hello mall, hope this response finds you well. i haven’t been on here lately. (work…ugh)
i was wondering, if they go through with their teases and release monk in the future. would the original formula be salvageable? (i.e. 4x4x4) or do you believe it is broken beyond repair? won’t be back on until tonight sometime. i’ll catch your response then. take care of yourself, friend. 
2 Likes
I’m not enough of a gamer to know the answer.
I only repeated what I was told, which is why I got so cheesed off when others said I was wrong.
I referenced an expert. (2 actually.)
4x4x4 does seem far more stable to my mind.
And good to see you on!
1 Like
Even if they were to remove DK and then a few more classes i’m not sure if they could probably balance that reduced amount either. In a perfect world they’d have a team that took more time into creating their cards and looking into buffs/nerfs for older cards with their synergy with newer cards in mind.
1 Like
To be fair though, ever since MotLK launched, Blizzard has been much more responsive with changes than they used to be. They’ve clubbed true meta tyrants pretty quickly in the last 4 months.
I’m also willing to accept the narrative that Warrior was left untouched in that time frame because rotation was so close and “fixing” Warrior would’ve been a dramatic overhaul. Or they change too many things at once and leave Standard in even worse shape.
So, I wouldn’t say that I “trust” or “have faith” that Blizzard won’t just let DK run rampant, but their recent actions seem to indicate that DK is less likely to be left to its devices if it indeed is a huge problem.
2 Likes
So I really don’t understand the “3x3x3” thing and why it seems sooooo important that breaking this sacred rule could lead to the doom of the entire game. Is it related to the Holy Trinity or anything ?
3 Likes
Actually, it was supposed to be 10 classes in one, however, this has apparently not been implemented in practice yet.
‘Old-school’ Freeze Mage or Malygos Rogue? The recent Frost DK, although I’m not that familiar woth modern Standard?
And now, to the substance of the matter. 
Ah… One should probably know better than to disprove a random moron, as they put it themselves, on the forum, but the one you pointed out is so tempting that I confess — it’s hard to resist, I’ll get into it. So, here we go…
Oh, yeah. Since when is Ben Brode considered a classy designer who understands something about balance etc, as opposed to wild ‘RNG’ effects and ‘BWAHAHA’? 
I’ve already written about him and why some players remember him fondly (spoiler: by comparison), got really nothing new to add and don’t wanna repeat myself.
For a more detailed review of some of Ben’s ideas and fallacies, which also touches the aforementioned theme of ‘variance’ and randomness, you could watch this video by one ‘Old Guardian’:
I’m not necessarily endorsing him, nor do I always agree with him on some matters, but in this video, he makes some good points and provides good arguments, while also scrutinising Ben’s particular views and delusions thoroughly, so overall I would recommend it for those who are interested in the subject.
But this is just a warm-up…
3x3x3=27, by the way, although it might be too ‘exalted’ for those Modern Educayshun victims. 
Oh, and it’s ‘maths’, by the way, so bonus points for ‘literacy’, but that’s not the point. As I was saying, if you consider that, as per that film, ‘1+1 = multiculturalism’ and ‘3x3 = gender equality’ (oh, and if you think those characters from the short film linked above are grotesque — you should have seen some of the posts or topics by this one Well, I suppose this topic also serves as an illustration to a certain extent), then this formula from the ‘genius’ level of numeracy, which is supposed to define the class design (dunno how — maths too stronk here, I guess), isn’t that astounding in comparison at all. So yeah, this just goes to show the level of ‘expertise’, for starters…
To paraphrase it a bit, ‘I’ve got no clue what’s going on, but a friend of a friend told me something, so I’m gonna present this as a basis for my undoubtedly expert and incontrovertible opinion. Dixi.’
Let me point out one more obvious thing, just to be crystal clear: it’s perfectly fine to present one’s opinion corroborated by facts, solid logical arguments and so on, and you don’t need to be a qualified game designer to do that. Unfounded wild claims, on the other hand, backed mostly by calling others ‘morons’ etc, are less so — that’s the whole point.
How fitting… And not surprising at all. Not only do all of those forum morons, to put it in this character’s terms, think that they are someone, that they have an OPINION and everybody should get down on their knees and pray, having heard this ultimate verdict about anything in the world, — but also they have quite the self-esteem, almost literally showing that ‘Ignorance is strength’.
And I can totally understand why. I could also add how some people nowadays are proud of things they used to or are supposed to be ashamed of, including ignorance, but that’d probably be a big digression.
Yeah, no irony in this at all.
Well, at least, to be fair, I’ve also got to point out this (a slippage, perhaps?):
3 Likes
No, it’s related to an outdated and restrictive conspiracy that each of the original 9 classes should only be able to do one of: aggro, midrange, or control. When that hasn’t been the case for a majority of the game’s lifespan.
EDIT: Actually, you could make the argument that “a majority” should instead be “any part of.” Even in Classic, Warrior could do both Wallet (Control) Warrior and also send Fiery War Axe, Arcanite Ripper, and Korkron Elites at your face. Hunter could do both Face Hunter and Midrange Hunter. Freeze Mage and Tempo/Secret Mage coexisted. Zoolock and Jaraxxus coexisted.
Even the classes that could really only do one thing in Classic (Shaman with Bloodlust, Druid with Savage Roar) quickly gained more options in the first couple expansions.
4 Likes
Ha, you beat me to it just as I was deconstructing this whole pseudonumerological nonsense.
2 Likes
Yes, because you clearly know more than Morhaime and Brode, as evidenced by your own successes in gaming titles.
Remind me again when your next premiere release is hitting the market?
Another instance of a textbook fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
(Mark Twain)
1 Like
It’s also better to know that those who can, do. While those who cant, do not.
Stick to your armchair.
Morhaime and Brode have forgotten more about gaming than you will ever know.
“I have never worked as a chef in my life, therefore I am not qualified to know whether or not my mac n cheese turned out okay.”
“I have never written, directed, or produced a film, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether or not a movie was entertaining.”
“I am not a behavioral psychologist, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether or not I am, in fact, having a good time at this party.”
“I am neither a chemist nor a dairy farmer, therefore I am not qualified to judge whether or not the milk is spoiled.”
“I am not a meteorologist, therefore I am not qualified to determine whether or not it’s raining right now.”
You’re apparently replying to my post, but why, my good man? I’m perfectly familiar with this kind of rhetoric fallacy, thank you, having even pointed it out myself in other words above. Your examples are also of a known kind, but they are fitting illustrations, so thank you for posting them as well.
You are not a philosopher either:)
And your enjoyment is not my concern, nor is it relevant to the conversation.
I posted what was told to me by the very people who
designed the game.
If it’s wrong, then go on Twitter and tell them they know nothing.
I dare you all.
I have Mallenroh on ignore since he’s been the same angry, self-hating broken record for too long now. Replying to people that reply to him is the closest I’m willing to get these days.
“Why is he still here,” indeed.
2 Likes
'Cause you cannot argue around the inescapable fact that you are literally claiming to know more about HS than Mike Morhaime.
I will say tho, I don’t think it is very clear at all what this 3x3x3 theory is about or why it is a necessary rule for the game to be balanced or well-designed. I would point out as well that it doesn’t help the argument to repeatedly draw on a fallacious appeal to authority to support the claim that this is the reason new classes are bad to the game or that 9 is the ideal number of classes for some obscure reason I don’t really understand. If you still have access to this online exchange you cite (if it was a public exchange on twitter or smth like that), it would be helpful to see the actual statements from Brode himself so we can understand exactly what the claim is. It sounds to me like this was just a design philosophy when it came to designing the 9 classes, rather than a rule set in stone without which the game somehow falls apart.
Hearthstone and WoW are old and ever-evolving games. The introduction of new classes is a welcomed addition to the game and is an opportunity for developers to introduce new mechanics and gameplay flavours that wouldn’t fit anywhere else. New features are central to the game’s health and new classes were ultimately inevitable; particularly considering HS is based on WoW (a game that also introduces new classes occasionally for the very same reason).
P.S: I do think you’re a cool dude tho, I am not trying to be mean. But I disagree with both the content and the form of your arguments here. I think you’re often way too negative in an unproductive way when it comes to this game. Clearly you’re very burnt out, I hope whatever the devs are cooking for wild actually turns out well and you get to enjoy the game again
2 Likes
I don’t know that it is necessary. I am repeating what I was told when I asked why the game seems so impossible to balance.
And I have been quoting those conversations since at least 2020, so what I am saying isn’t new.
I don’t think I’m mean, at least I don’t intend to be. And I like you too.
I get frustrated when players say: “No, that’s wrong.”, when what I have said is paraphrased from what Morhaime and Brode both have said in the past.
It feels like players are trying to shoot the messenger to me.
If what Brode and Morhaime said is wrong, then someone should let them know that.
I would pay good money to listen in to that exchange.
PS. You are totally right.
I am absolutely tired of a product that only ever goes in one direction.
2 Likes
sounds like you are just name droping claiming just posting the words Mike Morhaime makes you automatically right instead of screaming “fallacy” to the rest of us
1 Like
I see. What can I say… It might be a socially awkward strategy, perhaps, but a strategy nonetheless.
Personally, I try to harbour no delusions about someone being wrong on the internet and the prospects of educating them, as hinted above. However, a number of people seem to have the responded to that particular… theory, so I thought it worthwhile to clarify some points. Besides, I still believe that, despite some very ‘loud’ and… peculiar characters present here, the forums might be better than they appear: you know, manure floats on water, while gold would sink, so what you see on the surface might not be all — for example, I’ve encoutered some wonderful participants who are often silent or post in select few topics.
And that, too.
Indeed. Besides, any lout can claim anything without providing any source, proof or such, which actually could even be of interest (if nothing else, to dissect for errors, as OG did in the video linked above) — unlike a random character’s blather on the forum.
1 Like