|
On January 10 2015 17:35 Solmyr wrote:I mean some of you act like they care more about HS than Blizzard itself. I wonder what are your goals in HS when you playing. You want to have fun yes but if there are 20 millions accounts there can be 20 million definitions of what is fun. You really think that can be implemented to a system ? What if someone is so afraid of losing that he can't stand it and would like a special league that you always win ? Or someone hate zoo so much that he would request that zoo players should play only with themselves. Or special Undertaker league for players with that card in a deck. I mean evry semi decent player could invent about 10 diffrent modes or leagues that you could implement. Who would programm all of that in such a small game... You hate on rush decks in a game when sometimes turn takes 2 minutes for a player to figure out. Do you really think that all players in hs have 12h for play control warrior vs control mage games that take 25 minutes each? How can you climb anything like that. Well you can if you are winning a lot of game :D But if you are in 50/50 situation... Why can't you all admit that you hate losing so much that you can't accept the game when almost half of the time you are left with frustration!!! That is the only true problem but it's psychological not hs related 
It's difficult to understand the point of your post since it's so scattered, but I imagine creating a custom game mode option (ala Arcade in SC2) would do all the legwork and support the many ways people have fun in Hearthstone. All those things that you mentioned could be created by user-designed maps/tourneys/games.
Besides the few inflammatory posts complaining about the complainers, this thread has been surprisingly civil, which is nice.
|
On January 10 2015 08:32 Solmyr wrote:
I don't really get that topic. Just random complains ? There are infinite things in life you can do.
Why playing HS if you don't like it?
The point of this topic was simply that while hearthstone is a very good game it could easily be improved by a lot if Blizzard would show at least a bit of desire to do so and that a group of players including myself are concerned about the future of the game we love if things continue in the current direction due to bad past experience with what happened to SC2.
This are not random complains, look at them as suggestions to how the game could become better. And just because we see the weaknesses of the game and how it could be improved it doesn't mean that we don't like it, it means the opposite.
|
Blizzard has phones in mind, and that is the main reason for many of these complains. Phones need very simple, streamlined interface, hence no chat channels, custom modes or tournament mode.
I hope the catchup will be implemented at some point, but many say it might not be the time for it just yet. Its still doable to make a free competetive deck after a few months.
|
I want to echo the sentiments about ladder. I don't play to be competitive at high ranks. I want to mess about experimenting with ideas for fun decks. Some do okay. Most are bad. I don't care when I lose a lot (I hover around rank 18) but most of my games are against aggro decks. They are cheap to make and quick to play. And effective.
This is such a big problem for me that whenever I want to try a new idea the first thing I need to add to the deck is a lot of anti-aggro cards. Every game I play I have to mulligan as if I am against aggro. It removes a lot of fun from the game for me.
Similarly it isn't fun when I lose to a very expensive deck. I don't mind so much on the rare occasions I have climbed the ladder a bit, by which I mean to around rank 13, but losing to top-level decks at rank 18 is incredibly frustrating.
I would be happy with a truly casual mode; unranked and no gold rewards. Then there would be no incentive to play super strong decks. I would still have to venture into ranked to complete quests for the gold but I would only have to do that every few days.
|
On January 11 2015 01:35 Melliflue wrote:
I want to echo the sentiments about ladder. I don't play to be competitive at high ranks. I want to mess about experimenting with ideas for fun decks. Some do okay. Most are bad. I don't care when I lose a lot (I hover around rank 18) but most of my games are against aggro decks. They are cheap to make and quick to play. And effective.
This is such a big problem for me that whenever I want to try a new idea the first thing I need to add to the deck is a lot of anti-aggro cards. Every game I play I have to mulligan as if I am against aggro. It removes a lot of fun from the game for me.
Similarly it isn't fun when I lose to a very expensive deck. I don't mind so much on the rare occasions I have climbed the ladder a bit, by which I mean to around rank 13, but losing to top-level decks at rank 18 is incredibly frustrating.
I would be happy with a truly casual mode; unranked and no gold rewards. Then there would be no incentive to play super strong decks. I would still have to venture into ranked to complete quests for the gold but I would only have to do that every few days.
you'd need to remove the possibility of completing quests on casual as well, they literally need to have 0 incentive other than try wacky stuff or learn the game so you dont queue into another cancerous deck
|
On January 10 2015 13:35 Drazerk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 12:26 Mortal wrote:
WHY CAN'T I HAVE ARBITRARY THINGS THAT CONTRIBUTE NOTHING TO THE OVERALL GAME OTHER THAN TO SATIATE MY YEARNING FOR THINGS?
Seriously, other than more deck slots, and possibly another couple other things, almost every request (more like childish demand) is idiotic. No, that's not too strong a word. You really think nerfing certain cards will fix the game? Auto-squelch is really your main concern? Possibly the biggest issue with HS is it's infancy- not a huge card pool and the game is fairly fresh.
While nowhere near the same category, SC:BW was considered to be wildly imbalanced- but every race had something imbalanced and that's the point (along with the fact people had a decade to figure it out because it was immensely more complex). When WoL was coming to an end, everything was so homogeneous and nerfed to kingdom come that it was duller than watching paint dry on a macroscopic level.
If you want to give opinions and have an open-ended discussion about the game and it's mechanics, that's cool- but don't pretend to give suggestions that are new when Blizzard has almost definitely considered 100% of them, and they've concluded they're not worth their time, or they simply don't wish to implement the opinions of a below-average/casual player who has less than no idea about game design.
Well, that was more angry that I expected it to be. Keep in mind I'm not trying to be mean here, I'm just annoyed with people being laughably entitled to think a company like Blizzard should cater to their whims.
edit- spacing. + Show Spoiler +
I disagree with you the biggest issue with HS is the ladder not its infancy.
Right now you have huge issues with both the ladder and the economy.
First you have conflicting end goals as right now there are two end goals in Hearthstone, collecting all the cards or getting rank 1 legendary. However because of how the ladder is implemented it is much easier to obtain gold at rank 20 which is the second big issue.
There is no reason for me to rank up why shouldn't I stomp new players / bad players when it gives me better rewards. If this was WoW I sure as hell am gonna grind those level 1 boars for my mythic highmaul loot I'd be stupid not to.
The third big issue is that the game is set up in a way that the only thing that matter is winning. No reward for participation means that decks are tailored to winning as quickly as possible meaning that no matter what way you look at it the best way to play is via rush / aggro decks if you want to collect every card or climb the ladder. The best deck is hunter and that is kind of sad even if you are an aggro player such as myself.
Blizzard knows of these issues but sadly they don't want to do anything about it leading to the ladder being toxic for new players stumping growth as people just get frustrated and quit.
You know, I agree with you. I was mostly looking at the issues presented and hadn't considered what I believed to be a current problem other than the fact that Blizzard hadn't taken the time to fix/change many things (hence my argument about infancy)- but I do believe that the ladder system currently is utterly horrendous as a whole.
|
On January 10 2015 09:44 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 08:32 Solmyr wrote:
I don't really get that topic. Just random complains ? There are infinite things in life you can do.
Why playing HS if you don't like it? THAAANK YOUUUUUUUUU <3 That's basically exactly how I felt when reading the OP.
Love it or leave it? It's the same argument staunch conservatives use to elbow out progressive policy change. There are a lot of problems with hearthstone, even on a basic UI level. Threads like these gaining attention can only help the situation.
As far as hearthstone problems, I would also like to see hunter removed or redesigned. There is no iteration of hunter that doesn't just herp derp face for better or worse. It's not hearthstone at that point, it's a SC1 campaign mission.
|
On January 11 2015 08:33 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 09:44 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 10 2015 08:32 Solmyr wrote:
I don't really get that topic. Just random complains ? There are infinite things in life you can do.
Why playing HS if you don't like it? THAAANK YOUUUUUUUUU <3 That's basically exactly how I felt when reading the OP. Love it or leave it? It's the same argument staunch conservatives use to elbow out progressive policy change. There are a lot of problems with hearthstone, even on a basic UI level. Threads like these gaining attention can only help the situation. As far as hearthstone problems, I would also like to see hunter removed or redesigned. There is no iteration of hunter that doesn't just herp derp face for better or worse. It's not hearthstone at that point, it's a SC1 campaign mission.
There are issues that most people would agree needs to be addressed, and other that many would consider to not be a problem. I think most people would prefer to see chat utility and more deck storage, but then not everyone would want to see aggressive decks being nerfed to the ground. Many players may be okay with the current state of the metagame, and for some the hunter class is not a problem per se. Complaints about the perceived slowness of collecting cards for f2p players are just silly; nobody has the right to demand Blizzard to give out free stuff at a faster pace. What you see as potentially progressive change, others may not see the same, so really this list of "issues" that "must" be addressed should be those that the community has given a solid consensus on, not some wishy washy wishlist that a specific segment wants.
|
On January 11 2015 08:33 RogerChillingworth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 09:44 Fleetfeet wrote:On January 10 2015 08:32 Solmyr wrote:
I don't really get that topic. Just random complains ? There are infinite things in life you can do.
Why playing HS if you don't like it? THAAANK YOUUUUUUUUU <3 That's basically exactly how I felt when reading the OP. Love it or leave it? It's the same argument staunch conservatives use to elbow out progressive policy change. There are a lot of problems with hearthstone, even on a basic UI level. Threads like these gaining attention can only help the situation. As far as hearthstone problems, I would also like to see hunter removed or redesigned. There is no iteration of hunter that doesn't just herp derp face for better or worse. It's not hearthstone at that point, it's a SC1 campaign mission.
The argument goes a bit deeper than "love it or leave it", but I'd take that as a starting point for my angle on the discussion, sure. People who play games that they love are very often ignorant or immature in their criticisms of said game, and OP is absolutely no exception to this state. Comments like "no auto-squelch (still lol)" and stuff like "...advantage exploited very well by blizzards rival companies valve and riot..." leave the between-the-lines of irate fanboy that is burned out on Blizzard games, but instead of accepting it he harbours further resentment for the company. That's not the preface for constructive criticism, that's just venting and QQ... which is fine, provided nobody mistakes what it actually is.
It doesn't help that a lot of the criticism is complete bullshit. Riot was awful at super-obvious features early on, and didn't have a replay / spectator system FOREVER, hyped maps that would never be released, had all kinds of misinformation and just straight broken champions on release. A whole bunch of my friends just straight quit Dota 2 because one of the patches changed too much of the core game for them. Criticisms like your "remove hunter" aren't at all provided in a constructed manner and basically boil down to "I don't like hunter, therefore they should be removed" as far as anyone can tell.
I'm all for progressive change, but that doesn't necessarily mean just chucking a bunch of stuff in a blender just to see what happens.
|
On January 10 2015 03:56 SuperHofmann wrote:
Totally agree. Blizzard is just letting his game going without doing too much. There's a thread in the TL:SC2 with about 50 graphic bugs and menus bugs and Blizzard seems just to don't care about it. I'm talking about issues to FIX, nothing about the balance, just errors in the menus and images that have a wrong size. DAMN! And don't talk about hackers... There's a 150 pages thread with replays and reports about maphackers and they are free to play for years without being banned. Someone also streams with maphacking and Blizzard just don't care...
I hope they will work more with their new fresh card game.
Yea, that's my thread. I started a text docu of shit like that for Hearthstone too, but it was too many things. I think I made a thread and then deleted the docu.
http://www.liquidhearth.com/forum/hearthstone/467887-post-hearthstone-gripes-bugs-etc
Also, need to be able to search cards via expansion pack.
Should be able to search: Classic, Naxx, Goblin/Gnome, etc.
|
On January 10 2015 04:10 Drazerk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 04:06 MarcoBrei wrote:On January 10 2015 02:00 Penlievskiov wrote:On January 09 2015 23:54 MarcoBrei wrote:
1. more deck slots
2. more deck slots
3. more deck slots
4. more deck slots 2 per class would be enough actually; That would keep things nice and tidy on the class screen too (the major concern for Blizzard iirc) Actually there is an extremely easy way to have 9 slots per class: 1. In "My collection" first open the screen "Choose your hero", so the player can choose the class first. 2. Then open the collection with 9 deck slots where the player will be able to build and save 9 decks for that specific class. 3. In play mode "Choose your deck" stick the 9 heroes on the slots and show an up/down arrow on each deck name to cycle through decks. On January 10 2015 02:11 MarlieChurphy wrote:
We don't need more deck slots, we just need the ability to save decklists into some file format that's easily copy and pasteable. So we can swap decks around with ease.
You are just describing a way to have more deck slots. A pretty ugly way, imo. it actually works really well for pokemon tbh. It just would never work for tablets / mobiles
My way is better because you can save a decklist or copy from internet easily without sifting through your cards and finding and clicking everything every time.
|
On January 10 2015 12:07 Spect8rCraft wrote:
My personal issue with Hearthstone is that it's just all too... limited. The system, while sufficiently open enough for creative deckbuilding, is still nevertheless too rigid. There are too many constants and limits to the game core itself: max of two of the same cards in constructed, thirty cards per deck, thirty life per hero (barring Jaraxxus, a played card), each turn awards an extra mana crystal, etc. Yes, each of these rules can be skirted with cards (and the first issue avoided with arena), but why can't we control that from the get-go?
Why can't we play that 30 Webspinner deck with friends? Why can't we give a 30 Unstable Portal deck a shot? Why can't we have the Nozdormu effect from the start? What if we could place artificial restrictions or changes, like hero immunity unless their board is clear? What if Piloted Shredders were 1 mana, Piloted Sky Golems were 2, and Sneed's were 3? What kind of game would ensue with a deck composed primarily of those cards? What if the game started at ten mana? At 45 health?
And this isn't about ranked or even constructed, mind you; it can't be, given the absurdities some players can make up. But they can still be fun artificial effects; much like actual cards from TCGs and CCGs, why should you have to follow the rules as stated by the cards or the game in your own time? If Blizzard really wanted to cater to the casual crowd, well, half of the fun of cards might be breaking the rules.
This is actually a great idea.
Practice mode. Where you have every single card, and you can put as many as you want of that card into your deck and play vs people on your friends list. No rewards when you play.
And if they don't want it to be free, then perhaps have it cost 5$ to unlock or pay 700g or something.
In MTG people often used crappy common cards as 'proxies' where you just write whatever card it was supposed to be so that you can play your friends with top level cards even though you cant afford it.
After a couple of years, Wizards came out with the pro deck packs for like 10$ each which were like the top 3-5 pro decks from that year with weird gold bordered cards and different backs.
Something like that would be cool to see as well, since we have already had a number of tournaments and winning decks.
So Pay 5$ for pro deck to use only with friends, or 500g or whatever.
|
I mostly agree, and while the lack of chat is kinda lame, it s a smart move, because 90% of the times it would be used to flame and insult and QQ about rng. Even with these lame ass chatwheel options most ppl try to use it to taunt the other player
|
I'm abandoning this topic.
It's just like I wrote. Evry semi decent player would come here with an idea or two and who will implement all those requests?
If you read it close from the start you will notice we have:
tons of issues from the OP post to other issues and the list could go into infinite.
|
Flamestrike should be changed to Rare card immediately. This card ruins the whole arena experience. I don't even pick mage as it is just ridiculous. Too bad every hurrrdurrr plays mage cause they can get more than 3 wins now.
|
no catch up system for new players for whom it will take forever to collect the cards
There are a few different catchup systems, depending on your region. I.e. we have a catchup system 'euros' in Europe. Americans have 'dollars'.
The only real issue I have with Hearthstone is stupid animations taking too much time. And generally too much animations and too much clicks required.
Flamestrike should be changed to Rare card immediately
No it should not
|
It does not seem that Blizzard takes HS as a serious eSports title. Otherwise they would have added a lot of stuff already. I think it was just developed to be a casual game. That explains why there have not been eSports features like replays, built-in tourneys or ladder statistics.
|
On January 11 2015 16:00 MarlieChurphy wrote:
Also, need to be able to search cards via expansion pack.
Should be able to search: Classic, Naxx, Goblin/Gnome, etc.
You have always been able to do this by the way. In your collection on the bottom right of the card pages there is a little tab that looks like a flag. Give that a try. Cheers.
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On January 14 2015 09:22 Sejanus wrote:Show nested quote +no catch up system for new players for whom it will take forever to collect the cards There are a few different catchup systems, depending on your region. I.e. we have a catchup system 'euros' in Europe. Americans have 'dollars'. The only real issue I have with Hearthstone is stupid animations taking too much time. And generally too much animations and too much clicks required. No it should not
Animations off would be amazing. They are very very unnecessary
|
On January 11 2015 16:10 MarlieChurphy wrote:
In MTG people often used crappy common cards as 'proxies' where you just write whatever card it was supposed to be so that you can play your friends with top level cards even though you cant afford it.
After a couple of years, Wizards came out with the pro deck packs for like 10$ each which were like the top 3-5 pro decks from that year with weird gold bordered cards and different backs.
Something like that would be cool to see as well, since we have already had a number of tournaments and winning decks.
So Pay 5$ for pro deck to use only with friends, or 500g or whatever.
I guess you talk about the physical MtG and not the online game? Because you can always meet with friends and make "proxies" of HS cards and play them physically.
The part about the pro decks: MtG decks can become veeery expensive with costs of several hundreds of dollars. And if you would buy that cheap special decks you would not be able to compete in tournaments.
I personally don't see the point as it's very easy to make the "pro decks" in HS with dust, at least some single ones. It's just a completely different situation as a physical card game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
