Does anyone else hate hearthstone?

  • 119 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by OhDearAudrey (33 posts) -

After playing Magic the Gathering competitively for over a decade, a short time in the pro scene, and overall playing at a high level of skill, i just can't get into this game.

I find it too simple, with not enough depth to interest me. Creature combat was always my least favorite part of magic. I also find the game to be too random. You never have complete control over the game, i find too many times the cards that say "random" never seem truly random.

I played for two weeks and made a list after the 3rd or 4th time i lost to a card that had a random effect to make sure it wasn't just my mind making the losses more memorable. Take control of random creature when cast on an even playing field 90% of the time grabbed a small inconsequential creature, never the guy with taunt, or a legendary. When cast from the losing side, it always grabbed the largest guy on the board. It was always a creature that had immediate impact on the losing side, never the 1/1 creature then they lose the next turn (this includes when i played it) The spell that deals 3 damage randomly distributed when the player is down i found it always made the most impact on the game, it never hit me and my big guy and left all creatures on the board.

The lack of interaction i think is my biggest complaint, the number of times my opponent played poorly in a game i had control over the entire game and is sitting with 0 cards in hand and no creatures while i have 4 or 5 cards and 2 or 3 creatures only to have my opponent rip the exact card he needs 3 or 4 times in a row without me being able to do anything about it since i cant counter their spells, was crazy high. Seems like the games swing wildly to stay close instead of just blowouts. I can see the logic if this were the case behind the scenes, new players don't want to get crushed by experienced players they want a fun balanced game. So it makes sense to have some sort of algorithm to keep games close.

All my friends love the game and i have yet to meet anyone who dislikes it. Maybe i'm just crazy.

#2 Posted by Splodge (1637 posts) -

Doesn't sound like its for you. I recommend you not play it.

#3 Edited by OhDearAudrey (33 posts) -

@splodge: Do you feel you made a useful contribution to this thread, if not you probably shouldn't post.

#4 Posted by CrazyContrero (86 posts) -

I don't mind it. I've recently got into Magic a few weeks ago and then heard of Hearthstone and I prefer Magic for the same reason of complexity and depth. I'll likely continue playing Hearthstone every once in a while.

#5 Posted by bemusedchunk (694 posts) -

nope.

#6 Posted by VarrosAnon (49 posts) -

@ohdearaudrey: I think the big thing is the lack of instants or a stack, but that's because it really is a casual, closed garden kind of game with a lot of polish and flash, and they don't want to alienate those people yet. Polygon said it really well in their review where Phil Kollar said this is a CCG for people who have never played a CCG.

I mean, Magic is kind of the only card game that survived the 90s boom of them, and that's for a big reason. I think Hearthstone is really cool and being on the ground floor of that will eventually be meaningful as they advance the game.

#7 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5554 posts) -

Hearthstone is an excellent game.

@ohdearaudrey said:

@splodge: Do you feel you made a useful contribution to this thread, if not you probably shouldn't post.

His post was more substantive than this.

#8 Posted by SomberOwl (677 posts) -

They need to make a good Yu Gi Oh game.

#9 Edited by WasabiCurry (422 posts) -

I think that randomness of the game is what makes it so fun. Like Mad Bomber, it may kill that 4/3 or it won't and just take out three of your health, I find that appealing. I cannot begin to tell you when I am playing MTG and being complete smashed by another opponent (by turn four) how much I really didn't want to play the game anymore. I still play MTG casually because it is fun at times and it offers a complexity that Hearthstone cannot achieve.

But hey, they are two different card games and I am happy that both exist. Plus I can play it on my I-pad before classes start and people seem generally interested whenever I play the game.

#10 Posted by NmareBfly (67 posts) -

I haven't been watching it closely since the Kickstarter ended (waiting for release,) but Hex (hextcg.com) is billed as a free to play Magic-like that uses the electronic medium to add complexity rather than take it away. Might be more to your liking. No idea about balance or usability, but it's probably worth an eyeball.

#11 Edited by Sammo21 (3298 posts) -

I played MtG for well over a decade and I love Hearthstone. There is plenty of depth there. You can't expect a new game to have the decades worth of development that MtG had.

Personally, I got out of MtG because of the ramped up cycle and Wizards just making the game pay to win and most competition simply net decking and not having originality in what they did.

You aren't just crazy: you're human so you form your own opinions. Personally I find Titanfall to be a slightly unbalanced mess that feels like a step back for a developer who has as much mp experience as they do. This is not an opinion that most hold, but it doesn't make me crazy.

#12 Posted by Salarn (465 posts) -

Hearthstone isn't as random as people think it is. There are a couple of cards out of a few hundred that have random effects that can't be controlled. Mainly mad bomber and arcane missiles with tinkmaster, nagel, and shaman totem as a distance second.

MtG depending on the block you are playing has various amounts of coinflip and dice rolling mechanics.

And of course, it's a deck game so what you draw is of course random but that's kinda of the point.

#13 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

@wasabicurry: He's specifically saying that the randomization doesn't seem to work quite right; his tracking of the randomization seemed to be able to tell him whether or not he should play Mad Bomber/Ragnaros/Arcane Missiles/Sylvanis/etc.

I really like Hearthstone; Magic is overwhelming to me on the whole, with an absurd library of cards that make a deck that isn't based upon the opponent's deck subject to extensive exploitation. It stands as a primary example of a "pay to win" game. There's certainly a cap on that (competitive Magic players can certainly slow the ROI around $400-500, and obviously again around $1000) but the initial investment is very, very high in constructed.

Moreover, I really like the removal of mana to a turn-based system; the game moves much more quickly when mana isn't taking up real estate in your hand, and that's obviously counterbalanced by the smaller, 30 card decks. And I prefer a creature based game in a lot of respects; I'd rather play a deckbuilder like Dominion than endure Magic's effective slapping-on of card synergies outside of creatures. (That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Also, for the most part, Magic players are really mean about Magic. The same is true in Hearthstone, but I don't have to encounter those people to play against them or to have any sense of the meta. There are too many cards in Magic to not communicate with people in-depth, and so the harshness of Magic players towards newbies is overwhelming.

You're a pro Magic player; Hearthstone probably seems like child's play. You're not alone in that respect, but Magic has shut out roughly five or six years of players from actually seeing what's neat about Magic, with no help from the middling Duels of the Planeswalkers games. What's interesting to me lately is the group of people playing both Hearthstone and Netrunner, which seem like opposite ends of the MTG spectrum outside of the P2W aspect.

#14 Posted by EXTomar (4773 posts) -

The key thing about Hearthstone is the simple rule set where instead the complexity is in the cards. Doing this keeps the game pretty fast and highly approachable yet hard to master.

MGT doesn't replace Hearthstone nor should either try. It is fine to like one, both or neither at the same time.

#15 Posted by WasabiCurry (422 posts) -

@little_socrates: Are you saying that there should be a pattern to the randomization? Either that, I am completely confused by what you are trying to say.

#16 Posted by Aviar (442 posts) -

I wouldn't say I hate it, as I did enjoy it for the first month or so that I played it. But after having been a long time magic player, it definitely did not have the staying power with me that magic did. While I don't play magic anymore, I definitely put quite a few hours, days, months, years, in that damn card game.

I can see myself playing Hearthstone on a very casual basis, but not really much beyond that. It's a fun game, but the simplicity of it I think is what the appeal is to some, and the turnoff to others.

#17 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

@little_socrates: Are you saying that there should be a pattern to the randomization? Either that, I am completely confused by what you are trying to say.

I'm not saying there SHOULD be a pattern; I'm saying that @ohdearaudrey has observed a pattern, generally favoring less useful pulls in even games and much more powerful pulls in a game where the player using the random effect is losing. This is the section to which he refers to this idea.

I played for two weeks and made a list after the 3rd or 4th time i lost to a card that had a random effect to make sure it wasn't just my mind making the losses more memorable. Take control of random creature when cast on an even playing field 90% of the time grabbed a small inconsequential creature, never the guy with taunt, or a legendary. When cast from the losing side, it always grabbed the largest guy on the board. It was always a creature that had immediate impact on the losing side, never the 1/1 creature then they lose the next turn (this includes when i played it) The spell that deals 3 damage randomly distributed when the player is down i found it always made the most impact on the game, it never hit me and my big guy and left all creatures on the board.

#18 Posted by TooWalrus (13221 posts) -

Seems like the games swing wildly to stay close instead of just blowouts. I can see the logic if this were the case behind the scenes, new players don't want to get crushed by experienced players they want a fun balanced game. So it makes sense to have some sort of algorithm to keep games close.

This is funny. I work with a guy who's a competitive MTG player, he hates Hearthstone, but his major complaint was that once you fall slightly behind it's impossible to catch back up and that making a comeback was extremely rare.

#19 Posted by afabs515 (1117 posts) -

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

#20 Posted by WasabiCurry (422 posts) -

@little_socrates: I apologize, I didn't understand at first what you were trying to say. But I question whether his statement is true or not. Whether the game actually uses methods to make a big comeback possible, instead of leaving it to actual randomness.

#21 Posted by Turambar (6790 posts) -

@splodge: Do you feel you made a useful contribution to this thread, if not you probably shouldn't post.

Simplicity and accessibility is why people like the game, so it's not for you and I also recommend you probably not play it.

#22 Edited by Shortbreadtom (797 posts) -

Hearthstone is basically Magic Lite, so if you're super into MtG then it's definitely not for you. Which is fine. As someone who finds MtG far too complex, Hearthstone is one of the few CCGs that I could get into.

Also, personal examples of when the Random Number Generator fucked you over is not evidence at all of the random system being weighted in any specific direction. That's not a good argument at all.

#23 Posted by Turambar (6790 posts) -

@afabs515 said:

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

People that take Hearthstone Arena as some sort of serious competitive play experience are absolutely hilarious.

#24 Edited by 2HeadedNinja (1637 posts) -

@afabs515 said:

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

couldnt you not just not put that card in your deck? ... I don't know all the cards by far, but it seems to me there are plenty spells/creatures that don't have any random component. Picking cards with random effects and complaining about those cards being random seems a little weird to me.

#25 Posted by Little_Socrates (5677 posts) -

@afabs515 said:

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

couldnt you not just not put that card in your deck? ... I don't know all the cards by far, but it seems to me there are plenty spells/creatures that don't have any random component. Picking cards with random effects and complaining about those cards being random seems a little weird to me.

Other people can still use them, though, which is still frustrating. Sylvanis and Ragnaros are considered two of the best Legendary cards; the number of cards in the Hunter deck that have "random" in their text are pretty significant, too.

#26 Edited by afabs515 (1117 posts) -

@little_socrates said:

@2headedninja said:

@afabs515 said:

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

couldnt you not just not put that card in your deck? ... I don't know all the cards by far, but it seems to me there are plenty spells/creatures that don't have any random component. Picking cards with random effects and complaining about those cards being random seems a little weird to me.

Other people can still use them, though, which is still frustrating. Sylvanis and Ragnaros are considered two of the best Legendary cards; the number of cards in the Hunter deck that have "random" in their text are pretty significant, too.

Exactly this. I was just using those types of cards as an example. I try to not put the random cards in my deck, but it doesn't stop other people from having them. It makes the game hard to predict; which is a double edged sword. On one hand, it makes the game more interesting than a typical card game because you don't know 100% of the time what the effect of some cards is going to be on the game; on the other hand, if I'm playing a card or a card is being played against me, years of playing board/card games makes me feel like I should know exactly what the effect of a card is going to be. Like I said in my original post, Hearthstone is a video game more than it is a card game. But because it's a card game, I feel like there shouldn't be any randomness to it, as all the TCG's I've ever played are purely about strategy. I like both kinds of games, but I prefer something like Magic which is very predictable, for lack of a better word.

@turambar I agree completely. If it wasn't clear, I'm talking just about the "Play" mode when I talk about competition. If anything, the arena should be more "videogame-y"

#27 Edited by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

I play Hearthstone because it is free, but yeah, it pales in comparison to Magic. I don't hate Hearthstone by any means, but it's kinda Baby's First CCG, and it's not as interesting as Magic. I'd still play Magic if any of my friend group were still into it, and if it didn't cost hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

All the classes in Hearthstone basically contain all the same card types: single-target removal of any creature, mass damage of multiple enemy creatures, and some form of card draw. Yes, each class has its unique mechanic (Combo, Overload, Freeze, etc.), but each class feels INCREDIBLY samey. Their strategies don't feel very different. Compare that to Magic, where a Green deck will have no direct damage and instead just focus on getting big creatures in play that are hard for the opponent to deal with, or a Blue deck that also has no direct damage and focuses on controlling the board with counterspells and other instants.

Or the part where in Magic, almost every mass removal card is symmetrical (like Wild Pyromancer or Hellfire or Twisting Nether) and in Magic you have to be smart about how you play so you get more advantage from those spells than your opponent. But in Hearthstone those are the exception to the rule, and instead they mostly just hand you card advantage on a silver platter by giving every class spells that are like "deal this much damage to all enemy minions" or "deal this much damage to 2 random enemy minions".

Also, I still think it's silly how few cards deal with enemy equipment, so Acidic Swamp Ooze is one of the most played neutral cards because Harrison Jones is kinda not worth it. They should do something about that. Also, let's stop fucking around and just make Gadgetzan Auctioneer a Rogue class card, because who the fuck are you trying to fool, Blizzard, that card only combos well with all the low cost cards in Rogue.

#28 Posted by takayamasama (441 posts) -

I find it hard to hate free things. If I find it not to be my cup of tea, nothing was lost but some time, and experimentation is good.

However, Hearthstone is totally my cup of tea. Love the hell out of it. Also love Magic, and played it quite intensely over the years, but personally I don't feel you can compare the two. Hearthstone is neat since it's comes off as simple, but is deceptively deep use you learn the pace/cards/nuance of everything.

Also, again, free. Like, no money needed...at all. Magic drained some major cash from me over the years, thus why I finally gave it up.

#29 Edited by YI_Orange (1151 posts) -

I played for a bit in the beta, but it lost it's appeal very quickly for me. For one, people took way too long to take their turns. But as for the game itself, I played ranked, normals, and arena, and I found that it just devolved into "play whatever cards you can afford and eventually someone will win based almost entirely on luck". Maybe people have since figured out strategy, but I assume that's still mostly in deck construction.

#30 Edited by neato (76 posts) -

i've played a lot of magic in my life and i feel the same way OP. whenever i have played hearthstone in the past, it made me want to boot up MTGO.

#31 Edited by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

@afabs515 said:

@little_socrates said:

@2headedninja said:

@afabs515 said:

As someone who enjoys both Magic and Hearthstone, I definitely agree that the randomized elements in the game are garbage and have no business being in a card game. It's super frustrating to play a card like "deal X damage to Y random opponents" and not be able to predict what will happen reliably. That being said, effects like that are present in plenty of video games, and the reason why Hearthstone can do it is because it's not a game which can be played in the real world with real cards; it's exclusively a video game. As a competitive card game, I definitely prefer a more... rigid (?) and deep game like Magic, but if I'm looking to pass 15-30 minutes, Hearthstone is great.

couldnt you not just not put that card in your deck? ... I don't know all the cards by far, but it seems to me there are plenty spells/creatures that don't have any random component. Picking cards with random effects and complaining about those cards being random seems a little weird to me.

Other people can still use them, though, which is still frustrating. Sylvanis and Ragnaros are considered two of the best Legendary cards; the number of cards in the Hunter deck that have "random" in their text are pretty significant, too.

Exactly this. I was just using those types of cards as an example. I try to not put the random cards in my deck, but it doesn't stop other people from having them. It makes the game hard to predict; which is a double edged sword. On one hand, it makes the game more interesting than a typical card game because you don't know 100% of the time what the effect of some cards is going to be on the game; on the other hand, if I'm playing a card or a card is being played against me, years of playing board/card games makes me feel like I should know exactly what the effect of a card is going to be. Like I said in my original post, Hearthstone is a video game more than it is a card game. But because it's a card game, I feel like there shouldn't be any randomness to it, as all the TCG's I've ever played are purely about strategy. I like both kinds of games, but I prefer something like Magic which is very predictable, for lack of a better word.

@turambar I agree completely. If it wasn't clear, I'm talking just about the "Play" mode when I talk about competition. If anything, the arena should be more "videogame-y"

I don't know where you got that expectation from, plenty of TCGs have had random elements to their cards. I have no problem with randomness; it's the weighted randomness that OhDearAudrey implies that seems like bullshit rubberbanding that helps out a player who is losing, but not a player that is winning or even.

Magic has dabbled with randomness at various times in its history. Granted, the unreliability of these cards mean they don't see much play in Magic. Still, I have no problem with their existence. Often it's "discard a random card", either used on your opponent, or as a drawback to a beneficial card you're playing. And at other times randomness is used more directly in the mechanics of a card:

#32 Posted by jaycrockett (461 posts) -

Some interesting claims made about "an algorithm to keep things close". So first the Hearthstone servers have to be able to calculate the state of the game to see whose winning. Just looking at life totals is easy enough, but anything else would get pretty complicated quickly. It'd be like running an ai player in every game, but that was taking into account both players and everything yet to be played in their decks.

Then you have to make the un-random decisions for the "random" cards being played. Do you pick the absolute worse outcomes for the player in the lead, or sometimes choose a better but still sub-optimal outcome? Maybe randomize among that? Maybe actually throw in a good result every now and then to keep people from being suspicious?

This all seems like a lot of work. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's not. But if I were Blizzard I'd just go with the RNG.

#33 Posted by bemusedchunk (694 posts) -

Randomness in Magic?

My friend has tried making a deck based around cards that have you flipping coins.

#34 Posted by spraynardtatum (3023 posts) -

I hate how slow the progression is for in game currency. I also hate how addictive it is.

I think it's garbage. F2P bullshit that is going to be described as "ethical" when in reality it's only comparatively ethical to worse F2P and actually still scummy. I played it almost non-stop for a full weekend and realized I was wasting my time.

#35 Edited by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

@bemusedchunk said:

Randomness in Magic?

My friend has tried making a deck based around cards that have you flipping coins.

ALL HAIL KRARK'S THUMB

#36 Posted by MB (12525 posts) -

...I played it almost non-stop for a full weekend and realized I was wasting my time.

But was your time wasted if you were having fun...for free?

Moderator
#37 Posted by aajf (224 posts) -

(That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Forgive my ignorance: what do you mean when you say zoo here? I keep seeing the word cropping up around Hearthstone.

#38 Posted by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

@mb said:

@spraynardtatum said:

...I played it almost non-stop for a full weekend and realized I was wasting my time.

But was your time wasted if you were having fun...for free?

Haha, yeah, exactly my thought.

Also, I like that he implies that Hearthstone is only slightly more ethical than pay-to-win F2P games, when you could just as easily make the argument that it's designed very ethically towards players with an addictive mindset, because really it's optimal that you only play it for about 15-40 minutes a day (to finish any quests you may have). Once you've done that, grinding out 3 wins for a mere 10 gold (each time you do so) isn't really worth the time investment unless you're just playing for fun.

Comparatively, some F2P games you could play for 12 hours a day every day and be constantly grinding out the free currency. I feel like Hearthstone makes that intentionally unappealing, but at least throws you something.

#39 Posted by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

@aajf said:

@little_socrates said:

(That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Forgive my ignorance: what do you mean when you say zoo here? I keep seeing the word cropping up around Hearthstone.

My understanding is that zoo decks are based around just constantly playing creatures/minions, and overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers.

Hunter can do this by drawing a zillion cards with Starving Buzzard + Release the Hounds, and continuing to play creatures. Warlock can do this by just using his hero ability while playing out all of the efficient creatures that are hard to deal with (and due to his hero ability Warlock also combos pretty well with Molten Giant and Mountain Giant if you choose to go that route).

#40 Posted by Evilsbane (4622 posts) -

THIS CARD RULES as long as you have token creatures you don't give two shits about.

#41 Posted by Slaps2 (263 posts) -

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

#42 Posted by aajf (224 posts) -

@bisonhero: Thanks! Familiar with those play styles but didn't realise that's what was being referred to. I play a taunt-heavy Druid deck basically built to counter them, or at least try to. Tough without being able to draw as reliably as they can, sometimes I just get an unlucky mulligan and can't keep up.

#43 Posted by GorillaMoPena (2171 posts) -

@aajf said:

@little_socrates said:

(That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Forgive my ignorance: what do you mean when you say zoo here? I keep seeing the word cropping up around Hearthstone.

My understanding is that zoo decks are based around just constantly playing creatures/minions, and overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers.

Hunter can do this by drawing a zillion cards with Starving Buzzard + Release the Hounds, and continuing to play creatures. Warlock can do this by just using his hero ability while playing out all of the efficient creatures that are hard to deal with (and due to his hero ability Warlock also combos pretty well with Molten Giant and Mountain Giant if you choose to go that route).

Basically I have a zoo warlock deck that is 4 removal cards and 26 creatures with most of them costing 3 or less.

Starving Buzzard+Unleash the Hounds is rampant right now and it seems you can build a deck that stops that but is bad against most other heroes. (Although I'm not great and am bouncing around ranks 13-10 right now). They have said that they would like not to change cards now that game is officially released, but they are looking to see if Unleash the Hounds is a problem.

But I think many people forget this is still young CCG that is fine but obviously needs more cards. Like the pirate cards don't even make sense unless there are most pirates.And classes like Priest clearly need a bump to viable.

#44 Posted by Icicle7x3 (1182 posts) -

@slaps2 said:

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

A lot of the cards Patrick was like "Did he pay for that? I don't have that." He actually had that and just didn't know it because he never looked at the deck builder. As far as P2W, Trump has a Mage series, and is currently uploading his Shaman series, in which he made it to legendary rank without spending a cent. It is possible.

#45 Posted by Skyfire543 (699 posts) -

I don't like card games and didn't like playing Hearthstone, but I enjoy watching my friend who's really into it play it, so kinda?

#46 Posted by qawsed (143 posts) -

@slaps2 said:

The video Patrick did made it look suuuuuuper pay-to-win.

All of the cards he thought were pay-to-win were actually basic cards that are included for free.

#47 Posted by BisonHero (6570 posts) -

@gorillamopena said:

@bisonhero said:

@aajf said:

@little_socrates said:

(That said, the game is waaaaay too reliant on zoo right now, and Hunter/Warlock running the entire game is getting old.)

Forgive my ignorance: what do you mean when you say zoo here? I keep seeing the word cropping up around Hearthstone.

My understanding is that zoo decks are based around just constantly playing creatures/minions, and overwhelming your opponent with sheer numbers.

Hunter can do this by drawing a zillion cards with Starving Buzzard + Release the Hounds, and continuing to play creatures. Warlock can do this by just using his hero ability while playing out all of the efficient creatures that are hard to deal with (and due to his hero ability Warlock also combos pretty well with Molten Giant and Mountain Giant if you choose to go that route).

Basically I have a zoo warlock deck that is 4 removal cards and 26 creatures with most of them costing 3 or less.

Starving Buzzard+Unleash the Hounds is rampant right now and it seems you can build a deck that stops that but is bad against most other heroes. (Although I'm not great and am bouncing around ranks 13-10 right now). They have said that they would like not to change cards now that game is officially released, but they are looking to see if Unleash the Hounds is a problem.

But I think many people forget this is still young CCG that is fine but obviously needs more cards. Like the pirate cards don't even make sense unless there are most pirates.And classes like Priest clearly need a bump to viable.

I don't think Starving Buzzard + Unleash the Hounds is THAT good, but it's rampant (and so is Warlock Zoo) because it's one of the only decent decks you can make that largely relies on just having the right commons in your deck. Basically, it's cheap to build, while most other 90%-common decks are much worse.

Every good control deck requires that you have a zillion rares, epics, and legendaries, pretty much. I think getting much higher than around rank 10 does require that you grind out enough gold to have access to a decent number of epics and legendaries

#48 Edited by bemusedchunk (694 posts) -

ALL HAIL KRARK'S THUMB

it was in there.

#49 Edited by aajf (224 posts) -

@bisonhero: The Buzzards + Hounds combo alone doesn't seem excessively good to me, but throw in Hunter's Mark for 0 Mana and it really smarts.

#50 Posted by wewantsthering (1571 posts) -

How dare there be a game that isn't hardcore enough for you! ;-) For someone like me who has a full time job and writes on the side, I want a more casual card game where I can crank out a couple matches within thirty minutes. I don't understand why people need to do threads like this. There will be people who don't like every single game that ever has or ever will be made. It's preference. It would be more productive to start threads about things you do like.

I do think it's strange that you complain about it being too simple, but then complain about not doing well at it. It might be that you just need to work on getting a better deck. I've played Magic, but I found the amount of cards in existence to just be overwhelming. I can quickly filter through all the Hearthstone cards and I can craft the exact card I want if the random draw from the packs isn't working for me.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.