Anyone agreeing with Flux's position should read up on The Onion's amicus brief to Novak v City of Parma. It is a spirited (and hilarious) defense of parody and why it is unnecessary to disclaim that something is a joke.
The Onion itself is an exemplar of presenting absurdity as fact. Sure, that's technically "misinformation", but it's misinformation that should be allowed and enjoyed by those of us with a sense of humor.
Those without a sense of humor should not be trying to ruin the fun for the rest of us by advocating the banning of parody.
Do you have to click on all the individual achievements to get the XP from them? Or is the XP awarded automatically with the new patch? I clicked on all of them anyway, just in case, but man it's such a boring task to do so. Would like to know for reference for future expansions...
"Therefore, in edge situations where a creature belonging to a certain Tribe decides to embrace the sealife, Team 5 has always given priority to the latter."
Why is control never allowed a time to shine, but Pirate Warrior and Questline Hunter get to dominate the meta for multiple expansion cycles? It's ridiculous and so frustrating for a control player like me, to have to lose over and over to these decks that are zero fun to play against.
Making such a massive change, bigger deck and health, would likely destroy aggro decks as a playstyle. Destroying fundamental gameplay is not a good idea.
I already know that a lot of the player base don't care about Wild nor Wild players, and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it's pretty shitty for people that don't play the mode (The same could go for the duels quest, but I'm biased about it because I enjoy the mode).
1. You are definitely complaining.
2. You see that you are biased, yet you complain about it anyway.
3. It's not about other players not caring about Wild. It's about Wild not being a money-making game mode for Blizzard, so there's no reason to reward playing it. In fact, I'm sure Blizzard sees Wild as a necessary evil and would prefer it if no one played Wild.
4. Newer players are completely unfamiliar with Wild cards, and they certainly don't own any.
5. You don't even have to win the games. Just put some random Core cards together and collect your free packs, you ingrate.
Why this hostile tone? They aren't asking for a Wild-only quest; they specifically suggested a "Ranked" quest that would be Wild- and Standard-agnostic. This alternative would basically harm nobody, while being more inclusive for the players who prefer Wild.
There's no particular reason that the best decks in Wild have to be all about face damage. It's perfectly possible for the Hearthstone team to give us stronger control tools and make face damage weaker. They've previously stated they want their game to be more "fun and interactive" - surely they haven't entirely abandoned that design goal? So I think it's a legitimate complaint that Wild mode is often not fun, not interactive, and could be improved in those aspects with some targeted nerfs.
Everyone is playing Odd Questline Hunter in Wild, a stupidly oppressive deck, and they haven't done anything to curb its power? It's so boring and frustrating to play against and control decks autolose against it. Please do something, Blizzard!
"Being Cast When Drawn spells, Fel Rifts are effectively free card draw, which means more resources for you and less chances to end up with an empty hand."
How is this the case? If I draw one card, and it happens to be a Fel Rift, it merely replaces itself in your hand; I end up with a single new card in my hand either way. It doesn't hold back the emptying of your hand at all?
Any indication how many players selected Alliance/Horde? And was there any mention of scaling honor points by the end of the season according to the number of players who chose either faction? Because it's not much of a contest if 80% of players choose one of the factions, especially since one favors faster-grind and budget-friendly aggro decks, while the other encourages longer games (so, fewer honor points earned over time).
I am hoping so hard that Alliance wins. Not for any lore reasons, but because I will not be able to bear it if Diamond Drek'thar serves as a constant reminder that Hearthstone favors aggro. They'd better give control decks some decent support this expansion, because between the ridiculous unanswerable Druid boards, Mr Smite, and uninteractive face-burning questlines, I'm finding it harder and harder to have fun playing this game, while being frustrated and saddened that the hundreds of dollars I've invested in getting cool late-game legendaries are going completely to waste.
To be fair, we bring up years-old Hearthstone quotes to declare that we agree with them, which is the exact opposite to cancelling people over careless statements on social media that we disagree with. We agree that Hearthstone should be "fun and interactive", and are disappointed that the preponderance of face-damage spells, unstoppable early aggro boards, and game-ending quests has made the game less so.
I feared this meta and the utter shafting of the control archetype before the set released, based on the strength of the non-interactive questlines. Consider:
- Warlock: All self-damage now burns the opponent's face instead.
- Mage: +3 spell damage to burn the opponent's face
- Shaman: Double all face-burning spells and obscenely boost your hero's windfury attacks to smash the opponent's face
- Hunter: Constantly refresh your free hero power; sure you could use it to clear minions, but why do that when you can just burn the opponent's face
- Druid: Copy Guff and keep attacking the opponent's face
- Demon Hunter: Make your draws cheaper to more easily pull off your Il'gynoth OTK and wreck the opponent's face
- Priest: Control can do nothing against this before you inevitably draw a card that effectively says "Deal infinite damage to the opponent's face".
Blizzard could have designed more of the questlines to help you control the board and improve your survivability without incentivising pure face damage. Instead, control decks have to sit there helplessly until their face gets burned off. Control against any of the above questlines is pretty much an automatic loss, and it's the exact opposite of "fun and interactive".
"We have plans to introduce new archetypes, some of which will definitely be non-aggro"
"some of which"... implying most of the new archetypes are not non-aggro. Would be disappointing if so - aggro has already enjoyed dominance for much of Hearthstone's history while being further incentivized as a faster way to climb the ladder. I'd love to play cool, expensive cards but it's hardly possible when games tend to end by turn 5, especially in Wild. Please, Dean, let's make ALL of the new archetypes non-aggro!
When you play Zephrys against a dormant demon, eg Imprisoned Antaen, do you think he should offer you Sacrificial Pact? (From my recent experience, it appears he currently does not.) Zephrys does sometimes do forward planning, eg offering you a card at next turn's mana cost. So maybe he should also plan for when a demon will awaken. What do you think?
Anyone agreeing with Flux's position should read up on The Onion's amicus brief to Novak v City of Parma. It is a spirited (and hilarious) defense of parody and why it is unnecessary to disclaim that something is a joke.
The Onion itself is an exemplar of presenting absurdity as fact. Sure, that's technically "misinformation", but it's misinformation that should be allowed and enjoyed by those of us with a sense of humor.
Those without a sense of humor should not be trying to ruin the fun for the rest of us by advocating the banning of parody.
How and where was the deck leaked? And what was the intended solve process to work out what cards to put in the deck?
Do you have to click on all the individual achievements to get the XP from them? Or is the XP awarded automatically with the new patch? I clicked on all of them anyway, just in case, but man it's such a boring task to do so. Would like to know for reference for future expansions...
"Therefore, in edge situations where a creature belonging to a certain Tribe decides to embrace the sealife, Team 5 has always given priority to the latter."
Cookie the Cook says hello.
Why is control never allowed a time to shine, but Pirate Warrior and Questline Hunter get to dominate the meta for multiple expansion cycles? It's ridiculous and so frustrating for a control player like me, to have to lose over and over to these decks that are zero fun to play against.
Tell that to the devs, they destroyed control...
They should increase the starting health and deck size to 40. I'd love to have longer games where I have a chance to play bigger cards.
Why this hostile tone? They aren't asking for a Wild-only quest; they specifically suggested a "Ranked" quest that would be Wild- and Standard-agnostic. This alternative would basically harm nobody, while being more inclusive for the players who prefer Wild.
There's no particular reason that the best decks in Wild have to be all about face damage. It's perfectly possible for the Hearthstone team to give us stronger control tools and make face damage weaker. They've previously stated they want their game to be more "fun and interactive" - surely they haven't entirely abandoned that design goal? So I think it's a legitimate complaint that Wild mode is often not fun, not interactive, and could be improved in those aspects with some targeted nerfs.
Everyone is playing Odd Questline Hunter in Wild, a stupidly oppressive deck, and they haven't done anything to curb its power? It's so boring and frustrating to play against and control decks autolose against it. Please do something, Blizzard!
"Being Cast When Drawn spells, Fel Rifts are effectively free card draw, which means more resources for you and less chances to end up with an empty hand."
How is this the case? If I draw one card, and it happens to be a Fel Rift, it merely replaces itself in your hand; I end up with a single new card in my hand either way. It doesn't hold back the emptying of your hand at all?
Any indication how many players selected Alliance/Horde? And was there any mention of scaling honor points by the end of the season according to the number of players who chose either faction? Because it's not much of a contest if 80% of players choose one of the factions, especially since one favors faster-grind and budget-friendly aggro decks, while the other encourages longer games (so, fewer honor points earned over time).
I am hoping so hard that Alliance wins. Not for any lore reasons, but because I will not be able to bear it if Diamond Drek'thar serves as a constant reminder that Hearthstone favors aggro. They'd better give control decks some decent support this expansion, because between the ridiculous unanswerable Druid boards, Mr Smite, and uninteractive face-burning questlines, I'm finding it harder and harder to have fun playing this game, while being frustrated and saddened that the hundreds of dollars I've invested in getting cool late-game legendaries are going completely to waste.
Any ideas what this not-random bug was? How was the game selecting which players would be offered which heroes?
To be fair, we bring up years-old Hearthstone quotes to declare that we agree with them, which is the exact opposite to cancelling people over careless statements on social media that we disagree with. We agree that Hearthstone should be "fun and interactive", and are disappointed that the preponderance of face-damage spells, unstoppable early aggro boards, and game-ending quests has made the game less so.
I feared this meta and the utter shafting of the control archetype before the set released, based on the strength of the non-interactive questlines. Consider:
- Warlock: All self-damage now burns the opponent's face instead.
- Mage: +3 spell damage to burn the opponent's face
- Shaman: Double all face-burning spells and obscenely boost your hero's windfury attacks to smash the opponent's face
- Hunter: Constantly refresh your free hero power; sure you could use it to clear minions, but why do that when you can just burn the opponent's face
- Druid: Copy Guff and keep attacking the opponent's face
- Demon Hunter: Make your draws cheaper to more easily pull off your Il'gynoth OTK and wreck the opponent's face
- Priest: Control can do nothing against this before you inevitably draw a card that effectively says "Deal infinite damage to the opponent's face".
Blizzard could have designed more of the questlines to help you control the board and improve your survivability without incentivising pure face damage. Instead, control decks have to sit there helplessly until their face gets burned off. Control against any of the above questlines is pretty much an automatic loss, and it's the exact opposite of "fun and interactive".
"We have plans to introduce new archetypes, some of which will definitely be non-aggro"
"some of which"... implying most of the new archetypes are not non-aggro. Would be disappointing if so - aggro has already enjoyed dominance for much of Hearthstone's history while being further incentivized as a faster way to climb the ladder. I'd love to play cool, expensive cards but it's hardly possible when games tend to end by turn 5, especially in Wild. Please, Dean, let's make ALL of the new archetypes non-aggro!
lwoherog
What a delightful counter to Mecha'thun Warlock (in Wild) - play their Cataclysm and return them a hand of 0 cards!
When you play Zephrys against a dormant demon, eg Imprisoned Antaen, do you think he should offer you Sacrificial Pact? (From my recent experience, it appears he currently does not.) Zephrys does sometimes do forward planning, eg offering you a card at next turn's mana cost. So maybe he should also plan for when a demon will awaken. What do you think?