Again please tell me you never played Nathria or even Classic Miracle Rogue.
As much as I enjoy the mining/thief rogue archetype it’s definitely not the most skill testing archetype
Too bad miracle gets nerfed within a week of being good (see Sonya deck)
Most of those card games have a even lower ceiling than HS with few exceptions.
What hearthstone needs to do is to separate the “mount olimpus” from where the peasants play regarding game balancing.
Things that only affect low rank players can be balanced around feelings.
Things that only affect legend ladder should be balanced only by performance to maintain integrity.
If your Fun do not depend on your climb then Just don’t climb.
Other thing to comment is that the ridiculous overuse of discover gets the game stale.
There are many things people don’t learn because this “atleast i choose a card in 3” mindset.
Randoness can and should be used in other forms more often with discover even taking backseat for a time.
I never said it was.
You said rogue is the most skill testing class, not me.
Agreed. Both in how much it slows the game down and how much it takes strategy out of the game.
For example, it’s pretty hard to bait removal when your opponent just keep making more.
I still hold by this, the APM miracle decks are always the hardest decks in the meta outside of anomalies like Test Subject OTK priest.
Mining Rogue still does require a decent level of situational awareness and understanding how random tools are useful in any given scenario.
The exception is if you play very little. E.g. I probably hover constantly around 60% or more but I just play very little; there’s probably also some MMR decay every new month; it might not be direct decay but they say they adjust the MMRs based on the gaussian distribution of MMRs.
Anyway point is: if you play a lot of games and you keep winning you will inevitably start losing much more unless you are the best player in the game online.
If you can’t tell I am mocking the person who claimed rogue is high skill cap by saying their win rate is only limited by their lack of skill, I can’t help you.
If you can’t tell sarcasm is not coherent over plain non-emoji internet text, I CAN help you.
I will inform you plain text does not convey sarcasm as it does on the outside world.
Especially to those with damaged or defective sarcasm detectors.
People hate high skill celling decks in hearthstone. There’s a reason why Paladin is always so popular, yes it’s broken but also completely devoid of any agency.
People don’t want to think when playing this game, they rather turn their brains off and look at the second monitor while throwing brief glimpses at the game, playing down some green cards and expecting over 50% winrate.
The devs are incompetent, but they also have to adapt to the player. The live service genre is also heavily flawed, due to the human nature of never being satisfied. Always craving more. Power creep will only get worse, you couldn’t imagine it would end up like this 5 years ago.
If every opponent I played didn’t rope me so I needed something to do for 90 seconds after I take a 22 second turn I could enjoy the game with thinking and high skill level play
Not in Wild; Rogue is strong.
Out of the three decks with the highest skill factor ever, in the entire history of the game, two of them are Rogue decks. The other one is Patron Warrior.
And literally the entire top ten are OTK decks.
Rogue is an awful class that thrives on polarization.
It either wins hard or loses hard, which is the worst kind of deck for a game that doesn’t allow interaction during the other’s turn. Yet, it’s continually being pushed for Rogue players while fundamentally damaging the gameplay.
If Rogue isn’t playable, it’s a good thing.
If they detect sarcasm when the text does not contain it,
they are imagining things. Express yourself better.
I can’t write in crayon for you, so maybe you’re just going to have to be more savy in the future or just stay out of the adult conversations, idk.
It was obviously sarcastic to anyone who has a clue. I’m sorry it wasn’t obvious for you.
Sarcasm relies more on the individual than on the text itself.
It’s the personality of the speaker that turns the words into sarcasm.
Vomiting some narcissm around is not a coherent answer. You still don’t get sarcasm on text that does not contain it remains in the writer’s head.
But you improved; the vomit of narcissism was very clear; hard to not get it when the words expressing that were clear and duplicated.
Obviously false hyperbole that mocks a previous poster’s position like:
should be a strong clue to people who are not on the spectrum that some measure of sarcasm is being employed in the text.
And why should I know who that person is? Do I live with that person?
Do I have to know who they are because they reply to me?
Stop blaming me for your own lack.
Idk, most people just read the thread and know because they have more reading comprehension that the typical rock.