen an orange card.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 17, 2014, 11:02:56 AM
Reading this thread, it's almost impossible to want to pick up the game and start playing. Does anyone have fun playing???

I have a lot of fun, but only when I don't take it too seriously.   For instance I find my hunter deck more fun to play than my shaman deck even though I tend to be higher ranked with my shaman deck.  I love some of the gimmick cards (though I've had to remove some from my deck when I start to care too much about ratings.)

I've had a ton of really good games and memorable moments.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on March 17, 2014, 11:51:45 AM
I just don't like the feeling of "you only won because you played that one card."

Is this true though? Taking your rags example, your deck does have to hold on long enough to drop rags. It's very possible to get wiped out prior to being able to put rags on the board. All the cards leading up to that raggy drop contribute to the win in varying degrees.

Arguably, on the other end of things, if your deck lets your opponent last long enough that there's the potential to drop rags and you don't have any counters your deck also isn't doing it's job.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on March 17, 2014, 12:20:32 PM
Reading this thread, it's almost impossible to want to pick up the game and start playing. Does anyone have fun playing???

I still have a lot of fun playing. I play Arena every day, and only play ranked for the quests I cannot finish with Arena.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 17, 2014, 03:05:42 PM
I just don't like the feeling of "you only won because you played that one card."

Is this true though? Taking your rags example, your deck does have to hold on long enough to drop rags. It's very possible to get wiped out prior to being able to put rags on the board. All the cards leading up to that raggy drop contribute to the win in varying degrees.

Arguably, on the other end of things, if your deck lets your opponent last long enough that there's the potential to drop rags and you don't have any counters your deck also isn't doing it's job.

Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's not.   i don't think though it's a good argument that only decks that can win before turn 11 are viable, especially against, say a mage, which has really good delay and removal.   Nothing like blizzard, frost nova, ice block, etc, to extend a game.

I play a usually shaman deck set up for kind of the slow burn/blood lust.  Lightning storm, forked lightning, hex, etc.

It's true my deck playing isn't optimized, but I've played games where I had them down to 3 HP and they put down the rags, no removal and then delayed me the three turns.

Rags isn't the worst.  The mage one is the one that I really feel like you've just lost as soon as that comes out with no removal if they have two spells in their hand l since casting the fire ball just gives you another one, so it means they can do 12 points of damage to your hero every turn (assuming your at turn 8.)

And i did say "it feels like."  It feels like they've brought a gun to a knife fight.  They still have to hit you with the bullet, but that still doesn't mean that you feel like it was a satisfying knife fight.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on March 17, 2014, 04:06:26 PM
And i did say "it feels like."  It feels like they've brought a gun to a knife fight.  They still have to hit you with the bullet, but that still doesn't mean that you feel like it was a satisfying knife fight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE

I duno, looked pretty satisfying  :P.

(the above was about all the seriousness I can muster today :P)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 17, 2014, 06:14:15 PM
I enjoy the game, though I think I'm sort of bad at it. I enjoy it enough to want to get better at it.  I like that a game takes ~10 minutes so it's not a big time investment. I like that it's free and gave me a free mount. I'm interested to see what Blizzard does with it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on March 18, 2014, 12:52:32 PM
Reading this thread, it's almost impossible to want to pick up the game and start playing. Does anyone have fun playing???

Hearthstone's arena is fun for me. Selling my MTG collection, and not having anywhere good to draft in DC metro, has made hearthstone a welcome game for me. MTGO was a bit clunky for me - I felt like I was losing to system problems too much.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Winston on March 20, 2014, 11:40:49 AM
For someone starting from ground zero, with no experience in this style of gaming, how hard is it to get to the point where you win three games to get the Hearthsteed in WoW? Is it on the level of "keep plugging at it, and you'll get it a couple of hours" or "It's very competitive game, and it takes a week to win a single game"?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ungrimmar on March 20, 2014, 11:48:00 AM
You will probably win 40% of your first 10 games, if you have experience with other CCGs you will probably pull closer to 50%.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 20, 2014, 12:11:40 PM
I would say go through the tutorial and level up your first character (I think it's the Mage), then plug away at Casual until you get 3 wins. Certainly not weeks, but maybe longer than an hour.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Winston on March 20, 2014, 09:53:27 PM
It took me a couple of hours to get the mount. I can see the appeal of the game, but it's not for me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 31, 2014, 11:52:02 AM
I just don't like the feeling of "you only won because you played that one card."

Is this true though? Taking your rags example, your deck does have to hold on long enough to drop rags. It's very possible to get wiped out prior to being able to put rags on the board. All the cards leading up to that raggy drop contribute to the win in varying degrees.


I have to say for some cards this is true.  I was just in an arena fight where I think I had 10 hit points to his 30, played yersa and ended the match in a draw purely because of yersa.  (I had 2 hit points left and he had three before I killed us both.  I had taunt on the board, but he was a hunter so we was just going to hero power me to death next turn.

Ok, so I didn't win, but I came very close to it from a certain defeat in about 4 turns because of one card. 
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 01, 2014, 06:46:59 AM
Just as a point of reference: I finished the final test season at Rank 16 and was walked through a couple of pop-ups when I logged in this morning. The result is that I appear to be starting Season 1 at Rank 21. This seems pretty reasonable to me.  Do we have any players who ended higher?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 01, 2014, 07:55:19 AM
Just as a point of reference: I finished the final test season at Rank 16 and was walked through a couple of pop-ups when I logged in this morning. The result is that I appear to be starting Season 1 at Rank 21. This seems pretty reasonable to me.  Do we have any players who ended higher?

I ended 15 (not much higher) and got 10 bonus starts for rank 21.  Basically the same.

I thought they were adding in deck backs. EDIT: oh, this is the first official season, so they've added them for this season.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 01, 2014, 12:18:50 PM
Yeah, I misread it the same way - that's why I was playing ranked :)

I'm curious whether they'd start someone at 20 or higher, thus giving them a season N+1 reward automatically for performance in season N.  That seems a little weird.  The wording is very slightly ambiguous, in that it says you have to "attain" Rank 20. Does that mean "end the season with" or "hold that rank at some point?"
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 01, 2014, 12:21:43 PM
Yeah, I misread it the same way - that's why I was playing ranked :)

I'm curious whether they'd start someone at 20 or higher, thus giving them a season N+1 reward automatically for performance in season N.  That seems a little weird.  The wording is very slightly ambiguous, in that it says you have to "attain" Rank 20. Does that mean "end the season with" or "hold that rank at some point?"

So since I got 10 stars, I'm guessing they keep giving bonus starts out, but not certain at what rate.

You can't loose rank 20, right?

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 11, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
First "expansion" for Hearthstone announced at PAX.  It's an "adventure" mode, which is more solo content against unique opponents.  You can get new cards and they're changing the game board in some way for this.  It looks pretty fun.  Based on Naxx, with the iconic bosses represented.  I like that it's divided into wings and you get one for free but then purchase others with cash or in-game gold.  Considering how negative my gold flow is lately I may have to stop doing arenas for a while.

ETA: Blue tweet says Naxx adventure mode won't go live until "this summer".  Guess I can waste some more gold before then :)

ETA 2: Reading more depth of the plans gives me more positive feelings about this. I think this is a great alternative to releasing expansions as packs-to-buy, but perhaps someone with real TCG experience can comment on that?  As I understand it the cards aren't going to be craftable (at least not at first) so the only way to get them is playing through pve content - that's great for me but will it annoy the pvp-focused part of the playerbase?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on April 16, 2014, 12:15:29 PM
Just downloaded Hearthstone for the iPad and played my first game, earning a free pack just for doing so. I can already see my productivity just took a massive nosedive. It's excellent with the touch controls.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 17, 2014, 03:37:58 AM
Varyl if you'd like to play some friendly games send me a battletag friend request. Mine's listed in the tags thread.  I'm happy to play standard decks with you until you feel comfortable.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on April 17, 2014, 07:40:33 AM
I grabbed this for iPad. I have an iPad 3, and some things were noticeably slower (loading matches, loading decks). With a lot of background processes it was unplayable, but after I closed all those other games, it was still a little pokey.

I got my RoS and iPad packs, though, and I got some sweet pretty okay rares!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 17, 2014, 10:16:18 AM
I grabbed this for iPad. I have an iPad 3, and some things were noticeably slower (loading matches, loading decks). With a lot of background processes it was unplayable, but after I closed all those other games, it was still a little pokey.

I got my RoS and iPad packs, though, and I got some sweet pretty okay rares!

RoS?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on April 17, 2014, 10:19:54 AM
Reaper of Souls!!!!!!! preorder.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on April 17, 2014, 12:56:23 PM
Varyl if you'd like to play some friendly games send me a battletag friend request. Mine's listed in the tags thread.  I'm happy to play standard decks with you until you feel comfortable.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I have been playing Hearthstone for quite a while. I played my first iPad game the other day and enjoyed it even more than on PC. I'll toss you a friend request though, and feel free to play any deck you'd like.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 25, 2014, 06:20:51 AM
I've not posted much but I'm continuing to play.  My rogue constructed deck has solidified as have most of my other decks.  All of them are still fairly low budget (few oranges).  I crafted a Faceless Manipulator and am using that in one or two decks. My ranked deck (Shaman) is also really cheap and I can't get much above 16 with it, but it's fun to play.

Arena-wise I seem to be pretty consistently over .500 - I go 3-3 on most of my drafts with the occasional 4-3 and a couple 5-3 lately. I'm drafting a lot by instinct now, and I'm starting to feel like the game is won in the middle. I'm putting more effort into drafting a stable of good 3-mana and 4-mana minions and giving up on some of the finishers (6+) that I had been trying to get in earlier drafts.  Taunt continues to be underrated by most arena players I see, but it's hard to judge "did he not realize taunt would be useful" versus "did he just not get the chance to draft/draw it?"

I also see a real dominance of selected classes in Arena: mage and druid primarily, with paladin close behind, then warrior/rogue.  Shaman, Priest, and Warlock all seem to be disfavored and I admit that I like going up against those heroes in arena; my informal scratch calculation is that I run about 75% wins against them. I may try to pick those heroes in a few drafts to get a feel for what the problems are.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 25, 2014, 10:37:04 AM
While I'm nattering on about Hearthstone, the Hearthpwn site had a nice summary of what's known so far about the upcoming "Curse of Naxxramas" expansion: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/456-curse-of-naxxramas-recap-wednesday-limited
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 03, 2014, 01:41:14 PM
Anyone have enough interest in the fireside card back to be in the same room as two other people and play enough games to get it?  Presumably in the same greater metro area, of course.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on May 03, 2014, 01:49:13 PM
I could care less about card backs, but I'd love to go to a LAN party!  (Though my portable devices don't handle Hearthstone as well as I'd like.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 05, 2014, 05:36:32 AM
I would be happy to do a LAN party with people.  I have an iPad with the game loaded that I could bring.

In other news, I somehow manage to go 10-3 with a stoopid rogue deck.  No purples or oranges, built for speed and a few combos I've learned from playing my rogue constructed deck.

I also discovered you get 300 gold for 1000 wins of any sort.  Looking at my stats I don't think I have 300 wins listed there so maybe it's counting vs trainer as well?  Anyone know if there are any other such mass-win bonuses?

Between those two events I'm up over 1000 gold now and am starting to experiment with other heroes in Arena, expecting to lose bigtime.  I've gone 2-3 each with a warlock and a shaman so far.  The shaman was a horrible draft and I think I know what I did wrong with the play there.  Warlock is trickier.  It's very hard to know how much you can afford to lifetap because you can't easily predict the damage output capability of the other guy.  My 'lock had no purples/no oranges and I lost mostly to guys with higher-end cards, which is an ambiguous lesson at best.  Need to experiment more with those heroes and see what I can learn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 10, 2014, 06:34:36 PM
Anyone have enough interest in the fireside card back to be in the same room as two other people and play enough games to get it?  Presumably in the same greater metro area, of course.

I was too impatient, and used a free account (and having Marco playing the tutorial) to get the card back.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 10, 2014, 07:49:57 PM
But you could still come play with us!

Annnyway, my experimentation with less-popular arena classes continues.  I continue to think hunter is way too dependent on combos you can't easily draft and priest has too many dead turn possibilities.  Shaman and warlock I might experiment with, but even a reasonable mage or druid is going to tear up most arena hunters and priests.  I've gone consistently 2-3 in my experiments with less-preferred heroes so far and I consistently lose to the preferred heroes.  On the plus side I got an orange and a purple out of my last pack so at least there's some payoff.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 26, 2014, 07:27:04 AM
I decided to try out Trump's budget shaman deck (http://hearthstoneplayers.com/list-budget-shaman/) (a deck with no legendaries that Trump got to the top 100 with) to see how much is skill of play and how much is skill od deck construction. 

So far... not so good.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 26, 2014, 09:23:28 AM
I decided to try out Trump's budget shaman deck (http://hearthstoneplayers.com/list-budget-shaman/) (a deck with no legendaries that Trump got to the top 100 with) to see how much is skill of play and how much is skill od deck construction. 

So far... not so good.

After getting used to the deck, I'm currently rank 13, which I haven't been for a long time.   I feel like I can get to about rank 10 with this deck, which is higher than I've ever been, but it is, of course, not a free ride to rank 1.  It's very interesting to separate deck building from play skill.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: ghoselle on May 26, 2014, 02:41:02 PM
I decided to try out Trump's budget shaman deck (http://hearthstoneplayers.com/list-budget-shaman/) (a deck with no legendaries that Trump got to the top 100 with) to see how much is skill of play and how much is skill od deck construction. 

So far... not so good.

I figured I'd try that deck.  Turns out I only have 12 of the 30 cards in it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 27, 2014, 03:11:21 AM
I've been playing shaman and climbing slowly in the ranks. I'm 15 at the moment but I don't play much ranked. My deck is somewhat similar to that one. I don't like Unbound Elementals(*), so I use different minions.  I got a couple of good packs and have slotted in some higher cards so it's not truly budget, but the playstyle remains similar - multi-taunt and careful use of board control.

It seems like the current metagame is tilting even farther toward speed decks. Lots of times I see cheap early minions focused on keeping the board clear for Ragnaros or other finisher.  Shaman is a good counter to that in its ability to spit out lots of cheap fillers.  Lots of my games are won or lost on whether I've managed to draw a Lightning Storm or Hex early enough.

(*) My problem with U.E. is their cost/benefit ratio. You pay 3 mana to get a 2/4 which is OK, but then you pay more.  Even if you manage to play 2 overload cards before it goes away you've paid 5-7 mana for a 4/6.  If you baseline that against 4 mana for a 4/5 yeti it doesn't seem worthwhile. It's also a prime target for Silence.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on May 27, 2014, 04:20:43 AM
If 3 mana for a 2/4 is okay, though, doesn't that make it a decent card? The "more" you are paying is extraneous. It isn't more directly for the UE. It's other cards which should be used in their own right, and be good plays regardless of the UE. You're paying 3 mana for that 4/6 UE, not ##. Or am I looking at it entirely wrong?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on May 27, 2014, 04:33:41 AM
I figured I'd try that deck.  Turns out I only have 12 of the 30 cards in it.
I had 16.

The decks I make myself are crappy, and the default decks are crappy, so I lose a lot more than I win.  If all the premade decks on the internet are 50% cards I don't have, I don't see how novice players (by which I mean players new to deck building games) are going to find this game enjoyable.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 27, 2014, 05:20:52 AM
If 3 mana for a 2/4 is okay, though, doesn't that make it a decent card? The "more" you are paying is extraneous. It isn't more directly for the UE. It's other cards which should be used in their own right, and be good plays regardless of the UE. You're paying 3 mana for that 4/6 UE, not ##. Or am I looking at it entirely wrong?

Yes and no.  It's certainly not a bad card, but I feel there are better uses for the card slot in your deck. If you play the 3-mana UE then you're not playing another 3-mana card that could have more immediate impact (think Acolyte of Pain, or Demolisher, which can be dropped behind the multiple taunts that Shaman decks produce, or the Shattered Sun Cleric).  In addition, you probably don't want to drop the UE early because it's better to get it buffed, so you end up holding it until you can play an overload on the same turn. Worse, you might decide to hold your overload cards until you can get a UE on the board rather than playing them at their optimal time based on the other cards you see.

I have a personal dislike for cards that you end up having to hold, and I think it's a bad style of play against the current meta.  Holding cards often means you cede early board control and may not be able to get it back or your hero may take too much damage.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 07:26:38 AM
I figured I'd try that deck.  Turns out I only have 12 of the 30 cards in it.
I had 16.

The decks I make myself are crappy, and the default decks are crappy, so I lose a lot more than I win.  If all the premade decks on the internet are 50% cards I don't have, I don't see how novice players (by which I mean players new to deck building games) are going to find this game enjoyable.

If you don't find it fun, then you won't.  But I really didn't mind the play in casual to get enough gold to play in arena.  I do wish they would lower the cost of arena back down to the cost of a pack again, because that made the decision easy, but even how it is I personally feel that arena is the most fun.

And I still feel the hunter deck is decent (and a lot of fun) even with only basic and white cards.

We're talking here about a deck that is capable of taking someone to legendary without any legendary cards, not talking about the only viable deck in existence.  

Back in the day, I remember I had to construct lightning storm to feel like my shaman deck had any viability, but other than that I mostly just used the cards I happened to have on hand.

Here is a guide on how to build decks with just basic cards: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/hearthstone-tips-tricksstrategies-how-to-build-great-f2p-basic-decks-for-nothing

I'm sure there are more just like it.

What I did when I was building my shaman deck (and I'm  very knew to deck building games) was I tried to see what cards I would use that seemed to help me gain ground and what ones caused me to loose and kept the good ones and swapped out the bad ones.  This wouldn't work for making a very polished deck, but it got me to rank 15 ok.

I think the key to enjoying this game is you can't take loosing that hard.   Even the guy that I copied the deck from who got to legendary with it got something like 80 losses getting there.   If things are working right, you're loosing 50% of the time and you will have loosing streaks, which feel worse.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 07:29:09 AM
If 3 mana for a 2/4 is okay, though, doesn't that make it a decent card? The "more" you are paying is extraneous. It isn't more directly for the UE. It's other cards which should be used in their own right, and be good plays regardless of the UE. You're paying 3 mana for that 4/6 UE, not ##. Or am I looking at it entirely wrong?

Yes and no.  It's certainly not a bad card, but I feel there are better uses for the card slot in your deck. If you play the 3-mana UE then you're not playing another 3-mana card that could have more immediate impact (think Acolyte of Pain, or Demolisher, which can be dropped behind the multiple taunts that Shaman decks produce, or the Shattered Sun Cleric).  In addition, you probably don't want to drop the UE early because it's better to get it buffed, so you end up holding it until you can play an overload on the same turn. Worse, you might decide to hold your overload cards until you can get a UE on the board rather than playing them at their optimal time based on the other cards you see.

I have a personal dislike for cards that you end up having to hold, and I think it's a bad style of play against the current meta.  Holding cards often means you cede early board control and may not be able to get it back or your hero may take too much damage.

This deck, after playing it for a bit, is all about overload management.  The power curve is somewhat low so you're never screwed over by overload last turn and there are lots of overload cards, such that you almost never have to hold the UE.

As a side note, I had to construct two cards for this deck, but then I've been playing much longer than almost any one else in this thread (since I started the thread.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 07:40:28 AM
So I'm not saying this is a *great* deck, but this deck plays nicely enough.  I'm sure there are better decks out there on the internet.  This is my basic/white hunter deck:

hunters mark
timber wolf
snipe
dire wolf alpha x 2
ironbeak owl
river crocolisk
scavenging hyena x 2 (must have)
starving buzzard x 2
Animal companion x 2
deadly shot
kill command x 2
unleash the hounds x 2
iron fur grizzly x 2
multi-shot x 2 (this might be too many)
hound master x 2
oasis snapjaw
tundra rhino x 2
core hound

This is only 28 cards.  There's a low level slot (a 2) and a higher level one (6) to be filled.  Leper gnome  and lord of the arena might be good for the last two slots.

Again, I'm no expert at deck building, but I find this deck plenty fun and competitive with the other decks (maybe only a rank lower when I play this deck) that I've constructed using much rarer cards.  I actually wish I could "fix" this deck, since I really love the hunter play tricks (buzzard, with hounds and a hyena is just nasty.)   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 11:16:25 AM
OMG! I just discovered: http://hearthstonetracker.com/

DATA!

I'm also watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduSA6AuWpI

and already learned that getting to legend rank, even by really good people, takes weeks of game play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on May 27, 2014, 11:40:39 AM
This is only 28 cards.  There's a low level slot (a 2) and a higher level one (6) to be filled.  Leper gnome  and lord of the arena might be good for the last two slots.

Leper Gnome over Loot Hoarder?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 12:02:01 PM
This is only 28 cards.  There's a low level slot (a 2) and a higher level one (6) to be filled.  Leper gnome  and lord of the arena might be good for the last two slots.

Leper Gnome over Loot Hoarder?

As I said, I'm no expert.   That's likely a better choice, yes.   I think I'm just enamored by seeing a wrath/leper gnome kill by a druid once.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on May 27, 2014, 12:14:06 PM
expert schmexpert, I like the words "Draw a card." :)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on May 27, 2014, 02:15:46 PM
Here is a guide on how to build decks with just basic cards: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/hearthstone-tips-tricksstrategies-how-to-build-great-f2p-basic-decks-for-nothing

I'm sure there are more just like it.

What I did when I was building my shaman deck (and I'm  very knew to deck building games) was I tried to see what cards I would use that seemed to help me gain ground and what ones caused me to loose and kept the good ones and swapped out the bad ones.  This wouldn't work for making a very polished deck, but it got me to rank 15 ok.
Thank you for the link!

A couple of the basic decks seem ok, but some of them are just awful.

I agree that if I could build a halfway decent deck I could tweak it to improve it, but I'm starting from a deck that is (for example) all battlecry and taunt with no notion of what mana costs are appropriate.  I could go from there to a local maximum and the deck would probably still suck.

I was all excited when you posted the link to the non-legendary deck.  It was discouraging to see that I could only build half of it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 27, 2014, 02:42:41 PM
Ok, after playing WAY too much hearthstone after making my first post about that deck, I conclude:

I will never be legend rank unless I get teacher or start spending even more time than I already do playing

My rank was clearly lower because of my bad deck, but my play skill is a larger factor (I was never able to crack 11, even though I came close.   Going in I was ~16.)

The tracker is a little buggy because it's doing it basic on image processing, but I like having charts.  Charts are nice.

With the right deck, legendaries feel much less annoying.  Even without my removal cards, I went up against a double rags and a onxyia.  I still lost, but I felt like I had things I could do, even without my hex.   (I wild pyromancered the whelps.)

I'm not sure I'll continue to play this deck after the season is over.  I kind of like having a home brew deck that may not be optimal, but it's mine, darn it!   I think because I like variety, arena is still the best for me.

EDIT: I got a luck streak tonight and made it to rank 10!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 27, 2014, 08:41:02 PM
I'm a lower rank and likely worse player than Cree, so take this with several grains of salt.

Some basic rules about building a deck:
- pick cards that are harder for the other guy to get rid of.  The canonical examples of this are the Argent Squire, Harvest Golem, and Chillwind Yeti.  All of these things likely require two actions on the other guy's part to remove, meaning you are likely to gain a card, mana, or tempo advantage.

- pick cards that have immediate effects over things you hope will have effect later on.  Shattered Sun Cleric, Dark Iron Dwarf, Earthen Ring Farseer are all good examples of this. One of the best ways to mess up the other guy's plans is to make your minions harder to kill, which is why things that add 1/1 such as Stormwind Champion can have an outsized effect.

- make sure you have some taunt unless your goal is to rush down the other guy.  Taunts should be heavier on life than on attack. This is why Sen'jin Shieldmasta is the best built-in taunt in game. Fen Creeper is slightly worse, but both are better than Booty Bay Bodyguard or Lord of the Arena.  The only taunt you want with less than 4 life is the 1/3 Voidwalker if you're a Warlock or the 3/3 Ironfur Grizzly if you're a Hunter.

- Do not underestimate the power of silence. You rarely make a deck worse by adding 1-2 silence.  Likewise, think about how your deck can remove enemy minions that are protected by taunts. This is one reason Mage is often an easy class for beginners to play.

- Think about appropriate counters for common enemy plays. An Acidic Swamp Ooze gives you a weapon counter.  Various AOE spells let you clear out masses of enemies (again, something Mage is good at).  You can't always be guaranteed to draw your counter at the instant you need it, but you should be able to think about it.

- If the class you're playing has instant removal cards you should use them: polymorph, hex, execute, assassinate, shadow word X, etc. There are lots of successful decks that don't include these cards, but as a beginner it's nice to have something that can take out any enemy minion no matter how powerful.

- Finally, think about some form of card draw. Ideally you want the card to do something other than replace itself, which is why something like a Loot Hoarder is better than the mage Arcane Intellect.

The above should give you 20 or so cards. The rest should be "how will this deck win" kinds of cards. Sometimes you win by throwing in beefy minions the other guy can't stop (ogres, Ironbark Protectors). Sometimes it's unblockable damage (fireballs, kill commands). Sometimes it's a snowball card you can build up to good power levels (Frostwolf Warlord, Gurubashi Berserker).  However you feel works well for you.

I hope this helps - nothing I've listed here is rare or higher so all should be pretty easy to get.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 31, 2014, 04:54:30 PM
Today is the end of the season.  I've ended at rank 9.   Game play is very different up near 10 than it was at 15.  One thing you see a lot of the same sort of decks.  The deck I was playing was very weak against hunter speed decks and druid decks.   It was amusingly tolerant of warrior decks, which I would usually win on a fatigue race (including one where he died on the 7 point fatigue draw and I would have died next turn on my fatigue draw.)

I still don't feel I know enough to make a competent deck on my my own, but deck building at the high ranks is partly about knowing what decks are "in vogue."

I don't know if I'll keep with this deck next season or look for a budget hunter deck.  Who knows, maybe Trump will do another budget deck and I can try that one out. 

I've learned a lot playing a deck that I know is capable so that I could isolate what was my own playing issues.  It was interesting (and reassuring) playing the deck for a while and realizing that I couldn't win against certain decks, going and watching videos of trump also loosing to those decks.

I still don't think I could have made it to legend rank even with patience and the whole month, but given I made it to rank 9 in ~5 days, maybe I could have, especially if the practice had helped me get better.   I think my biggest weakness is the starting hand and knowing enough about what I'm likely up against to pick discard the right things.  (Oh it's a rush deck, better make sure I have a lighting storm.)

I'm HORRIBLE at using the pyromancer effectively though.  It's an interesting tool, but very difficult to use.

I also played too much but it was super fun.  I think the most important lesson for me is that you have to be ok with losing if you have any hope of playing legendary.   One video asserted that most people who hit legendary do so with a ~52-55% win rate and you can expect to fall many ranks on the road to the top.  (2 to 6 to 2 again, for instance.)

I'm not sure how to learn how to build good decks.  I certainly would like to get to the top on my own deck, but I still feel really clueless about deck building.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on June 02, 2014, 06:29:59 AM
Deckbuilding strategy is a vast field, but the best advice I've ever gotten on it is to never change a card until you've played that version of the deck at least 5 times. In HS, that may mean more like 10, since in MTG playing a deck 5 times means 5 best-of-3 matches, so 10-15 games. This helps you separate flukes from patterns and gives you a chance to use every card.

So you can start with a deck style you like, then play 10 games, then take a good look at the deck and swap things out. Then repeat-but don't be afraid to put cards you've taken out back in.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 02, 2014, 06:51:48 AM
Quote
One video asserted that most people who hit legendary do so with a ~52-55% win rate

This is something I worked out for myself a bit ago.  I think you can actually get fairly high with patience and a win rate slightly under 50%.  If you just won/lost in alternation you'd stay even.  However, two wins in a row will gain you 3 stars whereas 2 losses in a row will only lose you 2 stars.  So over the long run you'll gain somewhat more stars than you lose for a 50% win rate.

I think I hit 12 last season and there's definitely a shift in play at that point.  You see a lot of the same decks, so metagaming it becomes easier - you tend to know what is coming.  Unfortunately, the prevalence of rush decks means that many times your win or loss is based on whether you draw an AOE in time.  I started changing my mulligan strategy to hold onto AOE cards regardless of cost against most classes.

I managed one win with my no-epics shaman against a 3-epic opponent.  My current theory is to put a Faceless Manipulator into more decks.  It's cheaper than most epics you want to have and can copy any of them.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on June 02, 2014, 07:03:34 AM
Do you mean no-legendary and 3-legendary?  Faceless Manipulator is an epic.

I watched a lot of Cree's games at rank 10 and 9 with the Trump deck.  At those ranks, you can safely assume that people have access to any legendary they might want to use--it was very common to see Leeroy and pretty common to see Rags.  In the fight Cree mentioned where she won on a 7-point fatigue hit, she had outlasted a Rags, a Grommash, and one other legendary, all with no healing cards.  Since every warrior is expected to play Grommash at some point after turn 8, she was prioritizing having enough taunts up that a played Grommash wouldn't be able to strike her hero, to the point where she hexed one of her own minions at one point.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 02, 2014, 09:03:41 AM
Hexing one of your own minions is pretty hardcore.  I applaud.

Yes, sorry I meant no legendaries.  My Shaman deck doesn't use FM but it does sometimes have Nat Pagle in it, as well as two mainstay epics. NP isn't all that great but it tends to soak removal that my opponent might otherwise use on other things.

Now if I could only build a hunter deck that didn't utterly suck.  Since the nerf to Hounds I've ripped up and rebuilt the deck twice.  It does OK against zoolock and similar, but it loses badly to most of the popular mage and warrior decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on June 02, 2014, 09:37:56 AM
Since every warrior is expected to play Grommash at some point after turn 8, she was prioritizing having enough taunts up that a played Grommash wouldn't be able to strike her hero, to the point where she hexed one of her own minions at one point.

That's a really brilliant play. I love plays like that-it shows you're playing the opponent's deck as much as your own!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 06, 2014, 09:00:16 AM
Trump has some "budget" mage and warlock decks (don't know if I shared that before.)  (and the mage deck is for an old meta game, so it might not play as nice as it once did.)

https://sites.google.com/site/trumpdecks/freetoplay

I tried to build my own deck this month, and I felt like I knew what I was doing, but when I switched back to the budget shaman, the difference was amazing, so I still clearly have no clue how to build a good deck.  I'm thinking of giving this budget priest a try, since I like the idea of playing with thoughtsteal.  (why is that all one word? Why?!)  

http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/53372-unlocks-amazs-deck

I might post the self-built druid deck later and see if people can tell me where my stupid is.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on June 06, 2014, 09:27:47 AM
Trump has some "budget" mage and warlock decks (don't know if I shared that before.)  (and the mage deck is for an old meta game, so it might not play as nice as it once did.)
I saw the Trump mage deck from the shaman link you posted earlier. Since I had most of those cards (and I like playing mage), I made the deck. I am above 50% with it but have only gotten to rank 16 so far so that win rate is nothing to brag about. :) I made it up just before the end of last season and ended up at rank 15.

I dont have enough dust to make the shaman deck yet but would like to try it once I do.

I spotted another cheapish mage deck that looks interesting: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/59054-aggro-ice-queen-legend
This one has one legendary but it is not crucial and can be easily subbed for (author gives suggestions). I might give it a try if the Trump mage deck does not pan out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 06, 2014, 11:26:09 AM
end of the month is definitely easier to rank higher.  I'm having trouble breaking 15 right now with any deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 08, 2014, 08:38:55 AM
I would like to recommend "top 5 plays of the week."  Not only are they kind of funny, but I've already learned some weird edge cases about cards, like that you can insta-kill lord jaraxxas with the "destroy any demon" card:

https://www.youtube.com/user/2pPressStartVideos/videos

In particular the 10 card fatigue draw win in this one (there is another video with 18 card fatigue damage, but this one also has "the best knife thrower in the world":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzQGer6iPxI

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 09, 2014, 07:25:07 AM
Yeah I watch many of the 2p videos via hearthpwn.  ETA: and the most recent Best Plays vid shows why you shouldn't play Leeroy when the other guy has a Knife Juggler down.

I'm seeing a continuing shift toward rush decks.  Even in arena play I'm seeing a lot of people playing rogue/warlock rush, where they draft for speed minions over the kind of solid balanced deck-building I usually try.  It's an interesting meta-strategy since your opponent may never have been able to draft AOE or might only have 1 so you can zerg them down quickly.  I have not yet figured out how to counter it; of course there's a the "if you can't beat 'em" plan, but in general this seems to be taking out more of the druid and paladin hero play in Arenas.

I've also been following with interest the new card announcements. Lots of use of Deathrattle mechanics is going to make Silence a lot more desirable.  Shaman will, I predict, jump in popularity since they've got Earthshock and Hex already baked in, both of which negate Deathrattle mechanics.  Owls will become the new Loot Hoarders.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 11, 2014, 06:26:44 AM
Boy am I struggling lately.  Talking strictly constructed here, as I'm trying to pile up gold for the upcoming expansion.  My rogue is awful.  My priest sucks.  My warrior is barely passable, and please don't make me play hunter again.

I've torn down and rebuilt my rogue deck 4 times.  Miracle rogue is the flavor of the month but I don't have any Preparation, nor a Thalmos so many variants of that deck are out of reach for me right now.  I do have a Leeroy and he wins me some games, but I've been trying to follow the 10-game-test theory so I do a lot of 2-8 or 3-7 and find myself floundering for what to change.  I can chalk up some percentage of the losses to bad draws, and some to bad plays. Likewise, a couple of the wins are against players who are just plain not as good. I think 3-7 is a realistic appraisal of how I'm doing; I'd like to push that to 5-5.

Any deck type has a preferred playstyle and sometimes that's obvious, but other than gross missteps on my part I'm having a hard time figuring out what's a bad play.  For example, turn 1 the other guy plays an Argent Squire (1/1, divine shield).  My turn I have 1 mana and a coin.  About half the rogues I play against will coin/dagger/hit the Squire; about half will do something else.  Is there an obviously right or wrong way to go in this sort of situation?  Likewise, there will often be opportunities in early mid-game where I can do something like Squire/SI:7 but there are no obvious enemy minion targets.  Do I use up the removal (hitting the enemy hero) in order to get the 3/3 minion on the board, or should I hold it?  The Backstab/SI:7 combo is quite powerful but rogue needs to hit the other guy in the face pretty fast so I don't necessarily want to give up the 2 or 2+3 attack damage.

I could go on about priest - I'm playing a deck that depends heavily on drawing the right combos at the right times - but let's take this as an example of the plateau I'm at and have no idea how to get better.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on June 11, 2014, 07:00:47 AM
So, while you're playing your 10 games, try to write down every time you have a card that's just sitting in your hand. Or, even better, you can have a spreadsheet with something as simple as a "was good" column and "wasn't good" column where you write cardnames.

Don't change too much in between runs-try to keep it to 2-5 cards. That way you don't overshoot. If you also write out why you removed or added something, that will help, too.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 11, 2014, 09:35:04 AM
This month feels different to me.  I'm seeing a lot more of the kinds of players/decks at 15 that I was seeing at 10 last month.   I've had a hard time breaking 15, even switching back to the trump deck.

I'm also having a hard time really analyzing my play, but one of the top players said something interesting which is "if I have more cards than you, I win" which is over simplified, but I'm starting to realize that one of the key thing is do I spend more or less cards getting rid of what you put on the board.

The question of "do I hit this with my face" I think depends on what you are facing.   Zoo and other rush decks, you want to minimize damage to your face as much as possible.   however, if you don't have taunt/removal for a few turn than it might be good to hit it with your face.   If you can't get rid of the squire for two turns,  hit it with your weapon, especially since it saves a card.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 11, 2014, 12:27:47 PM
Thank you both for the responses. I do keep a "dead draws" list.  Sometimes it's obvious - I just threw out the Sprint from my rogue deck because it's not playable before turn 7 and by that point I know either I'm going to win or I'm dead anyway.  Other times... not so much.  I oscillate between one and two Blade Flurries in my rogue deck.  I lost count of the number of games where I ended with one or two in hand... but that approximately equals the number of games here I couldn't draw one when I needed it.

Cree, when you say "if I have more cards than you" do you mean in hand or on the board?  I am finding my decks run dry, particularly when I play aggressively.  Sometimes that's expressed as "the game has gotten to turn 10 and I'm out of gas" and sometimes that's "it's turn 7 and I cannot draw the card I need to finish off the other guy."
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 11, 2014, 12:56:09 PM
The person in question, I think, meant in your hand.

I've seen a lot of games have a HUGE turn around once someone starts top decking.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on June 11, 2014, 02:35:36 PM
Having more cards in hand represents more options. If I have 3 cards and you have the 1 you drew this turn, it's more likely that I have a relevant card available to me than you do. Assuming all other factors are equal, it also means you had to spend more resources to get to this point than I did (I'm at +2 cards), which put you on the back foot.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 12, 2014, 06:17:48 AM
The cards-in-hand style of play is what I do with my more successful decks (mage, shaman, druid, paladin).  But it doesn't seem to work well for decks that want to dump out things onto the board quickly, or decks that want to go for the enemy face early.  I'm all too familiar with running out of gas - my rogue deck really has a hard time handling two sequential enemy plays of 4/5 yeti or similar (3/6 taunt or 4/6 taunt just grind me to a halt).  Likewise the priest deck can sometimes do the 4-point AOE removal but that depends on a 2-card combo and leaves me with only a 1-health minion on the board that is easily removed.  When these things happen I expect those decks to run out of steam.  Many of my losses come with the enemy hero at <10 health.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 12, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
I've been watching a high level miracle rogue play and it's amazing.   Her hand is always full, but she's playing ~4-6 cards per turn.   I feel like it's an example of how to play a lot of cards but still not be card starved.

I've lost WAY too many games by being card starved, even if I had 25 to his 5 health.

Miracle rogue looks really fun to play, but isn't my play style.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on June 12, 2014, 07:31:29 AM
Card advantage and aggression are traditionally at odds, as you describe. The situation where the player with more cards in hand is winning is, of course, assuming the board is even. Aggressive decks try to make that untrue as much as possible.

What you are talking about where you lose games where an opponent is at low life is the concept of "reach."

In HS, since minions can go straight at the face, most decks do have the reach to close out games quickly. Of course, this is thwarted by taunts. You need ways of getting those last few points of damage in. When building a deck, you should keep in mind how you're going to close out the game-it might be direct damage spells, Sap or Assassinate on the Taunt creature, or even just forgoing defense and trading in the early game to just race the opponent. You need the reach in your cards to the point where it doesn't matter how many defensive creatures your opponent played, you win anyway.

For example, why does a yeti grind you to a halt? When your opponent plays it, are you attacking into it to kill it? Maybe the better play would be to just go for the face and make the opponent spend turns attacking down your dudes one at a time. In Arena, trading resources is important, but in a truly aggressive deck you just want to spend as many as quickly as possible and hope your opponent loses before you run out of gas. It's very counter to the mid-range or control grindy styles.

Some examples of Rogue cards with reach are:

Shiv
Blade Flurry
Eviscerate
Sinister Strike
Headcrack

Not very powerful cards, but they do get through a Taunt.

The longer the game goes, the worse off an aggressive strategy is. Your instinct to remove Sprint was completely correct-in an aggressive game, if you've gotten to 7 and you're going to spend your entire turn just digging for gas, your opponent's minions probably outclass you enough for it not to matter. If you had, say, Leper Gnome in the deck instead, you would have done up to 10 more damage (4 attacks +  deathrattle), and the Gnome isn't even a very good card!

Also, I kind of hate that Miracle Rogue can fill the opponent's hand, causing them to discard the next cards drawn. It's definitely fun for the Miracle Rogue player, but definitely not for the opponent.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 13, 2014, 05:09:32 AM
Any recommendations on good play vids to watch?

Generally when I'm trying to remove the yeti it's against something like a druid or paladin who could buff that minion up massively - even to 1-turn or 2-turn-kill levels - if I left it alive.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 13, 2014, 08:03:26 AM
I can't recommend anything specific.   If you're talking about miracle rogue, I was watching Hafu's stream.

My general impression is that there's a bit of rock paper scissors with almost any deck.

Here's a video of Hafu talking through her logic (careful, she swears A LOT): http://www.twitch.tv/itshafu/c/4364078

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 13, 2014, 11:51:16 AM
OK she's hilarious.  Swearing a lot doesn't bother me.  Please feel free to add more suggestions.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 13, 2014, 01:44:44 PM
I also really like Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TrumpSC

And Kripp:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeBMccz-PDZf6OB4aV6a3eA

but no specific video suggestions.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 14, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
Trump is also hilarious.  The teddy bear!  Will watch more.  Interesting to see them both going for the face rather than trying to get board control.

I'm trying to figure out warlock, and particularly cards like Soul Fire that appear regularly.  You spend 0 mana to do 4 damage, but sac a card.  So in effect you're trading 2 cards for your enemy's 1, which you generally don't want to do.  Likewise Succubus.  Clearly there's some value in these cards I'm not seeing.

And because it's funnier this way, I finally pulled Ysera out of a pack (4-3 rogue arena, my first 4-3 in a while).  Now to figure out what to DO with her.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 14, 2014, 05:55:01 PM
Most people I see don't use succubus. hell fire will often be used as a finisher, at which point you don't care what cards you loose.  I do see doom guard a lot and no, I really don't understand how to do it well (I had someone play a doom gaurd on me, loose their leeroy to it, but still won against me.   I think warlock is the hardest class for me to play right now.

I think one of the things one has to learn is when to go for the face. I'm starting to understand a little better, but I still have a long way to go. 

Something clicked yesterday and just felt more like I understood what to do when... sadly I lost whatever I had today, possibly because of the types of decks I was getting (handlock seems to have gone out of vogue.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 14, 2014, 09:10:42 PM
I new deck has come into vogue which completely creams my current deck.  I'm highly annoyed, because it really destroys anything but a rush deck or the uber-armor warrior deck.

It's the mage Alextraza, then ton of spells deck.  As if mages weren't already annoying.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on June 15, 2014, 03:45:30 AM
It's the mage Alextraza, then ton of spells deck.  As if mages weren't already annoying.
It also has 4 giants, multiple freeze and removal spells. I am currently playing the Trump mage deck and it locked me down well until the giants stomped all over me.

Mages are 2nd from bottom on the ranked heroes list, so, at least, it was encouraging to see a fellow mage doing well. :)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 16, 2014, 06:23:39 AM
I don't have any good strategies for dealing with decks that do lockdown + heavies.  You can sometimes get away with a deck that has heavy removal, or you can go for the face more often to force them to use up minions stopping you.

I just spent a couple hours watching Trump and I'm blown away. He's ridiculously good. For one thing, he's usually thinking 3-4 turns ahead. which is about 2-3 more than I do.  For another thing, he's much more comfortable leaving enemy minions on the board than I am.  He focuses a LOT on card draw, then clears the board when he wants it clear.

On other topics: I understand soul fire as a finisher but I see people using it early as well.  Still confusing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 19, 2014, 03:22:03 AM
Trump's style of play continues to impress me. He's very focused on getting minions on the board - he will throw down a 2/3 or 3/2 even if it means wasting a battlecry, so long as it gives him a numerical advantage.  He also mulligans for minions almost all the time, even to the point of keeping a 5-mana 5/5 in his opening hand.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 20, 2014, 10:23:01 AM
I must say I LOVE running faceless. You play rags/yersa on me, I faceless your rags/yersa and then use my removal.  Serves you right!

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 20, 2014, 12:24:18 PM
10 days to end of season and I can't get past rank 17.  I think if I played hard I could grind up a couple ranks, but my win rate in ranked is right around 50% and it's much worse in constructed.  Even my best decks are getting creamed.  I think I'm misreading the meta somehow and only certain types of decks are viable.  Druid ramp is no more; tempo rogue is a joke.  Everything is speed speed BIG GUY finisher.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 20, 2014, 01:16:34 PM
I'm finding this season a lot harder too.  I'm fighting to keep 14 even with my internet decks. 
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on June 20, 2014, 04:33:45 PM
With the Trump mage deck, I have had some big streaks. First, I lost 9 in a row going from 13 to 15 and thinking I had reached my peak. However, shortly after, I had a streak of 8 wins followed by one of 6 wins to get to rank 9. Starting at rank 20, I have a 57% win rate over about 110 games.

The deck does well against zoo, ramp druids, rogues, paladins and hunters. It loses to shaman, giants and priests. About even against mages.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 21, 2014, 02:36:06 PM
Mages are so OP.  since switching to that deck, I almost instantly went to rank 10 and I haven't really played that many games.

But I'm posting because someone played rags on me, I facelessed it, my rags took out his rags, he then facelessed my rags and then his rags took my rags out.   I lost, but whee!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 28, 2014, 05:41:53 PM
Trump's style of play continues to impress me. He's very focused on getting minions on the board - he will throw down a 2/3 or 3/2 even if it means wasting a battlecry, so long as it gives him a numerical advantage.  He also mulligans for minions almost all the time, even to the point of keeping a 5-mana 5/5 in his opening hand.

I'm continuing to play what I think of as "Trump style" and it's working better than my old style.  I've gotten 5 wins with a ridiculous arena rogue deck.  There have been a couple cases of lucky draws, but I do feel like I'm seeing opportunities better and able to take more advantage of the cards I have (when I don't do stupid sh*t).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 30, 2014, 07:04:27 AM
Well, season ends today and I can't get to 14.  I think I've gotten to 15 once but fallen back as far as 17. Currently at 16.  I think if I played more often I might be able to claw up a few ranks but I'm just doing terribly against the overwhelming speed decks.  I might switch to playing my mage exclusively next season just to see if a heavy removal deck will do well enough.  I've lost count of the number of shaman games I've lost in which I say "OK, so win or lose depends on whether I draw a lightning storm early enough" and then didn't.

In other news, Blizz is still saying that the Naxx expansion will be out "in July" but they pulled back on their plan to announce pricing July 1.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 30, 2014, 07:32:33 AM
Well, season ends today and I can't get to 14.  I think I've gotten to 15 once but fallen back as far as 17. Currently at 16.  I think if I played more often I might be able to claw up a few ranks but I'm just doing terribly against the overwhelming speed decks.  I might switch to playing my mage exclusively next season just to see if a heavy removal deck will do well enough.  I've lost count of the number of shaman games I've lost in which I say "OK, so win or lose depends on whether I draw a lightning storm early enough" and then didn't.

In other news, Blizz is still saying that the Naxx expansion will be out "in July" but they pulled back on their plan to announce pricing July 1.

I've had that problem with lightning storm as well.  One of the things that mitigates it is knowing how to mulligan for your opponent.  I'm still learning, but if you are up against a warlock and the meta makes it most likely they they are aggro, mulligan everything that isn't removal.

I've been out of town this weekend, so I don't have a good feel for my final rank, but I've been hovering around 12.   Definitely not as good as last month.

I'm really excited to see how Naxx changes the meta.   I feel like the meta is in some very annoying ruts right now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 01, 2014, 07:38:28 AM
Sure, I mulligan for removal, though against most of the current speed meta I'm throwing away in-hand lightning bolts.  There's rarely a single target I want to do 3 or 4 damage against early on.  Earth shocks are da bomb and I'll try to get a weapon to take out some of the more annoying 3/2s like knife juggler.

I'm also shifting around some of my early plays, replacing my own 3/2s with 2/3 like Amani that I don't mind swapping for the other guy's 3/2s and if he drops something like an 0/4 or 1/3 blocker (very common in speed decks) I'm happy to smash against them.

I might try playing my druid deck - it's got the ability to manufacture a lot of taunts and hits like a truck - but it may be too slow.  The current Druid meta is speed + ents + savage roar which is just boring as hell.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 01, 2014, 01:31:59 PM
You might check out the bouncy druid.   I don't know if it's good in the current meta, but it looked like a lot of fun.  (you put in all the pandas and druid cards with battle cries.)

I've wanted to play druid, but most decks are quite slow.

Naxx is supposed to be out sometime this month, so I'm thinking of trying to build a good hunter deck so I can use the spider card.  Really I should avoid RNG cards like that, but I'm so enticed.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 02, 2014, 07:08:32 AM
There's really only one druid battlecry you care about reusing, which is the "silence or two damage".  Druid of the Claw keeps its form on bounce, and the 7-mana 5/5 is awfully large to be bounced, even if it does have a great battlecry.

THAT said, I spent half an hour watching Trump play freeze mage and I'm seriously thinking about putting some healing back into my druid deck.  I already put some back into my paladin (running two of the 5/6 heal you for 6 minions) because it seems like this disrupts many of the current meta decks.  Freeze mage in particular seems to have a very specific "reach" and if you can keep your health out of that reach you can beat it.  Likewise I think Shield Block is going back into my warrior deck.

I also just downloaded Hearthtracker, which is a little desktop-resident screen-grabber program that watches you play Hearthstone and keeps some basic stats for you.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 02, 2014, 07:30:39 AM
I've been running hearthtracker for a while now.  It's very unreliable, but better than nothing.  It loves to get confused by large screen spells, like lightning storm and starfall.

I hope blizzard puts stats in the base game.

I've seen games won with healing for druids, yes.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 02, 2014, 07:48:36 AM
And part of bouncing things is bringing them back up to full health, like the druid of the claw.

But I really don't know much about the deck to know if it's practical.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 03, 2014, 06:10:17 AM
Ah yes, the extra healing is pretty nice.  So, this Trump vid made me feel better about my own RNG adventures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR3QSriH3pU

Speaking of random, did Blizzard change the time of day that new quests get handed out?  I used to get it when I checked in the morning but now it's some random time during the day I haven't bothered to chase down.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 03, 2014, 07:59:20 AM
long ago new quests came at noon, but I kind of wonder if it has something to do with when servers came back up or something weird like that.

Yes, I feel like quests started appearing at a different time too.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 03, 2014, 08:32:07 AM
Whatever the timing is, it's not noon Eastern (he says, sneaking in a couple games at lunchtime).  Did you know Hearthstone runs just fine off a USB stick?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 04, 2014, 05:27:19 AM
I think the new quest time is 1PM Eastern.  No idea why.

It also looks like they took out the bonus stars for win streaks - at least at lower ranks.

ETA: OK there are stars but the rules for triggering them don't seem to be what I remember.  3 wins got me 2 stars but 2 wins did not get me a single star.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 05, 2014, 09:10:56 AM
Dust everywhere.  I pulled a second Leeroy out of an arena-reward pack today and that puts me over the 1600 dust I'd need to craft a legendary.  I'm debating which one would be most useful.  Options:

- Thalnos.  Used in some decks, cheap to play.
- Cairne. More or less a straight substitution for Yeti in any deck that has it.  Costs 2 more than Yeti so it's not a complete 1:1 but I would use this in a couple decks right now.
- Sylvanas. She's a gigantic pain to play against, and I'm surprised she doesn't show up in more of the metagame.  Even silenced she's a 5/5 which is not horrible.
- Ragnaros.  Because why not.  Shows up everywhere.
- Black Knight. Seems to be appearing in a lot more of the meta.  Particularly good against ramp druid or cutting through the double-taunts that some decks use for self-preservation.
- A hero-specific epic, of which I think Van Cleefe is probably the best.  My worst decks are hunter and rogue, but Krush just isn't all that good. My second choice might be Grommash.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 05, 2014, 02:02:39 PM
Rags.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 06, 2014, 08:00:20 PM
Rags.

it is so de-Cree-d
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 08, 2014, 12:45:03 PM
from http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/14601010/curse-of-naxxramas%E2%84%A2-wing-entry-details-and-heroic-mode-7-8-2014?cid=social_20140708_27467416:

"Players who begin their adventures in Naxxramas during the launch event will gain free access to the first wing: the Arachnid Quarter. The launch event will last roughly a month or so"

"the next four wings can be purchased for 700 gold per wing or $6.99 USD per wing."

Looks like there are bundle packages for real money only ($20 for four wings.)

Each wing will be made available one per week from launch.

There is also a heroic mode for each wing.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 08, 2014, 02:40:45 PM
Earning 700g/wk is not bad but not that easy either.  I'd say my average is around 350/wk but I play arenas and that can introduce a lot of variability.  My last 5-win arena I got a deck, a bunch of dust, and a random card.  The 5-win before that I got a deck and two gold bags.  *shrug*  It's still fun to try out new cards and combos.  I'm wondering what the heroic mode will entail.

ETA: I read the Details news item and all it says is "significantly more difficult".  I guess that means they'll have access to legendary cards, but if the AI isn't improved from the practice AI it's not going to be much of a challenge.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 15, 2014, 05:59:05 PM
So here it is Season 4 and I'm stuck around rank 17.  Hearthtracker shows me with roughly a 50% win rate in almost every mode (once I figured out how to fix its arena tracking).  My shaman deck is just not cutting it against the current ranked meta.  I've got a FotM hunter deck that's annoyingly hard to beat, so I might try that, or I might swap to my mage deck just to see how that does.  I've been trying to play and tweak the shaman deck in unranked, but the competition is really different so it's hard to gauge if I'm making things better.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 15, 2014, 06:48:53 PM
I found my old decks broke hard on the meta.  I've been switching around between trumps f2p mage and a "gimmick" deck I came up with which I call "burst shaman" that stacks spell power and the direct damage spells.    It does ok, but it fails pretty hard against miracle rogues which are still dominating the meta.  I'm extremely happy a deck I made is doing ok.

I want to get a functioning hunter deck for Naxx because I want to play around with the spider card.   I don't know why my hunter deck breaks, other than every hunter deck I've ever seen suggested doesn't actually stack many beasts.   It's a trap deck which is sometimes EXTREMELY satisfying against miracle rogues (frost trap or misdirect anyone?)

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 16, 2014, 08:34:36 AM
Misdirect is THE answer to Miracle rogue (and many other 1tk styles).  I can show you the speed hunter I'm playing.  The thing gives me nervous fits to play because I often win with < 6 health left, but as Trump says, your health is a resource to spend wisely, so I try.

Speaking of which, I can NOT figure out how and why Trump mulligans.  Check out this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8PdSJbGSUw

He's playing arena paladin and sometimes he mulligans out a 3/2 raptor, sometimes he keeps it.  Sometimes he coins it out on turn one and sometimes not.  I feel like if I could understand mulligan strategy that would help me understand play on the first few turns and that would help me get a bit more above my 50% mark.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 16, 2014, 08:48:39 AM
Mulligans depend on your opponent.  It's harder in arena though.  I can't find where he mulligans the raptor.   Do you have an time stamp?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 17, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
Naxx has been announced for July 22nd.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 21, 2014, 06:16:59 AM
I am slightly surprised that they'd do something this game-changing in mid-season.  Current plan seems to be an 8 hour downtime tomorrow.  After that it'll be up, some people will race through it and get the cards, which I suspect will throw the ladder into some turmoil.  Blue tweets have said that Naxx cards will appear in arenas "after the wing unlocks" but not how long after.

I made it to 14 on a string of bonus-star wins (4 in a row) but I'll probably stop there. I have been unhappy at how badly my shaman deck has been doing against the current meta (miracle rogue in particular destroys it) so I've been playing around with the decklist and I don't want to try ranking it again.  I could potentially take another deck in but I dunno.  I think I'd rather play in Naxx.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 22, 2014, 08:55:52 AM
Servers are up and no Naxx.  This was clarified by blue tweets as being expected.  It should still go live sometime today.  The full set of cards, heroes, powers, and heroic modes is also available on hearthpwn; if you don't want spoilers you should avoid that.

ETA: Patch loading now.  The patch notes say it's for Naxx.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 22, 2014, 10:17:45 AM
Defeated the first boss first time, but some really interesting cards plus a weird mix of OTHER classes' cards.

It's really nice to have something fresh.

EDIT: second one is harder. I had to make a new deck.  Her hero power is nasty. But has an easy counter.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 22, 2014, 02:13:40 PM
I defeated all 3 on my first try with my mage deck, then beat the Druid class challenge. The rogue one destroyed me. I'll try it again later this evening. Hard Mode, I don't think I stand a chance with my decks. The hero abilities alone are just sickening.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 22, 2014, 02:49:34 PM
Three up, three down.  The second boss is hard - that hero ability is ridiculous - but I didn't have to construct a special deck for any of them.  I'll try the class challenges later.

Cree what did you use to counter second boss?  I just used a speed deck and dumped my hand as fast as possible.

Varyl I'd be interested in seeing your mage deck.  Second boss creamed my mage deck.  First one was painful with all that removal.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 22, 2014, 04:26:59 PM
My mage deck: (http://corlis.net/images/MageDeck.JPG)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 22, 2014, 06:21:01 PM
I used a fast priest deck with shadow form and circle of healing mixed with the priestess on the second boss.

I've done both class challenges and just got my first heroic down! (I think about 4 tries.)

EDIT: Got my second heroic.  I'm a little sad, actually, that I'm getting these so fast, but a little happy it doesn't just feel impossible.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 23, 2014, 05:47:32 AM
I have one class challenge (gods that druid deck SUCKS) but haven't tried the other.  Not knowing what cards you can get makes it a little challenging.  I lost the first time because I got two dead draws (+2 mana on turns 11 and 12) then beat it.  I'll try the rogue and start on heroics soon-ish.

What are you using for the heroic challenges?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 23, 2014, 06:39:19 AM
I'm making gimick decks of my own design.  For instance I made a pally deck stacked with all the things that turn attack and health to 1 for the first one.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 23, 2014, 10:04:37 AM
Yeah I was afraid it'd be gimmick deck time. This is one of the things Blizzard does that annoys me - in Warcraft the biggest example is pet battles against the legendary pets.  Also annoying that Hearthstone won't let me make more decks.  I'd have to tear down one of my regular decks for this, which makes the heroic thing seem really not worthwhile.  Do you get anything for doing it?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 23, 2014, 10:16:06 AM
Just a cosmetic card back.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 23, 2014, 02:16:28 PM
After building three disposable custom decks specifically for each of the fights, I have beaten all three Heroic Naxx Arachnid bosses.

I played for half an hour yesterday and maybe an hour today.

Not sure how I feel about that, honestly. I think their idea of slow-releasing content is good - but there needs to be enough content in each release to make it worth it.

Oh, well. Back to ... something else.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 24, 2014, 06:15:46 AM
You guys are doing better than I.  I built a simple ramp druid with lots of blockers and have gotten the first boss down to <15 reliably but I can't kill it.  I can force 2:1 and sometimes 3:1 trades, but eventually I get overrun by the constant spawn of cheap 4/4s.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 26, 2014, 05:55:12 PM
Well THAT was unexpected - https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37187917/Hearthstone_Screenshot_7.26.2014.14.02.05.png

My first ever 12-win Arena run.  12-1 as a mage, with only Pyroblast for purple and no oranges.  Not even that many rares, no polymorphs and only one flamestrike for AOE.  My previous best had been 8 wins and that only once.

My feeling more than ever after playing this through is that the game is won with the 3-5 mana-cost drops.  The deck I had could deploy multiple quality mid-game cards (scarlet crusaders, yetis, dark iron dwarves, etc.)  Combined with the mage plink power this meant I was constantly developing my board on turns 4-8 and by turn 10 I could be thinking about how to get him down to Pyroblast range.  I only used my flamestrike 3 times in the 13 games.

Some of the games were close, but many of them saw me taking < 10 points of damage.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 26, 2014, 06:20:33 PM
nice!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Aviel on July 27, 2014, 01:05:52 PM
Any pointers for beating maexxenna or however you spell the big icky annoying spider? I can get her low, but can't kill her!! I have tried with several of my decks. Sadly, I don't have many cool cards. No legendary, and maybe 1 epic.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 27, 2014, 01:17:13 PM
Cheap cards. Battle cries and things that put many minions on the board.

I just defeated heroic after many tried with a hunter deck with hounds and a bunch of battle cries.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Aviel on July 27, 2014, 01:24:08 PM
Cheap cards. Battle cries and things that put many minions on the board.

I just defeated heroic after many tried with a hunter deck with hounds and a bunch of battle cries.

Mu hunter is maybe level 6... maybe I can get a druid deck with lots of critters
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 27, 2014, 03:43:26 PM
For Maexxna, anything with powerful battlecries is awesome. Take advantage of her bounce. If you put a minion out that summons a free second minion, and she returns it to your hand, you get another free one when you recast it.

I stuffed a deck full of taunts and battlecries and just powered through her. I also put Alexstrasza in every deck I played through there, though, since it's a huge help.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 28, 2014, 06:50:54 AM
I beat Maex with a warrior deck using weapons (she doesn't block often) and charge minions.  She will stupidly bounce charge minions instead of killing them, giving you double or often triple use of the charge.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 28, 2014, 10:08:28 AM
I think her hero power is forced to go off at the start of the turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 28, 2014, 11:24:00 AM
I think her hero power is forced to go off at the start of the turn.

I think you're right, but even when given a choice of minions she still bounces ones with charge fairly often.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 28, 2014, 12:52:24 PM
I think its RNG.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 28, 2014, 12:53:37 PM
Yes, she always triggers her web power first thing. That was the key to defeating her on Heroic for me.. Let her fill her minion row with 1 power minions. Never play more than 2, so they will always be returned to your hand, and make them healing minions until you have the power to kill her with charge or spells.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 29, 2014, 08:38:43 PM
Trump is doing a FTP rogue deck this month, but it uses naxx cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 30, 2014, 03:50:17 AM
The next wing of Naxx is sort of open today.  If you buy with cash it seems to work, but purchases with in-game gold are not working as of this morning.  A blue post asks people not to try repeatedly and there are stories of people getting hung at authentication, losing their gold multiple times, etc.  My guess is that Blizz will have to roll out a fix and then track down everyone who lost gold which could take some time.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on July 30, 2014, 07:02:41 PM
I came home on my lunch break earlier today and bought the second wing with in game gold, and it worked fine. I downed the 3 bosses and both class challenges. Have not had a chance to look at the Heroics yet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 31, 2014, 06:14:54 AM
I got it to work yesterday evening.  I found these bosses significantly easier than the first wing.  I might try them on heroic.  I watched Trump's video to see how he did it - basically Alexstraza and burst.

The hunter class challenge is somewhere between amusing and annoying since it's almost completely random what you're going to be playing.  That took me three tries to beat because I kept getting terrible beasts.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 31, 2014, 08:36:55 AM
I'm really enjoying the puzzle feel of it and trying to enjoy it on my own terms, since the wings don't have much play value in them.   I kind of liked figuring out Loatheb on normal.   I found the hunter challenge  very amusing, but I'm a big fan of RNG (took me too tries.)

I really wanted the safety dance power to change each tie it was used, but it's harder to avoid if it were.

I'm looking forward to doing heroic.  Alextrasaz seems like such a cheat, plus I don't have her, so I'll be doing it the hard way and with my own decks.

I switched to a token druid of my own construction this season and I seem to be hovering high 10 right now. I'm hoping to make 9 again this season (which is my personal best so far).    I wish the game told you a history of where you ended each season.   

Poison seeds pops the death rattle, so it plays nicely with eggs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ozara on July 31, 2014, 08:56:36 AM
I cleared the normal and class challenges fairly quickly.

Normal Arachnid Quarter

Anub'Rekhan - one shotted with free to play shaman

Grand Widow Faerlina - took three tries since I didn't want to create a scrap deck. Killed her first try after making a dinky mage deck with a lot of cheap drops and board control.

Maexxna - One shotted with my bounce pally deck. Aldor peacekeeper is a beast against her...

Class Challanges

Druid - took two tries. I gave my gargoyle taunt using druid spells and he was able to heal back to full health each round.

Rogue - just zerged and got lucky since it was a one shot.

I'm going to try heroic soon.

Recently I got owned in arena with a rogue deck - only 4 wins. Switching gears to more solo is something I could use...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Aviel on July 31, 2014, 12:35:27 PM
I am sad about needing 700 gold for the next quarter, for real money. I am really bad at winning and completing the quests.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 01, 2014, 09:30:56 AM
Rank 9/10 is great. I ended last season at 14.  I might've gotten more but I wasn't motivated.  I'm noodling around with a rebuilt shaman deck and I'm liking my warlock deck a lot - I might try it in ranked.

Yuins do you consider "only" 4 wins in arena to be "getting owned"?  I don't get 4 wins with most of my arena runs.

You guys able to offer any tips, I'd love to hear it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 04, 2014, 06:26:32 AM
Gah.  I'm having a hell of a time beating zoolock these days.  It's a heavy burn deck and generally relies on a lot of cheap plays plus buffing minions (abusive, cleric, dwarf) to clear opposition.  Then two 5-attack charge demons and a couple of soulfires easily burst 15-20 damage. The deck can usually win before mage can deploy blizzards or flamestrikes, and does well against other earlier but weaker AOEs such as consecration.

I'm thinking of trying out token druid against it - I've got a token deck with about a million heavy-duty blockers but that loses badly to most other decks.

Anyone got a good thought?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 04, 2014, 08:39:23 AM
I'm playing token druid right now (or my own devising).  Zoo is still a bit rough.   I recommend the unstable ghoul as zoo defense.  It's a bit tricky to use sometimes, though.   The biggest thing when playing against zoo is always mulligan for your AOE.   If I don't have swipe, that's pretty much game over.

as for your previous post, I think the one thing that has greatly improved my playing as of late is making sure I don't miss lethal.   I find my self checking much earlier and being surprised when I have it.   A number of games I'll realize I missed it and lose because of it.   Arithmetic!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 04, 2014, 02:25:33 PM
The problem with token/swipe is the eggs.  Zoolock now runs two nerubian eggs which either they damage out to get 4/4s that survive swipe or your swipe hits the eggs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 04, 2014, 02:38:55 PM
Druids have two silences (at 4 mana) and I run an owl too, for third at lower mana.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 05, 2014, 07:01:28 AM
That's a thought, silence the eggs on first appearance.  The usual zoolock plan these days is to drop the egg, then use something like an Abusive to buff it and run it into something.  I tried playing ignore-the-board mage/hunter against that but most zoolocks run Power Overwhelming so I get smacked in the face and then have to deal with the 4/4 anyway.  I'm thinking about switching to Ramp-style druid; it's a little tetchy to get a good start but dropping a Yeti on turn 2 kind of screws most opponents.  My ramp also includes a lot of heavy-duty blockers; that fails against Miracle Rogue who can Sap them away but I think it'll work against Zoo.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 06, 2014, 04:23:54 AM
Military wing is open this morning without any of the problems (for me) of last time.  I one-shotted all three normal bosses using my regular decks, though I got lucky with Rivendare and top-decked a pyroblast for the win.  Each of them has an interesting twist on the usual rules, but none is that powerful.

Next up, class challenges. ETA: both were fairly easy.  The warlock one includes a bit of randomness but it's less bad than the hunter challenge because you can play into and around the randomness to a great degree.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 11, 2014, 06:29:53 AM
Rank-scumming appears to be a big thing at this point in the month.  I've had a couple of "victories" against people who just blow themselves up immediately on game start and at Rank 19 I'm facing someone with a 3-legendaries deck.  (Beat him, which was tremendously satisfying, but seriously WTF.)  I'm not sure whether to continue trying to rank or wait another week or two.  Anyone else trying the ranked ladder this month?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on August 11, 2014, 07:54:36 PM
I have been playing ranked with a paladin deck as I got a Tirion as one of my few legendaries. I got to rank 7 last month and am up to rank 9 this month. With some taunts and several ways to board clear, this deck turns out to be competitive against all the current meta decks.

I did see some odd decks at the higher ranks, including one that had more than half a dozen good legendaries. Below rank 15, the decks seem to be more consistent with zoolock being the most popular.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on August 12, 2014, 06:59:47 AM
It's good to see that ranked still has plenty of space for rogue* brews. If most people are trying to build decks that deal well with the meta, then you can often out-meta them by playing a deck outside of their expectations.

* lowercase, meaning "not an established deck"
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 12, 2014, 07:11:01 AM
Wow, rank 7 is awesome.  Never even gotten close myself.  Hearthtracker says I'm playing at a bit over 55% ranked, but with people blowing themselves up it's a bit skewed.  I'm wondering how far I could get if I played seriously - mostly I just dabble at a few ranked games/wk and spend most of my time on deck ideas and arenas.

Trump showed off a value rogue deck that I've been liking.  I haven't had to match it against zoolock or miracle yet but it performs fairly well against most opposition.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on August 12, 2014, 05:09:28 PM
Unfortunately, a few games per week will not get you far. 2 of Trump's FTP decks took 184 wins each to make legend rank. Last month I had about 80 wins getting to rank 7 and it took me about 60 wins to get to rank 9 this month (a 10 game win streak helped a bunch!).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 13, 2014, 04:00:49 AM
Yeah, I'm sort of figuring out that I'd have to spend 15-20 play hours getting my rank up.  I don't know if I want to do it - it's worth considering.

In other news the Construct quarter is open this morning. The first fight is a gimmick boss and I had to tweak a deck to win it. Patchwerk has no minions and just repeatedly hits you in the face with its 5-damage sword, which you can't destroy.  Every turn starting at 4 it destroys a minion.

Grobbulus and Gluth went down easily to two of my standard decks.  Thaddius took a little more thinking but I also beat that with a standard deck.

Class challenges are warrior and priest - but later. ETA: Beat the warrior one first try; the priest took two tries due to horrible draws.  Unfortunately I think these class challenges highlight weaknesses in the boss AIs.

I will say that I'm impressed at how well they've captured the essence of the WoW Naxxramas fights.  All the bosses seem "themed" appropriately to me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 16, 2014, 12:57:00 PM
Geezus.  Ranked is "all zoolock all the time."  After getting serially crushed (down to rank 20) on my mage deck I pulled that out and am slowly trying to climb back with different decks.  I had a string of wins but now up at 16 it's just one zoolock after another.  If I get a good draw I can beat it, but it's chancy.

What are people using to counter zoo?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on August 16, 2014, 03:43:14 PM
Hmmm, I wish I was seeing all zoolock - taunts + aoe/board wipes give my paladin deck an edge. The void  terrors are a bit of a nuisance though.

I am seeing more hunter and warrior decks and the druids and priests are showing up on par with warlocks. Naxx has certainly shaken up the meta.

I have been stuck at rank 9/10 for the past 20 wins (a bit below 50% over that time).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 17, 2014, 03:30:30 PM
I haven't had much time to play lately, but yes, my luck is horrible and zoo is squishing me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 18, 2014, 06:01:07 AM
I'm up to 14 now, though it's unsteady.  Trump and others say that zoolock drops off as you climb the ranks and it's pretty much unheard-of above rank 5.  Not that I'll ever see that far up...

After some reading and experimentation I'm testing out several counter-decks:
- ramp druid with heavy taunts.  If you drop a 4/5 yeti or 3/5 Sen'jin on turn 2 most Zoo decks are going to have problems.  Sometimes they'll use up a key spell (Soulfire) early to get rid of it but that leaves them with less finishing reach.  I've won a few games against zoo with <5 health but a solid wall of board control.  Zoolock has some problems getting rid of 8/8 taunts or 4/5 taunts with bubbles.

- counterspell mage.  This one has the added bonus that it royally screws miracle rogue too.  I had one rogue give up when I counterspelled his Prep so he didn't have the mana to conceal his minions.

- Naxx specials.  The sludge belcher gives you two taunts and often takes 3 hits to remove, which slows down zoo a lot.  Combo that with the naxx minion that makes battlecries cost more and zoo grinds to a halt.  Almost every card in Zoo has a battlecry, so they're scrood.  In a Priest deck you can sometimes get this guy on the board and double his health which makes baby zoolocks cry.  Also started using Mass Dispell in my priest deck since that will uncloak miracle minions you want to kill.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 19, 2014, 07:09:59 AM
Apparently they're using today's long downtime to get the next wing (Frostwyrm Lair) ready.  Hearthpwn says it won't be up until midnight PDT, so 3AM tomorrow our time.  In theory the server will be up sooner than that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 20, 2014, 04:00:06 AM
Last two bosses open, and beaten with regular decks.  Both are gimmick bosses but on normal it's pretty clear what to do against them.  I'm kind of disappointed that there are only two bosses in this wing, though that's consistent with Naxx.  The cards you get from this wing are interesting and I think we'll see some new decks coming out to use them.  The final "you win" graphic is funny.

Next up, class challenges. ETA: Sorry, just one class this time: paladin.  It's a fairly standard fight and IMO too easy, in part because the AI is stupider than it ought to be.  It has theme-appropriate cards but not very good ones compared to other bosses and it doesn't seem to know how to create synergies in what it does have.  That said, the paladin class challenge unlocks the secret that is going in EVERY SINGLE PALADIN DECK OMG now.  I'm really surprised Blizz didn't nerf this thing pre-release because I expect it'll need nerfing and there will be howls later on.

I can't find the source now but I read that Blizzard is claiming no single deck is consistently showing > 55% win rates.  I think that's misleading because you get a lot of net-decking and an idiot with a net deck is still an idiot. I think the game is fairly well balanced for the stage of development it's at and the naxx cards are varied enough to keep things fresh.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 20, 2014, 08:43:54 AM
I cycled all my hero's and all the emotes to hear KT's responses.   Not the funniest thing ever, but vaguely amusing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on August 22, 2014, 04:52:22 PM
My paladin deck had stalled over the past couple weeks and I was stuck on rank 11. I tried a redemption/avenge version with mad scientists, oozes, buffs, lots of taunts and divine shields . I even tossed in a KT for good measure. It didn't do any better.

Today, I noticed this mage deck: http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/91094-fastmage-v-1-4-deathrattle-spell-hybrid-synergy (http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/91094-fastmage-v-1-4-deathrattle-spell-hybrid-synergy)
It is cheap in dust and I had all but a couple commons, so I gave it a try. Eight wins in a row before my first loss and I am now at rank 8! I even beat a hunter deck - they were creaming my paladin deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 22, 2014, 05:01:04 PM
I fought someone who had to KT on the board... not much to do there.

I'm finding that play as a class with a death removal (naturalize) I'm a a huge disadvantage to KT compared to a class with a sheep or frog.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 24, 2014, 05:17:53 PM
Anyone else getting queued up while trying to connect?  So far it's happened three nights running, often immediately after I get disconnected while playing.  It's a little frustrating but as long as I stay out of ranked and arena it doesn't hurt too much.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Razov on August 24, 2014, 05:56:42 PM
DDOS attacks...woohooo.. been happening for a few nights. There was a twitter/new report about it. Also happening to League of legends, path of exile and sony networks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 25, 2014, 11:37:28 AM
This is a pretty impressive come back.  I'm not sure how much was luck.

Trump, priest vs warlock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xpsrwRTwok
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 26, 2014, 03:36:31 AM
Speaking as someone who bitches a lot about luck in this game (let me tell you about the ranked game I lost to a 1 in 25 chance last week) Trump's teachings are that you make luck happen by your choices.

The luck I see here is two-fold.  First, his opponent appears to be playing a fairly conventional zoolock deck. That means he's got the two charge demons and maybe a Leeroy.  So by turn 7 when Trump manages to clear the other guy's board he has to get lucky in that the other guy won't draw either of those cards. Remember he lost a doomguard to an early soulfire, bad luck for him but I rate it as overeager play - I would be extremely reluctant to soulfire in the early game if I had a doomguard in hand.  Playing against priest, which can't really make much hay out of a 3/3 minion I'd say it was a poor choice regardless. Second, Trump had the Auchenai/circle combo in hand from early on.  That's partly luck but I've also seen him keep Auchenai rather than mulligan it out. He's making his luck.

Trump is pretty constantly aware of the situation and possibilities - it's one of the things he does so well and I'm trying to get better at.  So he gets himself out of Doomguard range as quickly as possible, which protects him against some topdeck luck on his opponent's part.  Doomguard/Abusive would still hurt but that gets even more unlikely than topdecking Doomguard.

It's interesting that he's playing Amaz priest.  I tried that deck for a while and lost horribly with it, in part because I don't have the situational experience and patience that Trump has.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 28, 2014, 08:36:08 AM
And now it's "Everyone has to have a variant on zoolock".  I'm seeing Palamidgets, mage speeds, and of course the ubiquitous hunter speed (which is getting up into the ranks).  Bleh.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 31, 2014, 07:43:29 PM
Season end at 11.  Could not crack up to 10, fell back to 12 a couple times trying.  ETA: 14 bonus stars, starting at Rank 19, for what that's worth.

Started seeing more variation in decks toward the end, including a nice paladin combo deck using the new secret and mad scientists.  Hunter speed seems to have fallen off in favor of a more traditional combo-based approach.  Very few priests, shaman, or warriors at these ranks - saw a lot more working my way up through 14-12.  Lots of use of the new Naxx cards, at least the obviously good ones.  I'm working on a priest concept deck that uses some Naxx cards - I'll probably try taking that into ranked play next season.

Arena runs... well, Hearthtracker says I'm winning about 56%, which feels right.  Had a couple 1-3 and 2-3 then some 5- and 6-win drafts.  I'm becoming more and more convinced that Arena is all about board control and I'm altering my drafting style slightly to favor control minions.  We'll see how that goes.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 05, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
Start of the season is my time to much around without fear of tanking my rating badly.  I played around with an egg eater warlock of my own devising (stealing the premise.)  Two interesting things struck me.  First the learning curve was quite high, partly because I haven't really played a warlock and partly because the combinations were not immediately obvious.  Secondly I feel I now have a better understanding of fighting against warlocks, having played one for a bit.  Also must say that it is quite satisfying to get multiple Thadii on the board, even though I think I lost that game.

I had some fun with a full "what's yours is mine" (minus legendaries) priest deck, which is super fun, but super RNG.   

I've decide to make some ladder climbing progress, so I'm back to my token-ish druid and got a nice lucky streak have have made an early start to the climb.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 05, 2014, 12:30:57 PM
Yeah, I've dipped my toe in the water with a couple new decks. I really like the priest deck but it's seriously subject to RNG.  I started at 19 and had a long fall back.  Slowly building out of that.  I'm not sure whether I'll try to rank much this month.  Rumor is that miracle rogue is dead(ish) so the fact that my deck tends to wreck Miracle is less fun now. I'll have to see how it goes.  My arenas have been pretty bad lately, so who knows.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 06, 2014, 06:32:52 PM
I'll just leave this here:
RNG is random (https://www.dropbox.com/s/nhkv5is2mcparfp/Hearthstone_32.jpg?dl=0)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 15, 2014, 08:41:52 AM
I was playing my egg eater deck against a shaman.  He plays Sylvanas (take control of another minion on death), and then puts ancestral spirit (resummon this minion on death) on it and then facelesses it.

I then faceless his, play Baron (make death rattles happen twice) and destroy my own Sylvanas, which then MC's two of his minions.  The RNG is nice and I get BOTH his Sylvani and then get two more from the ancestral spirit death rattle.     He blows blood lust and  gets me pretty far down and puts out spirit wolves, so I'm looking at a board with two taunts up, but I shadow flame one of my Sylvani, clear his board, get another TWO because of the death rattle and swing in with the remaining 3 Sylvani and the baron for almost lethal and then he conceded.

P.S. I love faceless so much!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 15, 2014, 12:55:01 PM
That's hilarious abuse.  I can't wait for Blizz to make more Silence cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 15, 2014, 01:11:48 PM
Nerfs coming to two major cards: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/622-leeroy-jenkins-starving-buzzard-changes-confirmed

I'm a bit surprised because Blizz has been adamant for a while that they didn't want to change existing cards. I think both changes will be for the better. I'm also a little surprised they made the changes after the qualifier but before the world championships.  I suspect there will be some howls over that.  Trump was quite philosophical about being knocked out of the qualifiers but others aren't.

Making Leeroy cost one more will make it impossible for rogues to get a zero-cost Leeroy (4-shadowstep = 2 - shadowstep = 0) and makes that whole triple into a 9-mana play rather than 6.  Still do-able but harder to combo with buffs.  I do not think this is going to cause me to pull Leeroy from my decks that use it, but I'll have to look.

The revamp on Buzzard makes it a draw engine comparable with others, but still can be scary with UtH. My suspicion is that this will also not change many deck compositions but it may cause a shift in some of the hunter-heavy meta.

(Speaking of Trump, watching more of his vids has been educational.  He's started occasionally putting up percentages on remarkable plays that show the odds of that happening.  It's fun to see that yes, he also gets lucky pretty often.  Also, he's been making more mistakes lately, which is somewhat comforting considering how mistake-ridden my own play is.)

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on September 15, 2014, 02:10:55 PM
I'm happy they're nerfing problematic cards-but then again, I come from a world where the only recourse is to ban the mistake card altogether.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 16, 2014, 05:12:27 AM
I looked over my decks and I'll keep Leeroy where he is in all of them.  This makes me think the nerf is a good one because it appears only to nerf one specific (ab)use of the card in combos but leaves it as a strong finisher in many decks.

The change to Buzzard, though, is going to wreck my hunter deck as well as most of the ongoing hunter decks.  In particular the Buzzard/Snake Trap combo will likely go by the wayside, which is a shame.  I agree it's OP, but I would rather have seen them nerf it more lightly.  The problem with the card is its ability to refill an entire hand for cheap.  They could instead have nerfed it down to something like a draw-two rather than draw-infinite.  The blue tweets say they tried a bunch of variants but they've also agreed they might back off this nerf.

I think the core problem is that Hunter is currently the only class with a counter-secret ability (mages can Counterspell I suppose).  This has made hunter popular because Blizz put in several new cards related to secrets and now secrets are a fixture in many decks. I hope they will introduce more counter-secret cards in the new expansion.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 18, 2014, 03:50:32 AM
For fun I tried listening to some of the streams of the Americas Hearthstone qualifier.  I found the raw streams painful to watch - the games move slowly because the players are generally considering things carefully and the commentators are blithering idiots.  Does anyone know of a better 'cast of the livestreams or anyone who's producing edited recaps?  I would like to watch some of the top players, but not go narcoleptic doing it.

(I think I'm spoiled by the way Trump tightly edits his streams for YouTube production.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 18, 2014, 10:53:53 AM
a break down of percentage of players that get to each rank:

http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/15955974/hearthside-chat-youre-better-than-you-think-9-18-2014

tl;dr; 75% are below rank 15.

Of course, you have to wonder about all the skew.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 19, 2014, 03:12:49 AM
75% are below rank 15.

That's fascinating - I'm currently at 14 again.  After a lot of early struggles my new ranking deck has started picking up.  I'm using my old deck now and then but still not playing a lot of ranked.

Based on Hearthtracker and my own sense I would have guessed that I was much closer to the 55% mark than the 75% mark.  Perhaps my perception is skewed by watching ladder climbers - players who (seem to) win a lot compared to me.  Like many of the commenters responding to that post, I wish Blizz would show more data.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 19, 2014, 03:24:16 AM
While I'm thinking about player quality, I noticed a remarkable lack of familiar names in the Hearthstone World Championship top 16 that was posted a few days ago. I saw Trump's comments about being knocked out in the qualifiers but still I expected to see other names I recognized.

Yesterday Hearthpwn posted the finalists for the 'World Cyber Arena 2014' being held in China and it includes several names I recognize: Hafu, Nox, Amaz, and ThatsAdmirable.  I wonder if some players just sat out the HWC or maybe some difference in format led to the different rosters?  The WCA page is in Chinese and even with Translate on I can't make out how the roster was determined - maybe it's just the invitations?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 19, 2014, 03:51:20 PM
Cracked 8 for the first time.   I've been using this druid deck:

http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/94370-kolento-nr-1-legend-deck

It's a weird deck to play.  It sometimes just tramples the opponate, it sometimes get behind and never catches up, it sometimes poof has the right cards and pulls a win out of the fire, it sometimes just fails horribly.

It's been quite the yoyo run.  On a winning streak I got to 10 last night, fell two ranks in a huge losing streak, fought a bit around 10/11, then got back on a winning streak.  I must say I don't like clumping like that, despite the advantage winning streaks because loosing streaks feel worse than loosing 50% of your games with wins mixed in.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on September 19, 2014, 06:34:48 PM
I decided to try hunter this season and have been playing this deck minus the Leroy

http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/100428-spark-beasty-zoo-s6

Once the buzzard is nerfed I will probably try something else, but, in the meantime, it is a fun deck to play. I have had several nice win streaks interspersed with some days of slowing sliding backward. I got to rank 8 a week ago and then slid all the way back to 10. But, tonight, I got a couple of streaks going and managed to hit rank 6 for the first time!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 19, 2014, 07:49:05 PM
Wow! 6! grats!

I made the conscious decision to see what would happen if I made an effort, so I purposfully played all day today. And pretty much ended where I started.

I think I would like to pie the guy who said you can get to legend if you're just determined enough.

I think what I don't like about being above 10 is you see the same decks over and over again.  I think I'm going to go back to my normal way of playing which is to complete the quest and play my silly decks and not really care about rank.   I'm never going to be legend, so might as well focus on what is the most fun.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 20, 2014, 07:58:49 AM
That druid deck is interesting.  I could mostly make it.  It's interesting to me that Druid has at least 3 viable deck styles (token, ramp, and FoN/SR) - mine is token style.

Congrats on the people getting up into single digits.  I remain stuck around 14.  Not sure how much time I'll put into pushing it. I still need a few legendaries, so I might do more arenas to generate dusts.  I'm also probably going to shred my golden cards to get enough to do a legendary.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 20, 2014, 08:21:53 AM
I swapped an innervate for a naturalize because the deck was lacking removal.  Haven't really played it enough to know how good a change that was.  Certainly feels a bit better.

I also don't have two AoL, so I have a drake in place of one of them.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on September 24, 2014, 08:32:25 PM
With the nerf to buzzard, I decided to give this deck a try:

http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/103715-legendary-hunter-no-buzzard-unleash

From the previous hunter deck, it substitutes bows and traps for the buzzard and hounds and has a few tweaks for the meta (it has a good write up). I have managed to make it to rank 4. It is quite competitive with most decks at that level.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 25, 2014, 03:47:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCxH3y_ZQzI&list=TLY66njynGzhogc2vOwSeeoPxz3k8iv9YE

Trump put up an edited-down version of his tournament play.  It's interesting both to see what/how he plays and comments on the meta.  Also, how very lucky he got in this set of games.

I remain stuck around 14, playing my slightly modified ramp druid and homebrew priest.  Trump comments - and I think I agree - that with the effective disappearance of Miracle rogue and the passing of the freeze mage fad, Loatheb is much less useful.  I tend to agree and have started swapping that out of my decks for a recently crafted Sylvanus.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 28, 2014, 05:09:00 AM
I just lost a game to what I think is a bug, but maybe?  My Rags hit his Kel'thuzad but it resurrected itself.  How is that possible?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on September 28, 2014, 07:39:04 AM
Blizzard has acknowledged this as a bug, yes: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/9677847863

Presumably it's just an oddity resulting from the way end-of-turn effects are resolved.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 29, 2014, 03:26:03 AM
Thanks Marco, I figured that was it.  Annoying to lose because of it, but hey it's a game.  It's also annoying that Hearthtracker has largely stopped tracking. And it's annoying that my Long War game is wedged due to a memory leak.  Maybe it's a sign I should break out a new game.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 30, 2014, 07:33:57 PM
Ending the season at 11.  Briefly at 10, but fell back.  My decks aren't strong enough to face the priest heavy control deck that's popular right now.  My speed hunter can sometimes out-race it but if the game goes past turn 8 I'm generally hosed.  I could join the herd and play the same deck - my current priest is very similar to Numberguy's Priest (http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/106170-numberguys-dreamhack-priest-blizzcon-2014-eu) but it gets boring to see the same deck over and over.

What are people playing to counter that meta?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 01, 2014, 07:45:02 AM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/105157-suicide-trollock

"Tired of the same-old, same-old, where you do nothing but try to win?  I am.  That's why I constructed the Suicide Trollock.  Your goal: die as quickly as you can, as stylishly as you can. "

"Soulfire - 4 damage to your face for 0 mana!
Lorewalker Cho - let your opponent join in on the fun! (thanks BoilerUp)
Elven Archer - 1 damage to your face for 1 mana
Flame Imp - 3 damage to your face for 1 mana
Pit Lord - 5 damage to your face for 4 mana
Zombie Chow - heals your opponent for 5
Hellfire - 3 damage to everything, including your own face
Sacrificial Pact/Lord Jaraxxus: see combo section below"

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on October 01, 2014, 03:48:16 PM
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/30/6874049/hearthstones-expansion-add-on-100-new-cards-blizzard-pc
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on October 01, 2014, 07:59:07 PM
WIth the buzzard-less hunter deck, I managed to make it to rank 3 but then the meta changed and I fell back. So, I gave the zoolock deck a try. I quickly zoomed back to rank 3 again but then just as quickly retreated to back where I started. I finished up at rank 4 for the month.

One thing that is noticeable at rank 4 and above is that there are much fewer people at that level. On at least 3 occasions, I played the same opponent back to back. It was also common to be playing people of a higher or lower rank even when in the middle of a rank star-wise. I even played a couple people two ranks away - I beat a rank 1 player!

There also seemed to be some bot decks. Got me reading up on bots. Seems that zoolock and shaman decks are bottable and can make legendary. I did run into a fair number of zoolocks and shaman and many of them had golden heros - bots tend to get golden heros fairly quickly.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 02, 2014, 06:11:14 AM
How do you tell if someone is botting a deck?  Most of my decks crush zoolock (unless they get very good draws and I get bad) so I'm always happy to see that.

I figure I'll give the priest deck a try this season.  If I lose games I will learn something about how to beat this deck.  Right now it only seems to lose to the RNG.  Some of that is definitely my lack of experience, but there's just this hilarious moment when I'm holding two of a certain card and I thoughtsteal two more copies from the other guy's deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on October 03, 2014, 07:36:18 PM
How do you tell if someone is botting a deck?  Most of my decks crush zoolock (unless they get very good draws and I get bad) so I'm always happy to see that.
The main way is that the bots tend to take the same amount of time between each minion action. The bot decks also do not show any arrows during play - however, iPads also do not show arrows, so not a definitively bot indicator but at least a way to rule out a bot. Bots also trade minions very well and tend to have golden heroes. Bots never concede or emote. The above is what I gathered from the Hearthpwn forums.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 03, 2014, 07:50:07 PM
What are people playing to counter that meta?

Answering my own question: Handlock.  The priest deck can have a very slow start and that makes dealing with the early giants very hard. Later game it's not so bad.

ETA: and there's a charging version of zoolock I'm starting to see that uses Argents along with the usual charging demons.
ETA2: Yeah, handlock is the new hotness.  Hrm.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 09, 2014, 07:22:12 PM
Bouncing up and down around rank 13, what I see is a lot of Undertaker and the new rise of hunters.

Handlock > new Hunter > steal everything Priest > ramp druid > zoolock > everything else

ETA: apparently I cannot play priest.  I have long losing streaks whenever I try.  Other people crush me with that deck but I just lose to everything.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 20, 2014, 02:07:12 PM
Long maintenance tomorrow.  Anyone know what's up?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 27, 2014, 08:38:34 AM
Looks like I'm going to finish out the season around rank 11.  Spent some time at 10 but keep falling back.  My hunter deck, which got me boosted, does terribly against control decks and I don't quite have the skill or cards to make it up farther.  Meanwhile at this rank I keep picking wrongly against opponents - my control decks get beat by their speed and my speed gets beat by their control.  Sigh.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 09, 2014, 04:14:00 AM
Along with the new expansion (http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/expansions-adventures/goblins-vs-gnomes) Spectator mode is being enabled.  You have to be friends with someone, and you get to see who's watching, which seems pretty reasonable.

ETA: I didn't realize the expansion was coming as soon as December.  I wonder if that means it goes into (open?) beta next month or what.

ETA2: Spectator mode is on a per-hand basis.  You have to be friends with both players and have two separate permissions to spectate both hands.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 09, 2014, 11:27:50 AM
38 of the GvG cards have been revealed: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/675-blizzcon-2014-new-expansion-announced-goblins-vs

Some of them look like obvious nerf-bat targets, but mostly I'm concerned at how much randomness Blizz is introducing into the game.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 09, 2014, 01:27:39 PM
Some of the ones that look like they need nerf bats (like voltron or the spare parts) aren't actual deck cards, but rather cards created by other cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 10, 2014, 06:48:32 AM
According to Hearthpwn there are no plans to public beta the new expansion.  This seems like a recipe for disaster because the phrase "no public beta" just translates to "we'll let everyone beta it at the same time and suffer from all the bugs and imbalances."  Dear gods and little fishes when is Blizz going to learn ANYTHING about software development?

I anticipate rounds of "people find and pile on exploit, bug, or broken combo" -> "Blizz has to patch" -> "endless whining about how they nerfed this or that (particularly mid-season)"
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Gwyddyon on November 11, 2014, 05:30:56 AM
I expect they're being practical. Empirical evidence from nearly every game, anywhere, ever, would seem to indicate that you always ship with a broken combo somewhere, and the internet lets everybody pile on it, and then you nerf it, and everyone whines. This appears to happen no matter how long you take to beta it. So you might as well let everybody have it, let them find the broken combos fast, fix it fast, and have a working game after a short bumpy start instead of a long beta that still doesn't find everything (and produces zero or near-zero cashflow).

I think this is cognate (but not identical) to the 'minimum viable product' theory.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 13, 2014, 08:30:09 AM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/#botting

Somewhat to my surprise, Blizzard has banned "several thousand" accounts for botting in Hearthstone.

I'm surprised because it happened this quickly.  Blizzard's previous action against botters was viewed as a slap on the wrist and Blizz justified it in what seemed to me to be wishy-washy language ("well, maybe they didn't know").  This is also very different from their incredibly laggard pace of moving against botters and maphackers in Warcraft.

Of course since Hearthstone is FtP it'll be relatively easy for the botters to set up new accounts but this should at least slow them down a bit.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on November 13, 2014, 10:42:17 AM
Somewhat to my surprise, Blizzard has banned "several thousand" accounts for botting in Hearthstone.
My inner game designer wants to know why you'd bother botting in Hearthstone and why that's bad.  (And how they could redesign the game to discourage botting, but that's a hard problem.)

Why bother:  because finishing quests gives you free stuff.  ???

Why bad:  because it's not fun to play against bots.  ???
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on November 15, 2014, 04:10:54 AM
My inner game designer wants to know why you'd bother botting in Hearthstone and why that's bad.  (And how they could redesign the game to discourage botting, but that's a hard problem.)

Why bother:  because finishing quests gives you free stuff.  ???

Why bad:  because it's not fun to play against bots.  ???
Apparently, some botters make money by selling accounts with golden heroes and lots of gold. There are some casual botters (bots are sold by botmakers) who do it for golden heroes, golden cards (from leveling heroes) and, of course, gold and dust.

Speculation is that one of the reasons for not banning in the first round is that some botters have paid Blizz real money and Blizz did not want to cut off a source of income without giving a warning.

Apart from the cheating aspect, botters are disliked because they do well, frequently making it to rank 5 or better, including legend.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on November 15, 2014, 04:15:40 AM
Apart from the cheating aspect, botters are disliked because they do well, frequently making it to rank 5 or better, including legend.
I would not have guessed this!  Perhaps Blizzard could pay the botters to expand on the "play against the computer" options.  ;)

Thank you for elucidating.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on November 15, 2014, 04:41:46 AM
Apart from the cheating aspect, botters are disliked because they do well, frequently making it to rank 5 or better, including legend.
I would not have guessed this!  Perhaps Blizzard could pay the botters to expand on the "play against the computer" options.  ;)

Thank you for elucidating.
Most bots play warlock zoo or shaman "zoo". They are very good at optimized trades and win by playing lots of minions early and rushing. Not very exciting to play against but not always easy to beat because of RNG,
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 17, 2014, 06:09:01 AM
A bot with a good opening hand is incredibly hard to beat.  Since they can spam out several games/hour it's easy for them to rack up wins while ignoring bad RNG. However, they're also easy to beat if you know you're up against one.  Just keep clearing their board - they have no end-game strategy and do much worse playing into an empty board.  This makes them really boring to play against.  Not that the traditional AI is much better, mind you, but on the ranked ladder one is looking for interesting play.  It's one reason people complain about the prevalence of hunter speed in ladder climbing - the deck just doesn't require all that much cleverness.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 25, 2014, 12:00:14 PM
I'm starting to think that the new expansion can't come too soon.  The game has stagnated significantly, with a small set of deck styles dominating. Knowing the hero that you're playing, you can pretty quickly tell what you're going to face.  There are some variants - handlock is very different from zoolock (and I'm even starting to see murlock come back) but generally by turn 2 you know the opponent's deck and it comes down to either who gets the better draws or whether your deck style can work against their deck style.  The game's essential rock-paper-scissor nature still exists and no one deck or deck type dominates, but generally you can see how the game will unfold by the first few turns.

For this reason I've stopped playing ladder - once again I can get to 11 or 10 with some work but breaking single digits is a lot harder and takes more time than I'm willing to put in.  I think I'll end this season at 11 or 12 because Warlords of Draenor.

The new expansion is going to feature a huge amount of randomness, from items and minions that have random effects to an entire card type (ogres) that have a 50% chance to hit the "wrong" enemy.  On the one hand I think this is a terrible idea - the game should be about skill and minimize randomness. The developers claim that the good players will be able to use the randomness to their advantage and that's probably true to some degree.

But increasingly I fear we'll see good players disadvantaged by randomness, the way now a good player can be disadvantaged by a bad draft in arena, or a bad string of card draws in constructed.  Many (most?) games have elements of chance in them but games where chance dominates are to me inferior to games where the role of chance is minimized or more evenly spread.

On the other hand... damn, it'd be nice to see a priest and not be able to reel off his deck list before the first minion hits the playing field.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 01, 2014, 06:55:46 AM
Ended at 12, barely.  Small streak of "one card from winning".  Oh well.  I expect to ladder early this month in order to get my rank and then stop once the expansion hits  I've banked 2300 gold for buying new packs but I expect stuff to change pretty quickly.

There's a big maintenance window (8 hours) tomorrow but no official announcement of GvG release, yet.  We'll see.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 02, 2014, 06:40:25 AM
Blue tweet says they'll make an announcement before release so I don't expect GvG to be live when the servers come back.  I'm wondering if the extended downtime is related to the DDOS attacks that hit battle.net in the past week.  They might be moving servers around and hardening things.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 02, 2014, 07:28:42 AM
Or they're big into preprep.    There could be a server change needed for GvsG before the release that they want to get out there.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 02, 2014, 01:32:01 PM
GvsG dec 8th

http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/16960836/goblins-vs-gnomes-whirs-into-life-beginning-december-8-12-2-2014?abt=nav1&utm_expid=68589644-24.yOgsCsWhSz-gOSDIbl82Wg.1&utm_referrer=http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/%3Fabt%3Dnav1
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 04, 2014, 12:28:51 PM
GvG just hit arenas.  I'm slightly surprised about this, though Hearthpwn had something up earlier today.  The official announcement says that the cards are playable in arenas but doesn't say whether you now get  them as reward packs.  My guess is no, which means I'll hold onto my gold for now.

Buyable packs still go on sale Dec 8.

Also live suddenly today are three changes to slow down speed decks:
Soulfire costs 1 mana (up from 0).  Still an awesome card.
Flare costs 2 (up from 1).  Still the only counter to secrets.
Gadgetzan Auctioneer now costs 6 (up from 5).  This nerf probably won't stop miracle decks, though it might delay them for a turn.  It may make some of the non-Rogue miracle decks less viable since Rogues combo with zero-cost Preparation to get zero-cost spells and that's not an option for others.

ETA: Spectator mode is also suddenly live.
I don't see these changes having any effect on decks currently in play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 04, 2014, 12:42:19 PM
They give one free arena pass.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 05, 2014, 05:53:44 AM
Flare costs 2 (up from 1).  Still the only counter to secrets.

No longer true.  There's now a 4/3 minion with a Battlecry "take control of an enemy secret"

In my arena draft I'm seeing a few cards that have gone in to buff other things, such as a 5-mana "Pirate" with 7/4 stats.  Mechs have gotten most of the attention but it looks like this set may have additional things that would help other deck types be more viable.  I like this.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 08, 2014, 12:46:29 PM
GvsG is live and they gave three free of the new packs to get you started.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 09, 2014, 04:38:09 AM
I've been getting thrashed by the new decks for a bit now.  The expansion is leaning the game strongly toward control decks in part because the new cards tend to be a bit above curve on health.  There are now more 2-mana 2/3 and 3-mana 3/4 minions which are great for getting control even leaving aside synergies.  Despite what Blizz says it wants, silence is going to be even more important.  There are just so many synergy effects and the new spare parts that silence will become extremely valuable.

There are some seriously powerful (not yet sure if they're OP) new cards.  The new druid legendary is 9/7 for 7 mana and it cycles back into your deck on death. Hello ramp. On the other hand there are cards that don't seem that valuable.  I picked up one 6-mana legendary that is... OK I guess?  If I'm choosing between that and Sylvannus I would probably choose Syl.  Likewise I got a 7-mana warrior epic that is OK, but doesn't seem better than Gorehowl.  I'm glad Blizzard didn't go overboard, but it does seem clear that if you don't have some of these new cards you're not going to be viable, just as certain Naxx cards really became mainstays.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 16, 2014, 12:20:09 PM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/730-hearthstone-on-android-rolls-out-hearthstone

Hearthpwn has a recap of the developer AMA.  Nothing really interesting in there.  The closest-to-interesting thing I found was some hint that they might expand the number of deck slots.  That would be really useful; right now I spend a lot of time screenshotting decks, then tearing them up to see if I can improve them.  Mostly not, so I want to roll back to the last stable point.

The game is coming out for Android tablets and you get a free classic pack for playing any game on an Android tablet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 08, 2015, 06:49:31 AM
This was on Hearthpwn so you might have seen it.  I really want this (starting from about 0:15) as my phone ringtone.  If you could do that I would be in your debt and would pay with money, cookies, or alcohol of your choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEFMuInCP8w
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on January 08, 2015, 10:26:52 AM
http://corlis.net/sound/chugga.mp3 (http://corlis.net/sound/chugga.mp3)

You can download it here, and set it as your ringtone.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 08, 2015, 04:06:41 PM
Thank you SO much.  I am giggling like mad and Pogue thinks I've gone off my nut.  What can I repay you with?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Varyl on January 09, 2015, 12:42:58 PM
Don't worry about it. ;) Happy to help out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 18, 2015, 09:13:43 AM
I've been all over the rankings this season.  I was doing ok with my mech mage and then stopped.   I've currently switched to hobo druid. And I'm having some luck with it right now (though I don't expect it to last.)

I feel one of the skills I'm missing is I can't read the meta and I can deck build to that meta.  I don't understand why my mech mage stopped working. And I don't know how to learn those things.

EDIT: of course, as soon as I posted this, my winning streak ended.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 19, 2015, 09:56:31 AM
My sense is that anything works at the 25-20 level.  I've watched the Trump Teaches series and he's winning ranked games with basic cards alone.  19-15 you see a lot of experimentation.  People are good and may be testing out new decks.  Toward the end of the season most of them have climbed out of these ranks and these ranks are full of speed decks.  15-10 is almost entirely speed, often hunter.  Then above 10 it turns into control decks, usually with 6-10 legendaries.  If not legendaries, these decks will have the classic "answer" card.  Like BGH.  Because you don't see a lot of speed you can often take out some of the anti-speed cards (e.g. Loatheb) and replace with answer cards like Sylvannus.

I'm told that the EU ladder is much less full of speed hunters and such but I haven't created an account there to test.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 29, 2015, 11:13:00 AM
It looks like the Undertaker change was just pushed live (now gains +1/0 instead of +1/+1 per deathrattle minion summoned).  I'm a little surprised at how cavalier Blizzard is about pushing out these changes mid-season given how much they tiptoed around making changes in mid-PVP season in Warcraft.

I don't expect the change to affect me much - my hunter uses Undertaker but it's rarely something I win with.  The overall effect will probably be to make deathrattle speed more on par with other forms of speed.  Which brings me to...

I think Blizzard are playing whack-a-mole and ultimately they may have to think about their game mechanics.  They keep changing individual cards in an effort to slow down specific deck types but all that means is that those decks become slower than the next-best speed deck and everyone switches to that.  Then Blizzard nerfs another card and so on and so on.  Fundamentally it's still the case that the fastest deck tends to dominate at least the middle of the ranks.  Once you hit rank 10 or so you start facing decks with ~6 legendaries and the game becomes much more about having the right answers.  Thus my rank tends to top out at 11, which is where I'll end this month again.

I'd be utterly stunned if Dr Boom wasn't next up on the nerf parade.

If Blizzard wants to change this "speed dominates until legendaries dominate" model they're going to have to do more than tweak one card at a time.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 07, 2015, 10:16:42 PM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UMqBOmvba0g

Honest game trailer for hearthstone
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 10, 2015, 12:39:36 PM
I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.  Maybe Cree and I are the last cupcakes still playing, but here goes.  Announced at PAX East, the new Hearthstone expansion is based on Blackrock Mountain and is dragon-themed.  New dragon-type cards, etc. They've said there will be new "interactions" with dragons but it's not clear if they're going to go back and re-label some existing cards as 'dragon' the way they did with mechs. Thirty-one new cards have been announced, 18 of which are class cards.

Cards will be unlocked via a 5-wing set of solo adventures(17 bosses, 9 class challenges), at $7 or 700 gold per wing.  I think there's a deal for buying the whole thing in advance for cash as well as you get a unique card back.  Meh, I can generate 3500 gold easily enough (I'm at over 2k now).  Unlike Naxx the first wing will not be free.  Like with Naxx and GvG the new cards will appear in Arenas before they're generally available. I believe pre-purchasing does not give you early access to the wings before they're available for individual purchase

Some of the new cards have been announced or leaked, including a Grim Patron and Blackwing Technician that make it clear they're mining all the different levels of Blackrock Mountain that have been seen in Warcraft over the years.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 13, 2015, 07:02:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-0K5Y4X2Xg&list=TLWu7lLXBy2U0

I've started watching Kripparian videos.  He's less instructional than Trump but has some interesting strategy differences.  This is a film he put together talking about the RNG in Hearthstone.  Which seems to hate him rather a lot.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ungrimmar on March 23, 2015, 10:21:40 AM
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-23-watch-hearthstones-longest-turn-ever-clock-in-at-over-40-hours
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 23, 2015, 01:13:06 PM
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-23-watch-hearthstones-longest-turn-ever-clock-in-at-over-40-hours

That's hilarious.  I wonder if the game will crash or force some kind of timeout.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Ungrimmar on March 24, 2015, 04:54:23 AM
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-03-23-watch-hearthstones-longest-turn-ever-clock-in-at-over-40-hours

That's hilarious.  I wonder if the game will crash or force some kind of timeout.

I'm surprised it hasn't already crashed, but its almost at 24hrs straight right now!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 27, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
Blackrock Mountain release announced for April 2, at least in the US.  April 3 in some parts of the world.  A little odd that it's not a Tuesday but not entirely unprecedented.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 29, 2015, 09:08:16 AM
I was quite frustrated at the start of this month.  I was running about 50/50 no matter what deck I was playing (which made me feel better about my home brew decks, but it left me feeling like the RNG on the game was just too high.  Then I found this hobgoblin paladin rush deck that day9 was playing.    I got up to 8 this month which is the highest I've seen in a long while.  I'm now slowly dropping in rank, but it really drives home what a difference a good deck can make.

The meta has changed just in the past few days, it feels. I'm encountering lots high taunt druids, which this deck does poorly against.

I really feel like the only way I could really do well in hearthstone is to understand how to read the meta better.   Is there a "meta report" site or anything like that because I don't feel like just playing gives you enough of a sample size.   

I think this deck also drives home that I don't quite understand how this deck does do so well.  It seems to have a lot of weird synergy above and beyond the hobgoblins.

I'm hoping that with the addiction of blackrock I'll be able to tweak my own home brew deck "tick-tock preist" into functionality.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 30, 2015, 09:01:35 AM
I continue to be stuck in the 13-11 range.  Currently down after a five-game losing streak trying to play my midrange hunter.

The meta is ... I dunno, something that's made up from what people talk about.  I think it's kind of hilarious that my hunter is getting outrun by mech speed decks all the time now.  You see a lot of people playing the same decks, that's the meta.  Some of it comes from various twitch streamers and their commenters plus videos.

Also, is it just me or do Doomsayers pilot shredders a whole lot more often than you'd expect?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 30, 2015, 09:19:15 AM
Understanding the meta can probably come from watching tournament results. Whenever a deck wins a tournament, or whenever a prominent streamer plays or advocates for a deck, the meta shifts toward a lot of people playing those decks. Then the people playing decks that counter that deck start rising to the top.

But once you understand the current meta, you need to get good at reacting to it. Say this taunt druid deck stays unanswered for a while and becomes the "best deck," do you know how to counter it?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 01, 2015, 08:45:53 AM
They now tell you what percent the rank you earned translates too.  That's kind of neat.  It told me ran 9 was 7%.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 02, 2015, 04:53:28 AM
Blackrock Mountain release announced for April 2, at least in the US.  April 3 in some parts of the world.  A little odd that it's not a Tuesday but not entirely unprecedented.

Looks like BRM is not up this morning.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 02, 2015, 08:05:11 AM
Hearthpwn.com was predicting noon PST.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 02, 2015, 09:11:04 AM
It's up now (1 PM).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 09, 2015, 04:19:04 AM
Hearthstone has added a new (randomly generated) daily quest that rewards a pack of cards for watching someone else's game using the in-game "spectator" mode.  The gimmick is that the person you watch has to win their game.  At first I thought this was available only to new players but apparently not.

If you get this quest feel free to spectate me.  I win more than I lose and I don't mind watchers.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 09, 2015, 07:53:53 AM
Even though it makes me lose, people can spectate me too.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on April 09, 2015, 04:06:47 PM
Same here. And I also got the quest a couple days ago so I will be keeping an eye out for someone to spectate. :)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 10, 2015, 05:47:45 AM
Jenilea I'm not sure I have you as a b.net friend.  My tag is in the stickied thread - feel free to add me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 14, 2015, 01:46:58 PM
New patch allows you to invite someone to spectate, and there's an announcement of Hearthstone for phones.  I haven't had the time to try that one.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 15, 2015, 07:02:16 AM
New patch allows you to invite someone to spectate, and there's an announcement of Hearthstone for phones.  I haven't had the time to try that one.

Downloaded and tested the Android Hearthstone this morning.  TL;DR it's quite good but I'm not sure I'd fully trust it for a game I cared about.

You get a free (regular) pack for playing any game on the mobile, including against the trainer so I gave it a go.  It's slow - gods help you if the other guy plays Nozdormu - but generally works well and stably.  They made several changes to the UI to accommodate the tiny phone screen, such as dropping image sizes and making numbers larger.  They've also optimized the playing boards, taking out the fidget toys but keeping the themes.  This gives them more corners to put things, such as your hand (which you tap to bring up to fuller size when you want to play a card).

The trickiest bit is playing a card with a targeted battlecry (e.g. Shaman's fire elemental).  It takes a little getting used to, but I was able to do it correctly on the third attempt and had no problems after that.  Yay 40 free dust.

ETA: I meant to mention that I was pleasantly surprised the Hearthstone app seamlessly integrated with the authenticator I have on my phone and extracted a number for me to send to the server to validate my login.  It's a little thing, but I like that Blizzard is paying attention to the details.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 17, 2015, 09:56:10 AM
I must say, I was amused by Neffarians dialog for this wing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 01, 2015, 08:44:34 AM
Has Hearthstone gotten harder, or have I just gotten worse at it?  Once again I ended a season in the not-quite-single digit ranks (11 this time).  The game tells me that puts me in the top 11% of Hearthstone players.  Which, you would think, would mean that I win a fair bit more than I lose.  But that seems not to be the case.  In ranked play I'd expect something like a 50% win rate over time, since in theory the skill of players I meet increases as my rank goes up.  But my Arenas (as recorded now in excruciating detail by Heartharena) have been... welll, sucking.  I've had a number of 0-3 which I haven't had in a while and the majority of my runs are now 2-3 or 3-3.  So either I've gotten worse, or people have gotten much better at arena.

(caveat, I don't play THAT much so yes we might be seeing a month-long statistical variation that will even out over time.)

One possibility is that the introduction of more random cards into the game has simply increased the amount of variation within games.  Another is that the increasing trend toward speed (both in the constructed and arena games) is pushing towards more variability since shorter games mean less chance for bad starts to even out.  I dunno.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 02, 2015, 07:48:29 AM
My guess is that it is a bit self filtering.  I've been struggling with every deck I try too.   I think that people who float around the 20-15 range get a bit frustrated and stop playing ranked because there's nothing that's feeling good in those ranks.  As the bottom people drop and the good people stay, then the curve renormalizes so the 2nd tier people are now the 1 tier.

I think also with the maturity of the game, more people have access to any card they want/need and can make any netdeck without issue.

That being said, Jeni did really well this season, higher than I have ever seen him.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on June 02, 2015, 05:08:28 PM
I have been playing mostly net decks that I have the cards for and focusing on getting golden heroes (got pally one and nearly have the mage one). I play a lot of ranked games with the same deck, so I usually do well enough to get around rank 10-12. Last month, the mage deck clicked and I had several long streaks and made it to rank 4.

I have not really noticed much difference in the quality of players - most are pretty good above rank 12. There is a lot of RNG so many games (or a lot of luck) are required to get to legend.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 12, 2015, 08:16:43 AM
Face hunter song (warning swear word and use of the r word):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jenlSf2E8o
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 20, 2015, 06:13:54 PM
I've been away, so I finally got to try brawl.  Playing as the black rock bosses today.  It was at least different.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 22, 2015, 04:05:13 AM
The word around is that one of the two brawl bosses (Nefarian) is really dominant.  I won pretty easily as Nef myself so I didn't get a feel for the other side.  Hearthpwn has deck listings for both bosses, but Nef's special of generating free spells can be extremely powerful so I'm not sure how much the deck itself matters.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on June 22, 2015, 09:20:11 AM
I feel like part of the "nef dominance" is the fact that to win with him you basically need to play aggro, which seems to be where most people are at these days. Nef needs to burn down rag before he can get the sulfuras death rattle, which almost guarantees victory with the 8 random damage flying around every turn. The other half of it is if you get lucky with wild magic (see: flamestrike etc.) you're going to make the rag player cuss pretty hard, RNG is as RNG does. There are however a lot of useless class spells that nef can end up with.

I had more fun with rags than nef just because he had some awesome minions, get high justice whats his noodle up behind some taunts and just watch the legendary minions pop out. also golomag is fun to play, gogo 20/20.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 22, 2015, 06:59:48 PM
Hmm, I did not play aggro with Nef and it still seemed pretty easy.  Once he got the 8 damage ability I just kept a few minions up and hit things a lot.  Maybe I just got lucky?  I remember getting a couple good spells for free but nothing truly epic.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 22, 2015, 09:20:24 AM
Maybe I'm just sadistic but I'm loving these weeks when the tavern brawl is about figuring out what the other guy is going to have.

This week's rules involve a constructed deck and you start the game with 10 mana.  My first thought was, "OK, if I have 10 mana every turn then I would ..." followed by "OK, if that's what the other guy is doing then I'll build THIS kind of deck."  So I built the counter deck and my first game was against someone who was using the obvious strategy.  He resigned on turn 3 when it became clear I had the counter.

This maintains my streak of winning game 1 of every constructed brawl.  I've lost initial games only in weeks when you get a Blizzard-constructed deck and don't know what's in it or the RNG hasn't favored me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 24, 2015, 10:26:38 AM
I want to give a huge shout-out to Snique for giving me a deck that got me to 10 (of course, now that I've posted this, I'll start dropping again.)   It's reassuring that I'm not a horrible player.   Now if I could just learn to read the meta and deck build better.

It's also been a fun deck for me to play.  I've had some interesting games and some times when I had to be thoughtful to get my win (I used fatigue to kill a mage past ice block, for instance.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 29, 2015, 09:34:34 AM
UGH, this week's brawl is RNG hell.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on July 29, 2015, 02:55:37 PM
I am of the opposite mind about Brawl: I love the battles where I don't make a deck because I don't have many good cards. When Brawl has the random stuff, I get to play with fun things and it levels the playing field. Today's 'Portals' gameplay, in particular, is a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 29, 2015, 06:21:03 PM
UGH, this week's brawl is RNG hell.

What Cree said.  I won on my second go and I feel my playing skill had zero to do with it.  I just happened to portal a couple legendaries.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 05, 2015, 11:15:48 AM
"Beginning this month, each player’s Quest Log will display the highest rank they have reached during the month and recognize their accomplishment. Additionally, we’ll be awarding players who progress past rank 20 with some minor rewards as a way of congratulating them for their achievements. Eligible players will receive a treasure chest at the end of each season containing the season’s Ranked Play card back, one or more golden cards, and some Arcane Dust. What’s in the chest is determined by your highest rank over the course of the season. For example, a player whose highest rank was 17 will receive a golden common card, 20 dust, and the season card back. "
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 05, 2015, 03:00:01 PM
That's excellent and encourages me to play more ranked.  In addition, by basing it on "highest rank during month" it eliminates various scumming conditions and accounts for a badly timed run of ill luck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 06, 2015, 04:22:29 AM
This week's Brawl broke my streak of constructed first-game wins. Some of that was not understanding nuances of how the rules work.

This week minions costing 2 or more get a deathrattle that summons another minion 2 cost below them.  With a lot of exceptions.  Minions created via spells don't get it (even summoning spells like Bane of Doom) and secondary creatures (like the Squire) don't get it even though the main creature (SH Knight) does.  That latter rule applies to egg-created creatures, which I didn't realize at first.  I did not test out whether this acquired deathrattle would work with Undertaker but I did use a couple of the Naxx-era minions created specifically to counter deathrattle decks.

In this environment every minion is potentially "sticky" and board control decks that depend on clearing the other side aren't going to fare as well.  I saw three deck types that I thought were viable and used one to win on my third try.  More details if anyone cares - don't want to spoil for those who like to experiment.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on August 06, 2015, 06:15:05 AM
Cree also noted that if no minion exists which costs exactly two mana less than the one you played, you won't get a summon.  This may only be relevant to the giants which have a base cost of 20.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 06, 2015, 07:39:14 AM
I feel like I missed a bet by not including rivendale.  I didn't realize it was a deathrattle effect while building my deck.    I also made a lot of mistakes building because of not understanding the edge cases.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 06, 2015, 07:49:21 AM
I also made a lot of mistakes building because of not understanding the edge cases.

Yes, me too.  K'T seemed obvious in here but it turns out that having a board full of sticky minions makes the game fairly fast.  I skipped Rivendare because the board fills up and I wanted space to keep playing new things.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 09, 2015, 10:22:00 AM
Apparently I have aquired the YOU SUCK this season.  I can't even break 17, and have presently fallen back to 20.  Geebus.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 20, 2015, 05:40:24 AM
Well if the Grand Tournament is released in a state much like it seems in this Tavern Brawl I may give up on Hearthstone.  The amount of random is really epic.  Cards that say "pick a random card from your deck and one from the other guy's and if yours costs more you get some benefit".  Really?  That's their answer to speed?  The chance of some kind of benefit if you can win a coin flip?

I'm still undecided on the set of things you get from using your hero power.  Some of them are potentially quite impressive.  There's an argument that "using your hero power is one of the weaker things you can do in a game" but I think that's more true for some classes than others.  Hunters and warlocks in particular weave hero power uses into pretty much every deck style I know about.  Others less so.  I suspect this means the new power will end up favoring some classes more than others which would not be great for balance.  Or perhaps deck styles? Control warrior uses armor a lot more than patron warrior, for example.  Oil rogue uses weapon extensively; spell rogue less so.

ETA: I got the "win five brawls" quest (OMG suck) and I have so much hate for the random now.  The hunter appears to have an advantage in this preset pair of decks but the random can overwhelm that in just one turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 24, 2015, 08:38:15 AM
As of this morning the ranked chest is visible on the Hearthstone screen.  It correctly shows my season-high rank (which I tumbled out of with yet another massive losing streak, sigh).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 24, 2015, 10:36:56 AM
The ranked chest has been in came since the patch.   

In other news TGT is live.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 25, 2015, 05:38:36 AM
Yeah I dumped a couple thousand gold on packs last night.  Got two legendaries out of 23 packs but neither seems all that great.  Today I also got a new-to-me quest that required winning with one class (rogue, ugh) and rewards 50 gold rather than the typical 40 for 3 wins.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 25, 2015, 05:04:27 PM
I luvs my Merloc Knight so much!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on August 26, 2015, 05:41:54 AM
I luvs my Merloc Knight so much!
Can you bring him to Sargeroth to deathgrip dudes for us?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 31, 2015, 03:22:55 PM
OK, having played a bunch of games (struggling up the ranks - the animation when you level is pretty cool) and the problem with the new set is not just the random.  There are some SERIOUSLY op cards right now.  One that summons a random legendary every time you use your hero power.  One that adds +1/+1 to every card in your hand and deck.  There are some others but those two are top of my 'are you KIDDING me?' list right now.  I hope Blizzard employs a heavy nerf bat... excuse me "balancing adjustment" bat soon.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 01, 2015, 02:49:19 AM
Well THAT was a disappointment.  I managed to make it up to 12, for which I got a chest containing the new card back (expected) 20 dust, and two random cards.  In other words, a lot less than I would have gotten from even a mediocre arena run.  I suppose it's better than nothing, but given the build-up I was sorely disappointed.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 01, 2015, 06:57:11 AM
I did surprisingly well this season with a deck of my own devising.    I probably could have gotten to 6 if I hadn't left for the weekend and the meta had changed (mostly with secret paladins) when I returned.  I did make it to 7, which is my best ever.

For 7 I got 5 boxes with: A golden common, the season card back (really that's a box?), 20 dust, golden rare, and a golden common.

I'm kind of glad the rewards aren't too much.  It's nice to have incentive to rank beyond 20, but given how hard it is to rank some seasons, I would hate to feel I'm missing something big by not having the right deck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 17, 2015, 04:27:38 AM
This week's tavern brawl is the first repeat I can recall - it's the deck-of-portals one.  It's also the third week in a row that I've gotten the "Get In Here" (win 5 tavern brawls) quest within a day of the brawl going live for the week.  Too small a sample size to be sure, but I'm wondering if others saw this?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on September 17, 2015, 06:20:58 AM
Crossroads has repeated before, IIRC.

I can say with certainty that I did not get the Get In Here! quest last week and have yet to get it this week, though it's not even been 24 hours since this week's Brawl activated.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 17, 2015, 09:15:23 AM
I have not gotten that quest ever (thankfully.)

What kinds of decks are people having success with this meta?  Most of my decks are just holding me steady and nothing had struck my fancy as something fun to try.

Day9 did this deck that's not that good, but makes him giggle involving majordomo and the mage card that lets you use your hero power an unlimited number of times.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on September 17, 2015, 10:21:47 AM
I just got started playing about 2 weeks ago.. I have not seen that quest. Actually, I had been wondering if there was any point to tavern brawl after a single win. I guess the answer is 'quests'.

I have no idea about meta situations yet. I'm just playing a priest draw/control hodge podge and a druid something or another, and have made it to 17 so far. Normally hold my own pretty good until someone plays 3-4 legendaries in a row.

Addicting and fun game, loving it so far. Just need more cards!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 18, 2015, 03:54:07 AM
Tavern brawls that provide you with decks (like this week) are a way to level up characters you haven't gotten all the basic cards from, yet.  Other than that, yeah it's one pack and maybe a quest per week.

As for the meta... I'm still sort of wobbling around 15, which is usual for me.  I'm using a combination of speed and strong control decks.  Only one midrange - well, two.  The priest-dragon and paladin-secrets decks are definitely FotM. Mage cheap spells and oil rogue are still popular.  I'm seeing more play of some of the  new legendaries, particularly the one (I forget the name) that replaces your hero power with a double-strength version.  That's kind of scary.

ETA: Shaman/totems/lust is also making a comeback.  With the ability to get a free totem and easy +2 attack on every totem this deck tends to massacre things that can't keep the board clear.  Like my priest deck.  Oy that's going in the recycle bin.  Patron warrior is still around.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on September 19, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
The hunter decks, face and mid-range, are also still strong. My mid-range hunter has not had much trouble getting me to rank 10, which is about par for me.

What I have noticed is that this expac has had a much smaller impact that GvG did. Apart from dragon priest, secret pally and totem shaman, most other decks are the same as before with typically only 1 or 2 cards TGT cards added.

As for tavern brawl, I have not yet gotten the quest for it. I usually only play for the pack each week. If they remove the reward, I doubt I will play it at all.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 21, 2015, 06:55:10 AM
Yeah hunter midrange is still my only midrange deck, though I'm noticing that dragon priest plays more midrange than I'd expected.  If it stays strong I might have to craft a Vol'jin.

I do feel like silence and Kezan are becoming really mandatory with this meta.  I took out my shaman's lightning bolts and replaced them with Earth Shocks, fr'ex.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on September 27, 2015, 07:18:39 PM
Super excited because I caught a lucky streak today and managed to get to rank 15, by far the highest I've ever been. I was, of course, immediately destroyed upon reaching said rank by a druid, which I expected, as the quality of cards/play increased with every level. Still, for being a very casual player, I can't complain; now to hope that the chest reward helps me build a little more.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 28, 2015, 06:20:06 AM
Congrats Leah.  I'm struggling to break past 13 this season.  I keep getting one win away from 12 and falling back.  It looks like christmas-tree paladin still falls to face hunter so I may have to swap back to my old reliable druid.  I have added a Flare to my midrange hunter to counter that paladin (omg they get so SAD - one even ragequit) but in general I am not having much ranked luck with midrange right now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on September 28, 2015, 07:59:15 AM
I'm finding the 15-12 meta very chaotic right now.   I tried a revised hobo paladin that was doing ok until I started to get some bad luck, so I switched to my day9 super-taunt druid, which did ok, until I got some bad luck.   I mixed in some mid-hunter, which did ok for a little bit, but, you guessed it.   I even brushed off a mech mage, which was doing well, until the meta RNG kicked me again.  I've been enjoying (though not winning with) a ambush mill rogue.   It is a really interesting deck to play and I wish it were doing slightly better in the meta.

Basically I feel like the meta down in these ranks is just too unpredictable and that who you get matched up is your first fight against the RNG.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on September 28, 2015, 12:26:03 PM
Made it to 12 with Face Hunter... I'm hoping to push to 10. Nothing in particular has stood out, but I did run into Patron Warrior for the first time yesterday and I really wanted to throw my iPad at the TV... just kept growing and growing and growing. Oh well, I'm sure the other guy gets annoyed by Face Hunter those rounds that everything lines up and it seems OP.


As happy as I am with ranked progress, I'm equally dismayed by lack of progress in Arena. I can't draft a hand that lets me play the same style I play with any of my decks.. and the "well just roll with what I get" approach is not working! Any suggestions for Arena? I'm drafting using the Icy Veins rank sheets.. I can't every get cards that compliment each other it seems, and I'm drooling over the other guys cards wondering how he got so many combos from a draft. Probably just need more practice.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on September 28, 2015, 12:58:42 PM
Drafting Arena for synergy is really difficult, so drafting using the rank sheets is probably a good start. Playing Arena is a lot different than constructed-you have to hold removal a lot more, since you don't want to use a premium card on a garbage creature. It's better to take a few hits from their 3/2 and take it out with a 2/1 of yours than it is to remove it with a Truesilver Champion.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 29, 2015, 06:17:24 AM
Using Heartharena for arena drafting is not a bad plan.  It helps you find synergies and fill gaps you might not think about.  That said, I disagree with some of its strategies (such as undervaluing late-game minions and undervaluing weapons) but if you're struggling to get to 3-3 on an arena run it's a start.

(I should say that after a run of winning runs I had two really shitty drafts and went 0-3 and 1-3 this weekend.  So I'm not all uber and stuff.)

I had some good luck with my own version of palasecrets and made it briefly to 11 before falling back.  I agree that the meta in 15-12 is chaotic as heck and RNG plays a large part.  One of the ways I've tried to work around that is having decks with multiple ways to win.  My paladin deck, fr'ex can go face (but still loses to face hunter) or can make advantageous trades for board presence.  My druid can combo for burst or can just out-last the other guy.  Other decks I have more trouble with.  I think handlock ought to be viable, but I'm starting to think demonlock is not, anymore. I'm noodling around with mech warrior as well, which is surprisingly viable at the moment (though it loses badly to christmas-tree pally).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on September 29, 2015, 07:10:37 AM
I don't research anything Hearsthstone related so all of my info comes from here. That being said, I think you guys just make up some of these deck names.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on September 29, 2015, 03:12:51 PM
I think you guys just make up some of these deck names.

+1. Word
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Gwyddyon on September 30, 2015, 05:16:03 AM
If you like Christmas Tree Paladin, try Easter Egg Priest or St. Patrick's Day Green Beer Rogue.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: jsoh on September 30, 2015, 05:36:15 AM
Hannukah Hunter is a bomb to play, but is easily countered by Kwaanza Warrior hands.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 30, 2015, 06:00:21 AM
OK, I confess I do make up some names but not that one.  "Christmas tree paladin" is descriptive of what it looks like when he plays that OP 6/6 minion which deploys one of every secret in his deck.  The hero portrait gets a bunch of globes on it which look a great deal like ornaments on a christmas tree.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 30, 2015, 08:23:57 AM
How do I download the update on the desktop version?  Trying to start Hearthstone on desktop it tells me there's an update and closes itself.  Trying to start from battle.net doesn't cause it to see or download any update.

The mobile version at least has a "tap anywhere to update" thing that takes me to the Play store for a download.  But the desktop... she is borked.

ETA: I've tried login/logout as well as quitting the app.  I've even used the Task Mangler to ensure that the battle.net update agent process quits and restarts correctly.  No joy.

ETA2: I figured I'd just delete and re-install the game.  The battle.net launcher correctly offered the "Install" button but clicking that immediately gave me the error "We're having a problem understanding data we received. Please restart Battle.net and try again."  Of course, restarting Battle.net produced the same result.

ETA3: The issue appeared to be a flaky network.  My best guess is that it was disconnecting at random times and screwing up the update.  I moved the machine to another network and it's now happily downloading the update.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 01, 2015, 04:45:01 AM
Ended at 11.  Two golden cards (ie dust) and some dust in the chest.  Meh.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on October 04, 2015, 12:32:53 PM
At 10, I have gotten 2 golden commons and a golden rare. At 5, I have gotten 2 golden commons and a golden epic.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 05, 2015, 07:13:26 AM
Making it to 5 is awesome!  Congrats!  I think the plan is for chests to be essentially vanity items and golden cards are sort of it for Hearthstone vanity at this point.  Heroes are things they want to make money on and card backs are the monthly (though technically now they're part of the chest) so that's about all they have.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 09, 2015, 04:30:46 AM
This week's Brawl is kind of conceptually interesting.  There does appear to be one dominant deck type - took me three tries to figure it out - and lots of people seem to be confused by the mechanic.  The thing that most seems to be changed by this is the mulligan since you know the cost of your draws it makes sense to hold onto some cards you normally wouldn't.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 13, 2015, 07:08:38 PM
Patron warrior is dead next patch.  They're nerfing Warsong commander into the ground.  "Warsong Commander now reads: Your Charge minions have +1 Attack. "  http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/19288409377
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 14, 2015, 06:16:11 AM
Patron warrior is dead next patch.  They're nerfing Warsong commander into the ground.  "Warsong Commander now reads: Your Charge minions have +1 Attack. "  http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/19288409377

That kind of sucks.  They nerfed Charge pretty hard last time around, then nerfed Leeroy and now WSC.  If they don't like the damned mechanic just take it out.  (I know, never gonna happen.)  I think this is bad because Patron Warrior is actually a hard deck to play well and it requires thought and risk-taking to play well.  The dominant speed decks are still hunter and paladin.  I can't reach battle.net from work so I can't read the notes right now - are they making other big changes?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on October 14, 2015, 07:22:14 AM
It does seem like an unusually big hammer for Hearthstone.  In the past we've seen things like "Leeroy costs one more mana."  People are pointing out that Warsong Commander is now strictly worse than Raid Leader, a basic card which doesn't get used much in constructed decks.  So they essentially took the card out of the game.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 14, 2015, 02:51:40 PM
Wow I hate this week's brawl SO MUCH.  Five games I've lost to opponents playing randomly cheap legendaries.  The two-mana Ysera was just offensive.  The two-mana flame strike was also pretty annoying.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on October 14, 2015, 03:44:05 PM
That's what Brawl is for; cheap victories, frustrating losses that you can do nothing about. My favorite today was a priest that had a high health tank on the board and then played Garrison Commander and Paltress for dirt cheap. ALL THE LEGENDARIES!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 15, 2015, 06:24:34 AM
@Leah I understand that's an element but it's one I hate.  Last week's brawl also had an element of randomness but there were clear ways to work with it and it took real thought to work through.  I prefer that to losing a string of die rolls.  To each their own I guess.  Usually I keep the "win 5 brawls" quest but I'm dumping it this week as soon as it shows up.

P.S. Props to Jenilea for finally bringing the RNG over to my side.  Finally won on my sixth try.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on October 15, 2015, 06:29:44 AM
Since I'm not all that good at HS, I think I enjoy the random nature of losses in Brawl because it's not (normally) due to skill but rather a miraculous confluence of events. Witness the double Velens played in Rnd 2; their damage alone was impossible to survive that early but then the guy played a Mind Blast for shits and giggles and it's all you can do to shake your head in amazement.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on October 17, 2015, 11:36:48 AM
While I am not a fan of the brawl in general, this is the first time that I have kept the 5 brawl win quest (though I have only seen it once or twice previously). While the RNG was pretty dominant this week, I found this made games faster and somewhat amusing, unlike the boombot vs annoyatron brawl which I found to be neither fast nor amusing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 21, 2015, 10:18:56 AM
This week's brawl is interesting but WILDLY unbalanced.  The hero powers you get can range from "summon three 1/1 creatures" to "destroy an enemy creature" or "summon a 7/7 creature for yourself."  Doing that last one on turn 2 is just... owie.  If you happen to get a good hero power at the start and have the coin you're potentially so far ahead the other guy will never catch up.

Hearthpwn had datamined something from the last patch that appeared to suggest you would get the weekly Brawl pack just for playing.  That was not my experience - I lost the first time around and did not get a pack.  Won on try 2 (RNG not skill) and got the pack.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on October 21, 2015, 03:47:59 PM
I've only played one hand this week so far but I really enjoyed it despite being 99% sure I was going to lose until the very end. The Hero powers are so ridiculous and the fact that you can string them together is rather OP. Still, a fun gimmick fight
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 04, 2015, 09:18:57 AM
This weeks Brawl is kinda cool.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 05, 2015, 05:06:00 AM
Yeah, the Brawl this week is fun, and very different.  You and another random player play cooperatively against a floating enemy.  If either of you dies, you lose.  The datamined change of "get a pack even if you lose" is live this week.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 06, 2015, 10:48:51 AM
Announced at blizzcon, new adventure pack on Thursday.

http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1081-the-league-of-explorers-hearthstones-third
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on November 06, 2015, 01:51:16 PM
Dang, not nearly enough lead time. I dont have any gold saved.

Sound interesting though. The Golden Monkey would be amazing though very slow to get into play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 07, 2015, 04:13:47 AM
Just saw the teaser for this adventure, which points to the site: http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/expansions-adventures/league-of-explorers/

ETA: Crap, that's only five days off.  Not enough time to accumulate gold.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 07, 2015, 07:00:29 AM
I don't know why they are adding cards to encourage face hunter and freeze mage...

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 09, 2015, 07:15:56 AM
I find freeze mage relatively easy to beat.  But I always keep a Kezan in my control decks.  Face hunter still sucks but I'm not sure what they can do about it right now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 11, 2015, 08:29:25 AM
Big update today, presumably for the new adventure.  Still unpacking crates...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 12, 2015, 09:30:10 AM
the new adventure is available.

The collapsing temple is kind of a neat change in game play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 12, 2015, 12:12:10 PM
Well, bugger.  There doesn't appear to be anyway to get this other than paying cash.  Pfui.  At least I can go back to spending gold on packs and arenas.

ETA: and even though I've bought the whole thing I have to wait for them to "release" it a week at a time presumably.  double pfui.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 12, 2015, 12:13:52 PM
No, I paid gold.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 12, 2015, 12:34:03 PM
No, I paid gold.

Damn, wish I'd seen how to do that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 12, 2015, 01:00:16 PM
And that's done.  Disappointingly easy.  Beat all three bosses with a very standard unexceptional deck.  The class challenges were also quite trivial, in part because the AI is unnecessarily stupid in my opinion.  It misses obvious good plays and makes obviously bad ones.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 12, 2015, 01:05:06 PM
Yeah, try the heroics if you want a challenge.  YEESH!  Though one a freeze mage would do well at.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 16, 2015, 07:29:10 AM
I'm starting to worry that Hearthstone material is being rushed out without adequate testing. Hearthpwn had a video or list up of a bunch of things broken with/by/in the latest expansion and there are still several cards from TGT that I think need tweaking.  I like that there's new content but I'd rather wait a few more weeks for each new thing if it meant they would put out stuff that was better balanced and had some of the interaction bugs ironed out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 18, 2015, 09:52:30 AM
This week's brawl is weird.  Each turn, you get three cards to choose from to add to your hand.  It's kind of like arena, but while you play.  The opening hand is all pirates.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 18, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Yeah, it is whacky.  Another roll-the-dice rather than skill game.  There is some small amount of skill in choosing but mostly it's obvious stuff.  I drafted for the curve (knowing you don't actually draw any more cards unless you have something that causes card draw isn't spelled out but helpful to know) unless there was something that was immediately useful.

That said, I lost to people who drew legendaries and then won because I drafted a legendary.  Yay?

The "get a pack even if you lose" seems to require you to stick it out until you blow up.  If you resign early you don't get the pack.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 20, 2015, 04:11:54 AM
New wing up and down just as fast.  The "escape" mechanic is kind of dull this time, particularly since it's entirely RNG.  I happened to get the 'escape one turn sooner' card twice and that won it for me.  Otherwise I'd've been grinding at it. I didn't find the class challenges particularly interesting either, again because I think the AI is unnecessarily stupid. I'm not sure if that's because they dumbed it down in order to leave headroom for the heroic AI to be much better or just because Hearthstone has gotten sufficiently complex that it's now fairly hard to program a competent AI opponent.

The new cards might have some interesting possibilities - didn't spend a lot of time looking at them - but they all seem to lean toward speed decks.

Maybe that's Blizzard's answer to face hunter?  Give every other class a viable speed deck that could out-race it?  I dunno.  I'm having a hard time thinking of what they could do to balance or nerf face hunter right now that wouldn't seriously disrupt things.  It's not built around any single card like patron warrior was.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on November 20, 2015, 08:05:23 AM
From what I've heard face hunter and other aggro decks are getting destroyed by things running Reno Jackson. Before you walk away in disbelief note that Reno Jackson can trigger if you have more than 1 of a certain card in your build but have drawn at least one of said card prior to playing him. Using him effectively in this manner requires deck tracking but when you do theres a butt load of healing to be had. Kripp has a few videos of him running a variant of the invincible warrior deck and fatiguing pretty much everything he comes up against to death via many heals and many armors. There's also a Reno Jackson paladin variant thats doing pretty well. As far as I've seen the age of aggro is over and the age of control has begun again.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 24, 2015, 06:22:54 AM
Yeah, I was fooling around with a Reno rogue for a while.  It was fun to play but way too unreliable.  I'm currently trying out a deathrattle rogue (that I thought I had come up with only to discover it's seriously the Flavor of the Moment). Biggest plus in my book is that these are new deck styles that seem viable for a class that has been sorely lacking for a while.  Oil rogue is OK but really hard to play and mill rogue is great when it works and stunningly bad when it doesn't.

I find Reno rogue plays a lot like Malygos rogue - if you get just the right cards at the right time it's unstoppable.  And the other 80% of the time you are ground meat.  I want something that comes closer to the 50-ish percent win rates I get from other decks. I have started using Beneath the Ground" in my rogue deck just to screw with Reno (and it's a good enough card I spent dust to craft it).

I still have yet to make a viable beast druid, though Blizz seems to think that's the way for speed druid to go. I'm starting to think that Shaman might get the most out of the new expansion (at least so far).  The minion that buffs from overload is a nice revitalization to that deck type, and the recycling hat is nice to combo with totems.  Usually the other guy will just sheep or sap anything you put the hat on, destroying the hat.  But it feels like a big waste of removal to use something like that on a totem so I'm getting more uses of the hat than in other decks. Both these cards speed up shaman play.

In other news, this week we don't get a new wing because Thanksgiving.  That sucks because I would have more time to play but I can understand it because i'm guessing Blizz doesn't want to have the staff on hand to deal with any issues that might come up.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 24, 2015, 09:44:00 AM
Mill rogues are more viable now with the addition of Bran.  They're still not great, but wow is it fun to bran, cold light, shadow step, shadow step for 12 cards in one turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 02, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
It appears there was some kind of issue with starting up today's Tavern Brawl.  Prior to the usual 1PM Eastern launch time the pop-up message said the brawl would be back in "<1 hour".  After 1PM I restarted the client to find no brawl and instead a notice that it would be back in "<1 day".  @blizzardcs tweeted that there was indeed a delay but no news as of yet.  Sadly my lunch (play) hour will expire soon.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 02, 2015, 02:14:13 PM
And I wish it had stayed dead.  Gods I hate this week's brawl.  Deck-building with insane random cards.  As usual it goes to whoever gets the best legendaries first.

ETA: after losing to a lot of legendaries I managed to win a game where neither of us had one but I got off to an early lead with an echoing ooze.  Unlike last week I did not get a pack for playing through to a full loss, only for a win.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 02, 2015, 03:24:28 PM
ok this weeks brawl took me a bit to even understand, but its basically diminion hearthstone, kinda, not really.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on December 02, 2015, 04:07:48 PM
I didn't care for it at first but I must say that I greatly enjoyed the game where I was spawning Grim Patrons by the cartload thanks to my opponent's playing of Baron Geddon.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: deobryn on December 03, 2015, 07:21:01 AM
I won my second attempt because I had Mana Addict the first turn and had many 1 cost buff spells that kept cycling through my deck, so I went face and won in 4-5 turns.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 03, 2015, 10:54:19 AM
Yeah "go face" seems like a winning strat in this brawl.

In other news, wing 3 up and down in a short time today.  I had to swap choices of decks because of things I learned during play (like, don't bring the warrior against the boss mob that has lots of freeze minions).  The class challenges were similarly dull and quickly done.

The AI seemed marginally better this time except that Lady Naz'jar has one glaring flaw in her logic that should be simple to fix.  It continues to surprise me that nobody at Blizzard picked this up and leans me more toward thinking things were rushed, rather than thoroughly tested.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 04, 2015, 09:48:34 AM
from the patch notes "Resolved various issues with AI behavior and gameplay."  So it might be some of those AI issues were seeing were bugs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 10, 2015, 11:47:12 AM
The last wing is open.  The having to make a crappy deck is an interesting exercise.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 10, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
I found it really irksome.  "Gotcha" is not how games should play (imo of course).

It was easy to deal with but annoying.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 18, 2015, 08:26:04 AM
This week's tavern brawl is actually pretty fun, despite a huge imbalance.

You can break crates (0/4 creatures auto-created by the game) and get a 1-mana spell.  Using that lets you pick 1 of 3 cards that are usually from your opponent's or your hero's class. The cost to play the card you get from the spell is vastly reduced, often zero. All too frequently they're legendaries, which is also wildly unbalanced but at least there are some elements of thought and strategy to balance out the randomness.  I won pretty easily with my deck even though I didn't know all the mechanics when I made it.  With a few tweaks I managed to win 5 of 7 brawls for the daily quest.

I really enjoy the ability to look at the board situation and pick a card that maximizes the current board+hand. For example, there's a "Hard Snowballs" spell that pops up where for 0 mana you can force three random enemy minions back to their hand.  I caused opponents to overdraw twice (and won three games) using that spell rather than picking the obvious Uber Legendary choice.

The big problem is that going second is WILDLY favored.  If you go first there is no enemy crate you can attack, just one on your side.  Going second there is a crate on both sides you can target and you have the coin.

The only deck I lost to was a warlock deck that if it gets the right draws is nearly unstoppable. I won't immediately spoiler what was in that deck that made it so ridiculously OP but I will say I played mage and beat everything else handily, including that warlock deck when it got less-than-perfect opening draws.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on December 19, 2015, 07:44:30 PM
Carbot's latest hearthstone video is magical:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJg6WU7OXsw
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on December 20, 2015, 06:01:02 PM
Got to rank 12 tonight and I feel like I actually earned it as opposed to lucking into a hot streak. The first 2/3 of the month was a lot of back and forth and I found myself staying at 20 for quite awhile, thanks mainly to the rattlerogue deck that was a lot of fun but didn't have much staying power. I made some adjustments to my mage deck that's similar to a basic tempo deck and finally found success there. The thing I like about it the most is that there are three different ways to start strong depending on what you draw/mulligan, so it's not the same old feeling of defeat if you don't get the 'right' opening hand.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 21, 2015, 07:16:57 AM
OMG that animation was GREAT!  Thanks for the link.

Congrats on rank 12.  I'm still languishing around 15, partly due to struggles early on and partly due to running a bunch of arenas rather than playing ranked (I need dust).  Had a couple of terrible runs (0-3, 1-3) then got back to more normal (3-3, 4-3) before taking an utterly awful warrior deck up to 8 wins last night. If I don't get another Tavern Brawl quest (those can take a while) I might try to put in some ranks over the holiday.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on December 21, 2015, 07:31:06 AM
I can't Arena worth a damn, evidenced by my best run being 3 wins. I've read conflicting strategies saying you just want the best value cards and others that say you want to play for synergy. Either way, I usually just get the crap kicked out of me and get my deck of cards and 30 dust/30 gold.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 21, 2015, 07:34:10 AM
I can't Arena worth a damn,

Well, I'm probably not the best but I can give you the advice I learned on (some of which is back in earlier pages of this thread).  Heartharena is a good helper, though I disagree with some of its weightings. Or if you want to set up a time I can watch over your shoulder and kibbitz if that would be helpful.  Do you feel your problem is in the draft or in the play?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on December 21, 2015, 07:46:26 AM
There's something about this season.  I've been watching my friends list, which contains people who are usually much better than me and everyone, including myself, has been all over the rank map from 18-12.   One of my friends normally ends the season at 5, and I've been higher rank than him more often than not.

I think this season the meta was kind of all over the place, so it was a bit random if you got a paper to your stone.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on December 21, 2015, 08:45:07 AM
I had a friend who ranges between 12-14 most seasons kibbitz a drafting session with me and he explained why he would pick certain cards and while I understood what he was saying, it would all go to pot when I drafted by myself. I don't get too concerned about it other than I could use more dust to craft some non-adventure legendaries.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 22, 2015, 07:39:40 AM
Like most things, Arena drafting takes practice.  I'm at the point where I can pre-guess what Trump is going to pick in his Arena videos with >90% accuracy.  If you can remember only one rule it's often useful to remember that Arenas are frequently won by tempo plays. Making a play the other guy can't answer, or has to go 2:1 to beat is usually better in Arena than constructed.  Drafting for tempo cards (e.g. Piloted Shredder over Dark Iron Dwarf) is not a horrible plan when you can't figure out what else to do.

Another good rule to remember is "two drops".  Having a large number of two drops is good because the number of turns on which you have even amounts of mana is much more than the number of turns on which you have odd amounts of mana.  Plus your hero power costs an even amount of mana.  Sometimes you want your hero power on turn 4 but want to keep a board presence - two drop.  2+4 is also often a good turn 6 play.  This goes to the theory that tempo often is with the player who uses their mana most efficiently.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 23, 2015, 08:34:15 AM
Hey, look, it's Worst Brawl Ever week.  Again.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 07, 2016, 08:40:14 AM
This week's tavern brawl is a fun one for me as it mostly involves "play with a slightly tweaked ruleset" and not a huge amount of randomness.  You pick an archetype that's popular within the game (spells, murlocs, etc.) and then construct a deck for it but using your own cards. The variant rule is that based on your chosen archetype an additional thing will happen.

I will say that building and editing a deck on mobile SUCKS. But it is possible, which is sort of a miracle.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on January 07, 2016, 08:43:20 AM
I really hate this week's tavern brawl :P. From what I've seen it just devolves into murloc decks everywhere forever. None of the other archetypes can compete with murlocs imo, that extra tinyfin a round is ridiculous compared to simple +1/1
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 07, 2016, 12:56:01 PM
Yeah, it is pretty grossly unbalanced. That's something that happens with other brawls as well.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on January 07, 2016, 03:52:46 PM
Rattle rogue is a pretty good counter to murlocs. 1/3 Nerubian eggs plus unstable ghouls and fan of knives put a dent in their board. The murlocs are good for rushing but suck at regaining boarding once they lose it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 08, 2016, 08:25:11 AM
The rattle rogue got frustrated because the murlocs all have 1 or 2 attack so the egg doesn't break fast enough.  Also, giants :)  (or charge demons if you're mur-warlock).  I did think about putting a silence or two into the deck but never found it necessary.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 13, 2016, 08:33:21 AM
This week's Brawl just went up and it's sort of a repeat of the Mechazod co-op brawl from a couple months back. It's been nerfed this time both in that 'zod appears to do damage to heros less often and in that the players are given more and better tools to deal with a high-health opponent. I won my first brawl easily (got to play as Medivh)

I got a classic pack for the win - I wonder if the type of pack is fixed, based on the particular Brawl, or somehow randomized.  Anyone know?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on January 13, 2016, 05:02:33 PM
The pack from the brawl and the spectating is always the classic pack at this time. Blizz has said they see it as a way to help new players get cards and that classic cards are better for new players.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 14, 2016, 06:11:44 AM
As well, 40 dust is 40 dust.  I just dumped my meager dust supply into crafting two Doomsayers because I want to try playing Freeze Mage.  Been playing Tempo, which is fine as far as it goes but I have lots of tempo decks and I miss playing heavy control as well.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 14, 2016, 03:30:38 PM
This week's Brawl just went up and it's sort of a repeat of the Mechazod co-op brawl from a couple months back. It's been nerfed this time both in that 'zod appears to do damage to heros less often and in that the players are given more and better tools to deal with a high-health opponent. I won my first brawl easily (got to play as Medivh)

I got a classic pack for the win - I wonder if the type of pack is fixed, based on the particular Brawl, or somehow randomized.  Anyone know?

The brawl turns out to be harder than I thought - maybe I was just lucky my first try.  I had the "Win 5 Brawls" quest and it took some time to complete. Only one of the losses I could blame on a not-very-thoughtful other player. Lots of luck.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 20, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
This week's Brawl feels like a repeat but I'm not sure - start with a hand of 2/3 pirates and instead of drawing from your deck (which I think is all 2/3 pirates) you pick 1 of 3 random cards at the start of your turn.  As with most of these things it's vastly overdominated by RNG.  I won due to having a string of legendaries, not any particular skill on my part.

It's sort of a shame - not just that I hate all-RNG brawls; this one isn't that different from playing Arena - but the intro text led me to think that it was going to be some kind of pirate-themed game, which would've been fun.

In unrelated news, the current hot topic is the Reno warlock deck and it's frelling hard to beat. Anyone played against it and have thoughts?  Seems like it would fall to face hunter or a deck with high burst...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 20, 2016, 09:35:05 AM
None of my decks have been doing that great in the meta, but I'm still having a lot of luck with the priest deck you gave me (with some minor mods, like entomb, which is a really nice card.)

It is not a fast deck, but that means it can usually wait out the reno decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 21, 2016, 08:57:20 AM
Entomb is a major boost in priest staying power.  My problem with beating the reno-lock deck is reach. The amount of damage you need to be able to do is pretty large, sometimes comparable to high-armor control warrior. I can sometimes get there with my priest dragons and sometimes with midrange pally.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 22, 2016, 07:16:12 AM
Entomb is a major boost in priest staying power.  My problem with beating the reno-lock deck is reach. The amount of damage you need to be able to do is pretty large, sometimes comparable to high-armor control warrior. I can sometimes get there with my priest dragons and sometimes with midrange pally.

In an amusing bit of coincidence, the #1 ranked player from December posted his decks on Hearthpwn, one of which is an ultra-control warrior including Deathwing.  I beat it with my Reno-lock, with both of us out of cards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 27, 2016, 08:19:06 PM
This week's brawl is another one that's theoretically interesting but I think has an obvious solution. I find playing the brawl early after its release amusing because you often get into situations where one player has figured it out and the other hasn't. My first game I was up against someone who understood the nuance and I quit on turn 7. Then I rebuilt my deck and the next player I went up against quit on turn 4 when he saw I had it figured out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 02, 2016, 09:00:34 AM
Meant to mention I finished last season at 10.  Was within 1/2 games of 9 several times but kept falling back. I think there was a lot of shift and experimentation in the meta last month and I kept playing an old tried-and-true deck. I know I won several games where the other guy made what appeared to be an obvious mistake, which I could chalk up to unfamiliarity with a new FotM deck.

I'm still tuning two of the decks I picked up last month, not sure if I want to take them into ranked. Early on it's fun because you're low ranked and what do you have to lose, right? But by the same token everyone else is experimenting so it's not usually a good way to judge the value of a (new) deck.

It continues to be true that I prefer tempo and midrange styles of play. I can also go for ultra-control but most of the speed decks I've tried feel like you're just flipping a coin quickly over and over, taking advantage of your strings of heads.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Honorata on February 02, 2016, 10:10:45 AM
I don't hearthstone, but apparently there are new rules coming for decks or something?
http://www.polygon.com/2016/2/2/10888192/hearthstone-new-modes-2016-deck-slots
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on February 02, 2016, 10:55:09 AM
The TLDR summary seems to be:

* 18 decks instead of 9.

* The new "wild" mode is basically the same as current ranked.  It sounds like Blizzard won't care as much about the meta for this mode because it's too hard to manage.  Cards for old expansions will eventually become impossible to obtain, putting new players at a permanent disadvantage in this mode.  ETA: looks like you'll still be able to craft old cards with dust; it might take longer without the free cards from the single-player content, but you can still get them eventually.

* The new "standard" mode will cycle out older expansions, allowing the meta to be more easily managed.  Basic and classic cards will always be allowed, and may be adjusted with each new expansion for balance.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 02, 2016, 12:44:26 PM
I'm first-glance very frownyface at the "standard" mode. The expansions have varied wildly in size and quality and taking some of them out is going to lead to some underwhelming results. Plus it's not going to be easy to counter certain deck types if you don't have access to the counter-cards. I would not like to try dealing with Patron Warrior without access to Sludge Belchers and Loatheb, fr'ex.

I'm also not sure what to make of "standard format will be the main focus" combined with "Most of Hearthstone isn't changing".  Uh, really?

Also, if he nerfs druid I'm going to hunt him down and cut him.  Just sayin'.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Honorata on February 02, 2016, 01:56:25 PM
Again, as someone who does not Hearthstone, this is my understanding:

* The "Standard" deck format is fairly common in long-running card games. A lot of comments I read likened it to competitive MTG formats.

* Tuning of cards will be based around Standard, as this is where any competitions/esports things will be. (Ie like how Blizzard tunes WoW PvP around 3v3 arena -- they'll still nerf something if it's broken in other venues, but the main focus of tuning is in the main mode used for competitions and esports)

* In general, it seems to be 1. to ease the ability on their end to tune cards appropriately, and 2. to ease the barrier to entry for new players looking to pick up hearthstone, while still allowing people to use fun legacy cards in Wild mode.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 03, 2016, 04:34:44 AM
The more I read about Standard the less I like it.  Hearthpwn had a list of some of the popular cards that'll drop out of Standard and looking over the list I'm thinking "did Brode forget why these cards were introduced?" The lost cards will generally hit midrange and control decks, which are the sort I like to play. Face hunter will lose one card - Glaivezooka.

So Standard will be dominated by speed decks, primarily face hunters, unless they introduce new cards that take on the roles of the cards that are going away. That seems like a kind of lame response - same things but with new paint? I really preferred the previous style of bringing out new mechanics (inspire, discover) and I've even accustomed myself to the increased randomization.

You will also have separate ranks and ratings in each mode so you'll have to re-earn all your golden heroes. Also, you only get one chest each season (best of the two) so I'm not sure what the incentive is to play both ranked styles. I guess experienced players will be able to rank more easily in Standard, since that's where new folk will show up. Ranking in Wild will get tougher as it'll shrink to just the most experienced players.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 03, 2016, 09:24:52 AM
Formats will help fight both power creep and bloat. I took some time off HS, and when I tried to get back into it, I was 2 expansions behind and couldn't compete. At least there will still be the Wild format for you.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 03, 2016, 10:33:37 AM
I'm not sure about the golden hero thing.  The statement made by the dev can be seen two ways.

Also before you start talking about the meta in standard, keep in mind they're doing a spring expansion too, which has the potential to address some of these issues. 

I also don't agree that wild will be experienced players.   Standard will be used for competition and for the end of the month legend ranking announcement. I think, will in general, be viewed as "official"  and more likely wild will have a mix of players, just not some of the newest players, but also not some of the best either.  Newer players are more likely to play casual anyway.

That being said, they are removing some of my favorite cards.   Though I can't be at all sad to see Dr. Balanced leaving.   What I did see is a lot of the cards that have become fixtures is most people's decks, which I think should help the stale feeling the game has gotten lately.

It will be interesting to see if they do anything to replace the aggro defense cards like zombie chow and death lord.

It will also be interesting to see which base and classic cards they're changing.  Remember to save dusting cards for a little bit.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 04, 2016, 07:23:08 AM
I'm not really a CCG player but I do understand that you can't just keep bloating the cardbase forever. I just think it's too soon and the impact is going to disproportionately hit cards such as Chow and Piloted Shredder that were introduced in order to give other deck types a competitive chance against speedy face decks. Maybe they'll revamp some of the classic cards to take on those roles; I'm not holding my breath.

If the cards were OP I'd be less cranky about it. Of all the upcoming removals, Dr Boom seems the most in that category. But these days he's just fodder for BGH or Lightbomb. Or better, entomb. Things like Chow, Shredder, Sludge Belcher show up so often because they're effective in a role that certain deck types need. I don't see how you play midrange without those tools and control is going to be badly hurt as well. I think Healbot also gets chopped, which removes a major tool for dealing with aggro (outlast them). Some classes have specific cards that can kind of take on that role but Healbot gets used not because it's OP but because it enables a viable counter-aggro strategy. Blizzard has consistently resisted making changes that would slow down ultra-face decks, even as they've nerfed other deck types out of action. Do they just want everyone to play ultra-face?

And yes, I know that many experienced players will play Standard. The way I read the announcement it seemed like there would be the ability to rank (including Legend) in both leagues but if Legend only applies in Standard then that's going to draw pretty much everyone away from Wild.  Bugnuts.

*grumpyoldguygetoffamylawnyoudamnedkidsface*
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on February 04, 2016, 08:07:10 AM
If they know what's good for them, they'll also allow for "reprints," or adding older cards to the new sets to allow the effect in Standard. For example, MTG reprints Naturalize (1G, Destroy target artifact or enchantment) every 2 years because it's a very useful effect. Coming up with new names or ways it can happen isn't worth the hoops.

Could be that Chow and Piloted Shredder will just be in the next set anyway, if they believe face decks will be an issue.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 04, 2016, 09:59:56 AM
You can hit rank legend in both, but they'll only be publishing the 1-100 of standard, is my understanding.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 17, 2016, 04:48:44 AM
The "Curse Trials" begin today. This is the first major event I know of that's requiring competitors to use the new Standard format for decks - http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1192-the-curse-trials-begins-today-european-winter

Decklists will be posted after the event and I suspect those decks will set the starting line for a lot of the Standard competition to come.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on February 17, 2016, 06:41:54 AM
It seems dodgy for the event organizers to say that it's "using Standard format," since Standard mode doesn't exist yet.  Actual Standard mode will have another expansion's worth of cards in it, will have adjustments to basic/classic cards, and won't generate Naxx or GvG cards during the game.  This is just a tournament with a ban on Naxx or GvG cards in player decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 17, 2016, 11:49:34 AM
Yeah, I agree. Actual Standard play will be different, particularly dependent on the decision of what (kinds of) cards are put in the next expansion. But I'm guessing that Blizzard would've objected to a big money tournament using "Standard" in its description if they weren't aligned with this. Plus lots of the players have cozy relationships with Blizzard and wouldn't want to risk offending. So I still feel like it has at least some level of official imprimateur.

In other news, this week's Brawl is up and it seems to be one that has a really obvious "right answer" to it. The gimmick is that your hero has Taunt so it's not possible to attack the other guy's minions directly. You have to go for face, and we all know how THAT's done.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 01, 2016, 08:53:22 AM
Got to 11 again last month. I could've pushed for higher, but XCOM 2 ate a lot of game hours. I found last season surprisingly enjoyable but I'm thinking it's time to retire some of my current decks and try out new things. Start of a new season is always good for that. Of course, trying new things likely means longer before I get golden heroes but such is life.

The Rank 11 chest contained two gold cards and 25 dust. I confess I haven't been keeping track of past months' rewards but this feels like a boost from what I've gotten before. I like that the season rewards are almost completely cosmetic.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 01, 2016, 09:14:55 AM
This season's going to be hilarious. My first three games were against druid speed, warrior speed, and hunter speed. I was playing my shaman speed deck, fortunately. Maybe this is an artifact of people wanting to climb the early ladder quickly?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 04, 2016, 08:29:49 AM
10th ranked game this season I just saw my first non-speed/face deck. Someone was playing the Fatigue Warrior that's popular on Hearthpwn this week. I destroyed it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 10, 2016, 03:31:48 AM
Hearthpwn has a new desktop Hearthstone assistant it calls "Innkeeper". http://www.innkeeper.com/

Lots of functions for synching with the web site, of course, and some collection-tracking stuff. I'm going to give it a try.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on March 11, 2016, 10:19:08 AM
The new expansion was announced today: Whispers of the Old Gods.  It will be launching in late April or early May, but additional deck slots will go live this coming Monday.

Only six out of the 134 new cards have been announced.  A major focus of the new expansion seems to be C'Thun, which can be made more powerful by other cards before it is played.  People who log in during the promotion period will automatically get C'Thun.

http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1215-whispers-of-the-old-gods-expansion-reveal-live
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: deobryn on March 11, 2016, 10:47:35 AM
The wording for the cards that upgrade C'Thun is interesting, in that 'wherever it is' could also refer to in the graveyard, so if it dies and a card pulls it out of the graveyard, will it have the stats as when it died and/or from other buff cards played after it died?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 12, 2016, 04:54:17 AM
Right, time for me to stop buying GvG packs and start stockpiling gold again. I'm still 40 cards short of the full GvG set but I can always craft the few I might want I guess.

I'm sort of surprised that there's no official word on Standard/Wild or card changes. I thought they were supposed to be synchronized with this release.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 12, 2016, 06:25:50 AM
From hearthpwn:

"Basic and Classic card nerfs will be announced about a week before the new expansion comes out.
Ten to Twelve cards are going to be nerfed.
Big Game Hunter pushes in an unhealthy direction. It can limit design space. It's high on the list of cards to look at.
Maybe in the future cards from wild only sets that people really liked could become basic cards. Probably not a card like Sludge Belcher though."
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 13, 2016, 06:20:21 PM
(http://media-hearth.cursecdn.com/avatars/283/54/635934774511258078.png)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 14, 2016, 03:54:30 AM
Big Game Hunter pushes in an unhealthy direction. It can limit design space. It's high on the list of cards to look at.

More evidence that Brode (or whoever) doesn't see this game anywhere close to me. I see BGH as a classic part of the rock-paper-scissors equation. Good players will include a BGH in their decks because sometimes the other guy will play a heavy attack minion. Canonically, so long as Dr Boom remains popular BGH will be important and useful. Having BGH in the game also increases the usefulness of other cards that have good effects but 6 attack. It is (to me) a balancer.

I see they've included another 4-mana secret removal - at least that's something. But I don't understand what Brode thinks the counter to big heavy minions is supposed to be, particularly for classes that don't have unblockable removal.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 14, 2016, 01:22:31 PM
Big Game Hunter pushes in an unhealthy direction. It can limit design space. It's high on the list of cards to look at.

More evidence that Brode (or whoever) doesn't see this game anywhere close to me. I see BGH as a classic part of the rock-paper-scissors equation. Good players will include a BGH in their decks because sometimes the other guy will play a heavy attack minion. Canonically, so long as Dr Boom remains popular BGH will be important and useful. Having BGH in the game also increases the usefulness of other cards that have good effects but 6 attack. It is (to me) a balancer.

BGH makes it hard for them to design high-attack minions. It's about mana efficiency-if I play a 3-mana spell that negates your 6+ mana spell AND get a good deal for 3 mana (a 4/2), then you're less likely to play a 7+ attack minion that costs 6+. This reminds me of when Lightning Bolt was in Standard in MTG-if your creature cost more than 2 mana and had 3 or less toughness, why bother playing it-just dies to 1-mana Bolt. It constrained the design space for 3-toughness creatures as BGH constrains 7+ Attack creatures they can design.

BGH, if nerfed, will likely become a 3/2, 2/2, or worse. Or it will cost more mana.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on March 14, 2016, 01:36:34 PM
Having a powerful removal card in the neutral classic/basic card set also seems like it reduces the game's ability to differentiate classes by how much removal they have access to, and discourages putting removal effects on expansion cards.  That's not a slam dunk case to nerf the card into the ground, but I can see it justifying a close look.

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on March 14, 2016, 04:22:40 PM
People who level a character to 20 in World of Warcraft will get the new paladin hero Liadrin (which is a cosmetic variation on Uther) in Hearthstone.  This achievement is not awarded retroactively, but I don't see any indication that it's for a limited time.

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/20057856/become-a-hero-in-azeroth-and-earn-a-hero-in-hearthstone-3-14-2016
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 15, 2016, 06:07:58 AM
BGH makes it hard for them to design high-attack minions.  [...]

BGH, if nerfed, will likely become a 3/2, 2/2, or worse. Or it will cost more mana.

I could see BGH being nerfed, particularly to increase its mana cost. But that doesn't answer the original question, which is "What (does Brode think) is the appropriate counter to high-attack minions?"

Given that BGH takes up a slot (rarely two) in your deck and possibly your hand that you could use for a more generally effective card, and that its power is only useful on a small handful of cards it seems like a strategic decision and a reasonable trade-off.  Compare with Hex, Polymorph, or Assassinate, all of which are also counters to big minions but are class-limited. Each of them has different pluses and minuses, cost about the same, but are much more widely useful. I don't understand how BGH limits the design of high-attack minions if those other unblockable removal cards don't.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Edalia on March 15, 2016, 07:47:56 AM
I could see BGH being nerfed, particularly to increase its mana cost. But that doesn't answer the original question, which is "What (does Brode think) is the appropriate counter to high-attack minions?"

I don't know what someone else thinks, but I can guess it's probably a class-specific solution. If there doesn't exist one for a particular class, it is either a weakness they want to use as a class feature (e.g. Paladins just can't remove big threats, they need to heal through it or get under it) or they are designing class-specific counters. The issue is that it's a card any deck could play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 15, 2016, 10:12:21 AM
Maybe they'll add more hard removal. Entomb was an interesting move in that direction, imo, though it's generally too slow in the current meta. Paladins can already nerf down big minions (dropping attack to 1 or setting stats to 3/3) which leaves druid as the only class that doesn't have a good hard counter (giving the other guy two free draws is generally too stupid to be playable). But that still leaves me wondering why BGH limits their ability to design high-attack minions and other hard counters don't. I understand that I'm kind of low on the clue scale, not having played a lot of CCG games. I guess we'll see when the changes to basic cards come out.

Speaking of changes, extra deck slots went live this week. Very happy about that.  Nine more slots mean you can have one each standard and wild deck per class but it also gives me room to experiment with more deck types per class. I don't understand why there's not a simple export/import feature for decks, though. My current method is to screenshot my deck and then have to rebuild it by hand, which is tedious as all get-out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 24, 2016, 05:01:03 PM
Last night I broke my phone. Upgraded to a new Samsung and discovered (once I'd re-downloaded Hearthstone and gotten Blizz to fix my authenticator) that there's still a promotion for free packs (basic set I think). So if you're upgrading or have a new Samsung...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 27, 2016, 04:38:08 AM
It appears Liadrin (the "level a warcraft character to 20 to get a new hero" perk) is live. I attempted to cheese this by leveling a neglected alt from 91->92 but that didn't unlock the achievement (Fledgling Hero of Warcraft).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 27, 2016, 07:11:50 AM
She's been live for a while now.  You can get her by leveling a 19->20, I believe (I only personally did a 17->20.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 30, 2016, 06:49:38 PM
This week's tavern brawl is interesting in that it has an obvious winning deck but it's not the obvious winning deck I first thought it was. I haven't gone back and played more to see if others have come to the same conclusion but after losing to the Answer Deck of This Week in my first game I went and built that deck and trounced.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 01, 2016, 02:42:46 AM
Available at least from the launcher (and probably elsewhere) you can see a video advertising "Hearthstone: the MMO". Also an upcoming "Azeroth TV" channel with various amusing show proposals.

There are also "patch notes" - a couple of which got me to smile - up on Hearthpwn. They're attributed to "Hearthpwnizzard" so I'm not sure how "official" they are.  I used to be able to point to individual posts on hearthpwn.com but that seems not to work anymore.

Remember what day it is.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 04, 2016, 03:00:37 AM
Hearthpwn is reporting a rumor that Whispers will release on the 26th based on a warning message that has appeared in the game shop shown to people who go to purchase older card packs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 07, 2016, 08:40:40 AM
Portals again this week for tavern brawl. I'm getting the sense that Blizz has it set up to alternate deck-building weeks with premade deck weeks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 13, 2016, 08:48:38 AM
This week's tavern brawl is interesting and novel.  Make a deck using only minions with odd attack values and only spells that have even mana cost.  Zero is not an odd number, so that takes out some things like eggs, and of course you lose all those lovely 8/8 options. I noticed early on that both silence minions are out, which increases the power of some things like sludge belchers.

Anyway, the solution wasn't obvious to me immediately but I did build a deck that won easily on first try. Some classes are clearly in bad shape with these rules - e.g. hunter loses Animal Companion and Unleash the Hounds. The wholesale removal of all 2/3 minions makes it seem like most control styles would be hampered. Card draw is also harder as you don't have the 2/1 Loot Hoarder nor the 4/2 Cult Master.

Anyway, if you want to know my decklist I'll post it - I'd be interested in feedback.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 19, 2016, 02:14:25 PM
Whispers has been officially announced for April 26 (Europe and Asia the 27th). I think I'll have my 5k gold by then to buy packs. I do not think anything has been released about changes to existing cards, which I thought was going to happen at the same time (WotOG should bring Standard format into play and I thought Standard included card changes).

IGN (http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/03/11/find-out-when-hearthstones-card-nerfs-will-be-announced ) has a quote from Mike Donais saying that the card changes will be announced "about a week before the set comes out" so that should be any day now. Some other commentary to the effect that Standard will actually be live May 1, not on set release date.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 20, 2016, 06:40:34 PM
Talking to myself again, I see.  But this was too funny not to note.  This week's Tavern Brawl gives you a deck of 30 Raven idols.  So first you choose minion or spell, then discover one of the chosen type of card. It gets SLOOW, esp. when your opponent is playing 5 or so R.I. in one turn.

So I discovered Nozdormu and it was hilarious.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on April 22, 2016, 04:24:26 PM
So I discovered Nozdormu and it was hilarious.
I feel so sorry for the other person!  ;D
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 22, 2016, 05:19:10 PM
Last expansion I could see the new synergies and deck ideas much better than I can with this one.  I can see a C'thun deck, of course, but that just feels like putting all your eggs in one basket (unless you can endeavor to give it charge or something.) 

Last expansion I bought some cards and made something cool with what I got.  I hope maybe I'm just missing it right now and can do that with this one.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 23, 2016, 03:25:13 AM
Cree I have to agree with you. There are a lot of deathrattle things so maybe variants on those decks will be popular? I'm not seeing what tempo and midrange decks are going to work but it's early days. I'll be doing a lot of net-decking early on.

Card nerfs are out. Druids got punched in the face a lot.

Ancient of Lore is now draw 1, down from 2. Probably still keeps its place in decks. Druid speed doesn't use this for card draw anyway.

Force of Nature treants lose Charge and persist. This becomes like a stupider, slower Hounds now. All Druid combo decks are dead. No more burst for U!

Keeper of the Grove becomes a 2/2 instead of a 2/4. At 4 mana it's now probably worse than the 4/3 silence minion, though the optional damage is nice.

Owl costs 3 mana, up from 2. Probably stays in the decks that use it. There will be some early-game issues since you won't be able to silence a fast buffed minion quite so easily. Helps speed decks, mostly.

BGH goes to 5 mana. Probably necessary and I'm glad they didn't nerf it harder. It's a reasonable trade-off with most other hard removals. The challenge is that there are a lot more interesting cards at 5 mana than at 3 so you're going to be giving up something else to get this a deck slot.

Hunter's Mark goes to 1 mana from 0. Makes some sense and mostly hurts midrange.

Blade Flurry now 4 mana and doesn't hit the opposing hero. Probably necessary as the card was OP before; however, Rogue is a pretty bad place in constructed right now and this change isn't going to help. The tradeoff against fan of knives makes this look like a worse card now.

Knife Juggler now 2 attack, down from 3. Anyone who thinks people play juggler to get a 3/2 minion on the board is really missing the point. KJ keeps its place in all decks.

Leper gnome 1/1 down from 2/1. This nerf actually has an impact because if the other guy plays LG on turn 1  you can now play a 3/2 against it on turn 2. Hero damage was going to happen anyway but you'd be left with a minion on the board, which helps against aggro.

Arcane Golem now 4/4 up from 4/2 and it loses charge, making it possibly the worst 4/4 in the game. This change also hurts speed decks.

Molten Giant now 25 mana up from 20. You have to somehow be alive at 5 or less health to get this for free. This hurts a lot of control decks, particularly handlock. Dropping below 5 health is just stupid levels of dangerous. I suspect this'll be replaced by sea giants in some decks and removed from most. I can't think of a deck in which I'd use it at that cost.

Master of Disguise now only gives stealth for one turn. Um, who plays this thing? Yeah, there are some combo decks where you might want to keep your Gadgetzan stealthed but mostly people just use Prep and coins to spam spells for the draws, assuming the Auctioneer will die next turn anyway. No idea why Blizz picked on this corner case.

One effect of these changes is to boost shaman I think. With a 3-mana hard removal and a 1-mana silence they can do things other classes can't.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on April 23, 2016, 06:22:29 AM
Nice analysis. It will certainly shake things up in Wild.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 24, 2016, 05:18:24 PM
To my surprise the card changes went live today, rather than Tuesday. Whoa. There go a bunch of my decks.

ETA: Druid is in SUCH a bad place now. There's really nothing about it that can win anymore. You've got no burst, no hard removal (don't talk to me about Mulch) and ramp is too slow now. I might try making an ultra-taunt deck but I don't know if it can have the kill power. We'll see what the Old Gods brings - there's a deck starter up that I assume will become active with the Tuesday patch.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 27, 2016, 05:22:10 AM
Arena is wild format and currently rewarding Old Gods packs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 27, 2016, 09:48:18 AM
Is there something I'm not understanding about renounce darkness or is it jsut for people who wanted their game to be a complete dice roll?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 27, 2016, 10:34:13 AM
I just got demolished by a druid ramp deck that was insane. Druids are not dead.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on April 27, 2016, 10:38:41 AM
Yogg is the true dice-roll deck. But also C'Thun druid is strooooong. Although I did beat a one who had near perfect ramp with my tempo mago so theres that?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 28, 2016, 09:18:45 AM
Pretty much every druid is playing the same deck right now in Standard. If they get their heavy blockers and heavy armor cards early enough they can hold out and may win. Usually they can win without C'thun because those minions are very good on their own (too good imo). However, I can beat that deck reliably with my dragon priest and my face shaman. I can beat it with most other decks if it doesn't get the right draws. C'thun decks in general are too slow right now but the druid variant plays really excellent minions along the way so it can perform.

Blizzard appears to have successfully killed SMORCing for almost everyone except shaman but midrange is also toast. Druid ramp will do OK, so yeah there's a deck that's probably not utterly dead. I just don't consider it competitive against priest or warrior.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 29, 2016, 06:13:17 AM
I think the biggest disappointment so far about this expansion is that it's all about one deck type. As I see it, you will play C'thun decks UND YOU VILL LIKE IT!

There's a decent tempo mage emerging and I think rogue and hunter speed decks might be workable, but inferior to shaman. There's a rogue deathrattle build that revives a couple of old legendaries but I haven't seen it be competitive yet. Warrior and priest control seem to be workable - both have strong removal to deal with C'thun and minions. Secret decks all appear dead (though Tempo Mage seems to use them somewhat) including freeze mage. The loss of healbots and molten giants seems to have killed handlock and I'm not seeing Reno decks having enough removal to be viable. One of the things that seems to be helping shaman is the cheap removal - at three mana it seems people are choosing Hex over Owl.

As I suspected, midrange is now pretty much a dead deck type. There's a model midrange hunter that requires some expensive cards I don't have (43 packs, one legendary) so I haven't been able to test it. I also think paladin should be capable of playing midrange but I haven't figured out a good build for one, yet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 01, 2016, 09:11:09 AM
Despite showing the best rank between wild and standard, for the season ending it only cared about my standard rank.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 02, 2016, 07:53:58 AM
Despite showing the best rank between wild and standard, for the season ending it only cared about my standard rank.

Something weird definitely happened. It awarded me stars for 14, which is where I ended after playing a few ranked Standard games, but gave me the Rank 13 chest I'd earned on Wild.

I am just not thrilled with Standard. The game is just more boring now. I'm hoping this will change as the people who are cleverer than I am come up with new deck types. The Reno decks didn't emerge until relatively late so I still have some hope that with 134 new cards to choose from something besides YOU WILL PLAY C'THUN UND YOU VILL LIKE IT is possible.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 05, 2016, 08:37:54 AM
Ask and ye shall receive.  I've now seen speed deck builds for paladin, hunter, rogue, shaman, and warlock all of which look quite viable. Tempo mage is not bad, and I'm playing around with a tempo beast druid that might be viable. This makes me think tempo-style decks can work. Control warrior, control priest, dragon priest all seem good. Most other dragon decks aren't showing well I think.  Midrange does appear to be dead, but it's still early days.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on May 09, 2016, 09:50:36 AM
Stepped back in after quite a few months not playing. Reset back to 25, which is fine since I'm so rusty and all these new cards and formats. Playing standard with Dragon Priest, quickly and while being very fun, back to 20. Not much variation to see so far.. a lot of warrior, control and dragon that don't seem to get off the ground. Dragon Warrior.. I don't remember that being a thing before, but I might try it just because DRAGON Warrior !! In my very limited view so far, I see people pumping up their C'thun and rarely getting him out on the board.

So far the new  Standard / Wild system makes me think of Ladder vs non-Ladder in Diablo II... you can have all your old no longer attainable items in non-Ladder, and fresh and shiny in Ladder. I like it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 11, 2016, 07:33:29 PM
This is the first brawl I've played multiple times by choice.  I want to see what other combinations people have done.

My favorite so far was me playing coldlight, innervate which sadly was against an ice block frost bolt deck, but then I won because she didn't have enough frost bolts to kill me.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 12, 2016, 06:36:24 AM
Yeah there are a lot of interesting combos here.  I won with Paladin using Shielded Minibot and Aldor Peacekeeper. Probably loses to direct-damage deck but both have good board presence and can neutralize enemy minion attacks.

ETA loses badly to the hunter mechwarper/leaper combo.  That thing can flood the board with high-attack minions faster than I can neutralize them
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 13, 2016, 08:10:45 AM
I really wanted to try Lore Walker Cho and Mind vision, but I don't have a Cho.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: ghoselle on May 14, 2016, 11:15:41 AM
My solution was shaman with evolve and ancestral healing.  Though in game I played, ancestral healing ended up being mostly irrelevant since my opponent had no creatures (only direct damage).
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 01, 2016, 05:55:44 AM
I only made rank 13 last month. To some degree that was busy-ness and involvement in other things. To some degree it was failing to find a deck I could hit the 50% mark with until fairly late.

Today I was told that rank 13 was 'top 20%' of players. It's my recollection that 13 has been higher in the past. Anyone know if stats are published on this kind of thing? I know Blizz published one set once (though I can't find it right now). I'm sort of idly wondering if there's been a change with the introduction of Standard or maybe the player base as a whole is going up?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on June 04, 2016, 05:46:58 AM
I haven't seen a list recently either. You can check your currently percentile at any time by mousing over the rank on the quest log page. I am currently rank 14 which is the top 25% this season. I ended up at rank 10 last season which was top 9%.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 10, 2016, 02:06:54 PM
Hearthpwn has the European Spring Championship deck lists and I feel it's a very good snapshot of how unbalanced the game has become since Standard.

Everyone brought Shaman (2 styles), Warlock (2 styles), and Warrior (4 styles).  Hunter was a close 4th, with midrange. Miracle Rogue and Freeze Mage also showed, and a couple people tried paladin (2 styles).  Only one druid, no surprise there, and no priests. That last is surprising as I see priests doing pretty well on the lower end of ladder where I play. I guess they fall off at the top end.

Aside from priest, this reflects the skew I think has come into the game with warrior really dominant, a couple aggro decks being competitive, and basically no midrange play possible.  Prior to standard I had five decent midrange decks. I also think it's interesting that tempo mage didn't show at all - freeze mage and miracle rogue both take pretty high levels of skill to play and don't show up much on the part of the ladder I see.

I am sad that WotOG has narrowed the play options so drastically; I'm finding Hearthstone boring again.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 17, 2016, 04:25:57 PM
Asian Championship deck lists are up. Fairly similar to European.  Warrior dominates, everyone runs the same Hunter deck. Paladin and Druid and Priest are all absent. This last one continues to confuse me, since you know everyone's going to be playing Warrior and I think Priest is favored against Warrior. At least, I lose to a lot of priests in my low-rank ladder play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 27, 2016, 07:16:26 PM
It's looking very much like I'll close out this month at rank 13. I thought for a couple weeks I'd be stuck at 18 - I just could not find a deck that would hit the 50% win rate. Surprisingly (to me) I hit it with tempo hunter. The deck is fairly effective, and I got a good streak of games that pushed me out of the slump. I think if I wanted faster results I'd go back to zoolock but this style of play appeals to me. Which brings me to...

America's spring championship decklists went up a few days ago but I've been stupid busy and just spent some time going through them. Surprising exactly no one at this point, zero priest and zero paladin. A lot more aggro shaman. The other interesting thing is all the contestants brought different variants of warrior than were popular in other regions. Tempo warrior using Wrynn and Malkorok are very popular, but I don't have either of those. However, there's also a dragon warrior that plays a lot like a tempo deck and I do have the cards for that so I'm going to swap out my patron warrior for that. Maybe priests won't eat my lunch quite so much.

ION word is official that LoE cards are going to go out of standard next year. Blizz better have something really good up their sleeves because if this game gets any narrower I may just drop it entirely, or go back to just arena. Reno and Golden Monkey decks aren't exactly competitive right now but at least they offer some optional variation.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 13, 2016, 03:18:47 AM
Hearthstone is doing a recruit-a-friend for a hero portrait. You'd have to play up to level 20. If anyone is interested please let me know.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 29, 2016, 10:07:45 AM
As expected, last night's big reveal for Hearthstone was another adventure. This time it's Karazhan, with a disco theme. Don't ask - it'll just make your brain hurt. Kz was one of my favorite instances (with one or two exceptions) and it looks like several of the beloved characters from there will be appearing in Hearthstone.  Four wings at 700 gold each after a freebie intro, plus the usual class challenges. I think it's a total of 46 new cards.  Rolls out in a couple weeks.

Mostly it's a nice diversion and I have 2k gold stashed already so that's easy. From a game-design perspective it'll be interesting to see if Blizzard includes any highly desired cards (a la Loatheb) in this expansion. I don't have a personal opinion pro or con, but I think it'll be an interesting insight into how they're planning to design this game going forward.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 01, 2016, 06:55:28 PM
Actually managed to hit rank 11 this time, top 12% I'm told. I'm starting to think I could rank higher if I wanted to grind out the games. Here's hoping the new adventure adds some spice back to the game.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 04, 2016, 07:44:11 AM
Very weird brawl.  Computer opponent, you seem to get a pack just for trying it and I can't see how to compare scores.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 04, 2016, 10:21:42 AM
I agree, Cree. I went in thinking WTF. It's a little like a tower defense thing where your goal is to survive longest and pile up as many dead bodies as you can while doing it. But it does seem impossible to lose. I wonder if they will be giving out the "win 5 brawls" quest this week.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 15, 2016, 12:12:46 PM
In the ongoing "Priest Sucks" vein there are a lot of response videos coming out to the latest adventure cards of which Purify for priests is getting absolutely raked over the coals. The card sucks, and priest is going to continue to be the weakest class both in constructed and arena play at least until the next expansion. Of all the videos I've watched, I like Trump's best (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiL4qhYWEDA) in large part because he argues that the problem is not (just) Purify, it's that Blizzard is not being nimble enough. Unlike physical printed cards, it's possible for Blizzard to react after cards are created.

Two months ago it was clear that Priest sucked and needed help when nobody brought priest decks to Blizzard's own championship. Doing nothing for two months and then claiming that the latest round of sucky cards couldn't be changed because they were designed months ago is just really lame.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 19, 2016, 06:54:12 AM
Second wing of Karazhan out with something of a whimper. I found the normal-mode fights trivial, ditto the class challenges. I realized I could use Wild decks but just for the fun and extra challenge I did it with standard decks, no problems.

I'm starting to wonder if Blizzard is running out of mechanics ideas. Adding a new mechanic creates a lot of combinatorial challenges and the game is sufficiently simple there isn't a whole lot you can do - buff, debuff, immobilize, remove are about your only options. This week's brawl also has a bit of that - it uses the two-player-vs-the-boss mechanic we've seen before but with a bunch of new cards. I liked it enough to do the five-brawl-wins quest, but probably won't play again.

The Karazhan cards are similarly uninspiring so far. At least they're encouraging people to try some different deck types, but I have yet to see anything that's actually competitive. Still, it's early days yet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: HeidiB on August 19, 2016, 07:08:04 AM
I tried getting back into Hearthstone with the Karazhan event, but I can't get past Malchezaar.  The first play through was funny and nostalgic.  The third, not so much.

The "return cards to deck" card seemed like an interesting twist.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 19, 2016, 10:32:29 AM
Oh, the opening fight? Yeah, that's kind of a combo thing. I will say you can stack redonculous spell damage and leave it at that. I think I took a couple tries to figure out the combos but it didn't seem that hard.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 22, 2016, 03:47:44 AM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1675-results-and-decks-for-the-top-8-americas-summer

Decklists for the the Americas Summer Preliminaries are up. A little more variety than last time, including a couple people bringing paladin. Token druid also seems popular - it's something I'm trying to learn now since Druid was always my favorite class. No rogues this time either, and totem/midrange/evolve shaman also seem to be out, though face shaman is still present. The European decks were essentially identical.

I'm sort of disappointed by this because some of the streamers I watch have been talking about new hybrid-style decks emerging. I'm playing around with a couple hybrids myself and not doing all that well, but I thought that might be due to my lack of skill. If the top players aren't willing to play the new hybrid styles that might mean the decks are just not that good.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 28, 2016, 04:09:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agNT6V7QmlE

I had somehow missed this series of "Wronchi" Hearthstone animations. The most recent one wasn't that funny, but a commenter pointed back at this one, which actually made me laugh out loud a couple times.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 01, 2016, 08:43:41 AM
I managed rank 11 last month, again falling a couple stars short of 10. I blame Legion. Got two golden cards in the chest this time, which is nice.

I thought the last fight of Karazhan would be open this week (from Tuesday) but apparently not. ETA: It opened tonight. Now I can stop saving gold and play arenas again.

The brawl is a Portals variant with a Kz theme... meh, I'm not that engaged by purely random brawls. At least this one has some minor elements of strategy in that the various portals have different costs so you can play around with mana expenditure a little more.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 09, 2016, 04:11:50 AM
http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/blog/20271286

Changes announced to arena, basically removing a list of cards in an attempt to balance classes without taking out the iconic cards like mage's flamestrike.

I'm frankly surprised that rogue is still that popular in arena. It's one of the weaker classes for me; maybe I need more practice.

Most of the commentary is not useful. Blizzard seems to have pulled out a handful of weaker cards and one or two quality cards from the stronger classes. I don't think this is going to have a major impact. More interesting will be if they follow through on an item discussed in the post to weight card selection by an internal number the card designers pick. I'm frankly surprised they don't already do this. Hearthpwn gives me a "value" for my arena decks but I haven't kept track of it so I've no idea what its mean and deviation are. If the game doesn't have a balance mechanic of some kind for drafting arena then you'd end up with a lot of wild variation, much more than I think I see.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 03, 2016, 06:52:44 AM
(if people are tired of the "Snique talks to himself about a game nobody else plays" thread let me know and I'll stop.)

Finished last month at rank 10, kind of by accident. I'm still playing the same decks as I have for the past few months and starting to think that rank 10/11 is just about my skill level (top 9% last month, top 10-15% most months). I suspect I could get better - I recognize mistakes I'm making - but I don't have the interest to spend the hours at it.

Karazhan has changed up a few things. There are some Kz cards you can expect to see in most decks. What it didn't do was fundamentally change the viability of the various classes. Priest and paladin still are in bad shape. Shaman has lots of dominating options, etc. Kz kind of revived dragon decks for a couple classes but only because those classes don't have other viable deck archetypes. Zoolock is still a giant PITA.

So, out comes the nerf bat. Blizzard is making a couple of changes to slow down/balance some of the cards. Abusive sergeant becomes a 1/1, execute goes up to 2 mana, and shaman speed decks get a couple nerfs (tuskarr only summons basic totems and the add-three-attack weapon now costs 2 mana up from 1). I'm generally pleased with all the changes but I don't see them fundamentally altering the meta. These aren't the killer sorts of changes Blizz made to (for example) kill warrior charge decks or take out Undertaker decks entirely. There are no buffs in this round and I don't see disfavored classes becoming competitive again without either buffs to key class cards or the introduction of new options.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 03, 2016, 07:09:05 AM
I've kind of stopped playing (other than to get my card back each month) so I appreciate the updates, especially if you post about interesting brawls and in this case you reminded me that the month has changed over.   Knowing about the feel of the meta is important too, because I partially stopped playing because the meta got... boring.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on October 03, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
I've been playing, so I like seeing someone else's perspective. I made it to rank 7 this month with mid-hunter... I normally play priest, but I have not been able to get higher than 10-12 with Priest do to frequently being crushed by shaman, lock and some mage. I tried several iterations of dragon priest and rez priest, both of which I enjoyed playing and made for some entertaining and challenging loooong games, that don't always end favorably. Mid-secret hunter makes for quick wins, or quick losses and pretty low on the entertainment value, but when it seems every match is vs aggro... This month I will attempt Priest and Paladin for a while and probably grind more hunter golden hero.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 03, 2016, 06:07:12 PM
There is a promotion to try twitch prime (which is free if you have amazon prime, at least for now.)  If you link your twitch.tv account with your amazon prime enabled account, you get a code for tyranda priest skin.   Since it's a code, you don't have to link the twitch.tv account to the battle.net account to redeem it (or if you already have a twitch account linked to your battle.net, you can use the code on a different battle.net account.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 05, 2016, 06:09:29 PM
I'm mostly playing mid hunter, with a sprinkling of warrior and zoolock. I'm surprised you can get as high as 12 playing priest/paladin. I'd love to watch you sometime and see what you do.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on October 11, 2016, 11:00:10 AM
I'm mostly playing mid hunter, with a sprinkling of warrior and zoolock. I'm surprised you can get as high as 12 playing priest/paladin. I'd love to watch you sometime and see what you do.

Sure thing, I played hunter all last month. The prior month I was grinding priest golden hero and ended at 12. This month I'm working on paladin golden hero... currently trying secret N'zoth and only made it as high as 14, but fairly fun. I'll dust off my Priest and see if rez priest is still working well enough to climb. killian27#1146
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 12, 2016, 12:04:17 PM
Thanks, send you a battletag friend request. I find I'm struggling more on my hunter these days. Some of it is luck streaking but I think if I want to rank I'm going to have to suck it up and play the OP shaman thing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on October 13, 2016, 04:39:41 AM
Thanks, send you a battletag friend request. I find I'm struggling more on my hunter these days. Some of it is luck streaking but I think if I want to rank I'm going to have to suck it up and play the OP shaman thing.

Depending on your current rank, the mage I call flamewalker mage, is tough to beat. I played probably 8-9 of those in a row last night, and can't beat it often enough with Priest, so had to resort to face hunter. They start to show up less at 14ish.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 13, 2016, 05:34:49 AM
I'm currently at 16 and I do see that mage now and then. Around 16-14 you see a tremendous amount of "flavor of the week" deck - whatever's being ranked highly on Hearthpwn.

My hunter pretty consistently loses to the mid-Shaman variants and it now doesn't have the burst it used to have to outpace a couple other deck types. I play it more as a tempo deck than anything else. Still don't have enough games to know if it's fundamentally crippled or just back luck streaking. I will be looking over the next set of published finals decklists, though, to see if mid-hunter has dropped off in favor of something else.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 15, 2016, 09:16:29 AM
I will be looking over the next set of published finals decklists, though, to see if mid-hunter has dropped off in favor of something else.

And here we go: http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1796-hct-2016-americas-last-call-begins-saturday

The second-biggest surprise to me is the lack of rogue - it's down at 1 with priest and paladin. Warlock is middling; I suspect that's because in a tournament format you can't have the 50% win rate of a zoolock deck and hope to place. On ladder I expect to see more Zoo.

The biggest surprise to me is the resurgence of druid (ramp and malygos) competing with tempo and freeze mage and shaman (midrange). Warrior (control) and hunter (secret and midrange) have fallen back slightly from their pre-Kz dominance.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Volde on October 20, 2016, 11:04:59 AM
Inspired to play Priest, I have played a dragon priest that I tweaked to rank 11, then fell back to 12. Needs more dragons.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 22, 2016, 03:27:11 PM
Not bad. I'm around 14. Mid hunter wasn't doing it so I'm playing around with the cookie-cutter mid shaman. Had an amusing fatigue match against a maly druid earlier today. I'm not sure how much farther I'll try to go - it's just not that interesting.

Today's random daily was "use your hero power N times" where N is a stupidly large number. I should have cycled the quest. Oh well. I'm wondering if they're going to add more dailies for variation.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 23, 2016, 09:30:46 AM
Today's random daily was "use your hero power N times" where N is a stupidly large number. I should have cycled the quest. Oh well. I'm wondering if they're going to add more dailies for variation.

Confirmed. Today's was "play 30 warlock class cards".
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 23, 2016, 04:53:56 PM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1814-ben-brode-unhappy-with-ranked-ladder-system

A few interesting comments on the ladder. Rank 18 means you're in the top 50% of players, which I find hard to believe. I'd love to know what the shape of that curve is. I suspect it's not a normal-distribution bell.

Laddering feels like a grind.  Well, yes. It is. That's the #2 reason I've never gotten into the top 10 (the other being I suspect I don't pay enough attention to detail to get better) - I just don't think the rewards are enough to warrant the hours of grinding. I like golden cards, sure, but I don't like them enough.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 25, 2016, 03:45:31 AM
Confirmed. Today's was "play 30 warlock class cards".

I'm starting to wonder if they cycled out ALL the quests. Got "Play N battlecry" and "Play N demons". Sadly, there don't appear to be new rewards for completing the new quests.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 27, 2016, 04:47:20 AM
I finally found patch notes for a patch that dropped this week. It has a bunch of bug fixes, adds in (apparently not replacing wholesale) dailies, and significantly changes murlocs so that instead of "all" they now only buff your own murlocs. It does eliminate some of the hilarious mirror-match failures but I haven't seen anyone running a murloc deck in months so that's not a huge change.

I'm starting to dislike the new quests because to do some of them (e.g. "Play 10 Enrage minions") you'd have to make a special deck. In that sense it's like Brawl but unlike Brawl you don't get a special deck slot for it. If I'm on desktop it's no big deal but on mobile it's incredibly painful to archive and create a new deck. I like my decks just fine, thanks, and would rather not have to keep fumbling to create a new one every day. I'm sure there are people who don't mind, but for me this is another barrier to regular play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on November 17, 2016, 04:11:49 AM
This week's Brawl is for seasoned and skilled players only (there's a giant disclaimer for it even!) and requires a buy in. Part poker, part arena I guess. Too rich for my blood.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 17, 2016, 05:23:32 AM
This week's Brawl is for seasoned and skilled players only (there's a giant disclaimer for it even!) and requires a buy in. Part poker, part arena I guess. Too rich for my blood.

Yeah, the 1000g buy-in for uncertain wins caused me to nope out. I'm building up gold to buy cards from the upcoming set; no way do I want to risk 1k of it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 19, 2016, 07:05:30 AM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/1964-the-heroic-brawl-is-finally-here

Hearthpwn has a little data around the heroic brawl. If their survey is representative of players, about 20% of people who normally brawl are interested in doing this one.

You can pay $10 (or apparently 10 Euros) instead of gold.

The reward structure is posted. If we assume that a pack is about 60 dust or 100g you'd need to win 4 games to 'break even' and 5 to gain something better than just buying the 10 packs. (I'm ignoring any possible gold backs here.) I don't have a lot of Arena runs that go 5-3 but with a purely constructed deck I might manage that; I would expect much more like 4-3. The challenge of course is that you don't have a lot of games to balance out RNG variation. A couple bad draws and you're screwed.

There's also no indication that the brawl uses Arena-like mechanics to match people with similar records. You could have an 0-2 deck and go up against someone with a great deck.

Yeah, I'll be skipping this for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on November 19, 2016, 11:35:44 AM
There's also no indication that the brawl uses Arena-like mechanics to match people with similar records. You could have an 0-2 deck and go up against someone with a great deck.

The matchmaking tooltip specifically states that the search may take longer than usual because its important that they get a "good match" for the brawl. This would indicate that its actually more stringent in its mechanics for choosing opponents than arena (arena will give up and give you someone with a different record if it takes too long)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 21, 2016, 06:45:36 AM
The matchmaking tooltip specifically states that the search may take longer than usual because its important that they get a "good match" for the brawl. This would indicate that its actually more stringent in its mechanics for choosing opponents than arena (arena will give up and give you someone with a different record if it takes too long)

I took that to mean "We don't know how many people are going to do this so there may be a very thin field". I did notice that at least a couple of Cupcakes have done this brawl.  Anyone want to report their experiences?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Seniummortus on November 21, 2016, 01:21:16 PM
I went 4-3 in it with that midevh's valet freeze mage deck thingy and wished I had more gold to keep going. Even if i didn't "break even" the higher stakes made it far more fun than standard constructed see: hit the wheel and grind. Bringing your own deck was better than arena see: welp my decks shit again, thanks RNG for not giving me enough 1-2 drops.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 29, 2016, 04:07:40 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp9C_0_JeYE

In case you are bored while the servers are down, or want to feel somewhat like Blizzard just rickrolled you, here's 53 (yes, fifty-three) minutes of murloc noises overlaid on Christmas carols.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 01, 2016, 08:45:23 AM
The new expansion (Mean Streets of Gadgetzan) released today. Lots of review videos on YouTube from the popular streamers.

On login you should get a "Join the XXX" quest for one of the factions, which requires winning three games with any of the classes of that faction. Rewards two MSoG packs. After that there's a fun RP bit I won't spoil that leads to another multi-pack quest.

I had a situation (bug?) where the shop was not open to me until I won my first game after login. This was on mobile and I didn't investigate it much but if the shop shows "closed" to you then try playing a game or two and see if it resolves itself. Now if you'll excuse me I have 5000 gold saved up I intend to spend...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 15, 2016, 11:25:58 AM
This month may be my lowest finish in a very long time unless I get dedicated or lucky. The new expansion has even further reduced the ability to play midrange decks. Everything is now a swarm or ultra-control. and playing midrange against either of those is frikkin' annoying. If I cared, I'd just play the cookie-cutter Pirate Warrior (#1 legend this time) and get some ranks by grinding out the 55%. But I'm having a hard time caring.

That said, I'm finding it interesting to deal with the new daily quests. I'm slowly learning which ones to dump and which ones I can play with my preferred set of decks. It's rare I can do a daily quest and play ranked, though, which is further contributing to my being stuck at 18.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 04, 2017, 02:47:53 PM
This week's brawl is (quite literally) unique. There are no directions given, but you can find explanations on the usual sites such as Hearthpwn. It's a celebration of the  20th anniversary of the Diablo franchise and winning your first game gives you a card back.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 17, 2017, 08:41:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3M2qGurv-I

Longish (50 minute) video from Brian Kibler on the current issues in Hearthstone. He's a lot less ranty than some other commentators I follow and I generally like the points he makes:

- Ranking is punitive, particularly for players who don't have a lot of time to play it. The potential loss of rank discourages experimentation and leads to a much more narrow and stale ladder play. One alternative would be to set "breakpoints" that, once acheived, you can't drop below. Yes, people will goof off but it's a way for top players to try new things, which could enliven the metagame.

- More starting stars. This would help both experienced players (who are going to end up at legend anyway) by giving them less to grind before reaching meaningful opposition and new players who would find themselves matched against much-better players less often.

- the large pool of choices for Arena drafting makes it nearly impossible to make synergies happen; instead, all Arena decks become the same - how many efficient stats can I play for the mana I have? This is an even bigger problem with new sets that advertise particular synergies and that encourage building ranked decks around them. One possible solution would be to create a more limited pool, somewhere between Wild and Standard. I suspect this would lead to more whining such as we go when Blizz removed some cards from the Arena pool but I think it'd be enjoyable.

- Card nerfs, particularly to well-used classic cards, are bad for Wild. EG Blade Flurry; you just don't ever see this card anymore because now it sucks. An alternative to nerfing that sort of card would be to make it Wild-only. That would keep it from impacting Standard but still let people play old familiar deck types in Wild.

- Wild needs support, both from Blizzard and from event organizers. It's just not fun enough now and there's no support, so it's not compelling to pretty much anyone.

- He believes that weapons (particularly cheap weapons) are broken. Particularly in combination with cheap minions. Obviously pirates are the prime example of this now, but he argues that because the cheap minions/cheap weapons are so efficient they end up in all kinds of decks where they probably don't belong. They provide an effectively unanswerable snowballing advantage.

Of interest to me is he identifies this as a reason for there being no midrange decks. I've been lamenting Blizzard killing this style of play for two expansions now - it's my preferred style - but I hadn't identified these as key problems for the midrange style. This is why you get a meta that's composed of pirate and Reno decks, or at least decks with cheap weapons and Small-Time Buccaneer.

(I did not realize Kibler was on the SolForge team - I Kickstarted it, but ended up being so bad at playing it I gave up.)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 19, 2017, 05:02:56 AM
This is likely to be my worst month ever on the ranked ladder, probably ending at 15 or lower. I'm just bored by the two decks I'd need to use to climb and the decks I enjoy playing aren't going to get me above 15. I may take a break from ranked play until Blizz does something.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 26, 2017, 07:30:19 PM
If you play Hearthstone on an Android device you may want to be on WiFi next time you fire it up. There's a 1.1G download that completely reoptimizes the upgrade process, eliminating wasted space. I'm happy for that but kind of disappointed - I was hoping for another adventure.

ION I gave in and started playing one of the viable decks. I've climbed from 18 to 15 today and might be arsed to push up a couple more ranks before month end. Seeing a surprising amount of druid and rogue in this range.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 08, 2017, 11:09:20 AM
Quest against a friend seems to be a thing this week - you can complete daily quests by playing friendly games rather than random. Seems silly but whatever.

More interesting, though, it appears that at least some of the quests are staring out with M/N completed where M > 0. I'm quite certain I have not played before now but when I just brought up the client I got today's quest to play 10 secrets and it's showing 3/10 done.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 23, 2017, 12:44:20 PM
Year of the Mammoth has been announced for the next Hearthstone season. It's not entirely clear when it'll start, but smart money seems to be on April, after the upcoming championships.

Big changes this time include retiring some often-played basic-set cards to Wild format, including Sylvanus, Ragnaros, and Azure Drake; more controversially they're taking out three class-specific cards (conceal, ice lance, power overwhelming) that have been definitional to those class's deck archetypes. This year will see three full card set expansions rather than two and an adventure. Lots of things are going to retire to Wild; it's not clear when the retirements will happen. Could be all at once, could be one at a time. Could be at the same time as new sets release or could happen afterward. The only thing Blizz has confirmed is that older sets will rotate out "this year" (meaning the upcoming Year of the Mammoth).

I'm looking forward to new cards and having more cards if that means more deck types can be viable. I'm sad to see the standard cards go because they are so good but I can see how the designers had to choose between "get rid of the most-good cards" or "deal with power creep problems by introducing even-better cards."
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 27, 2017, 11:10:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmnVieooUo

Kripparian getting ranty about why Hearthstone ranked play sucks so much. In a word - aggro. I sympathize - I'm at rank 11 this season because I got a bunch of quests that could be done by playing pirate warrior so guess what I did.

I've spent the last two expansions complaining about this - Blizzard has effectively killed the midrange and tempo play styles, meaning you get squeezed into ultra-fast aggro face decks or hope your ultra-control gets the right draws to hold out. Either you live to turn 6 and drop Reno in which case you win or you die on turn 4.

Krip points out that Blizzard's numbers about decks winning about 51% of the time is missing the point. That's a coin flip, which is yes balanced but also deadly dull. With games being decided by turn 4 or 6 the amount of RNG becomes dominant and you might as well be flipping a coin because you're interacting with only 1/4th to 1/3rd of your deck.

Krip also blames too-powerful 1-drops, rather than the cheap weapons that have irked some others. It's not entirely false, but the big culprits are the pirates, still.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 27, 2017, 06:27:06 PM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/2274-journey-to-ungoro-is-hearthstones-next-expansion

First of the new expansions is announced. Un'Goro theme, a couple new mechanics.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 15, 2017, 08:58:35 AM
Wow, this week's tavern brawl takes the cake for stupid. Completely random cards (again) but then the game spawns 3/5 taunt minions every turn that do 3 unblockable damage to your opponent. The winning strategy is simply "pass and maybe heal a bit" and hope your opponent doesn't have extra removal.

At least you get a next-expansion pack credit (redeemable "mid April").
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 15, 2017, 09:18:31 AM
Wow, that was the most miserable brawl ever.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 17, 2017, 02:31:17 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR5iNTXS5jI

Trump on the upcoming rotation. Apparently all three sets are going to rotate out when the first new one appears instead of 1-in/1-out which I had been expecting. That's going to leave us with a lot fewer cards overall, but as Trump points out there aren't a ton of good cards going away from those three sets. They were generally mediocre in all but a few places.

A problem is that even if you take out all three of those sets, aggro decks are still pretty dominant. Zoolock gets hurt somewhat, and jade shaman loses a couple of good cards but generally it's going to be up to the new set to do something to dislodge pirate warrior.

Jade decks will be basically unchanged, mostly losing a few auxiliary tools.

Zoo gets hurt but not a huge amount. As Trump says, life tap + cheap cards tends to make Zoo viable no matter what.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 31, 2017, 08:32:58 AM
currently hearthstone is giving you free stuff for just logging in each day until the launch  of the  xpac.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 05, 2017, 06:57:51 PM
If you play Hearthstone on an Android device you might want to be on WiFi when next you start up the game. The latest update includes loading all the data to a phone's SD card and involves a large download.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 06, 2017, 09:22:52 AM
As predicted, Un'Goro launched today. By which I mean "If you are able to get an and stay connected BWAHAHAHA". I can't recall a Hearthstone launch of anything that has gone this badly. I tend to play on my phone at lunchtime so that device may be a contributing factor. I'll try again late tonight when I get home and see if things are better.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 07, 2017, 02:33:44 PM
As predicted, Un'Goro launched today. By which I mean "If you are able to get an and stay connected BWAHAHAHA". I can't recall a Hearthstone launch of anything that has gone this badly. I tend to play on my phone at lunchtime so that device may be a contributing factor. I'll try again late tonight when I get home and see if things are better.

Things did not improve - I went from no connection to not even running on the Android. A full restart of the phone seems to have helped that. On the desktop I have intermittent lagginess that I'm not sure what to blame. It could be data management locally or it could be network/server issues. Either way I'm not 100% yet.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on April 07, 2017, 03:24:09 PM
I play on my iPhone when not at home and I've not had any issues aside from the known bug about cards continuing to show as new.

Well, unless you count the issue of not being able to win much of anything with my chosen warrior deck... ;D
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 17, 2017, 08:06:16 AM
More noodling from me about that game no one else seems to play.  Well, I've noticed a couple people well above me in rank this month. I'm still down at 17/18 in part because I lack a lot of cards, notably the quest cards. So let's start with that.

The quest cards appear to be quite powerful, possibly OP. Comparing their impact on a game with an ordinary legendary they outclass pretty much every legendary. The good ones (rogue, warrior, shaman) synergize with a deck type that would be competitive anyway and thus become extra-dominant. The downside to this is that having them is becoming nearly mandatory, which makes getting into Hearthstone right now super-expensive. I have some dust but not enough to craft all three. I don't recall Hearthstone ever having this high of a cost wall before and it's sort of cranky-making.

That said, it's entirely possible that this expansion has revived midrange decks. I have seen several variants of midrange hunter reappear and seem to be fairly competitive. Paladin still hasn't produced a really good midrange deck but I suspect that'll come too. Priest seems to have been the worst hurt by this shift, having tumbled from top to bottom of the competitive ranks. The priest quest is weak (and too slow), dragons are dead, and people are still experimenting with tempo (priest is bad at this anyway) and gimmicks.

Pirate warrior is still a thing, but since the warrior quest is so powerful you're as likely to see taunt warrior now as pirate. Sadly, classic control warrior is looking dead simply because it's inferior both to pirate and to quest/taunt.

Jade decks are still prevalent but are generally inferior to the quest decks. Jade shaman is decidedly worse than quest shaman, having lost half its opening game in the card shuffle. Jade druid still seems to be the thing but I suspect we'll see beast face druid come back soon - the class needs something faster to deal with the rogue and shaman quest decks. I'm still experimenting with my jade rogue; since I don't have the quest I need something. The variant I got last night seems not to be utterly sucky.

Zoo is still zoo, as expected. It has probably the usual 50-ish percent win rate. The problem is that if you face a warlock you know right away what you're playing so the mulligan and early plays become obvious. That alone forces down their win rate. I've seen a couple attempts at midrange and demon warlock but nothing good yet. The other problem is that AOEs have become somewhat stronger; murloc shaman has ways to avoid the cheap AOEs but warlock AOEs are too self-destructive (I think).

April is just a crazy month for me so I'm not sure how much more ranked play I'll get to do. The next big checkpoint will be seeing what decks the high-rank players bring to the tournaments. I predict 3/4ths quest decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on April 17, 2017, 04:16:10 PM
I am finding that pirate warrior is still strong. It has got me to rank 8. The quest rogue deck is the most common of the quest decks but I have not lost yet to a rogue quest as they are too slow. The warrior quest is strong and usually wins but I have seen less than a handful of them. The new hunter deck is quite good but the quest does not do much for it. The druid quest deck is not bad but it is the taunts that beat pirate. I have not seen much of the other class quests. For the most part, I think the quests are too slow and, apart from warrior and maybe rogue, will not see much play. The current meta reminds my of Old Gods - C'Thun was popular for a few weeks and then pretty much disappeared from the meta.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on April 19, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
I'm mystified by you guys saying how strong Quest Warrior is because I simply cannot buy a win most days. I'm not a great player by any stretch but I'm starting to feel like I chose the wrong class to play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 20, 2017, 07:07:17 AM
Quest warrior stacks taunt minions. There are several quite strong taunt minions, such as the one that gives you armor for all the damage it produces, and one that lets you discover another taunt minion, and one that when it dies shuffles a stronger version of itself into your deck. Then there's the one that does some damage to everything else, which is usually played in combo with the spell that does extra damage to everything damaged, or the spell the summons a copy of all your damaged minions.

So quest warrior is starting off with 8 or 10 strong taunt minions. Augment that with some card draw and a couple early weapons. Add in the half dozen or so typical warrior removal cards (slam, shield slam, execute) and you have a control deck that's hard to beat. You probably want board clears (brawl) and some aoe damage (the 3/3 exploder).

That alone would be a strong deck, probably competitive. Now around turn 7 or 8 you're going to get a 2-mana per turn Ragnaros that's unremovable. At which point, game over man. The only reason I've seen people not play that is because they're low on health and want the armor.

Like any control deck you can beat it with a speed deck - rogue quest and pirate warrior being the two most popular now. That turns it into more or less a coin flip as to whether you can drop enough block to stall out the speed decks, which usually don't run a lot of removal. If you're going up against another control deck you may want something that has longevity. Ysera would be my choice because it can generate minions as well as spells. I've seen people use other high-end finishers. Even arcane giants are usable because you'd expect to play half a dozen spells during the game and dropping an 8/8 for 4 or 6 mana is often good enough.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 20, 2017, 07:41:37 AM
Day9 hit legend with a slightly modified freeze mage.  I might break my personal ban on playing a freeze mage and give it a try.     I've been trying a combination of face hunter and fatigue warrior.

I don't like how powerless many of the quests make your opponent feel.    The quests would be more fun if they were more interactive.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: ghoselle on April 20, 2017, 07:52:12 AM
Day9 hit legend with a slightly modified freeze mage.  I might break my personal ban on playing a freeze mage and give it a try.     I've been trying a combination of face hunter and fatigue warrior.

I don't like how powerless many of the quests make your opponent feel.    The quests would be more fun if they were more interactive.

Yeah - I wish there were things I could do to interfere with my opponents ability to complete a quest.  But more or less, it seems like if they draw the cards they need for their quest they probably just win.  (caveat:  I have relatively few cards of the new expansion and no quests of my own)
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 02, 2017, 09:50:56 AM
Finished at 13 last month, largely due to Pirate Warrior (forgive me, I have sinned). Although speed decks are continuing to dominate the meta there's more breathing room opening up and some midrange and tempo decks are making themselves known. I'm enjoying playing more, if only because there are multiple viable deck styles per class now. Finja is definitely the unexpected superhero of this cycle; I'm going to have to craft it I think.

The priest is starting to make a comeback, mostly with silence decks. It's hard to characterize the style - it's sort of a mix of control and tempo where you stack a lot of high-health minions so they trade efficiently. I crafted a few cards so I could try this deck out. The three best secrets (rogue, warrior, shaman more or less in that order) still showing up a lot.

Mage, surprisingly, is in a very bad position right now. Too much of mage power is based on randomness so if it works you're great and if not, well no. I'm seeing pretty much every mage deck running two Counterspell now in an effort to neutralize the rogue secret. If you get that to work the rogue tends to concede because that deck has no back-up plan. The flip side of this is that mage is currently super-strong in Arena and the combo-heavy classes (hunter and priest) are doing very badly.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 19, 2017, 04:24:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWwr7midQFA

Kibler on the problem(s) with Quest rogue. Yes, it loses to other ultra-aggro decks, but it's very dominant against almost everything else. This leans the meta WAY over into the aggro side. The overall numbers show Quest rogue not winning that often, but that's because it forces everyone who wants to beat it consistently to play other high aggro.

It, like the other quests, is almost like playing a game of solitaire. There's nothing you can do - either they're going to get it or they won't. Quest rogue also has the advantage that there's little to nothing you can do to improve your deck for matches against it. Pirate warrior has to worry about Golakka (in fact I'm seeing some pirates playing that themselves now). The only counter I've seen is Counterspell but any rogue with sense will see you have a secret up and play around that.

Kibler has some ideas on how to deal with it, most of which come down to "nerf the damn thing" but it's much more sophistically stated than that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 23, 2017, 09:29:28 AM
I've finally found a deck I'm having fun with again.   It's day9's evolve/devolve shaman deck (without the legendaries), and it while it's fast enough to kill a crystal core rogue, it doesn't feel completely aggro.   It does have a bit too much RNG, but not so much it isn't fun.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 24, 2017, 07:08:46 AM
That's interesting, I'll look it up. I'm actually having fun playing HS again since this expansion because midrange is back. It's always been my preferred style and I'm enjoying the mental game of figuring out how to make the right trades. I can often beat pirate warrior but quest rogue just dominates - it's frustrating. Basically I have to hope that the other player makes an error or that I can force an error by (for example) getting a lot of face damage early. I'll make nominally stupid plays just to try and drop the rogue down in health enough that they're worried about me OTK them. If they draw Prep, though, it's GG.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 24, 2017, 10:56:08 AM
the meta seems to have changed and the deck no longer works. Sigh. 
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 22, 2017, 11:59:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmqz4Fun94k

Interesting video from Kibler on the competitive scene in Hearthstone and its negativity. Some interesting tidbits, like I had no idea he was in the MtG Hall of Fame. His overall theme is that people overemphasize the effect of randomness in HS which is admittedly much larger than other games such as MtG but the result is also to downplay the skill and practice of the players involved.

He has some suggestions for making things better, including in-game support for tournament-style play, which I would dearly love to see, but mostly it's an issue of the people (particularly the popular streamers) involved.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 26, 2017, 03:53:19 PM
If you are thinking about spending cash on Hearthstone packs, there's a special on where you get more packs per buck at every level now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 03, 2017, 04:38:27 AM
Well, it only took three months but quest rogue is getting a nerf. Up from 4 copies of the same minion to 5. That's really key as the high-ladder versions of the deck play a lot of generate cards (things that battlecry or deathrattle to generate other things and at 5 copies you can't simply depend on generation. You'll have to generate and draw your bounce cards. That likely means you won't get your quest done until turn 7 or 8 rather than 4 or 5 and that's a big improvement - it opens up space for a lot more decks and means the rogue takes much more face damage, which is the way to beat that deck.

I expect this will likely have a HUGE impact on the meta since removing quest rogue will also reduce pressure on other decks to out-pace it. Early on in this expansion I was enjoying the return of mid-range decks and I'm hoping they'll make a comeback now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 05, 2017, 02:29:03 PM
This week's brawl is the most fun I've had in brawl in a long time. They're celebrating Ragnaros (fire festival trailer here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt1asIeoYVQ) and the gimmick is that Rags is an untargetable side-switching minion that fires at your opponent's things, randomly. Every time it kills a thing its power goes up for next turn.

Without too many spoilers I'll say I figured out the gimmick easily and won six in a row. The reason for redoing the brawl (in addition to it being fun) is that you get rewards for the mini-Rags minion killing things. I leave it to those who want to discover it to find out what.

I also recommend playing with the sound on, if you can. It's amusing.

ETA: Oh, and if you have a gold-awarding quest it gives double gold now. I tried this with a pack-awarding quest (watch a friend) but did not get two packs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 08, 2017, 10:05:07 AM
http://www.hearthpwn.com/guides/2963-knights-of-the-frozen-throne-hearthstones-sixth

Hearthpwn's summary page for what's known about the next expansion. Another big one, at 135 cards, including some free PvE content. A couple of interesting new mechanics, Icecrown Citadel location and themes.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 19, 2017, 08:05:05 PM
The release date for the next expansion has reputedly been slipped as August 10. Or maybe 8, as that's a Tuesday.

In any event, the Fire Festival has given way to the Frost Festival in which one gets a free arena run and starts with one win already. The reward for playing three arena games (so losses count) is a future pack "available in mid-August". The fireworks have been replaced with a big snowflake on the "Wow" emote.

ETA: Although I like arena and played my freebie I won't be playing more. The extra-win reward is not bad but in effect what it means is that you're paying gold for current packs (awarded in Arena) rather than new packs next month. If they gave those as rewards I'd be all over it, but as is I'm saving my 3k gold for the new packs.

Some people who are good and/or lucky at Arena can use it to make gold - depending on RNGeezus you get more than your 150g entry fee somewhere around 7 wins. My average run is 3 wins so even with a free 4th win I'm going to end up gold-negative this way.

Also, the double gold for quests is gone, boo. Ahune is amusing, but I like Ragnaros better.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 21, 2017, 05:32:08 AM
After two weeks of good brawls this one is awful. Two fixed characters, two fixed decks - paladin vs mage. I have yet to experience or see mage win a game. Since heroes are immune (can't be healed or armored, only damaged by destroying static objects on the board) as soon as the paladin draws a weapon it's game over. Since you take no damage from hitting things with your face it's free extra kills on the static objects or free removal of enemy minions.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 21, 2017, 07:05:25 AM
The mage came close to killing me only because the minions damage the person who didn't kill them and the mage had volcanic potions, but yes, I still won with a top decked weapon.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 24, 2017, 05:40:52 AM
the mage had volcanic potions

Potions plural? That's interesting. In at least two games as mage I had a card that activated if my deck had no duplicates and it was active both times. This suggests there may be multiple mage decks one could get, possibly because Blizz tweaked the brawl mid-week.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 24, 2017, 07:54:27 AM
I might be misremembering
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 08, 2017, 02:50:58 PM
Release date is the 10th but the patch with the data released today after maintenance. Update via WiFi is recommended. One card change did go through today, and people who bought the pre-purchase got their card backs.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 09, 2017, 06:40:58 AM
They also changed any card that had the same ability as life steal to say life steal.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on August 24, 2017, 06:19:23 AM
If you're going to play Arena there's a strong incentive to choose Mage or Warlock now. Blizzard implemented a "synergy" algorithm that lets you get cards early on that work together. Add to that the fact that the hero cards are SUPER powerful in Arena because deck power is generally much lower than constructed. Not all the new heroes are instant "I win" cards but some of them are, particularly mage and warlock.

In addition, mage and warlock hero cards are currently considered part of their class's "synergy" so you are much more likely to get those hero cards than any other class, especially in the first couple Arena picks.

This also has a knock-on effect making cards with "discover" mechanics more powerful, but the biggest effect is benefiting people who play Mage or Warlock from the start.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on August 31, 2017, 05:17:40 PM
this week's brawl has got be one of the worst ever.  There is a youtube video of some decks that can win on turn one before the opponent even gets a turn.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 05, 2017, 04:41:45 AM
Makes me glad I played it before these exploits came out. I just used a standard midrange hunter deck and the guy who was trying to gimmick me quit. I like that Blizzard is experimenting with new things, but I wish they'd use something other than the brawl for playtesting.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 10, 2017, 07:09:45 AM
Big nerfs coming. Blizzard finally decided to do something about druid but also clipped some other stuff. Overall I think it's going to have little impact on the existing meta which is right now dominated by jade druids and big (expensive) priests.

Innervate will generate 1 mana rather than 2; essentially now it's a counterfeit coin. I expect it to drop out of almost all decks. Rogues play CC to generate combos and sometimes to power up VanCleef. Without those motivations it's much less useful to druids. Although this will stop Jade druid from overpowering people in the first 5 turns it likely won't affect the deck's overall dominance.

Fiery war axe goes to 3 mana. This is AWFUL. If they'd made this change when pirate was still dominant I'd maybe hate it less but pirate is much less used these days and warrior does not have another Tier 1 (or maybe even Tier 2) deck type right now. Hurting a class that's already down seems like a poor choice. Biggest beneficiaries will be classes that rely heavily on 1/3 and 2/3 minions for early advantage like Priest and Mage. Warrior just doesn't have good alternatives for turn 2 play.

Hex goes to 4 mana. This is Blizzard pretending that someday Shaman will be playing the long game again, which is going to depend on a lot of other things. Hex is almost completely unused nowadays anyway, so this change will have little effect.

Murloc Warleader no longer gives +1 health. Important and necessary change. Blizzard are constantly putting out things that give +health and then backing them out and this is long overdue. Murlocs have lots of other health buffs already and with the appearance of new low-power AOEs the warleader was defeating too many other things.

Spreading Plague goes to 6 mana. A hard counter to every aggro deck, now same cost as blizzard but much more effective since druids have even more ways to buff their board. I would have supported making this 7 mana. Kibler did a video recently in which he pointed out that this card punishes players for doing what they naturally ought to do, play minions, and thus is bad game design. The only other card in game that does that is Hounds and that creates a bunch of easy-to-kill 1/1. This change will likely kill some variants of the new Druid taunt-buff deck but will end up helping Jade because people will go back to playing the natural Tier 1 deck type of that class.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 11, 2017, 05:20:30 AM
And Blizzard have agreed to back out the "synergy" modifier in Arena, which I noted was vastly favoring Mage and Warlock. I think this is a halfway step and they should have outright banned the Death Knight cards from Arena but I can see how people want to play with the new toys and that step would've been unpopular. The ability to Discover these cards will still favor classes that have such mechanics.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 18, 2017, 03:39:30 PM
To my surprise, these changes went live today. There had been talk Blizzard would wait until the current round of tournaments was over, but I guess not.

Warrior is in a terrible position now and it's going to be even harder on new players who have only basic cards with which to make decks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 26, 2017, 05:18:19 AM
Entirely possible this will be my worst ranked month in a very long time. Not at all sure what happened, but an 0-8 streak contributed to a long stretch of losing two games for every one I won. I've clawed my way back to something like 20-30 but still very low rank. Big Priest is just a completely fucking annoying deck. I tend to quit immediately against it. Turn 3 Lich King followed by Turn 4 Lich King is just stupid. My bet is that Blizzard will just sit tight and not do anything because Barnes is going to cycle out eventually. Meanwhile it's a cost check - did you buy or make those particular legendaries? If so, you win.

(They could solve the problem by making Barnes not pull a Legendary minion from your deck. That would still leave it quite useful but not stupid OP.)

Jade Druid is still viable against pretty much everything else, including the so-called "druid killer" decks. You can still lose if the other guy gets their death knight out early enough but mostly you don't. I could probably grind up some ranks playing Jade Druid even though I don't have the druid Death Knight.

Midrange decks still exist but they're just not consistent enough winners to be top tier. Speed decks appear to be pretty completely dead, between the new high-quality blockers and the proliferation of low-cost AOEs/cheap-but-quality blockers
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on September 30, 2017, 01:06:12 PM
Well, apparently I don't play Jade Druid well. Also the Keleseth decks are the new hotness and I don't own that card either. I played for about a solid hour today just to see if I could get some traction, using a variety of decks and just no. 30-44 is way way below my usual - win 50-53% of the time. I managed to get to 15 by a lucky streak and thank goodness you can't lose stars at that level or I'd be back down to 18 or so.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 06, 2017, 04:10:01 AM
HCT Summer championship deck types are up and it's both predictable and interesting. http://www.hearthpwn.com/news/3394-all-player-decks-for-the-2017-hct-summer

Expected large dominance of Jade Druid, Razakus (which they call Highlander) Priest, and Keleseth Rogue. I'm surprised at how popular evolve shaman remains with the top players - it has virtually disappeared from ladder, at least in the basements where I play. I'm also surprised at the lack of hard control decks including big priest and control warlock, both of which I thought were much stronger decks. I find I win 3/4 or better of my control warlock vs razakus priest matches.

Time to dig into the deck lists and see what they're doing differently, particularly for Jade...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 06, 2017, 08:07:47 AM
Evolve shaman is still my go to deck.   It's a bit sensitive to the mulligan especially if you're up against a quest deck, but it has some nice power against almost anything.   I can also lose to almost anything.

I haven't been playing that seriously for a long while, but I am causally back into it.   I start my month of with a junk renounce deck just to clear out some of my quests and to level warlock. 

I really want to try the Dead Man's Hand warrior mill deck, but there are too many cards I don't have.   I miss playing mill and actually made classic rogue mill deck for this week's brawl.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 10, 2017, 06:52:33 AM
I'm surprised that evolve works for you. Everyone is playing Geist now because Jade and that also torpedoes Evolve. Actually, Geist is a strong advantage against several other decks and I expect to see it in every match-up. If you can get your turn 6 doppler/coin/evolve off then that's usually a win condition but I try to coin/Geist on turn 5 whenever possible.

I've been fiddling around with Control deck style. I don't much like it but midrange has faded badly in the current meta - too slow/weak against the Prince decks and not enough staying power against control/DK decks. I'm still at 20-25 this season but slowly figuring out how to play this style so maybe I'll get back up to my usual ranks.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on October 10, 2017, 07:36:52 AM
I've not seen many geists, but played right and evolve deck is better than just the evolve.   The variation I play also has a little bit of jade golem action going on and I also have my DK thrall.  Part of it is anticipating if you have to be aggressive (jade druids, any quest decks, mages) or focus on getting enough totems down to get the 0 cost thing from below.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 10, 2017, 07:49:04 AM
OK I can see DK Thrall being workable even if your Evolve spells get killed. I'll have to keep an eye out for that. The DK cards are sufficiently powerful that if you can play them on the first turn they're available, or at least on curve, you tend to win with them. NEED MOAR DUST!
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 20, 2017, 12:39:38 PM
So apparently the secret is "don't play Jade Druid". I had a nice record going, up to rank 13, then went 0-7 with Jade Druid. Feh. I did not think the deck had been nerfed that much and maybe I need to craft the DK to be sure (but I only have 1600 dust so I have to figure out which legendary I want...) but the kill to Jade's ramp means it's too slow bringing out its big hitters and druid still suffers from lack of big-enemy removal. If you don't have big hitters to trade then you can't remove the other guy's big hitters and you still get overrun by speed. Grr.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: **andius on October 23, 2017, 01:22:46 PM
Everybody got a free card pack gifted from Blizzard, you can claim it from the launcher.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 24, 2017, 12:43:51 PM
My game this morning claimed that my free pack was due to my choice of who to back in the latest tournament. I've usually gotten 0 from these picks, but got a couple more from the last one (I guess more or less randomly) and one this time. Did yours have such an announcement with it?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: **andius on October 24, 2017, 03:11:43 PM
My game this morning claimed that my free pack was due to my choice of who to back in the latest tournament. I've usually gotten 0 from these picks, but got a couple more from the last one (I guess more or less randomly) and one this time. Did yours have such an announcement with it?

No mine was a gift from Blizzard to highlight the new gifting option in the shop (http://www.wowhead.com/news=274548/gifting-now-available-to-battletag-friends-through-blizzard-battle-net-app-inclu)

You claim the new card pack from the blizzard Battle.net launcher not from within the game. When you have a gift it shows up next to you status drop down.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on October 24, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
I got a pack from the gift on the launcher, 3 packs from the championship (lucky there), and 2 more packs from the Halloween event plus a free arena pass.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: **andius on October 25, 2017, 07:37:24 AM
Also from (https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/21098847/ha-ha-happy-hallow-s-end)

Tempting Treats

Once each week during the celebration, the Headless Horseman is handing out a creepy card pack and an Arena ticket just for logging in!

Log in between Oct. 24 at 11:00 a.m. PDT and 10:00 p.m. PDT on Oct. 30 to receive two Whispers of the Old Gods card packs and an Arena ticket.
Log in between Oct. 31 at 12:01 am PDT and 10:00 p.m. PST on Nov. 5 to receive two Knights of the Frozen Throne card packs and an Arena ticket.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on October 31, 2017, 09:02:25 AM
In-game notice today that even though the second free arena run was just available this morning all Hallow's End runs have to be completed within five days.

Hint: pick Rogue and try to draft the minion that makes cards from other classes cheaper. Seriously OP in this configuration, if you can get it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 06, 2017, 04:22:27 AM
So there's going to be a new expansion, which we knew. I'm meh about the whole kobolds thing. Guess I stop spending gold on packs and start saving up...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 06, 2017, 06:27:19 AM
The dungeon crawl thing might be fun. hard to tell from what they showed.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 07, 2017, 06:22:06 AM
The dungeon crawl thing might be fun. hard to tell from what they showed.

Agree. I think the addition of repeatable solo content could be fun and I would definitely pay for that. I expect it'll be hinkey at first and improve as they go along. My concern is that so far every PvE encounter has had a "solution" deck. I worry that will still be true even in a generated system. I can think of ways to mitigate it, but I guess we'll see what Blizzard comes up with.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: ghoselle on November 07, 2017, 07:30:55 AM
The dungeon crawl thing might be fun. hard to tell from what they showed.

Agree. I think the addition of repeatable solo content could be fun and I would definitely pay for that. I expect it'll be hinkey at first and improve as they go along. My concern is that so far every PvE encounter has had a "solution" deck. I worry that will still be true even in a generated system. I can think of ways to mitigate it, but I guess we'll see what Blizzard comes up with.

For me, the dungeon sounds like it fixes what I found missing from hearthstone:  repeatable solo play not gated on having collected/bought enough cards to be successful.  But by putting it behind a moderately expensive expansion, it means I'll probably just play Ascension on my ipad instead of hearthstone.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on November 07, 2017, 11:01:02 AM
They mentioned something about the dungeon crawl not costing anything, but the details on that are yet to come, so I'm not sure exactly how "free."

But given that I've at least dabbled in all expansions using only gold, so I've never used real money ever.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on November 16, 2017, 04:54:17 AM
This week's Tavern Brawl gives a pack for the next set "available mid-December".
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 01, 2017, 07:27:03 AM
Another disappointing ranked season for me. Barely squeaked into 14th, win rate minimally above 50%. Still playing mostly control warlock, with some tempo rogue and a bit of jade druid thrown in for variety.

Exodia mage sucks. I have the cards and can play it myself but damned if I know how to counter it, except with one of those "wins on turn 7 50% of the time" decks.

New expansion drops December 7th, about a week sooner than I expected. I won't have the gold to buy heavily into it when it drops, but since other sets are not rotating out this time I don't expect seismic shifts in the metagame.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 04, 2017, 06:26:54 AM
Kripparian let off a serious rip on Hearthstone ranked play last week. I lost the URL, unfortunately, and it was embedded in one of his standard videos so not easily re-found, but it started from a question of "why do you play Arena all the time?" His answer is that Standard ranked sucks because it's dominated by netdecking and doesn't show any skill.

Basically, once an expansion drops, spend $50 or so to get most of the cards. Then wait a few days for people to post decks. If you're good, you make one of those and can play it to rank up. If you're not good, wait a few days until people post guides to the decks that get lots of upvotes and then just follow the guide.

The amount of skill is way down (at least on the below-rank-5 ladder) and the amount of grinding is high. He's not wrong.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 06, 2017, 06:22:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNOjAa0_wTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlyasy0rMOA

Kibbler and Kripparian both put out recent videos on the (perceived) cost of Hearthstone. It's a topic that's been talked about for some time.

Kibbler admits that he's a "whale" in the game - he spends a lot on HS; for example, to get enough dust to have gold versions of all the cards he plays. He points out that people may feel the game costs a lot because even though you can pay a lot of money you aren't necessarily getting the core experience. I went a long time with no Death Knight cards(*) and no Quest cards when those were a thing. If you spend money and still don't have the main themes and the core deck types it can feel like a waste.

The math for purchases is also bad. Statistically, given the duplication rates and rarities, buying the $50 best-on-offer pack at launch will get you about 1/6th of the cards in that expansion. I can't think of a non-CCG game where you'd spend that much and get that little. Over in the other cost-of-games-thread the discussion has been about peoples' reluctance to pay $50 or $60 for a AAA title where at least you're getting a full game.

He suggests applying the Legendary rule to Epics, where you wouldn't get another copy of an Epic you already had two of, and adding a small amount of dust to every pack to make crafting the cards you didn't get easier.

The other problem is the ladder system, which is a major focus of Blizzard's efforts but which serves only a small percentage of the player base. They've tried to improve that by adding things like fireside gatherings and allowing quests to be completed in friendly matches, but that doesn't fix the ladder, which is the focus of everyone's attention. To ladder you want the majority of the cards and a free-to-play or low-spend player still finds themselves matched against people who have full sets and can play the top tier decks.

Kripparian is Canadian and is not happy about the way Blizzard has priced things in non-US currencies. Apparently the pre-order of 50 price is higher than the cost for him of just buying 50 packs in the store at normal prices.

His point about there being more legendaries so each set is more expensive to craft and how that impacts play is kind of hard to summarize. Basically, people don't know what to craft so they sideline themselves (I've done this) and that's the opposite of what Blizzard should be aiming for, which is to engage people more with each expansion. He also dislikes the slow pace of balance changes; his argument is that low-spend people quickly see the dominant deck types and work to make that over time only to find it nerfed shortly after they can make it. This was exactly my experience with Jade druid.

(*) I got one free like lots of other people, but it was Paladin and that card is pretty worthless. I've still never played it.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 08, 2017, 05:56:19 AM
First impressions of Kobolds:

Really loving the solo content. Rogue-like (one loss and you're out) a fair amount of variability and interesting experimentation. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these mechanics make it into future brawls or even spells.

The set itself is underwhelming. Priest is going to get even more annoying (why does Blizzard always help the dominant class?) but other changes aren't likely to be huge. Overall it feels like the set emphasizes value (get more of X) by sacrificing tempo (wait longer, do more to get it). Right now, the HS meta is very tempo-based so I suspect we won't see that change for a while.

That said, many of these cards feel like set-ups for later things. Neutral demons? A paladin Elemental? On their own they don't make a ton of sense but I can see where Blizz might make use of them with cards in a future set.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Leah on December 11, 2017, 08:16:12 PM
Tried out the new expansion for the first time today and I really, really love it. I've long given up on any kind of competitive play and haven't played since the first week of Frozen Throne's release. A friend mentioned how fun the dungeon system is and I completely agree; it's a perfect system for people who don't have the time/money to invest in competitive play while remaining challenging. I managed to complete a run with a priest deck after several failed attempts (including a pathetic loss to the first boss due to clowning around on a warlock try) and the feeling of getting that win was amazing.

Hats off to Blizz for this new mechanic, I hope it sticks around.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on December 20, 2017, 08:48:09 AM
This week's brawl awards 3 Frozen Throne packs for your first win. Although it is a "build a deck" brawl the nature of the brawl makes it more amenable to low-power decks.

More details might be spoiler-y so I'll avoid for now.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 25, 2018, 10:16:21 AM
Huge changes coming to the ladder for March (when the Feb ranked season rolls over). Rather than getting set back to much lower rank with a few stars for progression, people will instead by set back four ranks. So if you were Legend you go to Rank 4, rank 15 (a common stop point because of the can't-lose-stars floor) you get reset to 19, etc.

Every rank becomes 5 stars, meaning people who are at lower ranks are going to spend more time to get out of them. That's somewhat less good in that it means more grind to rank up from lower ranks but somewhat better in that the matchmaking algorithm can do a finer-grained job because fewer people will be in the 'same' rank box. With the expanded rank sizes, they're now going to award each month's card back based on achieving 5 ranked wins, rather than the Rank 20 placement.

I like this - I always thought it was weird you'd win _this_ month's card back based on _last_ month's play.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 30, 2018, 06:57:20 AM
Blizzard announced four big card nerfs for the next patch, three of them targeted at the popular tempo deck types.

Patches loses charge. You can summon a 1/1 do nothing when you play a pirate. The saddest part of this is they probably won't let me dust it for full value because this card becomes worthless. Almost categorically worse than the 1/1 charging boar common. Final nail in the coffin of the pirate deck type. Basically every tempo deck needs to find 3 things to fill slots now.

Corridor Creeper becomes a 2/5 (down from 5/5). That was a HUGE nerf. A zero-mana 2/5 is not bad but it's almost certainly not worth a deck slot because sometimes you get a 7-mana 5/5 and just... no.

Bonemare goes to 8 mana from 7. This is the most typical of the kind of nerf Blizzard has done in the past. The tricky part is what to put now in the 7 slot for tempo - there are really no good alternatives, which is why Bonemare got played so much. It also gave you a chance to beat the heavy-impact 8 drops, as well as an answer to the 6-mana 10-drops from the big-spell decks. This is a moderate hit to tempo and HUGE boost to aggro and big-spell decks, neither of which I think needed help. I've already built my aggro paladin, which is looking like the new Tier 1 deck.

Razakus now makes hero power cost 1 mana, down from free. Blows the sustained burn from Razakus archetype out of the water. I don't play it so I can't rightly say if the deck is viable with this change. Anduin is still pretty powerful but my guess is that most priest players will go to big resurrect play after this change.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on January 30, 2018, 07:38:19 AM
They said right in the announcement:

"Once these card changes are live with Update 10.2 next month, players will be able to disenchant the changed cards for their full Arcane Dust value for two weeks."

https://us.battle.net/forums/en/hearthstone/topic/20761018014
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on January 30, 2018, 02:58:13 PM
Ah, thanks. I can't read forums at work so I go off of things I can access like YouTube vids.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 17, 2018, 08:51:59 AM
This morning I got a warning that "Wildfest is coming to Arena" and that my arena run would be ended "soon" if I didn't finish it. If you have runs you're holding onto you might want to play them out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 25, 2018, 06:01:41 AM
https://www.hearthpwn.com/news/4403-all-player-decklists-for-the-2018-hct-sydney-tour

the Sydney HCT deck lists are out and it's exactly as disappointing as I'd thought. Priest Warlock, Mage, Paladin dominate. The other five classes summed up take fewer slots than the lowest of the top 4. I'm hoping Blizzard takes some action soon to deal with this, rather than just letting it ride until the next release throws everything back up in the air.

Compare with the class popularity chart on Hearthpwn's front page, which is much more evenly distributed. I'm not sure why that is - people experimenting? Need to do daily quests?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on February 25, 2018, 10:10:54 AM
I hope that next "year of the" will have more variety.  Not only do I feel like I see the same half dozen decks, they're not fun to play against.  Kingsbane and the warlock deck in particular feel awful to play against.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 26, 2018, 05:52:24 AM
I find the Kingsbane deck hilariously bad. I run Harrison in all my decks now. Warlock demon-summoning weapon, mage card-draw weapon, kingsbane are major targets plus every paladin has multiple weapons - it's only a dead card against priest.

Kingsbane doesn't run a lot of healing (if any) so making him use the weapon and his face to take out minions makes it vulnerable. Once he's used the second minion to draw it again, it's safe to Harrison. Sometimes I do it earlier if I need the card-draw tempo.

I also run double silence in every deck. Figuring out when to play it against warlock is tricky - I only silence the voidlord if that's going to let me get a kill. Otherwise I target the cubes or the demon summoners. Smart warlock players are now using the cubes on charge demons, which can easily generate one-turn-kill combos. I find that if I haven't killed them by Turn 10 it's generally over. It's not easy to draw all the combo pieces, though, so if I can get enough face pressure generated they start getting nervous about tapping.

I hate the priest thing. Turn 3 Lich King, and then two more copies before turn 10? Yeah, F that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on February 27, 2018, 08:29:02 PM
https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/21534739

First big drop of the next Hearthstone year info. Year of the Raven, first set announced next month, meaning likely rolled out in about 5-6 weeks. The expected three sets go to Wild, and three cards from standard go to Hall of Fame (meaning Wild-only). They're also reverting one of the nerfs they made a couple years back, to Molten Giant.

Quests will get easier, so more gold for fewer games, and there will be player-organized (and Blizzard validated) tournaments at some point. Beta for that kicks off sometime in the Raven year. My guess here is that organizers will be able to use an in-game UI to set up tournament rules and invite battletag friends. The HS servers will then validate that participants' decks conform to tourney rules.

New druid hero you can get for just 10 Standard wins, so that's a gimme.

Nothing really exciting at this point, but Brode did say they were taking out Coldlight Oracle because of interactions with battlecries. This makes me guess that they're planning to do something like a minion or spell that lets battlecries trigger multiple times, or possibly a way to trigger a minion's battlecry once that minion is already on the board.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 18, 2018, 04:26:51 PM
HCT decklists are getting narrower. https://www.hearthpwn.com/news/4463-top-pro-decklists-from-hct-bangkok-2018

Bangkok lists show 8 warlock 8 priest. 7 mage, which surprises me a little. Three of those are the secret mage - I've seen people net-decking that list but not well enough to understand how it should play.

4 rogue and 4 paladin, plus a warrior snuck in somehow. It's slightly surprising that there's no shaman; I've found that in the ranks I play Devolve shaman is effective against big spell decks and not bad against the cubelock variants. Devolving the big demons not only breaks the defense wall but it leaves nothing for resurrection when the DK comes out.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 22, 2018, 05:16:35 AM
Stuff about next expansion - Year of the Raven - is starting to come out, with card announcements and such.

This week's tavern brawl is in honor of Starcraft anniversary. You pick a class then pick one of three "themes" that aligns with the main races of Starcraft. The cards are the full wild set of HS cards. I picked Mech and won easily - mech has lots of good minions and synergies. I'm hoping to get the quest for winning brawls so I can go try other things. Winning one brawl gets you three packs

Speaking of quests, it's worth saving up your quests if you can. Starting the 26th each completed quest will award a pack from one of the sets that will remain in standard after the rotation: Un'goro, Frozen Throne, K&C
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 27, 2018, 05:53:21 AM
Complete-a-quest-for-a-random-pack is live as of this morning.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 27, 2018, 08:59:07 AM
I didn't save any quests.  Do only the new quests have packs?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on March 27, 2018, 02:48:46 PM
I didn't save any quests.  Do only the new quests have packs?
Old quest give the packs too. :(
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 28, 2018, 06:02:33 AM
All quests give packs during this event. Blizzard announced that they were disabling "play a friend" during this time but if you had one of those saved it apparently counts (I didn't have one to test). They may also have disabled "watch a friend" but I haven't seen definitive blue text either way on this.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on March 29, 2018, 07:09:32 AM
The rules on this week's brawl are annoyingly inconsistent.    If you have a minion that summons another minion, it will be reduced to 1/1, but if it's buffed, then it's ok, unless you're changing it into a minion, and then it's not.    It's quite an annoying brawl.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on March 29, 2018, 10:24:44 AM
The rules on this week's brawl are annoyingly inconsistent.    If you have a minion that summons another minion, it will be reduced to 1/1, but if it's buffed, then it's ok, unless you're changing it into a minion, and then it's not.    It's quite an annoying brawl.

Agreed. I got by on my second try with a handbuff paladin deck by swapping out some inconsistent/confusing cards for cards that say "give adjacent minions..." Those appear to work exactly as you'd expect. Standard paladin handbuff cards also appear to work as you'd expect.

ETA: it's worth noting that you can't silence off the 1/1 effect. I had the idea of playing some heavy minions at 1 cost and then silencing them to pop their stats back to 8/8 or whatever. Yeah, not so much. It appears to be a variant on the rogue quest mechanic that forces all minions to be 5/5 regardless.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 10, 2018, 05:05:11 PM
The next (big) patch is going out today, though witchwood won't launch for another couple days. If you play on mobile you might want to open Hearthstone while on wifi to save your data plan.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 11, 2018, 08:09:47 PM
I don't usually like totally random brawls, but this week's amused me because of random random cards.  Though lore walker cho is not at all random.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 13, 2018, 09:32:34 AM
The new shaman deck makes me miss the bullsh*t of year of the mammoth, which this animation beautifully sums up (the first part is a little slow, but the cube-lock sequence starting about 3:45 is genius):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPF3MoaVMF0
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 16, 2018, 05:48:35 AM
You talking about the super-broken Shudderwock? I saw Toast's highlights on the weekly WTF already and this is the whole shebang: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Zjj-3iN6E
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 28, 2018, 01:43:00 PM
The new solo adventure dropped this week - if you haven't updated it's probably best to be on wireless rather than cellular for it.

It's a similar-themed rogue-like where you pick a hero and build a deck as you defeat increasingly hard bosses. The heroes this time are four Gilneas-themed specials, each with its own "nemesis" among the bosses. My experience is still limited but it appears that each run you face your nemesis boss; the others are random. This is significantly harder than the last dungeon thing, but you get quests to win 10 battles with each of the 4 new heroes and completing that gives you a free pack.

I've gotten all 4 packs, usually taking 2 tries per hero. I got as far as the 8th challenge on one before losing. It appears that you have to beat the challenge with all 4 to unlock a special solo encounter; I'm not sure I have the fortitude for that.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on April 28, 2018, 05:35:58 PM
I kind of liked how the new hero powers made me think.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on April 30, 2018, 05:35:32 AM
I kind of liked how the new hero powers made me think.

I sort of agree but the nemesis boss is really frustrating. The hound master special is creating a 1/1 with rush. Except you have to face a boss that every time a minion dies it auto-creates a 1/3 explosive. That leads to some hilarious chain reactions but it also completely neutralizes your hero power and makes many of the unavoidable cards in your starting deck become liabilities. If you happen to get the treasure reward for +health then great, otherwise you're screwed.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Piralyn on April 30, 2018, 06:51:48 AM
I kind of liked how the new hero powers made me think.

I sort of agree but the nemesis boss is really frustrating. The hound master special is creating a 1/1 with rush. Except you have to face a boss that every time a minion dies it auto-creates a 1/3 explosive. That leads to some hilarious chain reactions but it also completely neutralizes your hero power and makes many of the unavoidable cards in your starting deck become liabilities. If you happen to get the treasure reward for +health then great, otherwise you're screwed.

Yeah, there definitely seems to be a lot more hard counters in this than there were in the dungeon runs. Like, sure, it sucked running into the lava boss that dealt damage to minions when played if you'd built up a small minion swarm or the Trogg that summons a guy every time you cast a spell if you're spell-heavy, but there's definitely been much stronger "Well what the hell am i supposed to do against that?" feelings in this.

That said, I did a run with the Cannoneer for the quest, and somehow plowed straight through to a full clear on my first run. Bonus cannon damage and the minion that summons an extra cannon probably made that a breeze. Might be similar treasures for the other folks, but I haven't seen them if there are.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on April 30, 2018, 06:52:26 AM
Quote
The hound master special is creating a 1/1 with rush. Except you have to face a boss that every time a minion dies it auto-creates a 1/3 explosive.
That's Groddo the Bogwarden.  He's not the hound master nemesis, just one of the random bosses.  He was the one I lost to as Toki on my first and only run.  (Not because of any deep anti-synergy, but because I was banking on getting a free 3x pyroblast and the card didn't come up in time.  And I guess because I didn't have a way to neutralize his Anub'arak.)

Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 01, 2018, 06:36:32 AM
I got a complete clear with the first new hero yesterday. The spell-grabbing power is super useful in combination with jades and I got lucky on the final boss. It was the Kingsbane boss and he spawned a Fel Reaver while the Kingsbane was in his deck. Oops. With that burned he basically had nothing.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on May 01, 2018, 06:43:43 AM
Yes, I just beat that boss too, same thing happened.  It was very unsatisfying.   Either he has it and he just heals and dominates, or you burn it and he is trivial.  I don't like games that feel like a drawn out coin flip.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Jenilea on May 01, 2018, 08:40:23 AM
Same also happened to me. Once the Kingsbane got burned, the boss pretty much just passed every turn till he died.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 02, 2018, 06:29:08 AM
That mirrors my experience playing Kingsbane decks on ladder. As soon as they get the Lifesteal buff it's over. Either you rush them down before that, or you hope they have really bad draws somehow. Recent versions of the deck have been draw-heavy just to prevent that.

I hate that I'm going to have to craft Baku to get out of Rank 18 but nothing else seems to work.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 10, 2018, 07:47:20 PM
https://www.hearthpwn.com/news/5541-hct-americas-summer-playoffs-2018-full-decklists

Summer pro deck lists are up. Several surprises to me. One is the absence of odd decks. I'd though odd paladin superior to even but apparently not. I assume the lack of Shudderwock decks is because they're too slow.

I'm also surprised that Spiteful Druid is vastly more popular than tauntwall. I have a very hard time beating tauntwall. Actually I have a hard time beating anything this month. I'm 2-8 ranked. Ugh.

Five classes with significant representation is also a bit of a surprise. I'd've expected fewer, given how narrow ladder is. That tends to happen a lot early in a season. I am sure that as more sets are issued new deck types will emerge.

Quest rogue (which also seems to be called "crystal core rogue" arbitrarily) is another really annoying tier 1 deck. Particularly with rushing lifesteals it can be stupid hard to beat.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on May 15, 2018, 09:44:13 AM
Blizzard has finally announced the first round of balance changes for this season. They've been talking about doing it for a while but waiting until the HCT was over to roll them out.

https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/blog/21758133

Sea Witch gets a heavy nerf. I don't recall ever seeing her in play but I understand that as more powerful big cards have been rolled out she needed a nerf to open up that space.

Spiteful Summoner goes to 7, a fairly reasonable nerf. I've been slowly regrouping from my early-month losses by playing a consistently good big-spells druid deck. The thing is that deck is quite competitive even if I don't draw my Summoners and I took the Librarian out because it's a dead draw too often and I don't think it combos well with UI. I'll probably keep playing it after this nerf.

Dark Pact restores 4 health now instead of 8. A much-needed nerf but I don't think it goes far enough. One suggestion I saw that I liked was that you'd get back the health of the minion it was used on. This card will still be in almost every non-zoo warlock deck.

Possessed Lackey goes to 6 mana, also a very necessary change. It'll slow down many warlock decks by a turn, giving rush decks more advantage. I don't think it'll help my beloved midrange style much, though. This will still be in every warlock deck.

Call to Arms goes to 5 mana. This is HUGE, much more than your typical one-mana nerf because it pushes the card out of the dominant Even Paladin decks. Theoretically you could use it in Odd Paladin but since it can only pull 1-cost minions there, who cares? It may still see some limited use in "dude" decks but largely this card is dead now. I will probably dust mine assuming they give full dust value when the nerf rolls out.

Crystal Core now sets minions to 4/4 rather than 5/5. I still think of this as something of a fringe deck but it was definitely frustrating to play against. Like Kingsbane, you had to hope that the opponent didn't draw the key cards; otherwise, anything you did was futile. Likely a good nerf and I'm glad I didn't craft this one.

Powering down Even Paladin, Cubelock, and Big Spells will certainly shake up the meta. I'm not sure how much, though.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 04, 2018, 09:24:20 AM
I had one of my worst months ever last month, ending at 10-11. I just wasn't motivated to play, fell down to rank 17. Conversely, I had some really good arena runs, including the arena brawl (5 wins) and then back-to-back 7-win draft arenas. Kripp plays a lot of arena and I'm generally in agreement with his analysis that Blizzard has tuned arena now so that almost all decks are at least somewhat competitive and so are all heroes. A few still do better, as they do in ranked, but not hugely better.

I've started using the Overwolf on-screen overlay for desktop Hearthstone, which makes drafting faster and which automatically records my results in Heartharena - it's a lot quicker and easier than doing it manually as I had in the past.

One advantage of falling to rank 21 is apparently easier opponents. I'm already something like 7-5 this month. Not sure how much time I'll have to climb back up but my main WoW raiding group is on summer hiatus so there's that...
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 11, 2018, 07:52:53 AM
Anniversary event is live. Free arena run and some easy quests (like, "take X turns" and "draw Y cards") that include dust as well as gold for rewards.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on June 11, 2018, 11:58:08 AM
the time-travel arena is kind of a neat way to preview some cards.  Not sure if I'll do one beyond my free one, but kind of a neat idea.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on June 13, 2018, 02:11:36 PM
Meant to post this earlier in the day but if anyone happens to see this on the 13th of June, today is free pack day - simply log in to get a free pack.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 02, 2018, 07:48:39 AM
Another backsliding month for me. Despite going 24-16 I never made it past rank 17 (one 5-game losing streak really hurt) and now I've slid down to 21. The amount of grind needed to move back up is somewhat daunting. At five stars per rank, I need 100 stars to get back to 15. My win rate at these ranks is significantly better than the 53-54% I usually get so it's not going to be a complete slog but even with bonuses I think my net progress is not likely to exceed .5 stars per game. Do I think I'm going to play 200 games of Hearthstone at 10 minutes per game? Hell, no. Never mind the launch of BfA, it's just too boring to spend 33+ hours on this, especially since if I really want to climb I'm going to have to restrict myself to 1-2 deck choices.

On the one hand it's sort of frustrating because I think I am about a rank 13-15 player; that's where I ended up at the end of most months previously. I'm annoyed that one bad month cost me this much. On the other hand, the season reward differences between 13 and 17 aren't all that much.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Marco on July 02, 2018, 09:39:48 AM
and now I've slid down to 21. The amount of grind needed to move back up is somewhat daunting. At five stars per rank, I need 100 stars to get back to 15.
Am I missing something?  Six times five is 30, not 100, right?
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 02, 2018, 05:36:50 PM
Yeah, math is hard. So, 30 stars, 60 games. That's more than I do in most months but not as impossible as I thought.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 19, 2018, 08:12:48 AM
I got tired of losing to people who just had the right legendary.  Most of my games felt like I was just about to win and then they would play the "I win" card and I would lose.   Once the new expansion lands, I'll likely poke my nose in for a little bit.    I've started playing "duelyst"  which is a TCG combined with a TBS.  I haven't really played it enough to know if it suffers from some of the same problems, but the starting user experience isn't bad.   I'm winning pvp with a starter deck and the decks I'm currently facing seem varied, which is nice.   
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 19, 2018, 12:25:17 PM
Which legendaries were you seeing that were decisive? I'm losing to a more general run of bad luck. Was doing well then went 0-5 with a zoolock deck that set me pretty far back.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Cree on July 19, 2018, 12:58:57 PM
The most annoying ones are the mage and warlock liches.  Because of the life steal, it pretty much goes from me almost winning the game to them healing up to full and beating me down.
Title: Re: Hearthstone (and battlenet desktop)
Post by: Snique on July 20, 2018, 06:28:27 AM
Ah yes, those death knights are the most powerful (though Hagatha and the hunter one give them a run for the money). Control match-ups are a thing I'm still not very good at.