And many classes simply lack the card draw to play the game without getting wrecked because they cannot play around it.
You don’t need to lose a one-card wincon to suddenly be on the losing side.
Most decks have important cards. And if they can’t draw as well as others, due to class limitations, they still end up losing to Theotar.
3 Likes
Exactly this, but sadly the 40 card Renethal/Theotar huggers doesn’t understand this.
1 Like
Another stupid card that gives people wins they don’t deserve.
2 Likes
its so annoying. especially when a game is going on pretty long and all of a sudden boom theotar just takes my win condition… like I just wasted my time to lose to pure rng.
Seriously, Theotar is great. Sure, he’s now a staple card in almost every non-aggro decklist, but that’s to be expected given the limited selection of disruption options in Hearthstone.
Yeah, whelp, I will just as simply say that feelings should be taken into account. And, what do ya know, so does Team 5 very often — not always, it would seem, however. Thing is, this is a business, and this business aims to retain and recruit players. Normally, in a video game, which are played based upon feelings (i.e. fun), feelings need to be considered. You may not like this, but, it is what it is.
As somebody who genuinely thinks Theotar is good for the health of the game, I think you eloquently bring up the main problem with Theotar that should be acknowledged. Like it or not, while Theotar is necessary to enable some disruption against combo decks, because of how the discover mechanic works, Theotar is extra punishing against decks that cannot build up a cushion of hand size to play around Theotar.
I think there is a change that could be made to address this problem without significantly reducing the disruption possibility of this card. What if, instead of discovering a card from each hand, Theotar revealed half (rounded up) of the cards in each player’s hand and that is what you make your selection from? This would make Theotar less effective if your opponent has 2-4 cards in hand, but more effective against hands with 7+ cards. Of course, the developers would need to make sure that the UI can be adjusted to allow 5 card options in the middle of the screen.
That message is usually wrote before someone feelings is actually disregarded in pro of other person feelings.
In other words it’s just another way to write that they gonna do whatever brings most profit and the entire discussion really doesn’t matter.
That is actually true but should not be masked as “caring”.
In other words for who is actually having fun i have only one message:
Play a lot and support the game is the best way to voice your opnion about liking It.
1 Like
It isn’t to say the discussion shouldn’t exist. It is to say the reality of the situation. It is naive to believe how players experience the game should be irrelevant.
I don’t know what you mean by that last sentence. I do care, but perhaps, I care about something else. I care about how players feel as well as how decks perform. It isn’t a dichotomy. More than one metric (i.e. winrate) should be considered.
Not gonna start the fingerpointing discussion because it’s pointless.
It’s easy to disguise some of the most disgusting BS as compassion, caring and other “good things”.
With that said people who actually like the game as it is should voice their opnion the exact same way as who don’t.
With their wallets.
Again, I don’t know what you mean. Who is pretending to be compassionate? In regard to what?
Yes.
i think minami is saying if you want the gameplay to be balanced in your direction, vote with your dollars when the game is how you like it. the devs will tend to structure the game in the way that generates the most revenue. i could be mistaken though i don’t know for sure that was what was meant.
3 Likes
this is silly. Everything should have a counterplay. If not please remove scales of onyxia from the game so druid has no counter to the board decks ok?
1 Like
I agree but, when we talk about this card, Theotar is a sensible (and complicated) case.
Does it feel bad to get your card stolen? Yes, but it also feels VERY bad to watch your opponent playing solitaire, drawing to no end and eventually killing you in 1 turn.(We can just watch this forum’s past: especially in the UiS meta when everyone complained about solitaire and combo).
So who is right then? It’s this sentence in it’s purest nature: “Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth”. Can’t really see why a combo player should have more fun and have less risk in this game and why anyone that is not hyper-aggro should have no good tools against solitaire combo because “it feels bad to lose against it”.
A lot of people who want this changed because it feels bad should look at stuff like Tickatus which had tons more complaints and was never nerfed because it wasn’t overpowered.
There’s no way Theotar is overpowered, so it strictly would only be nerfed based on “feels”.
At best it might be nerfed based on play rate, but Zilliax was never nerfed either.
I don’t see this card getting nerfed at all, nor do I think it should be. Unless it’s making Combo/OTK completely unplayable…which it’s obviously not because Denathrius is everywhere.
Denathrius decks and Skele Mage decks will get worse(read: BETTER) if they change Theotar. Who wants that?
2 Likes
Tickatus was in an even worse place because everyone really complained about it, the card didn’t have alot of fans. While Theotar is loved(and hated) by alot of players.
And still, Tickatus wasn’t nerfed. So the chances of being nerfed based on feels is pretty low.
1 Like
About time we get more answers besides the Face Punch.
So, decks that can’t run Murloc Holmes. Oh wait there are none.
First, I don’t think it’s just video games. I think customer satisfaction is important for every product, and that (to paraphrase Bizarro Ben Shapiro) feelings don’t care about your facts.
Second, the problem with the way people discuss this issue is that many see themselves as avatars of the platonic Hearthstone experience. I mean that in the “platonic dish” Malcolm Gladwell sense. Watch this if you haven’t seen it before.
[Mustard producers said] “give [customers] something to aspire to. Make them turn their back on what they think they like now, and reach out for something higher up the mustard hierarchy. A better mustard… A mustard of more sophistication and culture and meaning.”
Howard looked at that and said “that’s wrong. Mustard does not exist in a hierarchy. Mustard exists on a horizontal plane. There is no good mustard or bad mustard. There is no perfect mustard or imperfect mustard. here are only different kinds of mustards that suit different kinds of people.”
He fundamentally democratized the way we look at taste. And for that… we owe Howard Moskowitz a huge vote of thanks.
I get that some decks demonstrably have higher winrates than other decks, or higher skill ceilings, or more polarizing matchups. But if you think that the fun factor of decks exists on a hierarchy, you are wrong. As far as fun goes, there are no good decks or bad decks. There is no perfect deck and there’s no deck so unfun it needs to be eliminated. There are only different kinds of decks for different kinds of people.
This is not a gathering place of Hearthstone players. This is a gathering place of Hearthstone complainers. That means it’s a gathering place for people who haven’t found fun in the game. And a big part of the reason why people fail to find fun is because they don’t know how — but they think they do. If you’re looking for fun in the deck your opponent is playing, you’re doing it wrong. The Meta will never be fun for you. Individual taste is too varied and idiosyncratic and wondrous and weird for the overall meta to be very fun for anyone. Fun is in what deck you are playing.
I’ve been rambling for a while, but I haven’t really been digressing. When you said
that’s technically true. In a way that entire TED Talk is about fun and feelings. But there is no hierarchy, because we’re not dealing with the platonic deck. The best thing Blizzard can do to improve fun in Hearthstone is not make a better meta for everyone, but make the deck archetype that NO ONE knew they wanted but a few hundred people, deep in their hearts, desperately craved. The chunky sauce of deck archetypes.
YOUR fun is only one type of fun. YOUR feelings are only your own. As a community, we have a huge problem with assuming our feelings generalize to the whole. It’s not that someone is “weird” and other people are “normal,” that some people are at the thick part of the bell curve and others at the tails. It’s that there is no normal. There’s no one whose generalization onto the whole is valid. And that’s why so much of what’s posted here about fun is invalid.
Not necessarily. Facts can influence feelings.
It’s not a dichotomy. A player can have fun with their deck (especially home brewers) while being dissatisfied by the deck their opponent is using. This being a PVP game, the deck your opponent is using certainly can change the feel of your match. No one can claim absolutely that another person is having fun the wrong way.
I don’t know where you’re getting your information.
This is a generalization, but I don’t think you meant it to be. While many people don’t know how to have fun, many others do.
Hehe. That’s fine. 
The idea of “better” being subjective, I don’t think that’s possible.
Edit: Didn’t see the “not”.
What you propose is bold, but I’m unsure it’s realistic.
I also believe this is very hopeful.
This is not to say anyone’s feeling of fun is shared by the whole community here, but, how in players derive their fun can be shared, obviously. Until we are able to see the metrics, we will never know how the majority of players behave (which is likely used in some way to determine how these players feel). However, I disagree that a player’s experience is invalid. I believe otherwise, and that honest, and constructive, feedback from players can be useful if parsed and collected correctly. This is already being done (to some extent), only not to your liking or standard (nor mine, honestly).
As an aside, I’ll watch your video in a moment. I believe I’ve seen it before, but my memory can be choppy.
Edit: Love the man’s hair.
What I meant to say is: the Meta, meaning the mix of all the archetypes by popularity, is never that much fun — fun enough to justify playing — for anyone. Not just “you,” but including you. There might be one deck in the meta that IS fun enough to justify playing, or you might find sufficient fun in something other than deck archetype (e.g. Arena), but the overall meta just is NOT the place to look.
To go back to the TED Talk, imagine we opened every single jar of pasta sauce, dumped out the contents of each into a big vat, weighing by popularity, and then re-jarred the resulting mixture. We know what happens when we do that with coffee — Gladwell gives the numbers in the talk. It makes satisfaction go down from “deliriously happy” to “wince.” Same is true of Hearthstone decks. The absolute best anyone can expect the average of their opponents decks to feel to them is best expressed by the word “meh” — and it can easily be worse. Why? Because the meta is inherently when you take all those individual deck choices, put them into one big vat and stir.
The big fun can’t be there. It’s foolish to expect it to be. It has to come from somewhere else.
I don’t think it’s a generalization. I’m not saying all, I’m saying “a big part” meaning probably “most,” maybe like 40% or something.
If you prefer: The reason why a lot of people fail to find fun is because they don’t know how — but they think they do.
A great metric is the number of active players, which we can see. But I think what you’re implying is a metric like if we could survey every Hearthstone Ranked player “how do you feel about playing against X?” And that’s very nearly a useless metric. It’s asking Alice how she feels about how Bob’s preference of pasta sauce makes his breath smell. If you’re looking for satisfaction there, you’re simply not going to find it until we have Bob eating spaghetti with Listerine sauce, which is a MUCH LESS net fun (and outrageously tyrannical) outcome.