Hearthstone Newbie Tuesdays Weekly Discussion |
- Newbie Tuesdays Weekly Discussion
- "Medivh" pixel art by Artem Brullov
- Up way too early, looked at my collection and said "what's useless in the brawl?" Queue'd ONE game with this card and found a mirror.
- The screencap doesn't do much justice but TIL you can Flik a druid's Floop from their hand when it's a copy of another minion
- A salty post about why Quest Rez Priest is the worst
- After many beatings, this happened.
- Full
- Thank you Alexstraza, i’ve never laughed so maniacally.
- I found my luck finally!
- Servers down?
- The Ol' Bamboozle
- Oh. My. How? 2nd Muro or Mindflayer?
- EU server dropped for a while
- This is the peak of my battlegrounds career
- Power Creep: What does it mean and how can I spot it?
- Showerthought: with frenzied felwing, warriors in wild can have 13 damage on board turn one
- Arena
- Leeroy, meet knife �� juggler...
- healing to 30 AND buffing my weapon
- “Busy night! But there is always place for another!” Apparently not always...
- Is there a reason that users that do YT/Twitch cover their timer in BattleGrounds?
- Rafaam’s Advocate: In Defense of Galakrond’s Awakening - Hearthstone Top Decks
- 2nd time this past hour. Anyone else?
- Very Unexpected Winning Strategy in this week's Tavern Brawl
- The main argument against decks like Rez Priest, Face Hunter or Embiggen Druid is that you can play [Insert Archetype] which is actually a rather poor excuse for bad game design - It implies that your deck selection decision matters more than the actual gameplay.
| Newbie Tuesdays Weekly Discussion Posted: 10 Feb 2020 04:08 PM PST Hello members of the /r/hearthstone community, This is part of a series of weekly threads aimed at both new and old players from the community. It is designed so that everybody may ask any and all questions regarding the game's mechanics, decks, strategies and more. Please keep it clean and try to add more than just a one or two word response. As the goal of this post is to increase the community's knowledge, the thought process matters as much as the answer! There is also a Theorycrafting Thursday weekly post, for those who wish to discuss some of the more intricate aspects of the game. Sticky Threads and Guides - Great resources for new players! Note: I am a bot. Questions or feedback regarding this thread? Message the moderators. [link] [comments] | ||
| "Medivh" pixel art by Artem Brullov Posted: 10 Feb 2020 05:11 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 03:21 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 09 Feb 2020 08:33 PM PST
| ||
| A salty post about why Quest Rez Priest is the worst Posted: 10 Feb 2020 10:48 AM PST Let me preface this by saying that Quest Rez Priest is not OP. It's not, the stats show that it's not and in my own games as Highlander Rogue I'm pretty sure I actually have a positive winrate against it. However I'm just so done playing against it, I've started to just concede whenever I see the quest get played and now for the first time I'm trying Battlegrounds because fuck this deck. Rez priest is, in my opinion, the worst deck to play against, there's been a lot of decks in the history of hearthstone that made me roll my eyes when I faced it (Pirate Warrior, Big Priest, Quest Mage) but nothing has been this unfun to deal with. Why do I think that is? Because doing anything against Rez Priest feels bad. The obvious part is that for many decks outside of face decks, you cannot hit face. If you hit face the Priest can easily finish their quest and overwhelm you with the crazy strong hero power. So for the first 4-5 turns your best play is to do nothing at all. Trading also feels bad, because the Priest can heal your and their own minions, it also feels bad to destroy cards like Convincing Infiltrator because you know that it's now in their rez pool. Only transform effects feel good and not every class has access to them. Playing minions also feels bad because of the many many board clears the deck plays so you need to be extremely careful about how much you commit. The most effective way to play against Rez Priest is to play as little Hearthstone as possible. Almost any early action hurts your chances of winning. If you follow that strategy the deck isn't that hard to beat because the deck itself has very little proactive power, it doesn't really do much by itself. But holy shit is that strategy tedious and not fun to follow. tl;dr Rez Priest punishes you for playing Hearthstone. Every action is bad, the optimal play is doing nothing more often than not. That's a terrible experience. Thank you for your time and stop playing this godforsaken deck I'm begging you. [link] [comments] | ||
| After many beatings, this happened. Posted: 10 Feb 2020 08:54 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 02:02 PM PST
| ||
| Thank you Alexstraza, i’ve never laughed so maniacally. Posted: 10 Feb 2020 08:38 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 10:02 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 01:58 PM PST Are the servers down, or is it just me? Was playing a match and got disconnected. (EU) [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 11:29 AM PST
| ||
| Oh. My. How? 2nd Muro or Mindflayer? Posted: 10 Feb 2020 09:15 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 02:00 PM PST Just received unable to reconnect message, then send into the queue from which I cannot get inside. Just now got reconnected. [link] [comments] | ||
| This is the peak of my battlegrounds career Posted: 10 Feb 2020 12:20 PM PST
| ||
| Power Creep: What does it mean and how can I spot it? Posted: 10 Feb 2020 04:37 PM PST Hey all, J_Alexander_HS back again today to talk a bit about power creep in Hearthstone: we want to understand what it is, what kinds of it there are, and when/why it matters. In Hearthstone, there are two main types of power creep:
This type of power creep is easy to recognize. All you need to do is compare card A to card B - both of which are broadly similar - and note that one costs less mana, has more stats, an additional effect, and so on. Your baseline is the existing card, and your point of comparison is the new one. This type of power creep, however, isn't necessarily meaningful. This is because bad cards in Hearthstone don't tend to impact the game at all, and cases of "strictly better" usually refer to bad cards. No one puts Silverback into decks on purpose for competitive reasons. Sure, sometimes you evolve into it or discover it in some capacity but, generally speaking, you could delete Silverback from the game tomorrow it would change basically nothing about how the game works, what decks are viable, played, or how people think about things. In fact, making a card that's better than a card which has no shot at being played can still result in a card that doesn't see play either. That was exactly the case with cards like Ice Rager. So, while you could say "Ice Rager power-crept Magma Rager," a more meaningful thing you could say about the situation is "What cards are you talking about? I've never seen anyone play either." This brings us to the second type of power creep
This type of power creep is often harder to spot because it results in many apples to orange comparisons. Consider cards like Blink Fox and Shaku, The Collector. While these are nominally-similar cards, one might wonder whether Blink Fox represents Power Creep on Shaku. Is plus one attack, a beast tag, and getting one card immediately better than stealth and the ability to get multiple cards over time should the minion live? Moreover, these cards existed in different times during different metas, making the comparison even more difficult. What about a card like Zilliax? Does that represent power creep on a card like Chillwind Yeti? What about on a card like Argent Squire? Not so easy anymore. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have data to speak to the matter and it can be fairly simple. For instance, during the Doom in the Tomb event, when Shaku and Blink Fox were both playable in the same deck, it turned out that the stats showed that not only was Fox better when drawn, on average, but that Shaku wasn't really worth having in the deck at all. Blink Fox was more powerful than Shaku, and as such it represents a kind of power creep, as both where played in decks (whether for their own merit, because we lacked data to tell us whether we should play them, or because of their synergy with other cards). (It's also interesting how cards that used to be considered staples - like Ragnaros - returned and had almost no impact during that time. Other strategies appeared to have largely pushed them out the game and, when they were played, they didn't seem overly powerful. Whether that would be the case if they returned to Standard again today without the other Wild cards is unknown, but interesting to think about. Perhaps many balance adjustments made in the past could be revisited in light of the current power level of the game) Another time we've been lucky enough to see power creep in action was during the Hall of Champions Tavern Brawl. In this mode, you got to use World Championship decks from various points in the game's history. This brawl was incredibly fun in its own right (since it allowed us to play with unnerfed versions of cards again), but it taught a painful lesson: decks from the Kobolds and Catacombs meta were far more powerful than anything else there. These matches felt so lopsided it was impossible to not notice and, in some cases, almost felt like one should concede when faced with a KnC deck if you weren't also packing one. While such situations are neat ways to look at power creep, they're unusual. We need other methods of examining it to help spot when it occurs and how much there is. One simple way to estimate these is in terms of the percentage of cards seeing play in decks from different sets. Specifically, if you see that decks are being disproportionately made up of cards from one set, that probably means that set has power crept the game important ways. For example, on two occasions I have looked at the top 100(ish) most commonly-played cards in Standard to see what set they came from. The results which you can see here found that cards from Kobolds at Catacombs and Descent of Dragons were vastly over-represented. Cards from those sets should have represented about 1/9th of the total based on how many cards in standard came from them (about 11%). Instead, they represented 22% and 29% of that top 100. When sets are over twice as represented as we would expect by chance, that's a solid sign of power creep. However, a whole set need not power creep the game for its impact to be felt. The percentage method of spotting power creep is only a general indicator. Sometimes, only a small number of cards need to power creep the game for massive impacts to be felt. Cards like Undertaker and Mad Scientist from the Naxx era teaches us that lesson. Those two cards alone helped catapult Hunter into the top tier of the meta, creating a deck that raised the power level of the game substantially. Competing with that deck at the time was almost impossible. As power creep is hard to spot and quantify, we're left trying to do the best of a bad job at figuring out when it happens and the extent of it. One thing that is less abstract are the consequences. Some Consequences of Power Creep Returning to Kobolds and Catacombs, if you were playing at the time (or consult that previous tweet I mentioned), you'll notice that while KnC was well represented in the meta, the three sets that came after it - Witchwood, Boomsday, and Rumble - were almost absent. These sets failed to keep up with the power level of KnC, so played simply didn't play many cards from them. In the current time, we also see these sets aren't keeping up with Rise of Shadows or DoD. Something similar happen during the Undertaker era of Naxx, where Hunter was a large portion of the meta. Or during the recent Shaman-stone era, where Shaman decks were 30-40% of the game in Legend during Doom in the Tomb and early DoD. This teaches an important lesson: power creep can stagnate the meta. Whether it stagnates around specific decks or sets, it does stagnate. When cards, sets, or decks trend too high over the existing average power level of the game - when they power creep it - they effectively delete cards too far below them in power from seeing play. This is because players have fun when they win, generally speaking. There are difficult tolerances for this, of course, such that players might be OK with playing some cards that lose them the game a little more often than usual. However, it takes a rare player indeed to enjoy losing a lot more than usual. In a concrete example, you might enjoy playing a PogoRogue sometimes when it's a 47% win rate deck, but will likely not touch it when it dips into the 40% or below range. Fill in your own numbers as you see fit. Power creep does just that: powerful new cards create strategies that are better than old ones, pushing the win rate of previous ideas lower. When the win rates of previous decks and cards go down people stop playing them, and when people stop using them it's like they don't even exist, much like the aforementioned Magma Rager. You can think of power creep as a force that deletes your old cards from your collection and leaves cosmetic items in their place which you'll likely never touch much again, if at all. When this effect is slight, you might not notice it and it doesn't affect what sees play by too much. However, when it gets bad (like it did in KnC and DoD), it can invalidate entire expansions worth of cards, archetypes of play, or classes. The win rate of these things simply drops too far below the new norm of power until something happens, whether its a rotation reducing the extent of power creep, nerfs, or new cards arrive. Placing that in context, I have not been experimenting with a variety of different Rogue decks in DoD so far because meme decks lose badly to meta decks. The power difference between meme deck and meta deck has become so large that to really enjoy the game, I need to play some flavor of Galakrond Rogue. I was playing a lot of Quest Rogue successfully before DoD, and now that deck is so much weaker than other metas list that it's perform is laughable (and that's even after receiving more support for the deck that non-Quest lists cannot use). The old aggressive Rogue lists fall flat against the competition as well, since they've failed to improve as the world around them got much, much better (Felwing may help that tomorrow, but that remains to be seen). Put simply, putting a Galakrond shell into a Rogue deck appears to make it much, much better than any Rogue list not using that shell. This is power creep, and it heavily constrains what kind of decks I feel I have the freedom to explore. It stagnates the game, because I feel a large portion of my card pool effectively doesn't exist. Making me even more concerned about that is the fact that basically nothing about Galakrond Rogue is going to be lost in rotation: the deck loses Snip-Snap and Zilliax, both of which aren't core and can easily be replaced. This means anything that comes out in newer sets is going to need to be about as powerful as that to make me interested in playing it, and that's a high bar to clear. When this happened in the past with KnC, we found out that the next three sets generally failed to clear that bar in desirable ways, and so they basically flopped and didn't affect the game as much as we're prefer (Baku and Genn cleared that bar, but not in a desirable way). This is not to say that those three sets didn't have any impact, but it was relatively minimal in terms of numbers of cards seeing play. Further, few new archetypes or decks were being created. Instead, the handful of powerful cards from those sets were simply being adopted into existing decks that drew their power from KnC and Frozen Throne. However, I'm also concerned by the prospect that new sets will reach or clear the DoD bar. It concerns me because DoD is a clear outlier in power and if three new sets manage to keep up with that over a year, the power level of standard in general will have increased a lot to the point decks feel degenerate and games get decided in spectacular, but unsatisfying ways. Basically, Standard would begin to resemble Wild in terms of power level. And if we have the next year of sets keep up the power curve of DoD, the only way to bring it down again would be a year's worth of uneventful expansions or a large number of nerfs, which can be very bad for the F2P or budget population out there. Power creep can set us up for a pincer problem, where we end up in trouble almost no matter what happens. Our hope would be that new cards result in interactions that aren't more powerful, but rather create a counter strategy to existing archetypes. How well that can be navigated is hard to say, but the task itself is incredibly difficult to get right. So, while Power Creep is hard to spot and quantify, it does have important implications on the enjoyment of the game play experience and the effective amount of freedom we have as players to create new things. If you have any ways you think about power creep or spot it, feel free to share them here. The better the handle we all have on the matter, the more we can successfully guide the game towards success. [EDIT]: One interesting implication of power creep concerns buffs vs nerfs to cards. Buffs can never undo the damage caused by power creep, but may merely help other cards keep up with it. If anything, then, buffs can only cause or further Power Creep; never undo it. Nerfs, on the other hand, can combat this problem, which is a major reason they tend to be favored as design solutions [link] [comments] | ||
| Showerthought: with frenzied felwing, warriors in wild can have 13 damage on board turn one Posted: 10 Feb 2020 04:58 AM PST Warrior going second with coin: cursed blade + southsea deckhand, pulls patches and 1 parachute brigand from hand, and then play 2 frenzied felwings That is 2+2+1+2+3+3=13 damage on board turn one, emptying hand and probably threaten lethal on turn 3. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 05:29 AM PST This is a regular subject on the Arena subreddit, but I wanted to open it up for discussion where more people can join in. I've been playing mostly Arena for the past 2 years, as it always felt like the endgame of Hearthstone, where both deck building and skill could shine. We've had some great metas and some awful ones, but we always had communication with the developers and could count on them for fixing whatever was wrong with the game mode at the time. However, ever since the release of Battlegrounds, it seems like Blizzard doesn't give two shits about Arena. Not only is the current meta of Arena terrible, but the developers are also late to step in when it comes to balancing. The next rotation is supposed to happen sometime this month, but we don't even know when or which expansions it will rotate to. I get that Arena doesn't make Blizzard the most money and most big name streamers have left Arena in favor of Battlegrounds, but there are still tons of Arena players and I believe this is very heartbreaking for them. What do you guys think? [link] [comments] | ||
| Leeroy, meet knife �� juggler... Posted: 09 Feb 2020 05:38 PM PST
| ||
| healing to 30 AND buffing my weapon Posted: 10 Feb 2020 06:30 AM PST
| ||
| “Busy night! But there is always place for another!” Apparently not always... Posted: 10 Feb 2020 01:58 PM PST
| ||
| Is there a reason that users that do YT/Twitch cover their timer in BattleGrounds? Posted: 10 Feb 2020 10:57 AM PST I noticed that a lot of players seem to add something over their timer in post production on YT and was just curious. Anyone else notice this? [link] [comments] | ||
| Rafaam’s Advocate: In Defense of Galakrond’s Awakening - Hearthstone Top Decks Posted: 10 Feb 2020 03:42 AM PST
| ||
| 2nd time this past hour. Anyone else? Posted: 10 Feb 2020 02:26 PM PST
| ||
| Very Unexpected Winning Strategy in this week's Tavern Brawl Posted: 10 Feb 2020 03:07 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 10 Feb 2020 06:15 AM PST The same reasoning goes for "hope they don't draw [Instead Card]". In both scenario's, it implies that the decisions of the player are secondary to out-of-game mechanics, like the deck matchup (to a very large degree based on RNG) and the draw. If a deck is "balanced" by having hardcounter matchups and being overly reliant on specific cards, that's not fun game design. It takes agency away from the player and therefor is a bad balance and design argument. [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/usyvrjkyi3g41.gif){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/pi6qyyj0z2g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/dix2m8bly0g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/6we5dcewm4g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/g7zai99p56g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/k8m43d3yj4g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/97vt6zt1z4g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/uzh6367de5g41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/8lrv524lq4g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/ftoqqygkn5g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/gio6w17zw3g41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/2brgrh7556g41.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/r5glun83a6g41.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/cudfxfz3w2g41.png){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Hearthstone. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment