Hearthstone
- Thread starter Azrayne
- Start date
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,359
- 50,391
I don't see it. I guess if you're running azure instead of ivory knight?
- 1
- 10,502
- 54,142
I've been playing around with Secret Hunter, it's pretty funny and seems legit so far. People seem to have no idea how to react when you're running more than just freezing and explosive trap. A combination of cat trick and snipe means they can't play anything without having something bad happen for them. Plus the synergy with eaglehorn bow, secret keeper and avian watcher is nice too. I've got barnes in there too, the only really poor minion to summon from barnes is avian watcher actually.
It's really similar to this: Thijs's Legend secret hunter - Hearthstone Decks
Except I did -2 Houndmasters, -2 Snake Traps, -1 Freezing Trap -1 King's Elekk (I find it has negative synergy with Barnes)
I added +2 Avian Watchers, +2 Cat Trick, +1 Quick Shot, +1 Dart Trap
Weakness is definitely card draw, but that seems to be pretty common with most hunter lists. Unless you do some UTH with cult master combo's I don't see too many good ways around that, and that combo is only effective against a few decks.
It's really similar to this: Thijs's Legend secret hunter - Hearthstone Decks
Except I did -2 Houndmasters, -2 Snake Traps, -1 Freezing Trap -1 King's Elekk (I find it has negative synergy with Barnes)
I added +2 Avian Watchers, +2 Cat Trick, +1 Quick Shot, +1 Dart Trap
Weakness is definitely card draw, but that seems to be pretty common with most hunter lists. Unless you do some UTH with cult master combo's I don't see too many good ways around that, and that combo is only effective against a few decks.
- 1
- 17,781
- 25,896
- 17,781
- 25,896
With all the traps and huntress you could try lock n load for a little bit of draw.
- 1
There don't need to be counters to everything. If there was, gameplay would be one big rock-paper-scissors festival where you either run the counter and can win, or don't and can't. There are things you can do against any type of deck that helps against it, but it won't usually provide a hardcounter except for extreme fringe cases like Freeze Mage vs. Control Warrior. Instead of going this route, Hearthstone has a surprisingly precise microgame (when/how to trade, where to aim your spells etc.) and a less elaborate macrogame (how to plan future turns, when to hold back cards in order to get more value later, etc.) to the point where the game is almost all micro and 90% of decks are curvestone snoozefests where both players simply play the best shit they have on curve and hope they drew better than the opponent. Freeze Mage is one of the only exceptions to this, which makes it such a valuable deck to have in the game.
I don't think decks like this are particularly less interactive than aggro decks where you just push for maximum aggression and face damage every turn. You might interact more with your opponent's minions in such a matchup, but is this really better? The trades are usually obvious to the point where there's no real decisionmaking to be had, and the outcome will depend on whether or not the aggressor drew more aggressive cards than the defender drew answers. Often it's as simple as "do you have a board clear or heal on turn five? If so, you win. If not, I win." Freeze Mage is a deck that's all about planning, utilizing your resources well, and finding a very careful balance between using your burn spells to stay alive and having enough burn to actually win. The opponent has to constantly evaluate whether to play more minions or hold back in order to not lose to board clears, while still pushing enough face damage to pop the mage's block, and constant decisionmaking to preserve every point of health that you can as each little fraction of your life is so important against Freeze Mage.
In nearly every match involving this deck, careful decisionmaking ends up determining whether the mage can Alexstrasza offensively on turn 9 or has to use it to heal himself, whether he can squeeze enough damage in between two blocks, buy an extra turn with freeze effects and win, etc. There's literally no RNG in the deck and every turn is full of difficult decisions. There isn't a whole lot on the board to interact with, but if this is your criterion for whether or not a deck is interesting, it sounds like you don't have an appreciation for the deeper elements of card games. Freeze Mage plays a lot like a M:TG deck, which is something Hearthstone has been lacking in its flood of aggro and tempo decks that mindlessly play on curve and just rely on minions with inflated stats.
- 1
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
I don't have a big problem with Hearthstone, it is what it is. I do think there is a massive flaw with its design but it can't be fixed. Before describing the flaw, we need to decide what is the end goal.. what is the holy grail of an online card game like Hearthstone.
Too slow/Controlly = Boring
Too fast/Aggro = Stressful
Tempostone = RNG-fest
No meta is the holy grail, instead what people want is to be able to have more control over the outcome, to display skill rather than luck, to require brainpower over RNG.
----
The biggest flaw is the fact it's a dumbed down card game. Drawing cards is RNG and pigeonholes your options. Other games (Magic) seem to get around this by allowing actions during the opponents turn (I never played Magic btw so don't know the lingo).
What would this game look like if we eliminated the draw mechanic entirely. You had 30 cards at your disposal and were only gated by mana? I think it would be an interesting experiment, perhaps a future Brawl mode they could implement. It would become a much more strategic game imo.
Problem with a game like that is it's not accessible to a large audience. It becomes a highly strategic puzzle game (like chess) and most people can't be fussed with highly strategic puzzles.
So Hearthstone is going to be what it is, a dumbed down game that offers moments of glee as you RNG your way to victory.
----
Not saying Hearthstone can't have strategic elements, but a highly strategic deck like Patron or Freeze Mage will still lose to the dumber decks nearly 50% of the time. It's hard to highlight "skill" in this game.
It's also why I enjoy it as a very casual deck building game and can't be arsed to grind games for rank.
Too slow/Controlly = Boring
Too fast/Aggro = Stressful
Tempostone = RNG-fest
No meta is the holy grail, instead what people want is to be able to have more control over the outcome, to display skill rather than luck, to require brainpower over RNG.
----
The biggest flaw is the fact it's a dumbed down card game. Drawing cards is RNG and pigeonholes your options. Other games (Magic) seem to get around this by allowing actions during the opponents turn (I never played Magic btw so don't know the lingo).
What would this game look like if we eliminated the draw mechanic entirely. You had 30 cards at your disposal and were only gated by mana? I think it would be an interesting experiment, perhaps a future Brawl mode they could implement. It would become a much more strategic game imo.
Problem with a game like that is it's not accessible to a large audience. It becomes a highly strategic puzzle game (like chess) and most people can't be fussed with highly strategic puzzles.
So Hearthstone is going to be what it is, a dumbed down game that offers moments of glee as you RNG your way to victory.
----
Not saying Hearthstone can't have strategic elements, but a highly strategic deck like Patron or Freeze Mage will still lose to the dumber decks nearly 50% of the time. It's hard to highlight "skill" in this game.
It's also why I enjoy it as a very casual deck building game and can't be arsed to grind games for rank.
- 1
- 1
Mures
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 4,014
- 511
I used to think "skill" in hs was a joke and then I watched Ostkaka win the world championship last year. Of course it is a lot of rng in card draw by both you and your opponent, but there is a lot of skill involved in knowing what and when to play around.
- 1
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,359
- 50,391
The problem is that 9 times out of 10 (or maybe 99 out of 100) that skill doesn't matter. It's satisfying as hell when it does matter, but it generally doesn't. Or I should say, the skill difference between a competent player and a high level tourney player.
- 1
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
I find the biggest skill is in the deck building, what you bring to the tournaments, how you build the deck, your foresight into what the meta might be, etc. After that, yes, there is "skill" in a sense but it's also gated by RNG. There are actions that seem skillful but after playing Hearthstone so long they really aren't that special.
Edit: Took too long to post, but yea, what Mr. Sparkle says.
- 1
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,359
- 50,391
Most of the time that high level skill makes a difference, it's in figuring out your best chance to get out of a bad situation and then just hoping things go your way. One of the best examples I can give of this is several months ago I was playing hunter and staring down a nasty board against zoo. I was about to concede when it clicked in that animal companion into Misha plus some other RNG element going my way (Deadly shot maybe? I forget exactly what) would keep me alive a turn if he didn't have extra damage in hand. I won both RNGs and went on to win the game. So while it still ultimately came down to RNG, skill is what let me recognize that I even had a chance to stay in the game.
- 1
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
Also seems like getting Legend has more to do with assessing the meta and playing the correct counter-decks then actually grinding games.... The grind will work eventually after so many games, but getting it quickly is about your "skill" in assessing the meta.
Of course I've yet to get Legeng (best is Rank 1), so I'm terrible at it I know Sparkle got Legend with his Fatigue Warr at a time when most people were playing/experimenting with crap that it steamrolled.
Of course I've yet to get Legeng (best is Rank 1), so I'm terrible at it
I know Sparkle got Legend with his Fatigue Warr at a time when most people were playing/experimenting with crap that it steamrolled.- 1
DiddleySquat
Bronze Knight of the Realm
- 458
- 17
Most significant choice you have in a game is probably your mulligan. During the rest of the game, there are few meaningful choices. Too few to make it a game of skill on a significant level. Makes it a great game to multitask though.
- 1
Mures
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 4,014
- 511
Great game to multitask if you don't plan on getting past rank 4. You need to keep track of what your opponent plays to make informed decisions on what your best play is. Not just what card he played, but what cards he didn't play like if he didn't play a lot of early minions and you're semi-low on health wondering if you need to heal chances are you do because his hand was full of burst damage. You miss too much if you're multitasking. And if you're not making good decisions past rank 4 you aren't going to have >50% win rate.
- 1
- 16,385
- 7,388
I don't think counters need to be that strong. I mentioned Loatheb or Secret Eater, but no way do they need to be THAT powerful. I'll admit it's not a completely thought out idea, more just a reaction to inability to not play into bad turns due to tempo loss. I play a lot of arena and that turn 7 decision versus mage happens very often. It sucks when your "choice" is either play into flamestrike or lose 4-7 mana worth of tempo. I want cards to help mitigate that. The only option now is going faster, and I don't think anyone wants that.
You mention all these decisions an opponent has versus freeze mage. And while I agree with them in theory, in practice they don't happen nearly as much nor are they as pivotal. Learning not to play into frost nova + doomsayer on turn 5 is as complicated as making the correct trades. The frustrating part is sitting on turn 5 and essentially not doing anything. Hero powering a turn away just feels bad. Wouldn't it be better if you had 3 choices, maybe a soft counter to frost nova, instead of 2 bad ones?
Also, fuck off with your condescending remarks about what I don't understand or appreciate. I appreciate them just fine. But just as other have pointed out above me, I understand that they are largely undermined by RNG(draw and otherwise). What I don't understand is that we're basically both arguing the same point: more meaningful choices. I'm arguing from the aspect that playing against XYZ sucks, give me more tools to fight it. And it doesn't have to be direct counter either. Cards like tracking can be indirect counters to a lot of situations.
- 1
Ravishing
Uninspiring Title
- 8,452
- 3,577
On reddit there have been a couple topics that sprung up about "strategic choice".
There's been some decent ideas on how to make the game more skillful...
Reynad on Micro Decisions:
Positional Spells:
TL;DR/DW:
Micro Decisions such as Tracking with some variances, such as putting 3 cards on top of your deck in a specific order. The Discover mechanic is a micro decision and has been hailed as a very favored mechanic.
Positional Spells such as Cone of Cold, Betrayal, etc. Requires you to be skillful on board positioning.
Stuff like this would amp up the skill requirements of the game. I remember when Mage had Cone of Cold (pre-nerf) and it was very pertinent to position your guys correctly, also Faerie Dragon was a nice tech choice to protect some of your board.
There's been some decent ideas on how to make the game more skillful...
Reynad on Micro Decisions:
Positional Spells:
TL;DR/DW:
Micro Decisions such as Tracking with some variances, such as putting 3 cards on top of your deck in a specific order. The Discover mechanic is a micro decision and has been hailed as a very favored mechanic.
Positional Spells such as Cone of Cold, Betrayal, etc. Requires you to be skillful on board positioning.
Stuff like this would amp up the skill requirements of the game. I remember when Mage had Cone of Cold (pre-nerf) and it was very pertinent to position your guys correctly, also Faerie Dragon was a nice tech choice to protect some of your board.
- 1