• Breaking News

    Saturday, July 18, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Hearthstone I just realise that

    Hearthstone I just realise that

    July 18, 2020

    Hearthstone I just realise that

    I just realise that

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 03:24 AM PDT

    The riveting, skill testing hunter mirror experience

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 09:26 AM PDT

    "Ah, only a 4% chance to lose and 0% lethal. No problem!"

    Posted: 17 Jul 2020 10:46 PM PDT

    The Arabic caster for the Hearthstone Master Tour disconnects in an intense moment.

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 12:39 PM PDT

    Is blizzard going to increase the cost to crafting common cards?

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 12:28 AM PDT

    Soo... err I guess I win?

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 07:30 AM PDT

    I managed to create a pirate exodia combo that won me the lobby!

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 08:05 AM PDT

    When standard suddenly turns into Tombs of Terror

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 09:25 AM PDT

    Big Shaman mains in the next expansion be like

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 12:18 AM PDT

    Beans

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 12:26 PM PDT

    The next solo content

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 01:42 PM PDT

    What's everyone's thoughts on doing another round of Boomsday-style puzzles? It could easily be restructured into "exams" for the academy. I really enjoyed those puzzles and would love to see some new puzzles with different twists.

    Any other hopes for the next solo content?

    submitted by /u/The_Payne_Trayne
    [link] [comments]

    Tess is very bad, don’t play her.

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 03:50 AM PDT

    Murloc pivot?

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 01:54 PM PDT

    Goya Hunter

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 05:56 AM PDT

    Why do they look so bad ����

    Posted: 17 Jul 2020 06:33 PM PDT

    I bought these wow trading card game cards, even before playing Heartstone. I wonder if they are worth anything? Im probably gonna keep them, but im curious if they are rare at all. They are in brand new condition btw.

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 07:39 AM PDT

    Reflecting on the "Created By" Meta

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 03:40 PM PDT

    Hey all, J_Alexander_HS back again today to talk about the "Created by" meta again, inspired by a recent interview with Iksar. During that interview, a question was asked about the created by meta itself:

    Q: The "created by meta". There're too many cards that discover or generate resources in some fashion (dragon lackey being a typical example), and with the random/discover pools get too wide, they become impossible to play around and less skill-rewarding.

    A: Randomness and generation are tools that get used in order to make experiences more varied and different game to game. Mechanics like Discover are a core part of Hearthstone that I think separates us from other similar games in the space. That said, I think the tools players have to create new resources is about as high as its ever going to get. When all classes start generating resources outside their deck it makes the classes that specialize in resource generation like Priest or Mage feel less special. Part of what leads to so many random resources is that the cards that generate these resources have been some of the most powerful in the last few expansions. I would expect the expansions later in the year and especially next year to have less randomly generated resources, especially in classes that don't specialize in that sort of thing.

    I wanted to reflect a bit on the "created by" issue a bit more here.

    Some of you might not have experienced this when playing Hearthstone, depending on when you started, but there used to be a time in this game's history were almost every deck in the game contained 30 cards that began there on purpose and 0 additional cards were ever added to a player's hand or the board. Sure, there were random effects on a few cards, but for the most part they involved shuffling around damage (Rag shots) or knowable effects (Sylvanas mind controls). Even at that time, Hearthstone had a bit of a reputation for being a random and wacky game.

    Things have grown a bit since then, to put it lightly. Now we've reached the point where I've played games where each player ends up playing more cards that didn't start in their deck than ones that did. Having seen both ends of this spectrum, I'm rather floored by the contrast and, full disclosure, I think the game was better when fewer cards were being made. Indeed, many people (myself included) partially excused some of the excesses of Demon Hunter on an emotional level because it was a breath of fresh air to play against decks more regularly that didn't generate any cards from outside their list.

    To be clear, creating cards can have upsides, like novel game experiences and memorable stories. It's part of the charm of Hearthstone and something the game can explore readily as a digital medium. However, it feels like those positives have been getting less positive as their frequency has increased. When 1 in 100 games were decided by who made the right card, that's a big deal. When every second or third game is decided this way, players seem to habituate to the experience. That's just what Hearthstone is, rather than something unique and interesting that happened during an otherwise normal game. The weird things becomes normal and, accordingly, less interesting.

    However, it also comes with negatives, including player frustration brought on by a general lack of agency. While there are inherent random and chance elements in who wins games based off simple features like draw order, there is a certain healthy range to stay within. We don't want every game to play out the same (see Baku and Genn), but we also don't want to feel like too many games are so far outside of our control that it's not worth caring. I believe we are much closer to the latter pole right now than we want to be.

    There are several angles to this issue. On a basic level, the number of cards that make other cards at competitive rates has simply increased. So, rather than 3 cards in old Priest decks that made cards, we now have about 17. Rather than about 5% of cards in sets making cards that didn't start somewhere, now about 25% might. In any given set, and during any given game of ladder, you're far, far more likely to see cards created from outside the deck than almost any time before.

    These admittedly-stark numbers actually underestimate the difference, though.

    First, the types of cards being created have changed. It's simply easier to make a card that discovers a minion or a spell than it is to reinvent a new card pool to discover new cards from. So, rather than getting cards from known pools of static power (like Spare Parts or Ysera dream cards), the new range of outcomes in created by cards - and their associated swing potential - have increased. This issue is compounded by the range of effects on cards growing over time due to power creep. Generating a random Fireball is a different level of impact from generating a random, active Highlander payoff.

    Second, the number of cards getting created has increased. On a basic level, as above, more cards that make other cards are being made in sets. The number of cards they make has also crept upwards, however: Galakrond hero powers make multiple lackeys or priest minions; Reno or Puzzle box cast multiple spells; Ysera Unleashed makes 7 dragons (eventually). We have more cards that make cards, and the number of cards they make has increased.

    Finally, and perhaps most crucially, when you combine these two points you reach a third one: cards that make cards now have higher chances of chaining on the themselves.

    How often have you seen a game where, say, a Thoughtsteal finds an Invoke card that makes a Lazul which copies yet another thing that makes more new resources? Maybe a card makes a lackey that makes a Mage Prime that later makes 5 spells, one of which is a Box that makes 10 more spells? When something around 20% of cards make new cards, each of them have a greater chance to make even more new cards, as opposed to a state of affairs where only 5% of cards make something.

    When so much stuff is appearing in games too regularly, we get frustration, as it removes the sense we could plan for or learn from the games.

    While cards that make cards that make cards have become more common, it's also worth keeping an eye on the fact that entire "created by" archetypes are being designed as core parts of sets. These are archetypes where much or most of the win conditions of some decks have begun to focus on things that aren't knowable by either player at the start of the game. Spell Mage is one example: while it's not quite there as a solid competitive option yet, it is clearly an archetype that is being supported via explicit design decisions (cards that reward you for building a deck without minions and possibly even nerfing weak cards like Bad Luck Albatross). A large portion of the Mage's win condition arises as a function of up to: 12-13 minions that didn't start in the deck (6 from Fonts, 2 from Apexis, maybe a Netherwind Portal, and 4 from Power of Creation), one or 2 Puzzle Boxes (so 10-20 spells), plus whatever comes out of Reno (X number of additional spells). These aren't just "things the deck does" as much as some of the most powerful things the deck was designed to do. Burgle Rogue is another example, though it hasn't been seeing much action these days.

    What's always concerning about these decks is that you don't ever want them to be competitive and played regularly. While they might be fun to play, they're seldom fun to play against. While you can try to attack the general game plan of the deck as an opponent, trying to target specific cards or interactions is, in many respects, out of the picture because neither you or your opponent actually know what those interactions will be until they happen. This can lead to unsatisfying games from both ends of the table where it feels like a deck just crapped out and gave you poor resources or a high-roll won an otherwise 100% lost game. On top of that, it doesn't provide as much of a learning experience as might be desired.

    What to do about the issue

    There are several possible ways to address these concerns, varying in degrees of satisfaction and simplicity.

    • Make fewer cards that make cards: This is the simplest option. Fewer cards that make cards means fewer cards get generated and more learning can take place. Setting a range, or upper limit, to how many cards per set are allowed to make new resources would be helpful, such as a 15% cap on total cards per set that make new resources.

    • Limit the number of cards made by cards that make them: Priest and Rogue Galakronds are offenders in this regard right now, as are cards like Puzzle Box. It doesn't necessarily matter whether lots of cards are made at once or over time. The more cards get generated, the more they're likely to throw off that learning and planning potential.

    • Stop cards that create cards from creating themselves/cards that started in your deck: related to the above point, it's long been recommended that discover or generate cards don't make copies of themselves. No more Renew into Renew, or Sky Raider into Sky Raider. However, this could even be pushed a step further. If cards no longer generated copies of any cards that started in your deck, this could open up even better play experiences on two fronts. First, it can allows players to play around an opponent's deck more. If you've already seen a legendary or two brawls, for instance, you wouldn't need to worry about the next copy. Second, it creates more novel experiences. If most Warriors already play 2 of a card in their deck, discovering a third copy isn't a novel experience; it's just more of the same. This might yield more interesting moments and fewer tedious ones.

    • When cards create cards, make them come from narrow pools more often: Toxins, Dream cards, and Spare Parts are all examples here. While more work to develop, there are interesting ways of creating new, compelling cards to be discovered. The new Malygos is a great example here. This method can also cut down on cards finding cards that find cards and preventing opponents from planning and learning.

    • Ensure that archetypes focused on random generation aren't Tier 1 or 2 options: When the win conditions of deck - or major parts of their plan - focus on making lots of random stuff, you can create a meta that's a chore to play if that deck is a competitively-good choice. While it's important to cater to players who enjoy random creation, it should be something explored more for fun than competition, as it defeats the goal of competition to begin with.

    • Reveal created by cards to both players: This is an interesting suggestion that probably won't happen, and might not really solve that much, but it has some potential. If players can both see discovered and generated options, this reintroduces an element of planning and playing around things. Random cards might be less frustrating when they don't blindside players. At the same time, it also makes discover cards less powerful and less exciting if both players can see their outcome.

    submitted by /u/Popsychblog
    [link] [comments]

    Me and my big mouth...

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 04:35 AM PDT

    Sooni’s Control Shaman

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 01:13 PM PDT

    Anyone have the full deck list for Sooni's control shaman in MT? I'm interested in seeing the full list as it's a pretty rare deck.

    submitted by /u/an-annoying-mouse
    [link] [comments]

    My friend had a mouse slip and accidentally did the biggest BM I've ever seen in arena

    Posted: 17 Jul 2020 09:39 PM PDT

    Gentle Megasaur -> Scalelord

    Posted: 18 Jul 2020 07:20 AM PDT

    What if there is Scalelord(a dragon that gives your murlocs DS) instead of Megasaur. Idk if it should be tier 5 or 6.

    Pros and cons in my opinion

    Pros - fairer to build murloc since there will be no more PS,DS in 1 turn. You need to manually give poisonous to all murloc by Toxfin

     - Scalelord consistency gives DS so you don't need to pray for DS on your adaptation. - maybe you will rely on Brann less than before.

    Cons(?) -no more Brann Chadgar 'murloc transition' miracle turn

    What do yall think?

    submitted by /u/Xubxero
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment