Hearthstone

[HumblePie]

Pro-tip, if you write something any *everyone* seems to get something different out of it than what you'd intended, the problem may not be with the readers.

I'm just saying.

pro-tip, just because a few people have reading comprehension skill problems, doesn't mean *everyone* with your logic fallacy argument.

One person above wrote how my story was bullshit because I claimed I won 100 games in a row. I made no such claim in my story. I said I played 2/3 matches hundreds of times and never lost a deck. See how reading comprehension screw ups on your part have nothing to do with my story?

 

[ewdotson]

One person above wrote how my story was bullshit because I claimed I won 100 games in a row.

And yet while he did make that inaccurate claim in an earlier post, this:

You stated you had unbeatable decks and won 100 matches without a loss. I am saying you are full of it. You can try to turn that into "we missed the point", but maybe you shouldn't exaggerate so much and get upset when you get called out on it?

Or are you sticking with the story that you literally won 100 matches in a row.. ?

was the post that you replied to berating his reading comprehension. Yes, yes. He could have been clearer about whether "without a loss" meant losing a match or a game. But it's cute that you think you're in a position to cast stones.

 

[HumblePie]

Well, no, it didn't fly over my head. Your "point" was so amazingly trivial that was no reason to comment on it. And we *are* commenting on what you claim about your "background in the knowledge of this subject".

Sigh, the point was that one doesn't even need to play matches if one can analyze all the fucking possible moves of a game in the first place. Ever heard of the "Deep Blue" project for chess? It was getting a computer capable enough to analyze everything for chess. Then it's one of the most impossible things to beat at that point for even grandmaster chess players. The computer doesn't even have to ever played a game a chess in it's life if it literally understands all the moves, mechanics, stratagems, and possibilities of the game.

The point of the story and even further with the chess story here was a counter argument to the people that keep saying that those who haven't "played" against high level decks or all deck possibilities couldn't possibly understand the game.

WRONG

It does help, but so long as one knows how to play these games and play them well, the variations on the mechanics is insignificant. There is a finite set of cards, mechanics, and stratagems in this game. Understanding them all isn't particularly difficult, but it is time consuming. More time consuming for some people over others. For me, it's not nearly as time consuming as it would be for many of the average players getting into this game.

The story was to help lend credence as best I can to my understanding of the game through my past prowess with another card game to the degree that I could. If I had more ways to lend credible evidence I might have thrown those out there too like photos and shit. Don't have those though. So you can either believe or not.

But the other part of the story was to make people then look at what I was stating with the decks in hearthstone and have them go to one of the many wikis and look over the cards available to all the decks. Have them go over the common higher winning deck builds. Have them go watch some replays of matches or watch some match plays on twitch.tv or something like I have done. If they come to the same conclusions I did great. If not oh well. They would be better armed to make valid points to my analysis summation than stupid character assassination.

 

[ewdotson]

Sigh, the point was that one doesn't even need to play matches if one can analyze all the fucking possible moves of a game in the first place. Ever heard of the "Deep Blue" project for chess? It was getting a computer capable enough to analyze everything for chess. Then it's one of the most impossible things to beat at that point for even grandmaster chess players. The computer doesn't even have to ever played a game a chess in it's life if it literally understands all the moves, mechanics, stratagems, and possibilities of the game.

And if you think you've come even vaguely-sorta-kinda close to that level of analysis for this game (or Magic, for that matter), you're deeply deluded.

The point of the story and even further with the chess story here was a counter argument to the people that keep saying that those who haven't "played" against high level decks or all deck possibilities couldn't possibly understand the game.

Who claimed that? As far as I can tell, I came the closest when I suggested you probably had no experience with a genuinely top-tier druid deck. And I was trying to do you a favor there, suggesting it was something you simply hadn't considered.

The story was to help lend credence as best I can to my understanding of the game through my past prowess with another card game to the degree that I could.

And yet sadly, all it really did was make you look like you're full of crap. I don't say that to be mean or try to attack you. But as far as I'm concered, it really damaged your credibility.

But the other part of the story was to make people then look at what I was stating with the decks in hearthstone and have them go to one of the many wikis and look over the cards available to all the decks. Have them go over the common higher winning deck builds. Have them go watch some replays of matches or watch some match plays on twitch.tv or something like I have done.

I'm not sure why you think noone else here has done that.

 

[darkewaffle]

This was a pretty decent thread for a while at least.

 

[HumblePie]

This was a pretty decent thread for a while at least.

Ya, until the idiots with their panties in a bunch got all pissy about my analysis of the game to help other players out.

 

[HumblePie]

And if you think you've come even vaguely-sorta-kinda close to that level of analysis for this game (or Magic, for that matter), you're deeply deluded.

I may not be deep blue, but I'd whip your ass in any card base game that I've had a chance to completely review, analyze, and build high confidence decks over. While you may not believe it, I have won thousand in MTG tournaments in my time playing it.

Who claimed that? As far as I can tell, I came the closest when I suggested you probably had no experience with a genuinely top-tier druid deck. And I was trying to do you a favor there, suggesting it was something you simply hadn't considered.

I didn't put a name out, but I'm sure you can go back and read for yourself who was making claims I don't know what I'm talking about without playing high level games yet.

And yet sadly, all it really did was make you look like you're full of crap. I don't say that to be mean or try to attack you. But as far as I'm concered, it really damaged your credibility.

Only to trolls like yourself or those with intentional reading comprehension impairments.

I'm not sure why you think noone else here has done that.

Did I make the claim no one did that? I said it was to promote new players to do that through what I posted. FFS nice use of another false equivalency logic fallacy argument

FFS did you just join this forum to troll or something? I came into this thread giving my analysis of this game and my background in playing games like this. As well as how I arrived at my conclusions. Many agree and many trolls like you are having a hissy fit or just being a plain troll at this point. Your arguments to my statements are anything but laudable. In fact, they belong in P&N section with how you argue, your lack of reading comprehension, and trollish nature. Just GTFO.

 

[ewdotson]

FFS did you just join this forum to troll or something? I came into this thread giving my analysis of this game and my background in playing games like this. As well as how I arrived at my conclusions. Many agree and many trolls like you are having a hissy fit or just being a plain troll at this point. Your arguments to my statements are anything but laudable. In fact, they belong in P&N section with how you argue, your lack of reading comprehension, and trollish nature. Just GTFO.

So far as I can tell, it's you who got pissy when people tried to discuss your analysis rather than treating as wisdom handed down from on high. I think it's laughable that you think *I'm* the one behaving trollishly.

 

[HumblePie]

So far as I can tell, it's you who got pissy when people tried to discuss your analysis rather than treating as wisdom handed down from on high. I think it's laughable that you think *I'm* the one behaving trollishly.

Nope, I just respond in kind to idiots. I was good natured about the original response to the trollish and kidish response back to my analysis post at first. That's why I originally just said go back and re-read and maybe you'll understand the point of the post. When you came back with trollish shit after, I then start moving to levels that low brow individuals like yourself may understand. That's just who I am. If that pisses you off, so be it.

Want to see how this thread devolved into this?

1) I make a detailed post talking about my analysis and perceptions about the game. I give details as to why I made the choices I did. I use analogies to another game to help further demonstrate my points.
2) Trolls like yourself, lupi, and jimrawr come back and said the equivalent of "No way you are WRONG!" Without even at least having the courtesy of explaining why you think the analysis was wrong except to use broad stroke logic fallacy arguments or giving your own analysis and conjecture of the topic using facts. As a proper debated would do. Instead you resort to strawmans based off reading comprehension problems, ad homenim attacks, and other logic fallacies.
3) I tried to be cute with the inital responses until I realized I'm dealing with obvious trolls. Then I say screw it and explain how stupid you are.

 

[smackababy]

So far as I can tell, it's you who got pissy when people tried to discuss your analysis rather than treating as wisdom handed down from on high. I think it's laughable that you think *I'm* the one behaving trollishly.

I don't think it was until people started calling into question his validation of his theories that this thread really devolved into this. He posted his experiences and ranked each deck. Some people questioned him on those theories and he posted explanation as well as validation in how he adapted his MTG experience to HS experience, also giving light to the action / reaction based nature of the game.

There are only so many cards currently in HS. It isn't hard for someone who has played TGCs and understands the basic concepts of HS to put together what is good and what is bad.

 

[jimrawr]

HumblePie is the only one throwing around insults, yet calling everyone else a troll.

*finds nearest mirror to hold up*

 

[ewdotson]

@HumblePie: People disagreeing with you and coming to different conclusions than you does not make them trollish and kidish. I'm sorry this has gone the way it has. I thought your original post was really quite good. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that's cool. I wish you had been more willing to actually have conversations with people rather than trying to impress them with your supposed expertise and expecting them to be grateful for the opportunity to hear it.

And with that, I'll let you have the last word, and I think that at least the two of us will be done here. Hopefully returning this thread to something a bit more productive.

 

[HumblePie]

People disagreeing with you and coming to different conclusions than you does not make them trollish and kidish. I'm sorry this has gone the way it has. I thought your original post was really quite good. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that's cool. I wish you had been more willing to actually have conversations with people rather than trying to impress them with your supposed expertise and expecting them to be grateful for the opportunity to hear it.

And with that, I'll let you have the last word, and I think we're done here. Hopefully returning this thread to something a bit more productive.

No, calling me delusion for posting my experiences was insulting me first. There were more insults before I called you a troll. Go back and read. It seems to be your basic failing in this thread. The first people to start hurling the insults was yourself, lupi, and jimrawr. There were three posts right in a row almost with #619, #621, and #622. If you don't understand the insulting nature of those posts...

 

[ewdotson]

Ok, fine. As you likely expected, I can't resist the temptation to make one more post. But largely because post 619 *was* unecessarily snarky, and I want to apologize for it. But the point you say your post was about was really, really trivial. To be frank, I felt condescended to. Still, I could have made a more measured response. So in all sincerity, I'm sorry.

And yes, I got nastier as the thread went on, but from my point of view, *I* was responding in kind. Which is not, I freely admit, a particularly good excuse.

 

[HumblePie]

@HumblePie: People disagreeing with you and coming to different conclusions than you does not make them trollish and kidish. I'm sorry this has gone the way it has. I thought your original post was really quite good. I disagree with some of your conclusions, but that's cool. I wish you had been more willing to actually have conversations with people rather than trying to impress them with your supposed expertise and expecting them to be grateful for the opportunity to hear it.

And with that, I'll let you have the last word, and I think that at least the two of us will be done here. Hopefully returning this thread to something a bit more productive.

If your intent is to be constructive in nature then do so. Make insightful posts that explain your point. Don't make sarcastic insulting quips that do nothing to further your argument except make you look like an ass to the other person.

For example, your post about my statement that most games aren't won before round 8. Your argument was I don't understand the current meta. I have looked at hundreds of recording on twitch.tv at this point. Much to the incur the ire of my wife in wasting that much time doing so. That's another story though. My statement was that from what I've seen, and how the mechanics of the game currently play, that is a true statement. The vast majority of games won are in the 8th round or later. It's a very rare game I've seen and with the cards available it's no easy task for any deck. the druid and hunter deck have the best shot at winning a game this quickly, and even then they have to have the perfect draw with their opponent not having a good draw.

This is mainly because the only way to do an action on your opponents turn is through secret cards. There isn't much otherwise you can do to stop your opponent from countering anything you did on your turn. Majority of the early game is hoping you can do things that your opponent can't fully counter and that you can fully counter whatever they do while still having the about to do other actions. That's the essence of the game design which is why I stressed action efficiency in my posts.

See there? That's how a proper response would have been had you not been rude in your original responses back to me.

 

[Kev]

Hey guys this site has a private message function ok thanks

 

[HumblePie]

Ok, fine. As you likely expected, I can't resist the temptation to make one more post. But largely because post 619 *was* unecessarily snarky, and I want to apologize for it. But the point you say your post was about was really, really trivial. To be frank, I felt condescended to. Still, I could have made a more measured response. So in all sincerity, I'm sorry.

And yes, I got nastier as the thread went on, but from my point of view, *I* was responding in kind. Which is not, I freely admit, a particularly good excuse.

I don't start it, but I respond in kind. I had not been snarky or even directed any of my posts at you at all. I was being up beat and informative. When people get snarky, I reply in snark. You start hurling insults, I reply in kind. I never start shit but I can sling with the best of them.

 

[ewdotson]

If your intent is to be constructive in nature then do so. Make insightful posts that explain your point. Don't make sarcastic insulting quips that do nothing to further your argument except make you look like an ass to the other person.

For example, your post about my statement that most games aren't won before round 8. Your argument was I don't understand the current meta. I have looked at hundreds of recording on twitch.tv at this point. Much to the incur the ire of my wife in wasting that much time doing so. That's another story though. My statement was that from what I've seen, and how the mechanics of the game currently play, that is a true statement. The vast majority of games won are in the 8th round or later. It's a very rare game I've seen and with the cards available it's no easy task for any deck. the druid and hunter deck have the best shot at winning a game this quickly, and even then they have to have the perfect draw with their opponent not having a good draw.

This is mainly because the only way to do an action on your opponents turn is through secret cards. There isn't much otherwise you can do to stop your opponent from countering anything you did on your turn. Majority of the early game is hoping you can do things that your opponent can't fully counter and that you can fully counter whatever they do while still having the about to do other actions. That's the essence of the game design which is why I stressed action efficiency in my posts.

See there? That's how a proper response would have been had you not been rude in your original responses back to me.

I think it took a while before my responses started to get rude, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. More on topic though -

I absolutely agree that there are limited opportunities for truly effective rush decks. I'm definitely not claiming that they're ubiquitous, just that they exist and one has to be prepared for them. How about this as a statement: "playing for the long game is probably easier starting out (particularly since you'll be missing critical cards like Leeroy for rush decks", just make sure you include adequate board sweepers and other removal to deal with true aggro decks"? Does that make a reasonable amount of sense to you? Had I brought that point up earlier in the conversation, I think that's closer to where I would have gone with the thought.

 

[HumblePie]

I think it took a while before my responses started to get rude, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. More on topic though -

I absolutely agree that there are limited opportunities for truly effective rush decks. I'm definitely not claiming that they're ubiquitous, just that they exist and one has to be prepared for them. How about this as a statement: "playing for the long game is probably easier starting out (particularly since you'll be missing critical cards like Leeroy for rush decks", just make sure you include adequate board sweepers and other removal to deal with true aggro decks"? Does that make a reasonable amount of sense to you? Had I brought that point up earlier in the conversation, I think that's closer to where I would have gone with the thought.

Which is basically what I said in my original analysis.... Play for the end game. That's also why I stated what I did about the druid deck in my original post. It's an OK deck for new players, but a great deck in experienced player hands that have more cards to fill out the deck. Its one of the few decks like that. The others don't really change their tier rating in my opinion based off class card availability later down the road in relative power to other deck builds except the druid deck right now.

There are a number of people in this thread who have expressed quite a bit of displeasure at being beaten constantly. Some of expressed that it makes the game feel like pay to win. I don't share that sentiment and went along with my original post as mainly a post pointed at newer players. Which, if you follow the posts previous to that big analysis post, you'd have seen that. I also was speaking directly with a few that have play MTG and tried to give a nice easy to understand analogous relation between hearthstone decks and MTG decks for a player new to hearthstone, but not new to MTG.

 

[ewdotson]

Which is basically what I said in my original analysis.... Play for the end game.

Oh, I know! And I think it's fine advice for someone with a limited card set. I was just uncomfortable with the flat statement that games don't run short. I'm sure you were just keeping it simple and straightforward to avoid unnecessary hemming and hawing. I'm just saying that there *are* all-in aggro decks out there.

There are a number of people in this thread who have expressed quite a bit of displeasure at being beaten constantly. Some of expressed that it makes the game feel like pay to win. I don't share that sentiment and went along with my original post as mainly a post pointed at newer players. Which, if you follow the posts previous to that big analysis post, you'd have seen that. I also was speaking directly with a few that have play MTG and tried to give a nice easy to understand analogous relation between hearthstone decks and MTG decks for a player new to hearthstone, but not new to MTG.

In all sincerity, I really did think your large analysis post was a good one. Again I do disagree with you on points, such as how I think you're underestimating the value of the the warlock class skill. (Although I totally agree that it's a shame the class-specific cards aren't stronger.) I'll readily admit though, my formative Magic years were in the Black Summer of '96, when necropotency was king. That always informs my thinking, and I can get obsessive about card advantage and awfully dismissive towards non-lethal damage. And hey, wouldn't things be boring if we all agreed about everything?

 

[HumblePie]

What are good cards for draws as paladin? Just the minions from neutral that draw cards?

Divine Favor.
Hammer of Wrath.
Lay on Hands.
Holy Wrath (little bit more iffy on this one)
Blessing of Wisdom


Since Paladin is a white weeny deck, the Cult Master is a great card for the deck. Gadgetzan Auctioneer is great for any deck just about too. So is Nat Pagle. Loot horder is good too for low casting cost 2/1 card. Even better if you use the secret to bring him back again Loot horder dying with Cult Master out and the secret to bring him back is like 4 card draws for little effort. Also lets not forget the acolyte of pain. Another good card for any deck.

There are lots of cards there that allow for draws as well as having another beneficial action event take place along with the draw for paladin.

 

[cronos]

Ok, experts and veterans, noob here asking a question. Zero experience with any kind of card games before:

(I may not have gotten the lingo right in some of the terminologies, so bear with me )

I noticed that whenever I played with my custom decks (and I have created and recreated several of them, so many times), when I lost (and I lost probably 75-80% of the time) it's pretty much always because I have no cards to play towards the end of the game (turn 9 or more). Basically around turn 8 I got no cards anymore in hand and could only depend on whatever the card I drew at my turn. I usually still last a couple of more turns, but unless I got really really lucky and draw something amazing, I knew that I'll lose in a couple of turns. It's frustrating to have 10 mana crystals but could only use 3 each turn, while my opponent can go crazy with all the good stuff at the end.

Now, I've been trying to analyze what my problem is in building these custom decks (too many low cost cards?) but maybe this is something obvious that someone can help me out quick. Or is it not because of the decks but more the way I play the cards (need to hold off and not play multiple cards during turn 4-6?)?

Please help!

 

[HumblePie]

Ok, experts and veterans, noob here asking a question. Zero experience with any kind of card games before:

(I may not have gotten the lingo right in some of the terminologies, so bear with me )

I noticed that whenever I played with my custom decks (and I have created and recreated several of them, so many times), when I lost (and I lost probably 75-80% of the time) it's pretty much always because I have no cards to play towards the end of the game (turn 9 or more). Basically around turn 8 I got no cards anymore in hand and could only depend on whatever the card I drew at my turn. I usually still last a couple of more turns, but unless I got really really lucky and draw something amazing, I knew that I'll lose in a couple of turns. It's frustrating to have 10 mana crystals but could only use 3 each turn, while my opponent can go crazy with all the good stuff at the end.

Now, I've been trying to analyze what my problem is in building these custom decks (too many low cost cards?) but maybe this is something obvious that someone can help me out quick. Or is it not because of the decks but more the way I play the cards (need to hold off and not play multiple cards during turn 4-6?)?

Please help!

That's part of what I was talking about with action efficiency.

Take for example Arcane Blast spell from the mage deck. It's 2 mana to deal 1 damage to all enemy minions. Killing 1 or even 2 minions with this card is a waste. Especially only 1 minion. Now killing 3, 4, or more makes this card gold. It's the situation in which to use and know how to use the card. Some cards you should hold for greater effect later and some you don't have to. As noted several times in this thread, getting cards that help you draw more cards helps a ton in this game. It's all about action advantage. The more actions you can take over your enemy the more likely you are to win.

Knowing when to play a card is also key besides having it in your deck. I don't mind taking a hit or too (usually) from a monster if I can use something like arcane blast to take out multiple minions the foe has later. Cause I know if I get an action advantage and keep it later in the game I am more likely to win.

 

[Ns1]

All I gotta say is HumblePie and ewdotson are gonna have good makeup sex tonight. Maybe one will let the other one windfury on his totem.

 

[smackababy]

It could be a combination of those. There is a good chance you don't have any cards with an extra card draw attached to them (either as battle cry or death rattle) and you probably don't have many end game cards.

You want your mana curve to ramp up so that on the later turns, you're playing bigger minions.

It also comes down to, as Humble stated, knowing when to play cards. If you have board advantage against a mage and it turn 7+, playing multiple lower cost minions is surely a waste unless you can get immediate value out of them. You should expect a flamestrike or some form of board clear.