Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kirian]

I dont understand the "plz no legends in casual" cry

I see at least two angles:

(1)  Casual is supposed to pit you against similar decks, right?  Or at the very least, similar-cost decks.  Otherwise newbies are going to get completely destroyed, which leads to

(2)  Hearthstone is almost certainly not a money-maker yet.  Blizzard needs a constant influx of new players in order for it to become one.  If any given noob is slaughtered in their first half-dozen games against real players with multiple legendaries, they're going to ragequit and Blizzard won't get any of their cash.

[Watno]

1) Casual is supposed to match players of similar strength, factoring in deck compostion. There are many players who have lots of legendaries but don't know how to use them.
2)I'm pretty sure Hearthstone is making money for Blizzard, mainly because I don't think they invested much into the game. For example, all of the card images and sound effects are from artworks that already existed before they made Hearthstone.

[Titandrake]

Hearthstone has over 10 million players. I'd be surprised if it weren't making money.

[Jorbles]

Yeah, I think what happens is that somewhere around 1 in 20 players drops a bunch of money on packs to get into it fast, and 1 in 10 players occasionally drops a bit of money on an Arena run or to get a pack here and there. So that's like 500,000 spending a bunch of money and 1,000,000 spending a little bit of money. I'm sure they make decent money on the game.

[Davio]

Don't forget the marketing they get from it for their other games (mainly WoW), which may still attract new players.

[popsofctown]

1) Casual is supposed to match players of similar strength, factoring in deck compostion. There are many players who have lots of legendaries but don't know how to use them.
2)I'm pretty sure Hearthstone is making money for Blizzard, mainly because I don't think they invested much into the game. For example, all of the card images and sound effects are from artworks that already existed before they made Hearthstone.

Not all of them, just, loads of them.  They do produce original sounds and arts.

[markusin]

1) Casual is supposed to match players of similar strength, factoring in deck compostion. There are many players who have lots of legendaries but don't know how to use them.
2)I'm pretty sure Hearthstone is making money for Blizzard, mainly because I don't think they invested much into the game. For example, all of the card images and sound effects are from artworks that already existed before they made Hearthstone.

Not all of them, just, loads of them.  They do produce original sounds and arts.

Hey, they can get away with it in the name of call backs and nostalgia generating. I'm really happy that they play old record quality Warcraft 2 music during matchmaking. Warcraft 2 is the only other game I've played that takes place in the Warcraft universe.

[ashersky]

If there's interest in a simple tournament, I'll run one.  Let me know here and I'll start a new thread.

For a first tourney, I think I'd limit it to soul bound cards only -- so all class cards from leveling to 10 (and golden versions) plus all basic cards available to all players.

Classes would be chosen by each player from a randomly chosen set of 3.

Random pairings, best 2 out of 3, no player order rules.

Thoughts?

[Jorbles]

I know it's more fair to do it with only basic and soulbound cards, but I think I would be bored by playing in such a tournament.

[ashersky]

I know it's more fair to do it with only basic and soulbound cards, but I think I would be bored by playing in such a tournament.

Yeah, I thought that too.  I see it as more a way to have some fun competition and get us playing each other more.

[Grujah]

I know it's more fair to do it with only basic and soulbound cards, but I think I would be bored by playing in such a tournament.

Same. And I don't find it more "fair", getting cards is a part of the game.

Classes would be chosen by each player from a randomly chosen set of 3.

I don't understand this.

[KingZog3]

I know it's more fair to do it with only basic and soulbound cards, but I think I would be bored by playing in such a tournament.

Same. And I don't find it more "fair", getting cards is a part of the game.

Classes would be chosen by each player from a randomly chosen set of 3.

I don't understand this.

You could say no Legendaries, but even then you could just limit that to no Leeroy or Ragnaros. But I think it's silly to limit cards.

[ashersky]

I guess if people want full constructed, that's fine.  I'd not play in that, as it's fairly clear the top ladder players are just going to destroy the casual guys.

[popsofctown]

I would find a dust budget for each deck a very fun, interesting deckbuilding exercise that remains pretty level for newbies.  It encourages soulbound card use as their dust cost is 0, and if the dust cost max limit is less than say, 3000, legendaries (a legendary, rather) are more of a liability than an unfair advantage.

Murkeye and Captain's Parrot are soulbound, by the way, and have no dust cost.  You could do with them as you like.

[nkirbit]

I would find a dust budget for each deck a very fun, interesting deckbuilding exercise that remains pretty level for newbies.  It encourages soulbound card use as their dust cost is 0, and if the dust cost max limit is less than say, 3000, legendaries (a legendary, rather) are more of a liability than an unfair advantage.

Murkeye and Captain's Parrot are soulbound, by the way, and have no dust cost.  You could do with them as you like.

So, Zoo.

I think this is worse than just allowing everything.

We could also have multiple tiers:  People who are okay with people playing whatever, and people who aren't, and have some limit.

[Titandrake]

How about all soulbound and all commons? I think you'd still be somewhat aggro dominated, but it might not be too bad, and you get a lot more selection/decent cards with commons in the mix.

We could also try the "King of the Hill" format. Each player makes 2/3 decks, each for a different class. Winner has to keep the same deck, loser switches to another deck. First player to run out of decks loses. That way, you have the option of making a deck that specifically beats aggro. The question is whether such a common-only deck exists; I'm not sure if it does.

[Ichimaru Gin]

Heh. Late to the party as usual. I've been playing this about 2 days and it rocks.
Probably a bunch of noob observations here, but I wanted to pitch in for some reason (probably because I enjoy the game so much).

I've unlocked all the heroes and made it to rank 20 in this time, so been playing a fair amount (but still super low).
I enjoy paladin and priest the most, as I think their special abilities vibe with my preferred playstyle the best.

So I guess what I've learned so far is (I'd appreciate correction of any misconceptions I have).

1. Taunts are super, super important.
2. Having more/better minions is key. In my first few games, I would pretty much only attack the enemy hero if there wasn't a taunt around, but stopped doing that pretty soon. So maintaining control of the field is vital. As a paladin, there's nothing more fun than throwing down a consecration on a field full of totems.
3. Healing is important, but less so than I originally thought. Most of my first decks included a bunch of healing cards, but taunts, spells (like polymorph, consecration, hex, etc) are more important. Being able to avoid damage in the first place is better I think.
4. You shouldn't spend the coin on turn one, and save it for some combo or key card that's more powerful and won't get destroyed like early cards will.
5. I play paladin well for my level, but really hate going up against other paladins. I miss the cards I'm used to, and it sucks having those played against you when you know they're coming.
6. Oh, and the built in slow play cut off is awesome!
And wow, I haven't spent any real money yet, but I'm tempted to. I feel fairly adept for my status and already anticipate the staple cards of other hero's base decks. I've played arena once and went 0-3, but made a fairly bad deck I think. The arena opens up a lot more complexities and risk management that's a ton of fun. It's probably already all been said before, but I haven't read through this whole thread yet, though I will.

[ashersky]

So I've seen a few different suggestions for a Hearthstone Dom:

--free for all, no restrictions
--soulbound + commons
--Dust Budget
--all, no legendaries

Formats:

--random pairings, single elimination (best 2 out of 3)
--King of the Hill, 3 decks

I'll keep keeping track.

[popsofctown]

I would find a dust budget for each deck a very fun, interesting deckbuilding exercise that remains pretty level for newbies.  It encourages soulbound card use as their dust cost is 0, and if the dust cost max limit is less than say, 3000, legendaries (a legendary, rather) are more of a liability than an unfair advantage.

Murkeye and Captain's Parrot are soulbound, by the way, and have no dust cost.  You could do with them as you like.

So, Zoo.

I think this is worse than just allowing everything.

We could also have multiple tiers:  People who are okay with people playing whatever, and people who aren't, and have some limit.

Zoo has counters, and many methods of countering it aren't that high rarity.  Plus you have an expectation for zoo going in.  Every meta has some kind of centerpiece.  I don't think it's a bad idea. Doomguard is epic and YP a rare, so a dust budget of something like 1k would throttle the amount of high HP zoo has available, creating a weakness

[Grujah]

I would find a dust budget for each deck a very fun, interesting deckbuilding exercise that remains pretty level for newbies.  It encourages soulbound card use as their dust cost is 0, and if the dust cost max limit is less than say, 3000, legendaries (a legendary, rather) are more of a liability than an unfair advantage.

Murkeye and Captain's Parrot are soulbound, by the way, and have no dust cost.  You could do with them as you like.

So, Zoo.

I think this is worse than just allowing everything.

We could also have multiple tiers:  People who are okay with people playing whatever, and people who aren't, and have some limit.

Zoo has counters, and many methods of countering it aren't that high rarity.  Plus you have an expectation for zoo going in.  Every meta has some kind of centerpiece.  I don't think it's a bad idea. Doomguard is epic and YP a rare, so a dust budget of something like 1k would throttle the amount of high HP zoo has available, creating a weakness

Doom Guard is rare as well.

[Grujah]

I guess if people want full constructed, that's fine.  I'd not play in that, as it's fairly clear the top ladder players are just going to destroy the casual guys.

That would make sense if more expensive deck automatically equals a better deck.
Turn 1 play that I fear the most is not coin-Millhouse, it's fraking Shieldbearer. As that means I am playing against a ZooLock, and damn is that deck strong.
It plays only frees, commons and some rares.

And that's not even the only high tier, no-legend no-epic deck (or ones that are not so essential and can be replaced):

Ice Queen (Mage Burn) does really well IMO:
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/59054-aggro-ice-queen-legend
(you just replace Thalnos with a Loot Hoarder or Kobold Geomancer, is not that big of a loss)

Amaz Priest:
http://hearthstonetopdeck.com/deck.php?d=2032&filter=current

Hunter decks are on deckline, but there are fine Midrange lists, reminesent of old Koleno's one (here):
http://www.hearthpwn.com/decks/44220-kolentos-rank-1-legend-na-eu-hunter-deck

etc etc.

You can probably make a fine Pally Aggro and Shaman Midrange/Control for cheap, and many others too.


It's not like I have loads of legendaries (only playable ones I got are Ysera/Jenkins, and some really fringe ones) and am trying to get advantage, I just wouldn't enjoy restricted tourney as much.

[Grujah]

Heh. Late to the party as usual. I've been playing this about 2 days and it rocks.
Probably a bunch of noob observations here, but I wanted to pitch in for some reason (probably because I enjoy the game so much).

I've unlocked all the heroes and made it to rank 20 in this time, so been playing a fair amount (but still super low).
I enjoy paladin and priest the most, as I think their special abilities vibe with my preferred playstyle the best.

So I guess what I've learned so far is (I'd appreciate correction of any misconceptions I have).

1. Taunts are super, super important.
2. Having more/better minions is key. In my first few games, I would pretty much only attack the enemy hero if there wasn't a taunt around, but stopped doing that pretty soon. So maintaining control of the field is vital. As a paladin, there's nothing more fun than throwing down a consecration on a field full of totems.
3. Healing is important, but less so than I originally thought. Most of my first decks included a bunch of healing cards, but taunts, spells (like polymorph, consecration, hex, etc) are more important. Being able to avoid damage in the first place is better I think.
4. You shouldn't spend the coin on turn one, and save it for some combo or key card that's more powerful and won't get destroyed like early cards will.
5. I play paladin well for my level, but really hate going up against other paladins. I miss the cards I'm used to, and it sucks having those played against you when you know they're coming.
6. Oh, and the built in slow play cut off is awesome!
And wow, I haven't spent any real money yet, but I'm tempted to. I feel fairly adept for my status and already anticipate the staple cards of other hero's base decks. I've played arena once and went 0-3, but made a fairly bad deck I think. The arena opens up a lot more complexities and risk management that's a ton of fun. It's probably already all been said before, but I haven't read through this whole thread yet, though I will.

1. I wouldn't say "super", but yes, they play a big party.
2. Yes. Efficient trading is the key.
3. Healing is only rarely of high importance, if you play a slow deck or one that really needs it. All other that you said is true.
4. Not completely true. Coin turn 1 gives the biggest tempo advantage. Really depends on your hand and your deck, but turn 1 is good idea in many cases (esp if you have 2 two-drops).

[ashersky]

It's not like I have loads of legendaries (ysera/Jenkins).

That's enough.

[Grujah]

Enough for what?

[ashersky]

Enough for what?

Enough to have a massive advantage.

Leeroy, for example can have any number of decks built around him, even with just class standards and commons.  Compare to my single legendary, King Krush, who's impossible to build a deck around.

I'm stuck trying to make a pirate deck around 2 Epic captains or whatever, while many opponents (it seems) can drop legendaries every turn starting with 4.