I went to legend 7 times, never used cheats. One time, I played 70 hours in a month, and didn’t get to legend.
I don’t know all the reasons, why I managed to go that high rank. For some reason, me and my deck performed well.
1 Like
At least you let us know this time. Not that there was any doubt.
This.
Very much this.
Unironically posted.
Yes mistakes, well… sorry for trolling.
HS has not favored control for a very long time. lately, I’m happy they do. But it’s like a bunch of aggro players trying to develop a control deck. and what a mess they made.
I constantly see how enemy decks change depending on what I play with, the game is rigged with a 50% winrate algorithm…
1 Like
Lesser refined decks in lower ranks can’t beat more refined aggro or control decks,
but when it comes to higher ranks, that all gets cut off for aggro decks because there are more refined decks,
with refined control decks dominating refined aggro decks.
My point is there MAY be something close to a 50% winrate for most players playing until they get to, at the highest, D5, but aggro decks are simply not as good as control decks. Aggro decks, based on my play experience, probably make it legend around 15% less than control decks, both types being refined. It is just that aggro decks take less time to climb and seems to “dominate” but only in the regard to saving time, while control decks literally dominate when it comes to winning. I really feel that control decks have dominated the win/loss ratio with wins in this game for a long time, AND I MEAN A LONG TIME, because I have played this game A LOT, and I mean A LOT, and it has always seemed this way for the most part, with a roughly 15% variation where it did not seem this way. Control is so slow too, so it just makes the prevalence of this game suppose to be slow, like a “Slower is better - be a turtle and win” VS a “Faster is worse - be a rabbit and lose” sort of mentality forced into this game, so IT DOES get boring. That is probably the complacent control aspect of the Hearthstone Developers/Designers being pushed into this game for the players to feel controlled so that they can’t speak against imbalances all that well, the imbalances that THEY make so they can make people angry and feel the control over them to which the players then have no choice but to buy into this imbalanced game by spending more money because they are in the control of it.
Do you see?
Players are paired with other players, not decks.
There is no “rigging” to force 50%, that’s just math.
Haha, well thanks.
I am not a native speaker and my english education was rather bad.
So it’s mostly self taught or better said online conversations and games teached me, that way you learn mis(s)takes aswell.
About control, I rly think they lost the concept at some point.
It’s dosnt feel like they still design control, they throw in a bounch of random control tools until the community figures something out eventually.
Most of the times the result is a otk in disguise, like Odyn warrior. Or those weird Yogg decks that we got now, I saw ppl claim they are control.
Maybe I am a bit to harsh now but I feel that most deck types blend to much into eachother, due to lazy designs.
Aggro is often also burn
and control is often also otk.
I am not saying that control decks should have to aim for fatigue as win con, thats boring aswell but honestly 15+ (out of hand) dmg each turn in the endgame seems a bit overkill to me.
I guess you don’t believe in the moon landing either.
True. But there’s a reason people don’t notice: the game uses matchmaking by skill and it works a little TOO well. (I am NOT implying rigging here.) When you’re playing against someone at exactly the same skill level as you, skill’s impact on the game is invisible and everything comes down to a RNG coinflip. If you’re still below the rank you’re supposed to be at, you’ll climb, and you can see the skill difference then, but for people who’ve hit a wall in their climb… it’s not exactly obvious that skill would be made systemically invisible.
True. You only need a 45.34% winrate to tread water, any higher than that and you climb, until the bonus star goes away at Diamond 5.
What does balance even mean to you? How about a definition?
The game does have a 50% winrate algorithm, it’s called matchmaking by skill. But it’s not rigged because they tell you it’s matchmaking by skill up front. There is no deck scan algorithm.
I will believe when I can choose a deck to play with AFTER matchmaking picks my opponent…
of course I don’t know the programming code of the game, but my experience of receiving legendary rank 11 times in a row is always the same. when I change my deck, enemy deck pool change too.
What is ABSOLUTELY unbelievably bad is that from bronze 1 to legendary rank games, my opponents are always the same…
1 Like
If someone says that they didn’t steal anything, but you have them on video tape stealing something, what would you think about such a person?
idk man it’s not that complicated.
It’s a game.
You win some. You lose some.
You have fun. You move on.
(Hopefully)
I guess I hurt your friend Mountaineer who just wants to get 7k posts like your mentor?
Fair question for once though, so I suppose I’ll answer.
Balance to mean, in a basic sense of the combined 5 and thinking, and: an even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady.
You think.
Balance in a broad sense means to me: Caring about players to stand off right from this game and not to be crippled with it, no matter however long, wide and tall they play this game and no matter whatever, whenever or wherever they play this game.
Makes sense (or are you going to revert back to trolling again)?
1 Like
What combined five? What are you referring to here?
The main issue is that you’re not using the correct terminology. The correct word for a game remaining enjoyable no matter how long it is played is replayability, but you’re using the word “balance” to describe this. Balance is the appearance of multiple player build choices being simultaneously optimal.
Replayability exists and it’s important but it’s a separate design concept from balance. They’re related concepts, because the more balance a puzzle has the longer it takes players (empowered by the internet) to solve it, so I acknowledge that increased balance increases replayability. But they’re still different concepts.
The second issue is that no game has, does or will ever have infinite replayability. Every single game that will ever exist will have a point at which playing it too much will deteriorate into a negative gameplay experience.
Existence? Consciousness?
So many terms and not enough understanding.
Blizzard shill 101 is trolling people on their forums with terminology when they are trying to make a positive enjoyment in people’s lives with Hearthstone and you’re not,
And Scr0tieMcB thrives in this department.
I’m not telling you that replayability isn’t important. I’m just telling you that’s not called balance. If you were the slightest bit receptive to constructive criticism, you just consider using a different word and move on. But this isn’t about the truth for you, it’s about you being right
It’s literally all you think about – being right. So sush a bit and hush up.
(You literally said you wanted to spite me and justified spiting me because I was “bringing a clown show” to the forums by posting a positive post. Just shut up.)
I reached legend without cheating…but I played very long with the same deck that was some type of c@ncer aggro.
To reach legend is simple, just play an aggro deck and spam games. Statisticly speaking you will win more than you lose and at rank 5 to legend it doesn’t matter so much if you lose one game in 3.
Just spam games fast and try to win by turn 4-5…
That’s why legend means nothing, and players that reach legend constantly are mostly streamers that play a lot…The vast majority of the community reached it once and now they regurgitate before trying to reach it again, especially in this meta
I get where you’re coming from but this is a “po-TAY-to” vs “po-TAH-to” moment.
There are many factors to determine if a game is good, enjoyable, etc. And not everyone uses the same standard (the way “balance” is used here, I strongly lean towards it being an enjoyment factor for a lot of people).
A game’s playerbase reaches some consensus on what those factors are that make a game fun and enjoyable after a time, and I’m sure someone more invested could do one of those multi point axis things where the points pulled the blob-like-thing in the middle towards the score weight (can’t think of the name, so stat nerds, don’t rage…also, much respect, your art like your numbers, is very awesome).
Let’s just say for simplicity:
Balance 1-10
Replayability 1-10
Stability 1-10
Graphics 1-10
Support 1-10
There’s obviously more factors, but keeping it simple. In wow, class balance, dungeons*, raids* (*referred to as “instanced content” afterward), and non instanced content were big metrics for if an expec were good or not. Bad changes to a class might harm an otherwise great expac, whereas great class improvements might be dragged down by terrible (or nonexistent) instanced content. In wod, the “BIGGEST PATCH EVAR” was mocked for being twitter and selfies added to the game when they teased literally the largest content patch the game had ever seen.
Joke’s on the modern gaming industry: I’ll play pong and old games until the heat death of the universe.