EPTAnd I agree player 2 should only be able to mulligan 3 cards and then get the extra card.
Hearthstone QQ Therapy - Page 19
| Forum Index > Hearthstone General |
|
serum321
United States606 Posts
And I agree player 2 should only be able to mulligan 3 cards and then get the extra card. | ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
| ||
|
Ambrosia_
20 Posts
| ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
Anyway.. The thing everyone seems to be ignoring is the coin allows the second player to do things on turn one that the first player can't. The person playing first is never going to drop two windfury drakes followed by a pump wolf and swing for lethal on turn three*. You just can't do that without the coin. The mana advantage of going first is not anywhere near significant as coin's ability to turn a turn four kill into a turn three one is. Now add the increased chance of it actually happening thanks to not only getting an extra card but also being able to mulligan it. It's absurd. *Longshot but possible, happened to me in arena. Turn 1: 2 Young Dragonhawk Turn 2: Dire Wolf Alpha Turn 3: 2 Timber Wolf, Unleash the Hounds 39 total damage if I counted that right | ||
|
layabout
United Kingdom2600 Posts
| ||
|
PushDown
Italy208 Posts
*Click on the 4 normals *Click on the epic *GOLDEN EPIC *HUNGRY CRAB *Facepalm into disenchant u.u BTW what should be the most op thing for the player that gets to start on the second turn is the 4 cards choices he has. He can mulligan 4 cards while the first guy can only do that with 3. He already has the coin for counter-balance the fact he goes second, give him the fourth card the moment the game starts (outside mulligan range). | ||
|
Vorenius
Denmark1979 Posts
On November 06 2013 04:09 futility wrote: I don't think only changing the mulligan is enough. Now in terms of cards viewed the two players are equal, but the person who plays second still has card advantage and the coin. Maybe being able to play your two drop first isn't necessarily that great, but like you said, being able to save it to even out your mana curve is extremely strong. Then there's the problem it creates with various other card interactions.. I think either the coin or the extra card would be fine, but having both is overcompensating. Before the wipe and big patch Blizzard posted that the player going first had a higher winrate. Now it could be that down the line when people figure out what to do with the coin that will change (hint: don't use the coin to use player ability on turn 1...), but it seems odd to buff something that's already 'overpowered'. | ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
On November 06 2013 08:32 Vorenius wrote: Before the wipe and big patch Blizzard posted that the player going first had a higher winrate. Now it could be that down the line when people figure out what to do with the coin that will change (hint: don't use the coin to use player ability on turn 1...), but it seems odd to buff something that's already 'overpowered'. And given how much has changed since the wipe and big patch that's largely irrelevant now. | ||
|
Raavi
Denmark156 Posts
You can be in control, with a good hand and feeling of the game. And the suddenly get ~15-20 dmg in the head, gg. Not because of skill but a lucky draw and the fact that cards are pretty powerfull considering the 30hp. Especially in arena were i pay for it, with zero rewards for most of the time. Im not saying comebacks shouldnt be possible, but right now luck plays such a big factor compared to personel skill imo. | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
On November 06 2013 04:49 futility wrote: The thing everyone seems to be ignoring is the coin allows the second player to do things on turn one that the first player can't. The person playing first is never going to drop two windfury drakes followed by a pump wolf and swing for lethal on turn three*. But it's not really relevant. You're playing 2-mana stuff while the opponent is about to start his 2-mana turn. That's how turn 1-10 is for player 1 normally. Player 2 just gets to change one with the coin. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On November 06 2013 08:32 Vorenius wrote: Before the wipe and big patch Blizzard posted that the player going first had a higher winrate. Now it could be that down the line when people figure out what to do with the coin that will change (hint: don't use the coin to use player ability on turn 1...), but it seems odd to buff something that's already 'overpowered'. I think as people learn to build good decks then even the extra card goes down. Right now, if I got first it sucks because my deck composition sucks and I'm likely to have 3 unusable cards*... but when I watch "good" players it seems like pre-post mulligan they always have good cards.** This is probably why they only talked about grandmaster win-rates on their blog about the coin (and extra card). * And I'm 3* Plat, so I can only imagine what newbie constructed decks look like. ** Yes having an extra card is an advantage in and of itself, I'm just talking about the extra mulligan. | ||
|
Ambrosia_
20 Posts
On November 06 2013 04:49 futility wrote: I'm not sure what level you played Magic at but going first isn't always superior at all I dont know what level YOU played magic at, but im getting an idea. Going first is always superior, always has been, with the exception of one very obscure legacy deck. As far as comparing the two, people like to compare things and magic is the closest comparison. Very different of course, but same principles do apply. | ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
On November 06 2013 11:54 Ambrosia_ wrote: I dont know what level YOU played magic at, but im getting an idea. Going first is always superior, always has been, with the exception of one very obscure legacy deck. As far as comparing the two, people like to compare things and magic is the closest comparison. Very different of course, but same principles do apply. For future reference personal attacks are not a good way to make your point. Maybe you have never played Type 1 or weren't around when Library of Alexandria saw heavy play but please do some research before you dogmatically make such ridiculous claims. There have been plenty of other decks through the last 20? years of Magic that have benefit from playing second as well, but that one card handily refutes your claim and has seen play in many decks, not "one very obscure legacy deck." | ||
|
Ambrosia_
20 Posts
On November 06 2013 15:26 futility wrote: For future reference personal attacks are not a good way to make your point. Maybe you have never played Type 1 or weren't around when Library of Alexandria saw heavy play but please do some research before you dogmatically make such ridiculous claims. There have been plenty of other decks through the last 20? years of Magic that have benefit from playing second as well, but that one card handily refutes your claim and has seen play in many decks, not "one very obscure legacy deck." Personal attack? I quoted you directly. If you really are as knowledgeable as you claim to be about the history of Magic, you should be aware that pretending that the decision to go first or second is somehow a meaningful and interesting one is ridiculous. You listed one example of one card in a single format which has been restricted for decades as your only point of evidence, standing against the sea of 99.9% play first preference. Pretending there is a strategic decision here is facetious. | ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
going first isn't always superior No. I said it's not always superior, and I proved it. So what is your argument exactly? | ||
|
Ambrosia_
20 Posts
| ||
|
futility
Japan134 Posts
Going first is always superior, always has been, with the exception of one very obscure legacy deck. That is not true, plain and simple. I apologize for attempting to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. My username is strangely appropriate. | ||
|
FetTerBender
Germany1393 Posts
Felt awesome when i had 2 Ancients of War, Nourish, Claw and a pretty good early lineup in the deck, but mindcontrol, shadow words and lucky / perfectly timed draws killed me thrice. Oh well, back to farming gold again. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On November 06 2013 09:18 Raavi wrote: Does anyone else think the game, in its current state, is too volatile? You can be in control, with a good hand and feeling of the game. And the suddenly get ~15-20 dmg in the head, gg. Not because of skill but a lucky draw and the fact that cards are pretty powerfull considering the 30hp. Especially in arena were i pay for it, with zero rewards for most of the time. Im not saying comebacks shouldnt be possible, but right now luck plays such a big factor compared to personel skill imo. Agreed on that. I have always had bad luck when it comes to card game (from playing blackjack/poker all these years), and of course i dont have a very good deck nor good skill in hearthstone, but I just feel strongly that luck factor is too huge. I play mostly constructed games and about 6 arena games, highest i have gone is 4-3, the last run i went 2-3 -_- they have crazy cards since the very beginning and with 10000 nukes etc. | ||
|
BurningSera
Ireland19621 Posts
On November 06 2013 15:55 futility wrote: I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm simply disproving a claim made against my own. If you don't want people to take fault with your claims then don't make false claims. That is not true, plain and simple. I apologize for attempting to prevent the dissemination of misinformation. My username is strangely appropriate. I think the advantage of going first or second is highly related to the player's playstyle. For me i have always felt like going second suits me better, i have shit luck that I always get high mana cards in my hand -_- (i usually 5-8 cards with 5+ mana in my whole deck ffs). | ||
| ||
