EPTHearthstone to some extent, while showing the great potential just like SC2 did is plagued with even more issues, no rewards for reaching higher ranks - gold farming at 20, no catch up system for new players for whom it will take forever to collect the cards, no tournament mode, no arena tournament mode, 9 decks, hunter, no faster turns mode, unbalanced cards (undertaker qq), no auto-squelch (still lol), terrible chat system... And the worst part is that the Blizzard knows about the issues and needed improvements, but instead of experimenting with different ideas and changing things, they seem to be taking the SC2 approach of doing nothing and hoping for the best, which cannot possibly end well. I fear if that continuous, hearthstone will slowly grow for about 12-18 more months, than rapidly start to decline in player base and tournaments like SC2 did until it will be completely unsalvageable. Something has to be done until it will be too late.
Hearthstone issues must be addressed.
| Forum Index > Hearthstone General |
|
rudimentalfeelthelov
Finland268 Posts
Hearthstone to some extent, while showing the great potential just like SC2 did is plagued with even more issues, no rewards for reaching higher ranks - gold farming at 20, no catch up system for new players for whom it will take forever to collect the cards, no tournament mode, no arena tournament mode, 9 decks, hunter, no faster turns mode, unbalanced cards (undertaker qq), no auto-squelch (still lol), terrible chat system... And the worst part is that the Blizzard knows about the issues and needed improvements, but instead of experimenting with different ideas and changing things, they seem to be taking the SC2 approach of doing nothing and hoping for the best, which cannot possibly end well. I fear if that continuous, hearthstone will slowly grow for about 12-18 more months, than rapidly start to decline in player base and tournaments like SC2 did until it will be completely unsalvageable. Something has to be done until it will be too late. | ||
|
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
On January 09 2015 23:14 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: Something has to be done until it will be too late. Love that quote. I'm pretty sure we all agree with you about the things we would like to change (besides the QQ you decided to put in which worked against the op in my opinion) but perhaps you could share some ideas on how to actually change them. Remember that blizzards wants this game to run on tablets and maybe even phones so keep that in consideration. I wonder if they will ever branch the the mobile versions and the pc versions apart though. Basically, I wish they would add more features to the PC version and maybe add a less graphic intensive options for the mobile versions. Here's wishing. | ||
|
ObamaToss
United States24 Posts
| ||
|
MarcoBrei
Brazil66 Posts
2. more deck slots 3. more deck slots | ||
|
Repomies
Finland73 Posts
| ||
|
SiaBBo
Finland133 Posts
On January 10 2015 01:04 Repomies wrote: Personally I'd love to see the option of drafting a constructed deck like you draft an arena deck, except that you draft the deck from the cards you own. You kinda can do that using the "Suggest card" option when making the deck. | ||
|
hokeypocus
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
Penlievskiov
Netherlands0 Posts
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) | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
Main concerns from me are: There is no chat. Need a true draft format (like how MTG drafts are held) on top of arena and other modes. There is laggy gui, inputs go slow etc. Ladder is useless. Need more modes like KotH/tournament mode so you can have fun with a group of friends and chat etc. Screenshots and replays need to save in hearthstone folder. Need replays. Need to fix this bug where it loads random video/games jumbled up on the boarders of the game while its open. Need decklists to fit on 1 screen for ease of screenshots, perhaps a toggle to text/details mode. | ||
|
Lumi
United States1616 Posts
| ||
|
Solmyr
Poland261 Posts
I would just ask a question than. Are community in those games is less whiny, complaining than in HS ? Sure there are a lot of issues but who cares when you are winning. When you losing on the other hand... And ofc the biggest problem is warlock hero power. But how can you change that ? That is like admiting terrible design in the first place  | ||
|
Lumi
United States1616 Posts
On January 10 2015 02:31 Solmyr wrote: That is like admiting terrible design in the first place Some people are capable of that. Just not Blizzard. | ||
|
Solmyr
Poland261 Posts
You can't satisfy all poeple. Someone has to lose. It's the nature of this bussiness. | ||
|
mandelised
0 Posts
The matchmaking is attrocious, why at level 20 do i meet players with 3 or 4 legendaries, i have 2 hex or 2 poly Is this the returning Bot players ?? Casual is even worse. This is getting to be a grind and not enjoyable. I see the issue in how it makes money. Id pay for annnimated cards, interactive battlegrounds. Id like card rewards for levelling up. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On January 09 2015 23:37 ObamaToss wrote: I think this belongs on the bnet forums. Also, SC2 is a pretty phenomenal game, blizzard just happens to attract entitled teenagers who prefer to complain about their games, rather than play them. I'm not arguing that there aren't problems, but your treatise on SC2 doesn't really hold water. Well, really? I only got into SCBW in 2008 but still fell in love with it 10+ years after release. I thought that I was a RTS fan and got bored of SC2 in half a year. Just because it has no competition doesn't mean it's phenomenal, in my opinion. | ||
|
SuperHofmann
Italy1741 Posts
I hope they will work more with their new fresh card game. | ||
|
MarcoBrei
Brazil66 Posts
On January 10 2015 02:00 Penlievskiov wrote: 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. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On January 10 2015 04:06 MarcoBrei wrote: 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. 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 | ||
|
ystao
United States15 Posts
In the play menu, is it possible to also have a deck viewer window? I have 6 priest decks and it would be easier for me if I don't have to go back to my collections to see what's in each deck. Save/load deck function is a good for PC users, but it's hard for the tablet users as you'll need to synced the files by yourself. | ||
|
TAMinator
Australia2706 Posts
| ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
| ||
|
d00p
711 Posts
Hearthstone, on the other hand, is simply a fun little game that was definitely never meant to be ESPORTS but rather just make money with a freemium model. Hearthstone is great but I find it silly that this game is played for a 100k at Blizzcon. I mean no offence to Firebat and he is probably a nice guy and everything but he simply cannot be compared to an amazing talent like Life and the other SC2 participants. Basically what I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the player base declines (which it currently doesn't) because the only thing that might hurt is tournament viewers/exposure and this game is not competitive in the first place. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't fix most of the things in the OP. Deck slots is an obvious one. | ||
|
d00p
711 Posts
| ||
|
MarcoBrei
Brazil66 Posts
On January 10 2015 06:48 d00p wrote: I don't understand the comparison to SC2. That game was a larger than life messiah when it came out and had 0 chance to live up to the expectations. What made it fail as the ESPORTS game (btw it's by no means dead) is that it's simply too hard core for most players who would later become fans. It also wasn't free. All this talk about chat rooms etc. is nonsense. And Blizz could care less. Wings of liberty sold like 4 million copies or something. It was a success. There was an existing community that made it an ESPORT but I'm sure Blizzard had no expectations regarding that. Hearthstone, on the other hand, is simply a fun little game that was definitely never meant to be ESPORTS but rather just make money with a freemium model. Hearthstone is great but I find it silly that this game is played for a 100k at Blizzcon. I mean no offence to Firebat and he is probably a nice guy and everything but he simply cannot be compared to an amazing talent like Life and the other SC2 participants. Basically what I'm saying is it doesn't matter if the player base declines (which it currently doesn't) because the only thing that might hurt is tournament viewers/exposure and this game is not competitive in the first place. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't fix most of the things in the OP. Deck slots is an obvious one. Any sc2 player who thinks it can be easier to win 100K in Hearthstone could just switch from sc2 to HS. There are distinct skills required for each game. | ||
|
sacrilegious
Canada863 Posts
Most of the problems have been echoed in this thread, but again I'll reiterate the biggest one... if people want to see where the problem starts look no further than the constructed ladder system in both ranked and casual. What's the incentive to play ranked if you're not a pro or someone who has a sick obsession with this game and too much time on their hands? A barely visible card back to show off your e-peen? Bragging rights that you made it to the top ranks among best players in the world for this game? Sorry, not appealing enough, for once again for casuals. Why is the game really anti-fun and promotes being uncreative, because either it promotes quick effective aggro and early board control decks like Zoo and Huntard, or extreme control "p2w" decks like wallet warrior or handlock? This is essentially is what makes constructed a horrible game mode right now, because there's an extreme of one style or the other with no middle ground (mid range) being viable. Newbies and F2P players like myself are forced into playing cheap aggro styles because we have no gold or dust or refuse to spend it to be successful, and have to earn that gold and dust and quick and efficient as possible playing these decks. But then at the end of the day if I wanted to spend a few thousand more dust to craft a Grom and Alexstraza to have a wallet warrior deck would I really be having fun?... no. I've basically illustrated the main problem of this game, and until Blizz solves this one this game will continue to have its problems in the future which may very well kill its growth or even cause it to recede | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
If you don't want more decks, that's absolutely fine. You can just choose not to use more than 9 decks (or however many you want). There's no good reason to stop other people from getting to use it. | ||
|
Solmyr
Poland261 Posts
Why playing HS if you don't like it? | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On January 10 2015 07:36 sacrilegious wrote: I've stopped playing this game 2 weeks ago, despite being in the middle of 2 60 gold win quests with Paladin, and a 3-1 arena run where I just don't want to play because my last loss was a result of "being Mage'd" which is absolutely frustrating in this game mode. I have no intentions of returning this month after last months ranking placed me in rank 19 this month, and might just play 1 day to get to rank 20 next month to get the card back then stop again. Most of the problems have been echoed in this thread, but again I'll reiterate the biggest one... if people want to see where the problem starts look no further than the constructed ladder system in both ranked and casual. What's the incentive to play ranked if you're not a pro or someone who has a sick obsession with this game and too much time on their hands? A barely visible card back to show off your e-peen? Bragging rights that you made it to the top ranks among best players in the world for this game? Sorry, not appealing enough, for once again for casuals. Why is the game really anti-fun and promotes being uncreative, because either it promotes quick effective aggro and early board control decks like Zoo and Huntard, or extreme control "p2w" decks like wallet warrior or handlock? This is essentially is what makes constructed a horrible game mode right now, because there's an extreme of one style or the other with no middle ground (mid range) being viable. Newbies and F2P players like myself are forced into playing cheap aggro styles because we have no gold or dust or refuse to spend it to be successful, and have to earn that gold and dust and quick and efficient as possible playing these decks. But then at the end of the day if I wanted to spend a few thousand more dust to craft a Grom and Alexstraza to have a wallet warrior deck would I really be having fun?... no. I've basically illustrated the main problem of this game, and until Blizz solves this one this game will continue to have its problems in the future which may very well kill its growth or even cause it to recede No midrange decks being viable? Extremes of two styles? I suggest you invest the time to do a climb into a higher level of play before throwing out meaningless assertions. Midrange decks are still common. Shaman, double combo druid, most types of Rogue and quartermaster Paladin are just some examples. Some of the best counters to control warrior are midrange decks. If you are making a "P2W" complaint, that is another issue, and even then I find it hard to believe you cannot come up with a pair of competitive midrange decks after three months of playing, as long as you know what you are doing. | ||
|
peidongyang
Canada2084 Posts
Blizzard, the Toronto Transit Commission, or the Sochi Olympics. Just mediocrity, laziness and for the latter two, some corruption going on. Edit and no I'm not that mad for blizz at hearthstone, I'm mad at them for SC2 and every single korean whose personality could have been described by "-.-" | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2682 Posts
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. | ||
|
sacrilegious
Canada863 Posts
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? Then why bother having any discussions at all anywhere? Maybe people complain because they can care... for only so long before not bothering (like I have). Would you rather have a lip sealed community and apathy? I can tell you that won't help the game grow (just read the OP in this thread when SC2 is brought up) On January 10 2015 08:43 5unrise wrote: No midrange decks being viable? Extremes of two styles? I suggest you invest the time to do a climb into a higher level of play before throwing out meaningless assertions. Midrange decks are still common. Shaman, double combo druid, most types of Rogue and quartermaster Paladin are just some examples. Some of the best counters to control warrior are midrange decks. If you are making a "P2W" complaint, that is another issue, and even then I find it hard to believe you cannot come up with a pair of competitive midrange decks after three months of playing, as long as you know what you are doing. Why are you just talking about high level play? Did you read what I wrote, in that the first thing I mentioned was the core of the problem in this game was ranked (and casual) play itself? This includes all levels of play, which as much as you think rank 20-10 is irrelevant it isn't. My rant wasn't directed strictly at the balance, but that's included when it comes to the flaw of the ladder system... But since you want to bring up decks... no I have done my time in watching high level streamers and tournaments for a long time prior to 2 weeks ago when I stopped focusing on this game, I don't need to play hours and hours of rank 5 to legend to believe you. Mid range maybe more common now for these last few weeks, sure if you want to just count Paladin with Muster and Quartermaster... ok? Last time I checked Shaman as long as the current Hunter garbage and nearly every deck using Harrison still exists, is not common. Druid with 2 copies of the combo common? Nope sorry haven't seen a streamer ladder exclusively with any form of mid range Druid deck, and that includes a lot of Strifecro (Druid master) up to 2 weeks ago... and please Rogue has been non-existent maybe up to a few days ago when top streamers started perfecting something, I don't know about that one. However, once again as long as Zoo and Hunter and to an extent mech Mage (as a result of how dumb the Mechwarper is atm) are predominant in ladder, then this game on the constructed side of things has a problem... deny it if you want... ask newbies who start this game if it's fun to be forced into playing aggro style just to get their shinies... ask players who want to experiment if it's fun to lose to these aggro decks... eventually how much can people take before they flat out... quit? Is that what you want for this playerbase for a F2P game? | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
| ||
|
Spect8rCraft
649 Posts
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. | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
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. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
sacrilegious
Canada863 Posts
On January 10 2015 12:26 Mortal wrote:... 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. ... 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... If things were kept the way they were at the beginning of SC2 WoL, I can guarantee you more people would have quit earlier than they have now... I will never forget how frustrating the first few months were playing as and facing terrans... +50 siege tank damage to all armor types, unnerfed blue flame hellion damage = suicide into mineral lines for minimal losses... I'm still willing to bet a lot of people got turned off near the end of WoL because of Protoss and Zerg (Infestors and Mothership) design and balance flaws that lasted for over a year when EVERYONE wanted that situation fixed... anyway the point in relation to this game is that when something that is apparently flawed in design, you don't wait forever to fix it to the point people get turned off by it, when you have the power to quickly correct these things. Remember 2 mana UTH combo with Buzzard and/or Leeroy and Timberwolf? How about Warsong Commander plus 0 mana Molten Giants with charge brewed back by a Brewmaster, or equip gorehowl followed by an Alexstraza with a 0 mana charge? This game was really unplayable during those times around last year People are just giving suggestions. Yes some of them are silly which are quite common (go to the bnet forums and you will see), but it's still feedback. If anything Blizzard catered to the wrong crowds; for example completely removing chat in game because they want to appease older mature people so they do not get offended... gimme a break On January 10 2015 11:06 5unrise wrote: You can have the final word, since I really cannot summon the effort to type up an essay to address your points. Seems like you got a lot of stuff to complain about this game, which I cannot empathise with (for the most part); all I can say is sorry you feel this way. Cool I'm just going to quickly address the stuff OP stated, and after reading it some of it does sound stupid but some are pretty legit: No rewards for reaching higher ranks - Related to what I said about ladder play... they definitely need to fix this, but giving more dust and gold for reaching higher ranks each month is not the solution... newbies and F2P'ers will just complain more about how "the rich will just get richer, while the poor get poorer" Gold farming at rank 20 - I'm guilty of this. Again it's the flaw of the ladder system I stated, and the game itself in order to obtain your mediocre rewards of gold and golden portraits. There's no punishment for this, games are quicker, and generally around this rank you see somewhat creative decks unlike the higher ranks. They need to fix ladder, but I have no idea how. Catch up for new players with no collection - Probably an issue because it's a F2P game, and telling a new player to buy packs for something unknown isn't the way to sell the game, although it is dumb because this is a CCG and I would be opposed to new players that joined today getting everything for free while I had to grind thousands of constructed games and hundreds of ladder games to get my collection. They should probably scale back the gold and $ costs, for at least Naxx. Tournaments - This should have been implemented into the game a long time ago, if not right now and follow how actual tournament formats go with class banning. I don't like an arena tournament mode, because arena is like a tournament in itself, and this game mode has its own flaws which I'm surprised people are not more vocal about (hello Mage and Paladin class pickers). 9 decks - Really? Hunter - No one likes losing to this class, except unless you redesign it starting with its hero power, then nothing will change. The only reason this class is still decent right now is and only is because of Undertaker (which should have been addressed a long time ago) Faster turns mode - Umm ok whatever? Card balance - The only thing I think should be said is how damn long it takes for Blizzard to address certain cards that should be addressed based on a flaw in their design. Undertaker as you said is obviously one of them, and this was apparent even before Naxx came out. Leeroy took WAYY too long to get changed. Zoo would be less common or gone if they did a deserved Doomguard nerf along with the deserved Soulfire nerf a month ago. Chat system - There's no reason there should not be chat channels like how SC, D2, WC3, all the old Blizz games that had it. I'm fine with no chat during game, although the emote system is obnoxious, but again zero public chat is just mind boggling. If you're complaining about auto-squelch, then just get into the habit of squelching your opponent every game... it's not that hard jesus | ||
|
Pandain
United States12989 Posts
What I'm seeing across community sites is the same exact thing that happened in SC2. Countless people offer suggestions to UI, game design, technical issues, and Blizzard does nothing. Countless top-rated Reddit posts and thought out TL posts are ignored despite good discussion in them. I foresee HS following this path, Blizzard ignoring 90% of suggestions, failing to address the meta correctly, and an eventual run-off in HS interest after 2 years. But I hope for the best and that I'm wrong. | ||
|
Solmyr
Poland261 Posts
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 | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
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 I mean the quick mode which is what most people want would actually only take 1 guy like 10 minutes to do its not exactly a difficult thing to create. As for balance I don't really care about that as if you had read the thread most issues are to do with the ladder / UI which sad to say the player base does care about more than Blizzard. | ||
|
GoingGoingGone
Slovakia529 Posts
 . | ||
|
litlnoobs
United States8 Posts
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. | ||
|
rudimentalfeelthelov
Finland268 Posts
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. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
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. | ||
|
Melliflue
United Kingdom1389 Posts
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. | ||
|
TAMinator
Australia2706 Posts
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 | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
On January 10 2015 13:35 Drazerk wrote: + 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. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
Chad3131 Posts
On January 10 2015 09:44 Fleetfeet wrote: 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. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On January 11 2015 08:33 RogerChillingworth wrote: 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. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2682 Posts
On January 11 2015 08:33 RogerChillingworth wrote: 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. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
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. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
On January 10 2015 04:10 Drazerk wrote: 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. | ||
|
MarlieChurphy
United States2065 Posts
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. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
Solmyr
Poland261 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ricjames
Czech Republic1047 Posts
| ||
|
Sejanus
Lithuania550 Posts
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 | ||
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
| ||
|
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
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. | ||
|
Drazerk
United Kingdom31255 Posts
On January 14 2015 09:22 Sejanus wrote: 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 | ||
|
Hondelul
1999 Posts
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. | ||
|
BongChambers
Canada591 Posts
| ||
| ||
