Agreed with the all y'all. He's misrepresenting what we want for Wild - not a balance and multiple viable decks, but a clear top-end for power. Draw a line and say 'no decks beyond this power level'. That's all.
I don't understand why they're so apathetic towards a tournament mode. It's the obvious first step towards getting the casual player excited about competitive Hearthstone, which is a goal they've often shown interest in. They've already implemented two new modes this Hearthstone year, and that has to be more difficult than slapping a new shell over ranked play!
Profile statistics, though . . . it'd be neat to see how much damage you've dealt with a minion over time. And display it! Imagine being matched against someone whose entry text displays that they've dealt 3000 damage with Angry Chicken. The horror! What other ideas do y'all have?
Agreed that it needs a change, but as he notes, implementing skill-based matchmaking kills the rewards structure of Arena. That's the problem with Heroic Duels: rankings punish you for playing well. Every match you win decreases your chances of winning the next. Which is fine . . . unless rewards are results-based. And there must be rewards, because otherwise there's no incentive to try or play the mode.
There are plenty of other available methods for making Arena more inviting to newbies, fortunately. Keeping the cards you draft, implementing mutators, more forgiving rewards, rollovers into your next run, more free tickets, more help and tooltips, official guides, etc. I can only hope that they turn to these solutions instead.
I hope that they do because, as a 'better' player, non-skill-based matchmaking is refreshing. Ranked play is exciting, but tiring. Booting up an Arena run and seeing my opponent misplay or beating someone easily reminds me that the hours I've put into Hearthstone haven't (sort of) been wasted.
So, if they do implement SBMM, I'd like to see non-SBMM elsewhere. Even if just for casual events, like Tavern Brawls, because even though reaching Legend puts you in the tippy top percentiles of the game, ranked gameplay doesn't remind players of that. Skillbased matchmaking fundamentally can't remind players how skilled they've become - by design, you're always average. If you're a newbie, you have goals. If you're experienced, you're fulfilled. But if you're average, welp, being average sucks.
You could make this work in a Guardian Animals Druid. Slot in Ironbarkand you have a dependable taunt. Is that better than the existing alternatives, though, considering you're not guaranteed an Ironbark in hand? It'll depend on the meta.
He'll be in my buff beast Hunter for sure, though! Not to mention Priest's buffing power and Rogue's copying power. It's a similar excitement as when I saw Al'ar, but hopefully this will be more lasting.
This is surprisingly accessible in comparison to Hearthstone's usual monetization, but let's not forget that it will be a 15$/2000g increase to the price of each rotation.
I'd like to see less cards in the initial expansion or at least less legendaries in both. I can see why they'd like to introduce legendaries; they're unique one-offs that are more fun to design and more fun to collect. But an easy solution would be a new class of card - a one-copy restricted 'promotional' that you can craft for the price of an epic. Anyway, epics are often more fun and deck-defining than legendaries are, so I wouldn't mind more of them either.
It would make the game more accessible, but I'm honestly not so sure I'd enjoy it more. The fun of collecting things is real - you pick up a new legendary halfway through the cycle and that makes the card more exciting. You build a deck around it and enjoy it for a bit. Getting all the cards at once would spoil that feeling.
Plus, given recently-added incentives like the Darkmoon Coin for collecting all cards in the set, I don't think they'll change that model soon.
Excitement-wise, Warrior got shlonked this expansion. Garrosh got support for two archetypes that don't exist and one archetype that has failed to exist 4/5 times (Thanks, Sulfuras). I have heavy doubts about E.T.C., God of Metal seeing any play - it's a hyperaggro card for a class without any fast decks, as one of the reviewers notes. Face damage doesn't mean much until you're threatening lethal. Similarly for Ringmaster Whatley and the Ringmaster's Baton, there's not enough behind them for it to be worthwhile.
That said, in the usual Hearthstone fashion, there are strong cards here. Tent Trasher, Minefield, Stage Dive, and Sword Eater all seem powerful. I imagine they'll see play outside of the 'intended' archetypes. That's something I appreciate about Hearthstone's development: many of the powerful archetypes are playermade, not 'player-found-out-what-the-devs-intended'. It feels that way, at least. Far better than CCGs like Shadowverse, whose devs print decks instead of cards.
Oh My Yogg! is a very solid disruptor, I think. Not that strong against Mage, but against Priest, which will be counting on that one spell to activate their [Hearthstone Card (Sethekk Voidweaver) Not Found] and begin the discount train, it's deadly.
The same is true against Druids - blocking a Guardian Animals is ruinous, and blocking a Lightning Bloom can screw up their mana curve and delay the deck for a turn or two. If you have other secrets in your deck, you could even intimidate players into wasting an Innervate or Lightning Bloom before playing Guardian Animals, making Kael'thas weaker. Question is, what other secrets could you run?
PS. If you reduce the mana of a corruptable card (from 4 to 3) that card will be corrupted if you play a 4 mana card? Or needs to play a card with cost higher than original cost?
I haven't seen any confirmations, but I would imagine the original cost the be the one to matter. Might be wrong though.
Damn that's going to be some weird spaghetti code there x_x
Regardless, this card will see play in different archetypes, coz mana cheating is how you play HS these days... it seems
It's worthwhile to note that whichever way the code works, this will benefit Corrupt cards (assuming it's consistent). If only the original mana cost matters, you can discount more expensive cards and play them to Corrupt sooner. If the discounted cost matters, then you can Corrupt by playing cheaper cards and still get those bombs out sooner.
Maybe there's a spell-heavy tempo Corrupt Priest build out there.
"Yeah, so..." "This is, sort of, a..." "And that, like..." "I mean, is there..." "I just..." "Um..."
If you amended the script with a few "just to circle back" or "to bounce off of that"s, I'd be transported back to undergrad. At risk of sounding like an elitist snarkysnark, most folks in my generation seem to share the same limited vocabulary. I think that's part to why the older game designers tend to be more unique video personalities - if there are any shying away from the limelight, maybe Team 5 could try them out. These two are pleasant, but not entertaining or engaging.
I wonder which mana slot has the best spell pool? I do think this could see competitive play, depending on how narrow the pools are and whether Bombs exist.
Agreed with the all y'all. He's misrepresenting what we want for Wild - not a balance and multiple viable decks, but a clear top-end for power. Draw a line and say 'no decks beyond this power level'. That's all.
I don't understand why they're so apathetic towards a tournament mode. It's the obvious first step towards getting the casual player excited about competitive Hearthstone, which is a goal they've often shown interest in. They've already implemented two new modes this Hearthstone year, and that has to be more difficult than slapping a new shell over ranked play!
Profile statistics, though . . . it'd be neat to see how much damage you've dealt with a minion over time. And display it! Imagine being matched against someone whose entry text displays that they've dealt 3000 damage with Angry Chicken. The horror! What other ideas do y'all have?
Agreed that it needs a change, but as he notes, implementing skill-based matchmaking kills the rewards structure of Arena. That's the problem with Heroic Duels: rankings punish you for playing well. Every match you win decreases your chances of winning the next. Which is fine . . . unless rewards are results-based. And there must be rewards, because otherwise there's no incentive to try or play the mode.
There are plenty of other available methods for making Arena more inviting to newbies, fortunately. Keeping the cards you draft, implementing mutators, more forgiving rewards, rollovers into your next run, more free tickets, more help and tooltips, official guides, etc. I can only hope that they turn to these solutions instead.
I hope that they do because, as a 'better' player, non-skill-based matchmaking is refreshing. Ranked play is exciting, but tiring. Booting up an Arena run and seeing my opponent misplay or beating someone easily reminds me that the hours I've put into Hearthstone haven't (sort of) been wasted.
So, if they do implement SBMM, I'd like to see non-SBMM elsewhere. Even if just for casual events, like Tavern Brawls, because even though reaching Legend puts you in the tippy top percentiles of the game, ranked gameplay doesn't remind players of that. Skillbased matchmaking fundamentally can't remind players how skilled they've become - by design, you're always average. If you're a newbie, you have goals. If you're experienced, you're fulfilled. But if you're average, welp, being average sucks.
That's great. It's only useful for big decks or slow decks, but for them it's extremely useful!
Crab rave incoming.
You could make this work in a Guardian Animals Druid. Slot in Ironbarkand you have a dependable taunt. Is that better than the existing alternatives, though, considering you're not guaranteed an Ironbark in hand? It'll depend on the meta.
He'll be in my buff beast Hunter for sure, though! Not to mention Priest's buffing power and Rogue's copying power. It's a similar excitement as when I saw Al'ar, but hopefully this will be more lasting.
I see a Murloc. I AM EXCITED!
This is surprisingly accessible in comparison to Hearthstone's usual monetization, but let's not forget that it will be a 15$/2000g increase to the price of each rotation.
I'd like to see less cards in the initial expansion or at least less legendaries in both. I can see why they'd like to introduce legendaries; they're unique one-offs that are more fun to design and more fun to collect. But an easy solution would be a new class of card - a one-copy restricted 'promotional' that you can craft for the price of an epic. Anyway, epics are often more fun and deck-defining than legendaries are, so I wouldn't mind more of them either.
It would make the game more accessible, but I'm honestly not so sure I'd enjoy it more. The fun of collecting things is real - you pick up a new legendary halfway through the cycle and that makes the card more exciting. You build a deck around it and enjoy it for a bit. Getting all the cards at once would spoil that feeling.
Plus, given recently-added incentives like the Darkmoon Coin for collecting all cards in the set, I don't think they'll change that model soon.
Is there a keyword in the collection manager for changed cards?
I hope you enjoy whatever you are doing not at all. :(
Oh, or fueling Gazlowe with your Spare Parts, if you had the dust and felt silly!
Mech Mage is alright these days, actually, with some of the new Mechs. It's a welcome suprise.
A trashy corner of my heart dearly misses slamming down Force of Nature and Savage Roar.
14. The magic number, my brethren. Hail 14!
Woo! Four packs!
I'm so excited.
Hah, Priest's new resurrect cards would be in the top 10 if folks, myself included, hadn't rated it a 1 on principle. It was the moral thing to do!
Excitement-wise, Warrior got shlonked this expansion. Garrosh got support for two archetypes that don't exist and one archetype that has failed to exist 4/5 times (Thanks, Sulfuras). I have heavy doubts about E.T.C., God of Metal seeing any play - it's a hyperaggro card for a class without any fast decks, as one of the reviewers notes. Face damage doesn't mean much until you're threatening lethal. Similarly for Ringmaster Whatley and the Ringmaster's Baton, there's not enough behind them for it to be worthwhile.
That said, in the usual Hearthstone fashion, there are strong cards here. Tent Trasher, Minefield, Stage Dive, and Sword Eater all seem powerful. I imagine they'll see play outside of the 'intended' archetypes. That's something I appreciate about Hearthstone's development: many of the powerful archetypes are playermade, not 'player-found-out-what-the-devs-intended'. It feels that way, at least. Far better than CCGs like Shadowverse, whose devs print decks instead of cards.
Oh My Yogg! is a very solid disruptor, I think. Not that strong against Mage, but against Priest, which will be counting on that one spell to activate their [Hearthstone Card (Sethekk Voidweaver) Not Found] and begin the discount train, it's deadly.
The same is true against Druids - blocking a Guardian Animals is ruinous, and blocking a Lightning Bloom can screw up their mana curve and delay the deck for a turn or two. If you have other secrets in your deck, you could even intimidate players into wasting an Innervate or Lightning Bloom before playing Guardian Animals, making Kael'thas weaker. Question is, what other secrets could you run?
It's worthwhile to note that whichever way the code works, this will benefit Corrupt cards (assuming it's consistent). If only the original mana cost matters, you can discount more expensive cards and play them to Corrupt sooner. If the discounted cost matters, then you can Corrupt by playing cheaper cards and still get those bombs out sooner.
Maybe there's a spell-heavy tempo Corrupt Priest build out there.
"Yeah, so..." "This is, sort of, a..." "And that, like..." "I mean, is there..." "I just..." "Um..."
If you amended the script with a few "just to circle back" or "to bounce off of that"s, I'd be transported back to undergrad. At risk of sounding like an elitist snarkysnark, most folks in my generation seem to share the same limited vocabulary. I think that's part to why the older game designers tend to be more unique video personalities - if there are any shying away from the limelight, maybe Team 5 could try them out. These two are pleasant, but not entertaining or engaging.
I wonder which mana slot has the best spell pool? I do think this could see competitive play, depending on how narrow the pools are and whether Bombs exist.