I don’t think infinite turn combos that completely take away the agency of the other player are healthy, and I would like the wording/mechanics of any cards involving extra turns to be limited to one additional turn.
I do agree the deck is not a serious threat to higher levels of competitive play though. I see it more as a problem of subjecting new players to bad, gimmicky gameplay experiences.
I don’t think I’ve read a sillier post on these forums. And I make ALOT of silly posts.
I’m a wild player, a pretty good one at that. I rarely lose to that deck. When I do, however, it’s got very little to do with my deck being bad, me being bad, or my opponent having a bad deck. Luck of the draw is usually the issue.
Furthermore, I would submit that the intention of the OP is to point out a problematic combination of cards that by precedent, is just bad for the game, and player agency. Get down off of your high horse, good sir.
You’re the only one here focusing on winning/losing skill etc. though. Everyone else is simply complaining about a play pattern they do not enjoy, which is the stated purpose of this forum - to collect player feedback.
Timmy decks can still have their shenanigans, all I’m saying is there should be rails preventing those shenanigans from dipping into straight toxicity. Did you ever go check out those legacy magic games like I’ve suggested to you a couple times? Those are not “Timmy decks”, they’re degenerate, and the format is extremely unpopular for a lot of reasons, bad gameplay being one of them.
Well, to respond to your semantic argument because I am sitting in a restaurant right now waiting for my party to arrive, shenanigans is a word with two definitions:
secret or dishonest activity or maneuvering.
silly or high-spirited behavior; mischief.
In this case I was using the second definition, which seems most appropriate in the context of a videogame, but I suppose the first definition also applies… and both are very different from the definition you’ve constructed to serve your argument.
Not to mention the fact that I said:
In other words, I am asking for silly/mischievous play patterns to be a little more regulated in the interest of enabling newer players to enjoy core Hearthstone gameplay. Specifically I am saying enabling people to take 3+ consecutive turns is not an example of fun, dynamic CCG gameplay and I don’t think there is a very compelling reason to make that possible at the expense of new players having bad experiences.
You also ignored my question again, but that’s ok. I highly recommend you watch some vintage/legacy MTG gameplay if you’ve never seen it before, I learned a lot about CCG design by watching/talking to people about it.
Because in my opnion it is either silly or enjoyable to play against.
Those are kinda of opposites when you’re the person playing against.
Actually people are so intolerant to that type of gameplay that cards like ignite still asked for nerfs even nowadays.
Getting better at the game really makes the player experience better and if anything instead of do some sort of witch hunting like you suggested blizzard should invest in ways to make people learn the game faster and even incentivize they to try for more than memeing around.
It’s not only easier but has a better result for everyone including the person with the “silly” deck.
I’ve said it on another thread but here is the idea. Everyone is focusing on the fact that the opponent has multiple turns in a row while you sit there watching him do his shenanigans. I think it’s the wrong way of looking at the situation. If you look at it that way, sure it seems unfair and it seems that it should not be possible.
I think the right way of looking at this deck is to consider that it is just a combo deck. So it’s a combo deck, his goal is to accomplish his combo. Once he gets to his combo, you lose, so you have to kill him before he gets to the combo. The thing is, once the opponent has his combo, instead of granting him a one turn kill, like most combos would do, it just gives him multiple turns in a row. But it’s the only difference, the pattern of the game is not that different from a regular combo deck : either you kill them before their combo, either you lose.
I’ve tried the deck reently, and i have to admit it feels bad winning with this deck but overall, like i said, it’s just a combo deck, so just kill them before they complete their quest.
I prefer the current situation, where you can run into a mage that can take infinite turns on turn 8 rather than the previous where you can run into a lot of druids that can otk you on turn 3 !
Literally the only difference between an infinite turn combo and simply having lethal is the hope that your opponent is incompetent or bluffing. Having lethal completely takes away the agency of the other player, actually both players, because the game is over and nobody has agency in a decided game. So what you’re actually saying is: games shouldn’t end. I disagree. I am for games ending. And if you haven’t figured out the game is over when you see Time Warp played, get a clue.
The best thing to do if you don’t like to lose against infinite turn mage, is just to concede when you realize they can play for more than 2 turns.
This would make a lot of sense; I’m not sure they want to nerf a non problematic mechanic (less problematic than shudderwock) just for a deck that isn’t popular (probably, since I’ve never seen it) nor strong (assumption)
Yes, I have explained this to you specifically many times. From my perspective all of these OTK decks are the same:
Solitaire player: stall stall stall, avoid interesting boardstates or opportunities for dynamic decision making at all costs
Hearthstone player: face face face, regardless of the deck you are playing because you will not face any interesting boardstates or have any opportunities to make dynamic decisions
Then the game is basically decided by RNG when the solitaire player either draws their game-breaking combination of cards or doesn’t.
So what value does forcing people to sit through this horrible gameloop bring to the game? Does it really open up interesting design space? Of course not, because the play patterns are very boring and all nearly identical to each other…
Like I’ve explained twice now, the problem is not with “silly decks” or “Timmy shenanigans”, those are all fine, the problem is when you incentivize boring play patterns with OTK combos that don’t require you to build a board or progress a gameplan (outside of “make the game as long as possible,” which is not a good thing when we are talking about such boring gameplay). Exciting, creative combos and interesting Timmy decks can still exist, but I honestly think OTK decks in Hearthstone are the opposite of that.
Plus, shouldn’t creative deck builders have better ways to express themselves than copying the same boring stall stall stall OTK play patterns over and over again? Is that really what it means to be a Timmy, OTK or bust? Because that’s basically what you’re saying when you describe this:
As a witch hunt.
And Scrotie, I know you love your OTK combos too and also love to hear yourself talk, so I’ll keep this short, but:
“Having lethal” means presenting a board to your opponent that they have a turn to interact with.
“Having lethal” is not the same thing as infinite damage from hand.