Support NeoGAF

[MisterArrogant]

I saw this interview with Hearthstone devs on IGN the other day:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/03/hearthstone-blizzard-on-naxxramasa-new-cards

I found it a little depressing even the game devs are netdecking. I'd hoped that maybe the guys that designed and tested the game all day long might have some insight into alternate strategies for viable competitive decks... but I guess not. One of the things that burns me out the most on this game is the small selection of viable decks on the competitive ladder. I get bored of seeing and playing the same decks over and over. For those that have played competitively in other CCGs, is it like this in all games? Or will we see a wider array of competitive decks once the card pool expands?

Also, which of the stat tracking programs do people like best? I've seen a few mentioned recently, like HearthStats. I tried HearthTracker a while back and it was pretty flaky at actually consistently tracking games. I eventually gave up on it. Are any of the other ones reliable?

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I saw this interview with Hearthstone devs on IGN the other day:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/03/hearthstone-blizzard-on-naxxramasa-new-cards

I found it a little depressing even the game devs are netdecking. I'd hoped that maybe the guys that designed and tested the game all day long might have some insight into alternate strategies for viable competitive decks... but I guess not. One of the things that burns me out the most on this game is the small selection of viable decks on the competitive ladder. I get bored of seeing and playing the same decks over and over. For those that have played competitively in other CCGs, is it like this in all games? Or will we see a wider array of competitive decks once the card pool expands?

Also, which of the stat tracking programs do people like best? I've seen a few mentioned recently, like HearthStats. I tried HearthTracker a while back and it was pretty flaky at actually consistently tracking games. I eventually gave up on it. Are any of the other ones reliable?

There are really a lot of viable decks. There is a thread on reddit that lists like 20 popular netdecks for this season alone. I personally am running a tempo/midrange deck that is very viable which can be adjusted by a few cards to meet demands against pretty much every deck in the game. I think my worst match up against face hunter is still very winnable and would be more so if I wanted to shift another taunt into the deck.

 

[scy]

For those that have played competitively in other CCGs, is it like this in all games? Or will we see a wider array of competitive decks once the card pool expands?

It depends. Generally speaking, there's one or two top decks of the format (aka, the decks to beat) and a few lesser popular ones here and there and then the zany brews. Many times, top 8s will be 3-4 different decks.

Personally, netdecking is a healthy thing for a game. It's what kind of breeds innovation as the entire meta game focuses on the big decks. It creates this kind of "closed" environment.

 

[Lyng]

I just had a Zoo matchup. He had more higher cost stuff like Leeroy and such, but I blew him out the water.

I am not such a big fan of Leeroy in Zoo, he can quiet easily become a dead card in your hand.

On the topic of Zoo I had a zoo lock who conceded on turn 3 to my miracle. As soon as he saw my mana addict. Was a bit strange to witness.

 

[sohois]

I saw this interview with Hearthstone devs on IGN the other day:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/03/hearthstone-blizzard-on-naxxramasa-new-cards

I found it a little depressing even the game devs are netdecking. I'd hoped that maybe the guys that designed and tested the game all day long might have some insight into alternate strategies for viable competitive decks... but I guess not. One of the things that burns me out the most on this game is the small selection of viable decks on the competitive ladder. I get bored of seeing and playing the same decks over and over. For those that have played competitively in other CCGs, is it like this in all games? Or will we see a wider array of competitive decks once the card pool expands?

Also, which of the stat tracking programs do people like best? I've seen a few mentioned recently, like HearthStats. I tried HearthTracker a while back and it was pretty flaky at actually consistently tracking games. I eventually gave up on it. Are any of the other ones reliable?

A big part of it is the relatively small number of cards that Hearthstone has. The more cards are added, the more decks that are possible. One should also consider the simplicity of Hearthstone compared to the likes of MtG or YGO limits decks as well

 

[Lyng]

Yup. As soonas we get more mechanics in Heathstone there will be a bigger array of viable decks.

 

[Kosma]

Time to stop ranked for a week or two.

 

[call_kotaku]

I don't understand the stigma against netdecking, isn't it how every competitive card game works? Atleast it doesn't take thousands of dollars in Hearthstone to be able to keep up with the meta.

If anything I think the ease of matchmaking, the lack of a direct "pay for cards" F2P model, and the limited player interaction on ladder all encourage people to grind, and they choose the most braindead decks instead of necessarily the strongest ones. Decks like huntard or zoo are popular not just because they're effective but because they can be pretty mindless depending on which variety you run.

I imagine the social aspect of actually showing up to play people in person would be an important part of CCGs, even if it's sometimes unpleasant.

 

[Ashodin]

netdecking basically means there's zero thought into creating a deck and testing out combos because there's a superior deck out there

 

[BurnOutBrighter]

Holy crap the Kill Command art is awful. Looks like a pencil sketch. Don't know how it made it into the game.

 

[IceMarker]

Holy crap the Kill Command art is awful. Looks like a pencil sketch. Don't know how it made it into the game.

Trivia: It's the Penny Arcade artists.

 

[Copenap]

netdecking basically means there's zero thought into creating a deck and testing out combos because there's a superior deck out there

Yes and no.

"Casual" players (like us) that are netdecking can increase the overall level of play as even average Joe runs a deck that can beat the best and out of an overall higher level of play it is more likely that really good players emerge.

At the same time, if everyone is running netdecks there is a larger incentive to create new decks that beat these netdecks and thus this can lead to more innovation until everyone jumps to the new improved version and the cycle repeats. And this is exactly what we haven seen since the release.

 

[ViviOggi]

Holy crap the Kill Command art is awful. Looks like a pencil sketch. Don't know how it made it into the game.

Maybe they didn't want to hurt the Penny Arcade guy's feelings. He also made the questionable Leeroy artwork but at least put some effort into the coloring on that one.

 

[scy]

netdecking basically means there's zero thought into creating a deck and testing out combos because there's a superior deck out there

Here's the thing: Most the "fuck netdecks, I'll play my own" brews don't have much thought in them either. This is where my problem with the whole "fuck netdeckers" attitude comes from, I suppose.

Edit: To be a little more precise, many times these decks don't have much thought towards the meta in them. It's one thing to think of fun combos and strategies, sure, but a lot of times they seem to ignore how the deck would actually do against other decks.

 

[call_kotaku]

netdecking basically means there's zero thought into creating a deck and testing out combos because there's a superior deck out there

If someone isn't interested in spending time figuring out their own personal deck, I don't see why they should. Plenty of people run wacky stuff in casual, though. In fact it's surprising when you see a tryhard deck like Hunter aggro which is designed to grind ranked.

Maybe Blizzard should introduce some sort of limited format with dust caps or some other limitation for the decks people use, sort of like a cross between Arena and traditional drafts. Not necessarily to appease people who think the game is P2W, but just to add constraints to try and encourage creative deck-building. Personally I think how fast the meta moves and how quickly decks are getting specialized is better than the earlier days where everyone just ran the good neutrals.

 

[bjaelke]

---


Artosis v Savjz in the OGN Hearthstone invitationals final: http://www.twitch.tv/ogn_hearthstone

 

[Yobalt]

Holy crap the Kill Command art is awful. Looks like a pencil sketch. Don't know how it made it into the game.

There is a lot of questionable artwork in the game. Kill Command and Blood Knight are probably the worst of them though.

 

[Card Boy]

Holy crap the Kill Command art is awful. Looks like a pencil sketch. Don't know how it made it into the game.

Yeah Kill Command looks garbage its the only art work i really hate and it doesnt fit with the rest of the cards. Hoggers minions might be a close second for me.

 

[ViviOggi]

Savjz's reaction

to Twisting Nether just now, lmao

Yolo Rag still secures the win though.

 

[call_kotaku]

wow miracle rogue is the most yolo thing ever. You only have 2-3 sources of burst in order to win games and if you don't draw your combo before turn 6 you'll most likely lose

 

[Szadek]

Yesterday Nat Pagle,I also crafted Edwin VanCleef(many epics had to die).

Mircale Rogue is so much fun to play.

 

[Q8D3vil]

If anyone play this game this game on the European server add me if you want to play some friendly games.
Devil#2966

 

[Newline]

Finally got the kitkat warrior deck. Finished last season at rank 4, going to push for Legendary this month with this deck:

Edit: been playing since open beta.

 

[Lyng]

Yesterday Nat Pagle,I also crafted Edwin VanCleef(many epics had to die).

Mircale Rogue is so much fun to play.

I actually swapped Nat for a Coldlight oracle. Have been getting more consistent results after that. You are guaranteed the card draw and you suddenly have a minion that can inflict damage.

Actually Nat has been dissapearing more and more from all my decks.

 

[Water]

Could you guys please recommend me individual strategy/analysis articles or videos, especially for arena? I want to find the best, deepest material there is, whether it's on drafting, in-game plays, or developing as a player long term. Top-notch material on low-cost constructed, high end constructed or even other games is also fine as long as there's interesting stuff there that can be at least somewhat applied to arena. Nothing is too "dry" to recommend, I'm looking for maximum theorycrafting and geekery. For example, if you've seen someone applying probability math in their analysis, I want to hear about it

Already read and used Trump's and Antigrav1ty's arena rankings / drafting valuation guides.

 

[StMeph]

I found it a little depressing even the game devs are netdecking. I'd hoped that maybe the guys that designed and tested the game all day long might have some insight into alternate strategies for viable competitive decks... but I guess not. One of the things that burns me out the most on this game is the small selection of viable decks on the competitive ladder. I get bored of seeing and playing the same decks over and over. For those that have played competitively in other CCGs, is it like this in all games? Or will we see a wider array of competitive decks once the card pool expands?

This is inevitable.

Even in the best-designed games, the player base moves faster and is just better at the game than the designers/developers are. This isn't even really exclusive to CCGs either, basically anything with a competitive PvP meta fits.

There are people who spend ridiculous amounts of time on a game, who are also very very good at it. Designers/devs just can't compete.

 

[zoukka]

Actually Nat has been dissapearing more and more from all my decks.

Drop Nat against midrange hunter and they will cry.

 

[Kosma]

Drop Nat against midrange hunter and they will cry.

Hunters never cry

 

[MonorailCat]

omg, Control Warrior is THE most annoying deck to play against with my deck.
Games take ages and it's just overall frustrating to play against 50+ health,

 

[Defuso]

Drop Nat against midrange hunter and they will cry.

Why should they? Its no real threat and will likely end in 0:1 or 1:1 and only rarely 1+x:1. End the conters are numerous...

 

[Bizazedo]

omg, Control Warrior is THE most annoying deck to play against with my deck.
Games take ages and it's just overall frustrating to play against 50+ health,

It's the deck I have the most fun using. Eyeballing Kitkatz version above, though, makes me wonder. I'd adjusted mine a bit after I picked it up (Ysera I dropped weeks ago, but have 2 Faceless and 2 Azure Drakes instead of reducing armorsmith by 1 and the Kor'kron).

I dunno about Gorehowl and Black Knight, though. Been getting a lotta mileage out of Harrison Jones instead. Might be a neat variant to try, though, and probably works a lot better against Zoo than mine does (which is probably why it's better).

***

Been playing with an admittedly trollish Rogue deck. 2 Vanish, 2 Saps, 2 Kidnappers, Malygos, two Coldlight Oracles (including a gold one). No Leeroy, not even very many minions.

It's actually been winning more than it's been losing .

 

[I'm an expert]

Gorehowl has been the most game changing card for my entire Hearth career. Playing my control war without it..gah..

 

[CoolOff]

So, why can an Ancient of War be silenced but a Druid of the Claw can't? The texts are the same?

 

[inky]

So, why can an Ancient of War be silenced but a Druid of the Claw can't? The texts are the same?

Because Druid of the Claw transforms into different monsters (different cards: cat/bear) and Ancient of War does not, it just adds stats/an effect to the same base minion.

 

[Minsc]

Yeah, Druid of the Claw transforms to another card entirely, it doesn't get "+2 health" it becomes a 4/6 card, much like a polymorph or hex or faceless manipulator makes a card an entirely new one (you can't silence a hex'd/faceless/polymorph back to the original card). If you sap it or return it to hand, when it is played again they cannot switch its form any longer like with the original card where you can pick.

Druid of the Claw can still be silenced of course, it will lose taunt if you silence it, as that is an ability on the card (or lose charge if you silence the 4/4 version).

 

[CoolOff]

But if you Alarm-o-bot a DOTC it becomes a 4/4 without charge, so there's clearly a "base minion" there somewhere.

How is rooted/uprooted different from bear/cat?

 

[Minsc]

But if you Alarm-o-bot a DOTC it becomes a 4/4 without charge, so there's clearly a "base minion" there somewhere.

How is rooted/uprooted different from bear/cat?

Yeah, the base minion is a 4/4. When you play the base minion (from your hand with mana crystals), the ability triggers and it replaces itself with a 4/4 charge or a 4/6 taunt card that is an entirely new card and can't ever go back to the base card. So everything is working correctly. Alarm-o-bot doesn't trigger battlecries or things that take place upon playing a card, hence you can Alarm-o-bot a Jaraxxus and it stays on the board as a 3/15 minion.

Rooted/uprooted is a buff, and the forms for the Ancient are all the same card. If an Ancient is returned to hand it can be rebuffed either way upon casting again.

 

[inky]

But if you Alarm-o-bot a DOTC it becomes a 4/4 without charge, so there's clearly a "base minion" there somewhere.

How is rooted/uprooted different from bear/cat?

There is a base version, but alarmo bot doesn't trigger the change so that is what you get. Like Minsc says, it works similarly to how Faceless Manipulator does, which also has a base version and that 3/3 version can be played if there is nothing else to copy, or doesn't trigger an effect when alarmo-botted in.

Rooted/uprooted is a buff to the base minion, Druid of the Claw bear or cat form is not, it's changing to a completely different minion. Alarmo bot jus doesn't trigger that change.

 

[CoolOff]

And that takes me back to my original question; how are these two cards different?

 

[slayn]

People will come up with different reasons and excuses, but I'm pretty sure all it amounts to is that they wanted druid of the claw to have different artwork for the two forms, and in their game engine that means it behaves like unique cards, which makes it mechanically inconsistent.

It's silly, but not going to change. You silence each once and learn the inconsistency and then you know.

 

[PsionBolt]

There are several little ways in which the text in Hearthstone is inconsistent, misleading, or just plain incorrect. I've more or less learned to stop complaining about it, because no one else seems to care, and most seem to think I shouldn't either.

 

[inky]

Well, the idea was to keep the text consistent within the class: "Choose One" appears in different Druid cards and has different effects.

They don't have many cards that behave like Druid of the Claw, so instead of having a specific text effect for just that one (something like Shapeshift), they decided to keep them all the same, for the sake of simplicity. If they ever release a line of Shapeshifting cards they'll probably go back and change the text is what I think.

I don't really see the big deal to be honest. The text might throw you off the first time, but that's it.

 

[Minsc]

And that takes me back to my original question; how are these two cards different?

Hearthstone doesn't always properly explain the intricacies of a case on the text on the face of it. Lord Jaraxxus is an example of that, it does a lot more than is written on the face of the card.

This is what your Druid of the Claw looks like in Bear form. It follows the rules perfectly, silencing the above card would result in a 4/6 creature. What you're nit-picking over is that the Druid of the Claw is actually 3 cards while Ancient of War is just 1 card, and that isn't clear by the face text of DotC, but that's what it is. Same as Jaraxxus isn't at all clear with its text either.

Edit: And to be fair, if you're in a position to silence a DotC, you're never going to see the graphic you linked, you'll see the one I linked... So I'm not sure why you'd expect it to become a 4/4, when it's clearly a 4/6 creature when you are looking at it on the board. Silencing never turns a card in to a different card.

I don't really see the big deal to be honest. The text might throw you off the first time, but that's it.

The text should never throw you off, because you won't be seeing the "Choose One" text when you look at the card on the board you are silencing.

 

[slayn]

Hearthstone doesn't always properly explain the intricacies of a case on the text on the face of it

Which will forever annoy people who care about 'correctness' and we shouldn't be surprised that these cards will be complained about for as long as the game is played.

I think part of it is that in a real card game, the exact words and grammar used are everything. The people playing the game have to read the card independently and come to the exact same conclusion on all details or else you have a problem.

As a digital card game, hearthstone can get away with bad wording because there is an ever present judge (the game engine) presiding over all cards at all times. That still doesn't really mean that having incorrect wording is good, or acceptable, but merely that it can have incorrect wording and still function.

 

[Minsc]

Which will forever annoy people who care about 'correctness' and we shouldn't be surprised that these cards will be complained about for as long as the game is played.

I think part of it is that in a real card game, the exact words and grammar used are everything. The people playing the game have to read the card independently and come to the exact same conclusion on all details or else you have a problem.

As a digital card game, hearthstone can get away with bad wording because there is an ever present judge (the game engine) presiding over all cards at all times. That still doesn't really mean that having incorrect wording is good, or acceptable, but merely that it can have incorrect wording and still function.

When you are playing the game though, if you look at the creature before silencing it, you will see it is a 4/6 creature though, like I mentioned above. I'm just pointing out that it is completely consistent and nothing should throw you off when you go to silence it. You do not see the 4/4 "Choose One" card on the board when you are silencing it. Ancient of War will still display as a "Choose One" card, and you will see the buff chosen listed in the card's hover text, so you know it can be silenced. This is not the case with DotC, so you know the card cannot be silenced away in its health.

I agree they are a lot looser with things like you say, but in this case the person doing the silence should not be surprised about the outcome imo, when looking at the card currently on the board they are silencing.

 

[inky]

The text should never throw you off, because you won't be seeing the "Choose One" text when you look at the card on the board you are silencing.

Well, I meant for the one playing it, who might be expecting it to be Silenced or maybe Sapped. I can see someone at least expecting to get their 4/4 with effect back if they didn't hover over the newly created minion in the board, but when it is Sapped they don't.

But like I said, only the first time.

 

[slayn]

When you are playing the game though, if you look at the creature before silencing it, you will see it is a 4/6 creature though, like I mentioned above. I'm just pointing out that it is completely consistent and nothing should throw you off when you go to silence it. You do not see the 4/4 "Choose One" card on the board when you are silencing it.

I agree they are a lot looser with things like you say, but in this case the person doing the silence should not be surprised about the outcome imo, when looking at the card currently on the board they are silencing.

The inconsistency isn't with silencing the druid of the claw bear form. The inconsistency is the ancient of war card creating a silenceable minion while the druid of the claw card does not. No one who reads those cards could predict that and anyone who plays each one for the first time will be surprised that that is the case. No one who only read every card but hadn't yet played them would come to the conclusion that it works the way it does. The words on the cards do not communicate what they actually do.

 

[sohois]

Could you guys please recommend me individual strategy/analysis articles or videos, especially for arena? I want to find the best, deepest material there is, whether it's on drafting, in-game plays, or developing as a player long term. Top-notch material on low-cost constructed, high end constructed or even other games is also fine as long as there's interesting stuff there that can be at least somewhat applied to arena. Nothing is too "dry" to recommend, I'm looking for maximum theorycrafting and geekery. For example, if you've seen someone applying probability math in their analysis, I want to hear about it

Already read and used Trump's and Antigrav1ty's arena rankings / drafting valuation guides.

Ihearthu has some good arena guides from Vivifrage worth checking out, but otherwise you aren't going to find much better.

 

[Minsc]

The inconsistency isn't with silencing the druid of the claw bear form. The inconsistency is the ancient of war card creating a silenceable minion while the druid of the claw card does not. No one who reads those cards could predict that and anyone who plays each one for the first time will be surprised that that is the case. No one who only read every card but hadn't yet played them would come to the conclusion that it works the way it does. The words on the cards do not communicate what they actually do.

Correct, but when you go to play a DotC, I do believe you are shown two (clearly) unique, different minion cards, not the same card with different buff text. When you go to play an AoW, you are shown the same card with the choice of two buffs (or shown the two buffs perhaps, i forgot, not two different minions like with DotC), so there is some degree of clarity on the playing side of the card as well, before the card is played (as you can cancel out of playing it after seeing the choices).

Ysera is another example, perhaps better than DotC, because when you play or play against a Ysera, all you see is you get to draw a "Dream" card. No where does it indicate to you or your opponent what a dream card is or could be. At least with DotC / AoW, it does indicate to both players to some extent what will / has happened imo.

 

[slayn]

Ysera is another example, perhaps better than DotC, because when you play or play against a Ysera, all you see is you get to draw a "Dream" card. No where does it indicate to you or your opponent what a dream card is or could be. At least with DotC / AoW, it does indicate to both players to some extent what will / has happened imo.

Which I dislike as well. While I wouldn't expect all 5 dream cards to be written into the card text itself, you should be able to hover over Ysera and bring up a list of all possible dream cards. I remember really disliking the fact that the first time I had Ysera played against me I had to google the card to see what it would actually do. (I ran out of time on my turn and lost the game because I couldn't play around a card the game didn't explain to me. Which is a really shitty feeling).

Basically I would say any card that you can't 100% understand and predict all behavior just from reading it in your 'my collection' screen is handled poorly and you should expect to see complaints about them.