Hearthstone

Of the Tabletop, and other, lesser varieties.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:39 pm UTC

Anyone else playing this? I've been playing for a few months now (started in beta) and really enjoy it, though I often don't have the motivation to keep playing when I'm done with all daily quests and don't have enough gold for arena (downside of progression - feels like a waste when you don't get anything for winning).

I like the simplified (and mostly set in stone) resource system, and the combination of character-specific cards and neutral cards. I remember some critic compared it to fighting game match ups - you get a vague idea of what your opponent likely has based on their character, but there's still a ton of different ways their deck could go.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby mike-l » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:57 pm UTC

I've played a fair bit. I find arena much more enjoyable than constructed, and it was nice to get to the point where I could chain them.

It'd be nice if constructed match making had some sort of consideration for deck quality, maybe like game modes with a max number of epics/legendaries. It was frustrating starting out and coming up against vastly superior decks, and it's boring now coming up against vastly inferior decks. The ranks somewhat help but with monthly resets it's still an issue (though I see on release they fix this a bit).

I like the mana system, and I look forward to some new cards and mechanics (while fun it's still pretty shallow). My only pet peeve is cards with random targets/effects. Randomness is important in a card game, but, IMO drawing already accomplishes this and the random effects always feel either frustrating when they go the wrong way or empty when they luck out.

Overall it feels pretty balanced. Some classes need some help with their starter decks (cough Druid cough), and some slight balancing is needed in arena, but I've rarely found myself feeling like a particular class is so outclassed that it isn't worth playing
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Yablo » Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:59 pm UTC

My wife has been playing. I've watched her a bit, and I've thought about trying it out, but I haven't made it that far yet. I typically make fun of people (in a friendly way) who play that sort of game with actual card decks, but a digital version is somehow a little different.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:32 pm UTC

It's a lot of fun. I've pretty much got to the point where I can play Arena forever (average of 7+ wins) - which is good, because I don't have as much fun playing constructed. I've never been good at deckbuilding in CCGs, and I hate the prospect of netdecking, so the draft mode really makes the game for me.
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:12 pm UTC

I like it. I started playing it about a month ago, first card game I've learned to a decent degree. Still haven't made it to the point where I can chain Arenas, but I'll get there someday. (Average 4 wins I think)

The thing I dislike about constructed is that everyone has the same freaking aggro deck, which gets really grating. Also Ragnaros and Leeroy.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:38 pm UTC

I'd rather play aggro decks than those mage decks that throw in every creature removal (and freeze) card they possibly can. Or priest decks in general (I hate Northshire Cleric and Lightspawn).
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:47 pm UTC

Bahaha, I'm a mage/priest player. FUCK AGGRO.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:50 am UTC

Ha, it feels like the only way to deal with mage decks is to throw out stuff (that's just strong enough to not be ignorable) fast enough that they have to burn all their fireballs, ice lances, and polymorphs. Then you can finally play creatures that can stay out for more than one turn.

With priests I'm mainly just worried about killing their clerics before they can draw a shit load of cards, or killing their lightspawns before they boost and/or double their health and turn them into monsters.

I will admit it feels cheap when I manage to power overwhelming -> void terror my way into a 13/10 on turn 3.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:52 am UTC

I don't really like Ice Lance/Frost Nova. In those cases I feel I could simply have a good minion instead and have a bit of a better board; same with Priest and Divine Spirit. So it's like not really full aggro or control, but something in between. I do about the same with Druid. (Is that what they call midrange?)
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:08 am UTC

Yeah, freezing (or bouncing stuff back to opponent's hand) seems pretty situational to me. Divine Spirit seems incredibly powerful if the priest deck has both Lightspawns and Inner Fire (maybe Power Word: Shield for extra synergy). Lightwell plus Inner Fire can also be used to devastating effect early on.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:18 am UTC

Yeah, with Lightspawns or Stranglethorn Tiger it's pretty cool to have Divine Spirit. Alas, I have neither (and currently saving dust, so...yeah). I guess Ravenholdt Assassin works too, but he's 7 mana, so I dunno.

Speaking of dust, I've been thinking about which Legendary to craft first, now that Nat Pagle and Tinkmaster Overspark have been nerfed. I keep thinking Ragnaros/Leeroy, but something like Malygos just seems so much more fun. Or Ysera.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Yubtzock » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:23 am UTC

setzer777 wrote:I like the simplified (and mostly set in stone) resource system,

Prospect of constantly stacking up on cards not disenchanting or stacking up on dust and not crafting until you mostly fill your collection trough packs first is kinda flawed for me - I'm not going to use the whole crafting system for a long time (unless there is a rebalance like recently - golden Nat got changed so I have normal Nat and Ysera now)

Weeks wrote:Speaking of dust, I've been thinking about which Legendary to craft first, now that Nat Pagle and Tinkmaster Overspark have been nerfed. I keep thinking Ragnaros/Leeroy, but something like Malygos just seems so much more fun. Or Ysera.

Ysera won me every match I was able to play her in. There is no way Ysera isn't going to pay off in average scenario. The only situations are if you are near dead and nothing else would save you anyway, if you are against Priest with abusive seargeant + SW death (+2 to damage for ysera to make her 6/12) or if you are against Mage with vaporise on.
In the first case tons of taunts probably would be better option, second - you are breaking even - you lose 9 mana, 1 card, but gain 1 card too; enemy uses 1 card, gets 2 damage creature onboard, loses 2 bonus damage, and 4 mana. Things break even cause the card spawned by ysera is always 3:2 cost effective.
In the third case you deserved to have your Ysera mirrored or vaporised if you get her out with mage secret up. ;D (you can get away with druid: Ysera, innervate - > silence ysera clone or priest - 0 cost silence)

I think since they did not nerf Ragnaros it might be my next legendary to ever craft ever, and then I'll just wait for my collection to fill up from arena packs.
Or leeroy-hogger combo. decisions, decisions.

Weeks wrote:I don't really like Ice Lance/Frost Nova. In those cases I feel I could simply have a good minion instead and have a bit of a better board; same with Priest and Divine Spirit. So it's like not really full aggro or control, but something in between. I do about the same with Druid. (Is that what they call midrange?)
I like freezing - it's mainly there to regain board control - you can protect your minions from enemy ones (get damage onboard first instead of having to lay down taunt). I feel it's ever only useful if you are waiting for some game finisher.
Druid and Shaman have the +damage for all characters cards which means they play for One Turn Kills in most cases. Kinda sucks that's their best tactic, because I like both buffs and overload mechanic. Probably why I also sport a good healing Priest deck...

Which brings me to: Priest OP, nerf plox, OMGWTFBBQ, 18/18 gurabashis, Mindcontrol BS etc. ;)
Priests made silence almost mandatory. I hope to have my hunter deck done soon... Flares, silences and freezing traps to screw with mage secrets and annoying Divine spirit+inner fire Nat Peggles.

Weeks wrote:Yeah, with Lightspawns or Stranglethorn Tiger it's pretty cool to have Divine Spirit. Alas, I have neither (and currently saving dust, so...yeah). I guess Ravenholdt Assassin works too, but he's 7 mana, so I dunno.
Whenever I played Ravenhold I wished I could simply play the tiger + something else for the mana cost. They are only ever good to snipe out gurabashis or archmages. in the second case you additonally gotta pray Mage does not have a Flamestrike ._.

Complaints:
"Dragon" creature type does nothing so I guess there are some more cards coming in the future.

Another balance issue I find is weapons - it's really hard to get a solid weapon based deck cause you are missing in utility (weapon-related cards have no silence or card draw - there is one instant damage, one buff weapon and one windfury but all are in separate classes). By extension - "Pirate" creature type sucks.

Which brings me to:
setzer777 wrote:I like [...] the combination of character-specific cards and neutral cards.
I hate the fact that the only neutral cards are creatures. Neutral spells, secrets, buffs, weapons and utility does not exist and what little there is in battlecries is getting boring and stale fast.

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Kag » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:19 am UTC

Yubtzock wrote:it's really hard to get a solid weapon based deck


That's hard to do because "weapons" isn't a valid theme for a deck. It's fundamentally unsupported by the mechanic because they naturally have negative synergy with each other.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
Biliboy
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:43 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Biliboy » Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:53 am UTC

Warriors can build a decent weapon based deck, they have several synergies... actually I've read that warriors 'need' good weapons, since most of their creature removal is 2 cards at least (damage card + execute for the largest critters)

My favorite priest deck doesn't use inner fire at all, it's the one that uses all common cards (can't remember the popular name for it). It has quite good board control, and a boatload of 4/5 creatures, which in my opinion are the most powerful critters in the game. I do replace a few of the cards for similar cards that have more utility (such as the 2/3 with taunt to neighbors instead of river croc), and drop one of the mind controls for something else.

Priest decks aren't OP, by any means, their win ratio is 50/50 +/- 2-3%, but when they beat you it seems more annoying, with mind controls, stealing/copying cards, or 32/32 lightspawns.

I too enjoy arena more than constructed, though my best is 7 wins, and have only done that once :(

I've gotten one legendary so far from card packs, Van Cleef... he can be a fun combo card to drop with some rogue 0 cost cards early on.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:36 am UTC

I got Al'Akir and King Mukla from packs a while ago, but I lack some of the good shaman cards like Feral Spirit and Lightning Storm, and King Mukla seems like a card better suited for Hunter, which I don't play much.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
Kag
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:56 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Kag » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:33 am UTC

Biliboy wrote:Warriors can build a decent weapon based deck, they have several synergies... actually I've read that warriors 'need' good weapons, since most of their creature removal is 2 cards at least (damage card + execute for the largest critters)


Yeah, you need good weapons in a warrior deck. They're really good cards, but you can't make a deck about weapons.
The Great Hippo wrote:I am starting to regret having used 'goat-fucker' in this context.

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:04 am UTC

The thing you've got to remember when considering combos is that if you stack, say, a Divine Spirit and an Inner Fire onto a Lightwell, that's 3 cards you've used for something that can be eliminated with a single card from all other classes (and they're the types of cards people run two of - Polymorph, Assassinate, Shadow Word: Death, etc). It's a nice finisher, but I wouldn't ever build a deck around that kind of thing due to how many cards your opponent will be up on you after the fact.

On a related note, if you want to try and improve your skill in general - particularly in Arena mode - I really recommend checking out Trump's YouTube channel. After watching a few of his arena runs, you really start to get a feel for the underlying mechanics behind Hearthstone that aren't obvious when first starting out. He's definitely the primary reason why I'm any good at the game.
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Chen » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:47 am UTC

I'm still waiting for the mobile version of this. It's somewhat fun time waster, but if I'm at my computer, I have better time wasters to play. In terms of mobile games though if it remains pretty much the same it'll be a top notch time waster when I'm just sitting around with my Ipad on the couch.

I haven't played in a while though. How exactly do you go about making gold so you can play the arena?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:52 pm UTC

The slow way is just winning games in play/ranked mode. Three wins = 10 gold. The fast way is completing quests. You get one a day(and there are a few hidden quests), that start at around 40g rewards. You do, of course, accumulate wins while completing quests, so synergy exists. You can also work towards multiple quests at once if they line up right.

The 3x wins for 10 gold is capped at 100 gold/day. This should not usually be a problem.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:11 pm UTC

I'll add that you can get gold among your prizes once you finish up an arena run. You have to do really well in the arena to get enough back to chain run them, but it helps defray the gold costs.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Chen » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:13 pm UTC

Hmm that definitely seems like a lot of grinding. An arena match does guarantee a pack though right? And is it still 100g a pack?

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:21 pm UTC

Yes to both. Here is a table listing the possible rewards. (May not be perfectly accurate)
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:47 pm UTC

Do you ever include minions based just on their stats? I find that I almost exclusively use minions with some sort of card text. The combo potential makes them seem more powerful, but I wonder if I'm underestimating cards that are simply good bang for the buck stat-wise.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Yubtzock » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:30 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I'm still waiting for the mobile version of this. It's somewhat fun time waster, but if I'm at my computer, I have better time wasters to play. In terms of mobile games though if it remains pretty much the same it'll be a top notch time waster when I'm just sitting around with my Ipad on the couch.

I haven't played in a while though. How exactly do you go about making gold so you can play the arena?
I think you get around 50gp a day from quests on average and a little bit more with efficient rerolling of daily quests (reroll only 40gp ones, leave 40gp quests for the next day unless you already have three -then complete one to get down to 2)

Add up to that daily winnings - 20-40 gold is doable - and you can get 100 gp or a pack a day. If you run arena then you can get 2 arena runs for every 3 days and still get some gold back, even if you run 3:3 in wins.

There was an estimate somewhere pointing out that you need to open around 400+ packs to fill out your collection to the point, where you can disenchant surplus cards and craft missing non-golden cards, assuming you waited until the amount of dust covered all your final crafting needs.

setzer777 wrote:Do you ever include minions based just on their stats? I find that I almost exclusively use minions with some sort of card text. The combo potential makes them seem more powerful, but I wonder if I'm underestimating cards that are simply good bang for the buck stat-wise.
In arena certainly. Mostly because "no combo" means you don't need to hope during draft that your cards are going to have the combo and pay for themselves in value. This is one of the reasons 4/5 4mana yeti is so highly recommended as a pick in the arena.

in constructed no-text deck is essentially silence immune. Mage with spellbender and counterspell can protect creatures with text up to 4 times and get exact value from the few other no-text creatures she spawns between spells. Lots of blank creatures are beasts so I often see the no-text creatures in hunter beast decks, although most of the creatures with "beast" do have the cost of being a "beast" included in their mana cost.

They are also nice as buff recipients for priests and druids. The other way of fighting with silence is to have too many targets for it after all.


Is anyone from xkcd on EU server?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:50 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:I'll add that you can get gold among your prizes once you finish up an arena run. You have to do really well in the arena to get enough back to chain run them, but it helps defray the gold costs.


Yeah, IIRC, I calculated that, including the lost gold compared to winning regular matches, running arenas is usually a loss over simply buying packs.

Arena costs 150 gold and you always get a pack, but a pack can be directly bought for 100 gold. So, essentially, additional prizes require 50g and wins.

A pack cannot possibly be worth less than 40 dust, because a rare+4 commons you already have is worth that much. Usually, you will do much better(either new cards or better distribution, or both). Therefore, gold is generally the better prize.

The common/rare drop is worth less than the gold drop, because a pack will always contain commons and a rare...and might have more. On average, the card drops give you four cards per 100 gold displaced, while packs give five cards per 100 gold displaced, PLUS have the chance at cards above rare. Therefore, gold is a better drop than cards.

At 0-2 wins, you cannot get more than 50 gold OR a single card(either common or rare). Therefore, you are guaranteed to always do worse than purchasing.

At 3 wins, you will get, at best, 50-60 gold. Three wins in play mode would have given a guaranteed 10 gold, and you would have saved 50 gold, so again, always worse.

At 4 wins, you get, at best, 70-80 gold, finally representing our first potential chance at a net win over the 63.33 gold value utilized to get here. Drawing cards or dust is still generally worse, so you lose on average, but at least there's a shot at coming out marginally ahead.

5 wins gives 100-110 gold, which is actually significant, and you have a shot at a golden card. I mean, you have a shot at golden cards in packs too, so this isn't a huge win, but it makes a losing scenario less bad, because at least it's worth decent dust. This is the first level at which you are actually expected to be ahead of the game on average.

It isn't until seven wins that you're far enough ahead to immediately re-enter with your winnings.

On average, you can expect to last about three rounds in the arena, because three losses puts you out, and overall win rate is 50%. Therefore, unless you are a significantly above average player, you are better off grinding out matches in play/ranked mode than doing the arena. This is particularly true for newer players who are likely to end up with below average results. Save your free arena entry until you know what you're doing, you'll get more from it.

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

I've never bought a pack on Hearthstone, always just gone for the Arena runs - at an average skill level, you'll still make 50 gold back, so it's worth it to get to play the mode. You'll also get better at Arena, which means more profit!

In terms of picks, you'll generally just be wanting to make an all-around solid deck. That means you should look for minions with good stats, efficient removal, and to try not to focus on any sort of combo. This is why you generally don't want to be picking Hunter or Rogue, as their class-specific cards are generally below average without some kind of synergy.

I'm on EU, Yubtzock :)
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Yubtzock » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

SirBryghtside wrote:I'm on EU, Yubtzock :)

cool, check PM and add me if you want. :) I'm looking forward to play against the same deck repeatedly, cause each time on play mode it puts me against randoms and my usual play groups do not seem interested. (yet :twisted: )

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1858
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Panama

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Weeks » Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:44 pm UTC

Arena is more fun to me than simply grinding Casual/Ranked over and over, so there's that too.
Am I gregnant
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Quercus wrote:Agreed, but "constitutional fetishism" doesn't have that lovely alliteration between fetishism, first and fucking
rath358 wrote:I have been replaced D:

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:22 pm UTC

Weeks wrote:Arena is more fun to me than simply grinding Casual/Ranked over and over, so there's that too.


Reasonable, yeah. If the most efficient way doesn't happen to actually be fun, it would defeat the point of playing the game to do that.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:At 3 wins, you will get, at best, 50-60 gold. Three wins in play mode would have given a guaranteed 10 gold, and you would have saved 50 gold, so again, always worse.

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Doesn't 60g put you at the breakeven point? I mean, getting 60g is going to be relatively uncommon, so you're still coming out at a loss on average. But it's going to be a pretty small one at this level. And it has the virtue of being an even playing field where you don't have to worry about running into highly twerked constructed decks. I mean, maybe it's different now with everyone getting their hearthsteed achievement for WoW, but during beta, I found it to be really easy to get to the point where every other deck was either a warlock murloc deck or chock full of obnoxious legendaries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:02 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:At 3 wins, you will get, at best, 50-60 gold. Three wins in play mode would have given a guaranteed 10 gold, and you would have saved 50 gold, so again, always worse.

I'm not sure I understand the logic here. Doesn't 60g put you at the breakeven point? I mean, getting 60g is going to be relatively uncommon, so you're still coming out at a loss on average. But it's going to be a pretty small one at this level. And it has the virtue of being an even playing field where you don't have to worry about running into highly twerked constructed decks. I mean, maybe it's different now with everyone getting their hearthsteed achievement for WoW, but during beta, I found it to be really easy to get to the point where every other deck was either a warlock murloc deck or chock full of obnoxious legendaries.


Well, roughly a third of the time, you get gold for the third prize. The other two thirds, you get dust or card, which have a lower expected value than the gold. So, you're only actually at break-even maybe 1/6th of the time.

It's pretty clearly worse overall, even if there is an edge case where you can break even. Four wins is still a net loss, but with a potential for a lucky marginal advantage.

Rankings ensure fairly even matchups most of the time. Now, right after reset, it can be different, as the serious players are clawing for rank with everyone else, but in my first season(open beta), I pulled what...rank 16? Meh. Not too hard, even with a halfassed murloc deck(which takes very little to make work). You'll eventually stabilize out at a rank where you win roughly half your games. You should win more than half on average until you stabilize, but assuming you play enough to stabilize every round, the advantage there is fairly minor.

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:34 pm UTC

One other thing to note on the subject of gold is that is that once you've won 100 gold in a day through the 3 wins in ranked mode, it caps out. As far as I know, there's no equivalent limit for Arena.

And on the topic of laddering - while I don't play the mode much, as I prefer Arena, I've found that aggro decks take you to level 5-10 really quickly, and for a very low amount of dust. The first time I realised this was when I created a Warrior deck that had 4 rares and 14 commons in which got to rank 5 with only a few losses. My current brew is a Paladin, which uses slightly more rares thanks to the value of cards like Equality and Divine Favour, but it's still far from the the 5 legend minimum decks everyone else at that rank has.
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:54 pm UTC

It seems to me that the warlock class power is noticeably better than the rest. Card economy often seems more important than mana economy (especially after the first few turns), and being able to draw twice a turn is huge. And as Magic players say about health: the only health that's important is the last point. Though I suppose mages counter that somewhat by having such strong direct damage spells.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:10 pm UTC

SirBryghtside wrote:One other thing to note on the subject of gold is that is that once you've won 100 gold in a day through the 3 wins in ranked mode, it caps out. As far as I know, there's no equivalent limit for Arena.

And on the topic of laddering - while I don't play the mode much, as I prefer Arena, I've found that aggro decks take you to level 5-10 really quickly, and for a very low amount of dust. The first time I realised this was when I created a Warrior deck that had 4 rares and 14 commons in which got to rank 5 with only a few losses. My current brew is a Paladin, which uses slightly more rares thanks to the value of cards like Equality and Divine Favour, but it's still far from the the 5 legend minimum decks everyone else at that rank has.


While true, that requires winning thirty games a day. If this is a significant concern, you are playing a very large amount of hearthstone indeed.

setzer777 wrote:It seems to me that the warlock class power is noticeably better than the rest. Card economy often seems more important than mana economy (especially after the first few turns), and being able to draw twice a turn is huge. And as Magic players say about health: the only health that's important is the last point. Though I suppose mages counter that somewhat by having such strong direct damage spells.


It's good, yeah. I am not particularly enthralled with say, the warrior class power. However, the priest class power is also really good, in part because of synergy with the cards, and in part because establishing and maintaining board presence is huge. Even the mage deck is not pure burn, and essentially every other deck is some variant of an aggro deck.

Note that, in some games, given the number of cards in a deck, running dry is a legitimate concern. If you're drawing 2/turn and have other draw effects in there, you can puke cards onto the board pretty rapidly. This won't come up in the majority of games, but I have lost a game solely because of the deck running dry a turn before I needed it to.

Chen
Posts: 5267
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:36 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:It seems to me that the warlock class power is noticeably better than the rest. Card economy often seems more important than mana economy (especially after the first few turns), and being able to draw twice a turn is huge. And as Magic players say about health: the only health that's important is the last point. Though I suppose mages counter that somewhat by having such strong direct damage spells.


Yeah Hearthstone seems fairly dangerous once mana is around 7-8. You can have ridiculous swings in damage in just a single turn. You have to play fairly pre-emptively because you can't actually do anything during the opponent's turn too.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:25 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Note that, in some games, given the number of cards in a deck, running dry is a legitimate concern. If you're drawing 2/turn and have other draw effects in there, you can puke cards onto the board pretty rapidly. This won't come up in the majority of games, but I have lost a game solely because of the deck running dry a turn before I needed it to.


Yeah, I've had a handful of those. I've even had one game where we both decked ourselves (unfortunately he had life advantage when it happened). That's mainly only been an issue when I put too many weak draw cards in my deck. As long as most cards take at least one card to kill (and aren't too vulnerable to multitarget cards) it seems pretty safe.

I don't think warlocks are overpowered, I just think that they would be the strongest by far if only neutral cards were being used in decks. I think clerics are the main thing that make the priests' healing so strong - which again comes down to card draw - they also get good card efficiency with their cards that straight up destroy creatures. Warlocks do seem to be comparatively lacking in late-game power, which can be a problem if the opponent is able to wipe out your early game rush. It's also pretty annoying drawing imp cards at the point where mana's not an issue anyway.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:46 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Note that, in some games, given the number of cards in a deck, running dry is a legitimate concern. If you're drawing 2/turn and have other draw effects in there, you can puke cards onto the board pretty rapidly. This won't come up in the majority of games, but I have lost a game solely because of the deck running dry a turn before I needed it to.


Yeah, I've had a handful of those. I've even had one game where we both decked ourselves (unfortunately he had life advantage when it happened). That's mainly only been an issue when I put too many weak draw cards in my deck. As long as most cards take at least one card to kill (and aren't too vulnerable to multitarget cards) it seems pretty safe.

I don't think warlocks are overpowered, I just think that they would be the strongest by far if only neutral cards were being used in decks. I think clerics are the main thing that make the priests' healing so strong - which again comes down to card draw - they also get good card efficiency with their cards that straight up destroy creatures. Warlocks do seem to be comparatively lacking in late-game power, which can be a problem if the opponent is able to wipe out your early game rush. It's also pretty annoying drawing imp cards at the point where mana's not an issue anyway.


Yeah, that's what happened here. We both ran dry, and I could stall, but he had life advantage. I couldn't pull enough board state to kill him before I died. I've had quite a few times where one person ran dry at the very end, and it really didn't make a difference, but in this case, it definitely is.

And yes, playing against a priest, the 1/3 card draw thing dies with extreme prejudice. It matters a ton. If they get a card draw combo going, they are likely going to win. This is also true for the hunter, but the 2/1 beast is particularly easy to kill.

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:04 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:It seems to me that the warlock class power is noticeably better than the rest. Card economy often seems more important than mana economy (especially after the first few turns), and being able to draw twice a turn is huge. And as Magic players say about health: the only health that's important is the last point. Though I suppose mages counter that somewhat by having such strong direct damage spells.

It's easy to start thinking the Warlock's power is the best thanks to the immediate card advantage, but the other hero abilities give card advantage as well - just less directly. Priests save their creatures, Mages kill yours, Paladins and Shamans add to their board - the only exceptions are Hunters and Warriors. That's because Hunters are designed around rushing the opponent down, a strategy that doesn't require as many cards in the hope of an early game win, and Warriors having a variety of weapons that consistently get two for ones anyway - the hero ability counteracting the damage taken from that.

And on the topic of the only health mattering being the last one - it's still applicable in scenarios where the opponent has direct damage, you've just got to predict and play around it. Put simply, if you're against a mage on ten mana, you'll be wanting to stay on at least eleven health rather than at least one.
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby setzer777 » Tue Mar 25, 2014 5:10 pm UTC

Yeah, mage is just different in that there's almost no way for a non-mage to guard against direct damage spells. So it's a matter of "how fast will they draw them" rather than "can I survive being unguarded for one turn".

The card advantage thing is a good point, though without clerics I don't think the priest ability is very good at it - outside of spells that hit everything/random targets, most people don't start hurting a minion until they can kill it in one turn. I suppose swinging with a minion and then healing it can help.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
SirBryghtside
Posts: 909
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:42 pm UTC

Re: Hearthstone

Postby SirBryghtside » Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:01 pm UTC

Yeah, Lesser Heal is generally best for when you're trading - getting 1 health minions out of Fireblast range is incredibly useful.
Spambot5546 wrote:Well...who used it? I'd sleep next to Felicia Day's used bacon.


Return to “Gaming”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 8 guests