@SheogorathSC: Go I got bored to face the AI, my Mage deck beats the expert AI most often than not but AI fails to so horribly to simulate a real match that it can't be considered practicing.
@EternalWraith: Go Well, grinding vs paying is what many players hated in D3 wasn't it?
@Spoolofwhool: Go No, I'm not comparing it to SC2, I said the strategy design of an ideal build is present in both, but it affects them in different ways, I think in some cases it might be worse in Heartstone. The fact that there are ideal builds and a metagame puts a barrier if you don't follow it, exactly like SC2. Right now I'm rank 19 with my mage deck.
@Fullachain: Go How much have you played? How many packs have you opened so far?
@Alevice: Go My mage is over level 20, my rank is 19. What is your rank? So far I have found very few sinergies with Wizard spells, the Violet Teacher plus spells is the only one I remember, not enough to keep me alive vs minion spamming decks.
@MasterWrath: Go I could still play it if it wasn't for the feeling that I'll have to learn a constantly changing ideal build in order to have a chance.
@Fullachain: Go Yes, with infinite time you could acquire all cards by luck, but there is no comparison against a player that will spend money, and get them way faster. And gold can only buy the cheapest pack.
@GizmoPT: Go My experience with ranked matches is that they are most often than not one-sided. Either I crush my opponent, sometimes ending the game with full life, or get steamrolled the same way. I think about 10% of the matches I played were not like that, and as I climbed the ranks I quickly hit a stone wall.
@ArcaneDurandel: Go I hope Blizzard will go that way, but considering SC2 is all about that design, I don't think they even realize the other extreme exists. No, I don't think Blizzard has any interest in avoiding the pay to win scenario, because that where their profit will come from.
@SoulTaker916: Go Yes, the cards are simple, but I don't thin that is a big issue, complex strategy can arise from the combination of simple elements if well planned, but I understand that TCG players may find them boring.
Hi mapsters, I tried Hearstone and I wanted to know if anyone else around here tried it and what are the opinions on it. I'll share my thoughts to get it started.
By just downloading and playing it I found the game is fun, and as Blizzard likes to say it is simple to learn and hard to master. But I got "stuck" too fast by being beaten by other players, so I decided to take a break and read a little about it. What do I find in the forums? Unfortunately a too familar discussion about "pro builds" and "current metagame".
Yes, SC2 ladder experience all over again, but I think it will be worse for Hearstone. Why? In SC2 all players can choose 1 of 3 races, and during a match can try a few options on how to play it, and I mean few because we all know there are these "builds" that fit the "current metagame" and if you don't have them decorated you're already behind. In Hearstone you pick one of (I don't know, 8 classes?) and create a deck for it with a strategy in mind. Then you pick one of your decks BEFORE you go find a player to fight. That means your strategy is already set, the build is or isn't already there. To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
I think this all comes from a specific design in strategies from Blizzard's teams: There are 2 design extremes where in one multiple strategies are good or at least viable, and hardly ever one is better than most of the others. And the other extreme where most strategies aren't viable at all, only a few are any good, and there's at least the potential for an ideal strategy, the one you should be following. It seems Blizzard games are going towards the second extreme... too much in my opinion.
So, in my conclusion: with ideal builds/strategies, plus real money making your options better I foresee that once more it will be an unwelcoming environment for new players. If this scenario is already present during beta, it can only become stronger after release.
But as I said I started the thread to know your own opinions, and see what I can learn from them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@SearingChicken: Go After 2 days I think I opened 4 or 5 decks, but I haven't played arena.
@JademusSreg: Go Didn't even know decks could be named. Mine all use the starting name for each class I guess.
@SheogorathSC: Go I got bored to face the AI, my Mage deck beats the expert AI most often than not but AI fails to so horribly to simulate a real match that it can't be considered practicing.
@EternalWraith: Go Well, grinding vs paying is what many players hated in D3 wasn't it?
@Spoolofwhool: Go No, I'm not comparing it to SC2, I said the strategy design of an ideal build is present in both, but it affects them in different ways, I think in some cases it might be worse in Heartstone. The fact that there are ideal builds and a metagame puts a barrier if you don't follow it, exactly like SC2. Right now I'm rank 19 with my mage deck.
@Fullachain: Go How much have you played? How many packs have you opened so far?
@Alevice: Go My mage is over level 20, my rank is 19. What is your rank? So far I have found very few sinergies with Wizard spells, the Violet Teacher plus spells is the only one I remember, not enough to keep me alive vs minion spamming decks.
@MasterWrath: Go I could still play it if it wasn't for the feeling that I'll have to learn a constantly changing ideal build in order to have a chance.
@Fullachain: Go Yes, with infinite time you could acquire all cards by luck, but there is no comparison against a player that will spend money, and get them way faster. And gold can only buy the cheapest pack.
@GizmoPT: Go My experience with ranked matches is that they are most often than not one-sided. Either I crush my opponent, sometimes ending the game with full life, or get steamrolled the same way. I think about 10% of the matches I played were not like that, and as I climbed the ranks I quickly hit a stone wall.
@ArcaneDurandel: Go I hope Blizzard will go that way, but considering SC2 is all about that design, I don't think they even realize the other extreme exists. No, I don't think Blizzard has any interest in avoiding the pay to win scenario, because that where their profit will come from.
@SoulTaker916: Go Yes, the cards are simple, but I don't thin that is a big issue, complex strategy can arise from the combination of simple elements if well planned, but I understand that TCG players may find them boring.
Hi mapsters, I tried Hearstone and I wanted to know if anyone else around here tried it and what are the opinions on it. I'll share my thoughts to get it started.
By just downloading and playing it I found the game is fun, and as Blizzard likes to say it is simple to learn and hard to master. But I got "stuck" too fast by being beaten by other players, so I decided to take a break and read a little about it. What do I find in the forums? Unfortunately a too familar discussion about "pro builds" and "current metagame".
Yes, SC2 ladder experience all over again, but I think it will be worse for Hearstone. Why? In SC2 all players can choose 1 of 3 races, and during a match can try a few options on how to play it, and I mean few because we all know there are these "builds" that fit the "current metagame" and if you don't have them decorated you're already behind. In Hearstone you pick one of (I don't know, 8 classes?) and create a deck for it with a strategy in mind. Then you pick one of your decks BEFORE you go find a player to fight. That means your strategy is already set, the build is or isn't already there. To make things worse in Hearstone you can spend money, real money, to have more and better cards available which means new players have one more (strong) disadvantage.
I think this all comes from a specific design in strategies from Blizzard's teams: There are 2 design extremes where in one multiple strategies are good or at least viable, and hardly ever one is better than most of the others. And the other extreme where most strategies aren't viable at all, only a few are any good, and there's at least the potential for an ideal strategy, the one you should be following. It seems Blizzard games are going towards the second extreme... too much in my opinion.
So, in my conclusion: with ideal builds/strategies, plus real money making your options better I foresee that once more it will be an unwelcoming environment for new players. If this scenario is already present during beta, it can only become stronger after release.
But as I said I started the thread to know your own opinions, and see what I can learn from them.