Support NeoGAF

[Dahbomb]

More on the side of "if you are still learning the game" rather than you have to be high legend every month is what Firebat is really trying to say.

Of course if you are still learning the game and don't know how to play it, then balance should not matter for you. Your priority should be learning the game, not trying to go on forums and talk about meta balance.

However, just making Legend is not even enough. You can make Legend with grinding aggro decks yet still not fully understand the scope of the game. I have seen that happen... I have seen people just starting the game play Secret Paladin and get to Legend rank who didn't really understand the game at a broad scale, they just knew the deck and played stuff on curve.

Skill in Hearthstone is already over stated as it is. Obviously no one should be taking the opinion of a random Redditor on meta balance but putting out a blanket statement like "if you aren't Legend then your opinion on balance is irrelevant" is narrow minded and bordering on elitism. You don't need to be high Legend rank player and have Blizzcon points to know that the Pirate package is busted and should be nerfed. A player at rank 5 can figure that out pretty easily. It might be shocking for people but most people designing Hearthstone aren't actually THAT good at the game (ie. Ben Brode).


In fact, I personally value overall game knowledge and design/balance than player skill when it comes to balance. A lot of pro players across various games are terrible at balancing games. They have an inherent bias when it comes to balancing. They can probably tell you something is strong/weak but their solutions to fix it are usually going to be not the best. If you listened to someone like Trump on HS game balance, then he would have shipped out a ton of broken TGT cards.

Not to mention that being good at a game doesn't automatically make you good at making the game.

This right here basically.

 

[SonicXtreme]

I'm starting to get fed up with this game, every fucking match I'm up against the exact same handful of decks and every non-reno deck has patches and STB.

don't worry ben brode is keeping an eye on it

 

[squidyj]

I disagree, it's almost the opposite.

There's still gotta be more than 5 times the people that stop at rank 5 than go for legend just by following the percentage numbers given by Blizz at the end of the month.
The game could be balanced for a legend player yet dying as a game. They wouldn't notice and wouldn't know what to do to fix it in the first place. Not to mention that being good at a game doesn't automatically make you good at making the game.

you can't balance around the experiences of bad players. there's nothing to work with there. You don't even need to get 50% to hit rank 5.

being good doesn't mean you're right but being bad almost certainly means you're wrong.

 

[Glass Shark]

Is there a list of GAF Hearthstone Battletags so I can add some people? I can't post my Battletag here for... reasons.

 

[Dahbomb]

Good and bad is a very broad skill range especially in HS.

Only 2% of players make rank 5. If you make rank 5 and above you are in the upper 2% of players in the game. In most other competitive games, this would put you at least in the "good" category. Not professional but at the very least well above average.

Only 0.5% players make Legend so we are talking about a 1.5% gap when it comes being "good" and "bad". Hell most players would rightfully argue that you aren't even good unless you are in the top 100 Legend rank category and that's probably closer to 0.1%. And then other players will be like "Nah you have to make top 10 Legend every month to be good in this game".

So Blizzard should be designing and balance a simple, casual children's card game around rank 10 Legend players spamming Shaman on Ladder 15 hours a day? If Blizzard actually did balancing like that then we would have gotten more severe Shaman nerfs at a faster rate. Blizzard like most companies takes balancing at a wider scale and even takes into consideration the experiences of worse players (which IMO they shouldn't be doing but they do and why they are successful). They actually put out stats for Patches/Pirate usage at rank 5 and above.

HS also has the added issues of a terrible Ladder system and the dichotomy of the ladder/tournament system. Tournament HS is a lot different from Ladder yet balancing is almost always targeted towards the Ladder. That actually means that players who are great at tournaments but grind less on Ladder (because they have enough points from actually winning tournaments) should have far less say in Ladder balance. That's extremely dumb to me but that's the reality of the situation we are in.


In reality, the notion that people should not talk about balance in competitive games because they aren't good enough based on some criteria made by X top player just stifles game discussion and the community. What should the community even be talking about then if not about what cards are good and what aren't? Should people not be putting out "card evaluation" videos because they aren't professional players?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

you can't balance around the experiences of bad players. there's nothing to work with there. You don't even need to get 50% to hit rank 5.

being good doesn't mean you're right but being bad almost certainly means you're wrong.

what is this shit? Rank till 5 has little to do with skill and all to do with variance and/or time spent. That doesn't make players that don't get there bad.
You absolutely do balance around the experience of middling players, they are the lifeblood of your game.
Blizzard shouldn't follow the advice of any players but they should listen to the suggestions since they tell them just what their players are discontent with.

 

[Dahbomb]

Stuff like this is why Levi left.

Rest in peace Levi.

 

[Lyng]

Why the hell dont people get punished for using all of their rope?? This shaman kept doing stuff even after the end turn was gone, even still the rope didnt start when he got his new turn.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Firebat bringing a harsh but realistic opinion. Set aside the exact numbers or ranks you ought to hit, his point is very valid. I think his overall point is strong.

Hard to watch this video since twitch keeps stuttering so much for me though.

 

[Lyng]

Firebat on why your opinions about Hearthstone balance are worthless unless you are consistently hitting Legend.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119383423?t=00h28m30s

I agree with him from all the "opinions" posted here, on reddit and the B.Net forums that I've seen since the start of Hearthstone now.

Man he might be good at piloting aggro decks but he sure as shit has zero clue about game design. What a toon.

 

[Lyng]

Firebat bringing a harsh but realistic opinion. Set aside the exact numbers or ranks you ought to hit, his point is very valid. I think his overall point is strong.

Hard to watch this video since twitch keeps stuttering so much for me though.

That would be true for a game where skill is the main factor. In HS time spent is the main factor for whether you hit legend or not. Hitting legend in HS means that you have a shit ton of time on your hands, nothing else.

Beeing in the top of the legend ladder is a different story. But hitting legend itself has very little to do with skill.

 

[Dahbomb]

That would be true for a game where skill is the main factor. In HS time spent is the main factor for whether you hit legend or not. Hitting legend in HS means that you have a shit ton of time on your hands, nothing else.

Beeing in the top of the legend ladder is a different story. But hitting legend itself has very little to do with skill.

That's why he is saying to ignore the actual rank number and focus on Firebat's point.

Firebat's point is that if you are still learning the game then you shouldn't be talking about balance. That goes without saying, it's an obvious point to make. The problem here is that Firebat arbitrarily assigned a rank to "good vs bad" and there's more focus on that than the core point.

 

[Lyng]

That's why he is saying to ignore the actual rank number and focus on Firebat's point.

Firebat's point is that if you are still learning the game then you shouldn't be talking about balance. That goes without saying, it's an obvious point to make. The problem here is that Firebat arbitrarily assigned a rank to "good vs bad" and there's more focus on that than the core point.

Of course there will be more focus on that. It goes without saying that even if your core point is correct, when one throws out as fucking stupid a comment as his then the core point drowns.

 

[Karsticles]

Never forget that Kripp lost to a bot. Hearthstone is rarely a game about skill.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

That would be true for a game where skill is the main factor. In HS time spent is the main factor for whether you hit legend or not. Hitting legend in HS means that you have a shit ton of time on your hands, nothing else.

Beeing in the top of the legend ladder is a different story. But hitting legend itself has very little to do with skill.

The people who have put in the time to hit legend have a far better understanding then people who have only put in enough time to hit rank 5. You're only building his point up, not knocking it down.

 

[Dahbomb]

Forget bots, bots never miss lethals (afaik) and can play on curve. A bot in HS is roughly a rank 6-7 player

It's worse when top players lose to rank 25 players who A) don't even have full collection and B) don't have much of a fundamental knowledge of the game.

Amaz loses to rank 25 player.

Forsen loses to rank 25 player.

And of course I gotta throw in my boy Firebat losing to a rank 25 player.

 

[thepotatoman]

that approach sure worked great for SC2 lol.

if Firebat doesn't mind to close shop and lose out on all the money, then yeah he's right. People don't want to watch games they don't want to play.

No kidding. Hell, just that becoming a common talking point would turn off a lot of people from thinking the game is for them, which certainly happened in SC2.

In a lot of ways, I think when people at lower ranks complain about game balance, it's not people being unhappy with winrates. They just find the things they're often losing to being particularly not fun, and everyone can suggest things they think will make it more fun for them.

There will also always be people that will blame every loss on balance as if they expect 100% winrates doing whatever the hell they want, but when you have the entire community constantly complaining about balance to the levels that SC2 got, and Hearthstone is currently getting, I think it's far more than that.

With SC2, people simply did not like losing to 4 minutes zerg rushes or uncounterable balls of bread and butter units. Doesn't really matter if there were technically ways they could have played better to win. With hearthstone, people really don't like losing to RNG or having the game be decided before turn 5, and they're not big fans of combos that can completely decide games by turn 10 by lucky draws (including Miricle rogue conceal shenanigans and god draws with Jade).

They prefer losing value matches, including those that go to fatigue, and are fine losing to tempo decks as long as they're not so fast that they snowball out of control by turn 2, like Tunnel Trogg or Mana Wyrm.

I would mostly only listen to legend players if the goal is to get winrates of as many deck types as possible to 50/50, but maybe the best design is to generally have the deck that's most fun to play at a 55/45 win percent, and the deck that's least fun to lose against at 45/55. The only way to find which ones are most fun are to see what people below legend are saying, and right now they're saying the deck rankings are 100% opposite to the rankings they want to see.

There's certainly a need for Aggro to keep certain things in check, but the goal should be keeping them to only being used to keep certain things in check, not for having a 50% or greater winrate against all but the one deck which sucks against absolutely everything but aggro. Especially if the ladder system is going to reward them even if they have a less than 50% winrate, and pro gamers/Vicious Syndicate are going to point everyone toward playing the same top rated deck.

 

[Lyng]

The people who have put in the time to hit legend have a far better understanding then people who have only put in enough time to hit rank 5. You're only building his point up, not knocking it down.

Bots have hit legend. If you can hit 5 you can hit legend. The decks and players you meet are the same.
I buy the point when you are a top 100 legend or so. But just hitting legend doesnt mean you have a better understanding then someone who quits at 5 due to time limits. Hearthstone is not a deep enough game to make that assumptions.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Bots have hit legend. If you can hit 5 you can hit legend. The decks and players you meet are the same.
I buy the point when you are a top 100 legend or so. But just hitting legend doesnt mean you have a better understanding then someone who quits at 5 due to time limits. Hearthstone is not a deep enough game to make that assumptions.

I strongly disagree with the statement "if you can hit 5 you can hit legend". Technically, it's true. It is possible to hit legend if you hit rank 5. But not all players will hit rank legend if they hit rank 5, even if they put in the amount of time. Given thousands and thousands of games, yes anyone can hit legend from rank 5. No one, but bots, have that amount of time to put in.

No, they aren't the same players. At rank 5 you can still play against people rank 6-7. I personally think the difference between a rank 1 player and rank 5 player is actually quite large. Rank 5 players can hit that rank quite easily. You don't even need a good deck to hit rank 5. You can even get there with a streak of luck fairly easily due to win streaks.

Rank 5 is only half way towards legend. This has been proven time and time again. Arguing half way is the same as playing at legend... no, sorry. That is not an opinion supported by facts. I don't think rank 5 is the same as hitting legend, nor does it prove that you're good enough to play in legend either. Yes, you can hit rank legend from rank 5. But unless you're already good enough, you're going to have to get better.

I don't understand what drives this mentality to be quite honest. Rank 5 is not as good as hitting rank legend. Yes it takes a lot of time to hit legend from rank 5, but I think that is exasperated by the fact that rank 5->legend takes about as long as hitting rank 5 in the first place.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I usually give up around rank 3 and only do quests for the rest of the month.

 

[Lyng]

I strongly disagree with the statement "if you can hit 5 you can hit legend". Technically, it's true. It is possible to hit legend if you hit rank 5. But not all players will hit rank legend if they hit rank 5, even if they put in the amount of time. Given thousands and thousands of games, yes anyone can hit legend from rank 5. No one, but bots, have that amount of time to put in.

No, they aren't the same players. At rank 5 you can still play against people rank 6-7. I personally think the difference between a rank 1 player and rank 5 player is actually quite large. Rank 5 players can hit that rank quite easily. You don't even need a good deck to hit rank 5. You can even get there with a streak of luck fairly easily due to win streaks.

Rank 5 is only half way towards legend. This has been proven time and time again. Arguing half way is the same as playing at legend... no, sorry. That is not an opinion supported by facts. I don't think rank 5 is the same as hitting legend, nor does it prove that you're good enough to play in legend either. Yes, you can hit rank legend from rank 5. But unless you're already good enough, you're going to have to get better.

I don't understand what drives this mentality to be quite honest. Rank 5 is not as good as hitting rank legend. Yes it takes a lot of time to hit legend from rank 5, but I think that is exasperated by the fact that rank 5->legend takes about as long as hitting rank 5 in the first place.

With a win pct of 53 you will reach legend from 5 on average within 350 games.

 

[Yaboosh]

With a win pct of 53 you will reach legend from 5 on average within 350 games.

Not everybody can have a winrate of 53%. By definition.

 

[squidyj]

clearly if it's possible to lose to rank 25 players there must be not skill involved in the game.

 

[ZealousD]

Today was a good day

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Must have put a priest player on serious tilt. Played Jaraxxus turn 9 then healed myself with Reno and then played the 2nd Jaraxxus I got from a Kabal Courier. Not having to play around burst is nice.

 

[Hachimaki]

Just had a bug happen in an arena match that I was never aware of.

Opponent gets Mistress of Pain from Piloted Shredder and already had Auchenai Soulpriest on the board. Attacked my face and continued to lose -1, -1, -1 until they died.

Also, I'm not sure if I was playing against the "Amaz" though if I was on the receiving end of that bug I'd be annoyed.

 

[Mulgrok]

Don't know why i keep trying to make grimestreet paladin work. Every game is decided in the mulligan phase.

 

[peakish]

Must have put a priest player on serious tilt. Played Jaraxxus turn 9 then healed myself with Reno and then played the 2nd Jaraxxus I got from a Kabal Courier. Not having to play around burst is nice.

Was that the game I specced? The one I watched (if only similar) was neat. So much heal from low health.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Was that the game I specced? The one I watched (if only similar) was neat. So much heal from low health.

Yup. Was deliberating whether to kill the Doomsayer for a long time before I chose to gamble with Ragnaros. Was like a 1 in 7 chance but of course it did, would have lost me the game if my opponent had holy nova.

 

[peakish]

Yup. Was deliberating whether to kill the Doomsayer for a long time before I chose to gamble with Ragnaros. Was like a 1 in 7 chance but of course it did, would have lost me the game if my opponent had holy nova.

It was pretty tight. I honestly didn't spot the lethal so that was cool. Shows I have a lot to improve on still.




In other news, this shouldn't be a thing. #nomore1drops

 

[Keyser Soze]

I am going to try and give something like this a shot this season and see how it works out...

I feel like the 'Violet Illusionist + Brann + Coldlight' combo is solid but underused right now. I am happy to try and use any other deck archetypes, but want to keep that core.

 

[cackhyena]

Why does Shaman get to be so fucking broken?

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Why does Shaman get to be so fucking broken?

Because team 5 cant balance even if their life depended on it.

 

[butts]

Got to 6-0 in arena with warrior and played against a dude who played 4 imp-gang bosses in a row starting on turn 3. WTF

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

With a win pct of 53 you will reach legend from 5 on average within 350 games.

And your point? If you can maintain 53% winrate then you're on average doing better than the majority of people at your rank. You should rank up.

Putting in 350 games vs the guy who didn't put 350 games in. Who do you think is better qualified to talk about balance? That's like 60+ hours of gameplay right there.

 

[manhack]

Amnesia_sc going ham on Blizzard and the meta game.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119648007?t=58m

 

[Keyser Soze]

Cancel my previous post, I just put the 'Violet Illusionist + Brann + Double Coldlight' combo in a Renolock deck. I am yet to regret my decision.

I just won a game against an emote spamming Priest who thought he won with 22 Health left!

 

[boring accountant]

I am going to try and give something like this a shot this season and see how it works out...

I feel like the 'Violet Illusionist + Brann + Coldlight' combo is solid but underused right now. I am happy to try and use any other deck archetypes, but want to keep that core.

Hello. As someone who has played a lot of control or fatigue warrior in prior and present seasons, I don't quite understand the win condition these decks have with so much removal but such little mid-game. Or is this a funky millstone deck with the Brann and Coldlight combo? I'm not sure what one copy of whirlwind over FAE is meant to synergize with either considering you will run ghouls and fish.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Hello. As someone who has played a lot of control or fatigue warrior in prior and present seasons, I don't quite understand the win condition these decks have with so much removal but such little mid-game. Or is this a funky millstone deck with the Brann and Coldlight combo? I'm not sure what one copy of whirlwind over FAE is meant to synergize with either considering you will run ghouls and fish.

Brann, Coldlight, Violet Illusionist is 10 onesided damage once you have reached fatigue and that doesn't count the 5 more they'll get on their turn while you are protected. Whirlwind activates sleep with the fishes for a 3 mana clear.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Amnesia_sc going ham on Blizzard and the meta game.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119648007?t=58m

My decks are the best America has the best decks so say i Trumpnesiac.

He started off well until he channelled his inner Reynoodle.

 

[boring accountant]

Brann, Coldlight, Violet Illusionist is 10 onesided damage once you have reached fatigue and that doesn't count the 5 more they'll get on their turn while you are protected. Whirlwind activates sleep with the fishes for a 3 mana clear.

It's not that I don't see all that. The deck just seems very slow with a lot of reliance on getting certain cards such as Justicar for non-aggro matchups to last that far in the game but then with no card draw but one acolyte. Perhaps a battle rage could some how work. I do realize this is just a concept deck. It is just that I have seen various Fibonacci variations lately and I don't grasp how those pump out enough damage to end the game either. At least if there isn't a second gorehowl.

 

[fertygo]

Amnesiac goes on tilt after he drop to rank 200 from rank 16 at last day race that is how that rant started lol

 

[Dahbomb]

Amnesia_sc going ham on Blizzard and the meta game.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/119648007?t=58m

Only rank 200 Legend, not qualified to talk about balancing in Hearthstone.

 

[JesseZao]

Only rank 200 Legend, not qualified to talk about balancing in Hearthstone.

He's on a downward trend, too. Must be doing something wrong.

 

[Dahbomb]

At least he's right about people feeling shitty whenever spell damage totem is rolled.

 

[Drkirby]

Just had a bug happen in an arena match that I was never aware of.

Opponent gets Mistress of Pain from Piloted Shredder and already had Auchenai Soulpriest on the board. Attacked my face and continued to lose -1, -1, -1 until they died.

Also, I'm not sure if I was playing against the "Amaz" though if I was on the receiving end of that bug I'd be annoyed.

That isn't a bug, but its something that isn't obvious at first glance. The same thing can happen with Wickerflame. The card heals you when ever it does damage, but because the healing is turned into damage by Auchenai, it heals you again, and it keeps going until you are dead.

 

[Keyser Soze]

It's not that I don't see all that. The deck just seems very slow with a lot of reliance on getting certain cards such as Justicar for non-aggro matchups to last that far in the game but then with no card draw but one acolyte. Perhaps a battle rage could some how work. I do realize this is just a concept deck. It is just that I have seen various Fibonacci variations lately and I don't grasp how those pump out enough damage to end the game either. At least if there isn't a second gorehowl.

I am more than happy to admit my deck is in no way ideal. There is not a whole lot of science behind the picks other than wanting a solid control / anti aggro base and hoping to implement the Brann, Coldlight, Violet Illusionist combo. I like control, and that combo is my favorite to pull off, so If I could put them together in a solid deck that has okay success in the current meta I would be happy,

I was looking at Hearthpwn, and saw that only three Warrior decks using the combo were submitted since MSOG, and thought maybe there was a chance to try something a bit different.

 

[A Pretty Panda]

"opinions"

that's cool man

 

[fertygo]

He's on a downward trend, too. Must be doing something wrong.

He ended up in top 60

So eh

 

[Dahbomb]

Every top player thinks they are the best in the Handlock mirror.

We should have a Handlock mirror match exhibition someday among these players like Amnesiac, Zalae, Lifecoach and Reynad who hard about their Handlock days all the time. Settle who is the best Handlock player once and for all.


Amnesiac wants Shaman hero power on set rotation too by the way.