Close

Page 5 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 183
  1. #41
    World Champion 2012 iClipse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,249
    Tournaments Joined
    6
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivozzz View Post
    SE will have 2 vs 2 and FFA. ... End of story and argument
    That's not a solid argument. By the time we have that, hearthstone could have it too. You should compare the now with the now. Not the maybe future with the future of which you don't know anything.
    iClipse - A1's Twilight Manipulator - A1 : Evolution in Theory
    Part of PFG


    • My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.

    • Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

    • With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.

    • I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure.

    • A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Junk Style's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    721
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivozzz View Post
    SE will have 2 vs 2 and FFA. ... End of story and argument
    You can't be serious?

    SE been around 2 years and haven't implemented it yet. Hearthstone is still in closed beta.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Alzorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Youtube (GMT-√(i))
    Posts
    1,411
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Honestly... my only complaint about Hearthstone is the "2 of" limit... makes a deck use 15 different cards - compare it to MtG or SE where you generally see setups with around 9-10 different cards. This results in inconsistency for me. (there are a lot of choices of types of cards in each slot, where you can have 2 different 'similar' cards filling a role, for '4 of' that type of card, but it sucks to pull the 2 cost Brewmaster or Faerie Dragon when you need the 2 cost Ooze... not to mention these cards combo differently).

    Personally... I still think they should up it to a "3 of" setup.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Airact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,313
    Tournaments Joined
    5
    Tournaments Won
    0
    The biggest problem in Heartstone for me is that it feels like I'm just spewing cards on the board and suddenly I win.

    That or I lose but I seem to win more than I lose (like 60% winrate or something stupid like that). I literally have no idea what I'm doing half the time and poof, game won.


    Feels like gambling which I'm surprisingly lucky at. Let's just say I don't like gambling (I play some Poker but that's hardly gambling).
    Last edited by Airact; 01-02-2014 at 12:51 PM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Alzorath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Youtube (GMT-√(i))
    Posts
    1,411
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Yea... I'm settling around 50-70% winrate as well (I should note I have terrible luck at 'gambling', hence why I don't do it much... the only games I do well at are poker and blackjack, which aren't as random as other forms)... for me what you described is why I'm thinking it's the # of X card aspect of the game... I can't think of too many other factors that could be setting it into that realm, except for maybe the ally stats/abilities, but even then it seems like that wouldn't be quite enough to give the game its current 'feel'.

    If I had the technical knowledge, I'd make a rudimentary client to test what hearthstone would be like with "3of"s... but alas, I'm not quite up to that level.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Airact's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,313
    Tournaments Joined
    5
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Alzorath View Post
    Yea... I'm settling around 50-70% winrate as well (I should note I have terrible luck at 'gambling', hence why I don't do it much... the only games I do well at are poker and blackjack, which aren't as random as other forms)... for me what you described is why I'm thinking it's the # of X card aspect of the game... I can't think of too many other factors that could be setting it into that realm, except for maybe the ally stats/abilities, but even then it seems like that wouldn't be quite enough to give the game its current 'feel'.

    If I had the technical knowledge, I'd make a rudimentary client to test what hearthstone would be like with "3of"s... but alas, I'm not quite up to that level.
    I'm complete shit at Poker but it's fun. For the note I play on PokerStars which is probably the worst possible place to start playing Poker but meh, I don't particularly care as long as I get better at it. What I find is that looking at hand charts, articles and the like don't actually do that much as the hands given in charts are too specific and if you only play those, it means you don't play that many flops (like, 20% or even less than that).

    They are a guideline and they do give information but staying strictly in a hand chart isn't particularly effective, nor fun.

    I should honestly just play more and improve by losing. Seems way better than trying to learn from reading.


    While the 2-of system might be a big influence, my point was that Heartstone has little to no strategy going on, which is why I said I just spew cards and win. I don't have to think enough for it to be fun for me. If I wanted to play games I didn't need to think in, I would go play Call of Duty or Battlefield (except I very rarely want to).

    I think even SE is giving a similar feel to me. I know this when I can play turns in 20 seconds or under. I'm not particularly thinking at that point and I have played complete games like that. It's not fun but I don't think forced thinking would make it any better as I would just repeat the same play order to myself. I make mistakes but those are mostly because of lack in experience.

  7. #47
    Senior Member MrNice's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,343
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I had the chance to play it myself.
    Well, it looks good and it is fast paced but it bored me after 10 games or so.
    The grind is also rediculous.
    No alternative for SE (at least not for me).

  8. #48
    World Champion 2012 iClipse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    5,249
    Tournaments Joined
    6
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I found hearthstone to be a lot of fun. Arena is a very nice way to start playing the game imo. Went 12-2 on my second run, whiew!

    The only things I dislike about hearthstone are the 30 card decks (too small imo, but that's just me) and the random effects.

    Honestly, you can't really use random effects in a competitive game imo, since then it can literally come down to: "50%chance to win, 50%chance to lose. Let's go for it!", which is terribad on any tournament.
    iClipse - A1's Twilight Manipulator - A1 : Evolution in Theory
    Part of PFG


    • My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too.

    • Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.

    • With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.

    • I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure.

    • A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip.

  9. #49
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    40
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0
    i'm signed up for closed beta and it should be a fun game. IMO they overcompensated for first turn advantage (which i think SE handles very well) and now the second player has it. the greatest thing about all of these new ccg's is that they will be adding new ideas not just to game mechanics but to UI, campaign, marketplace, etc... that can only pique the creativity of SE's development team and they seem to be smart enough to know that.

    it also introduces new players into the genre that can come to a more complex game when they get tired of what will (in my opinion) turn into a blizzard grind and: powercreep, pay to win, catering to time investment over skill that they ruined wow with. wulven was pretty brilliant with amount of complexity that they left themselves available for expansions and have been extremely reserved with any pursuit of breaking their game to make a buck. my only concern is new players getting overwhelmed with jumping headfirst into a huge card-pool in the future. i personally think that unlocking expansion cards or the ability to buy them via campaign progress would be a great way to combat that.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Junk Style's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    721
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Airact View Post
    The biggest problem in Heartstone for me is that it feels like I'm just spewing cards on the board and suddenly I win.

    That or I lose but I seem to win more than I lose (like 60% winrate or something stupid like that). I literally have no idea what I'm doing half the time and poof, game won.


    Feels like gambling which I'm surprisingly lucky at. Let's just say I don't like gambling (I play some Poker but that's hardly gambling).

    i'm assuming you are at 4+ rating then? Or are you just playing with basic cards and not a full set, and therefor not really playing the game seriously?

    Quote Originally Posted by iClipse View Post
    I found hearthstone to be a lot of fun. Arena is a very nice way to start playing the game imo. Went 12-2 on my second run, whiew!

    The only things I dislike about hearthstone are the 30 card decks (too small imo, but that's just me) and the random effects.

    Honestly, you can't really use random effects in a competitive game imo, since then it can literally come down to: "50%chance to win, 50%chance to lose. Let's go for it!", which is terribad on any tournament.
    agreed on random, disagree on deck size and card count. I think its perfect for the game currently and makes the games much more fun to play and watch. It removes some of the staleness that comes from deck vs deck meta.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrNice View Post
    I had the chance to play it myself.
    Well, it looks good and it is fast paced but it bored me after 10 games or so.
    The grind is also rediculous.
    No alternative for SE (at least not for me).
    not that much worse than SE in terms of grind if you consider the daily quests, but it is worse i grant that. Cost is around the same in theory, except SE is always doing crystal deals and massive amounts of crystals for physical cards or for kick starters or w.e. I dont think most active forum goers know the grind from the perspective of a non payer
    Last edited by Junk Style; 01-05-2014 at 06:49 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •