Hearthstone Players!

I'm really beginning to question the RNG implementation. It could be just some bad runs, but I notice some true statistical abnormalities:

1) I guarantee that the mulligan redraw is not correct -- you draw the cards you mulligan way too soon (usually within 1 or 2 draws). I might start keeping stats on this
2) I was playing against quest warrior last night, and was sure I was going to win when his quest when off. His Rag power hit me 7 times in a row -- if it is supposed to have equal probability to hit minions, then the occurrence last night was on the order of winning power ball (literally)

As for Quest Rogue, I don't have much difficulty. Probably at an 80% win rate right now against Rogue in general.. I've been playing a mage deck with Hemet (it cracks me up everytime he shoots your cards) that I tried to cook up on my own (curious to see what MacDirk's list is; I have never seen anyone else play it) and I marched from 21 to 9 without much difficulty. Now I'm stalling, but I have been tinkering with it some to try to get a better mix now.

The decks I struggle against the most are

Mid-range Paladin
Silence Priest
Shaman can sometimes be a pain
I usually beat hunter and druid, but occasionally lose to the hunter onslaught
Mage matchup is about 50/50

I haven't been losing to Warrior or Rogue at all (the odd game as described above, not withstanding). Warlock is non-existant on the ladder -- they really messed that up this round (sad because it is my favorite class).

Jackwraith wrote: I just think their application of RNG is too slapdash to make it genuinely interesting, rather than frustrating.

I think that's the biggest issue, right there. You know what would alleviate the Discover/Babbling Book nonsense? Reveal the mana cost of the card to your opponent. That would reward players who have knowledge of the game and actually allow them to play around some things instead of just hoping for the best.

As for the 50% win rate of quest Rogue: who gives a shit if it's everywhere? As you noted, it's cheap (like face Hunter a couple years ago) so even if it drops to 40% win rate it's not going anywhere and it'll still be the same non-interactive experience as it is now.

Reynad's been saying for a while now that a partial solution to some of the Discover issues is just showing your opponent what card you got. That would allow people to actually "play around" those cards. It wouldn't resolve one of the current major issues where a Mage can Book into a Cabal's into multiple direct damage and/or more Cabal's and win a game that they had no chance in, but it would be a step in the right direction. Most people don't complain about Ivory Knight for that reason: the amount he heals for gives you a general idea of what he drew if you're experienced at the game and know Paladin spells.

Jackwraith wrote: Reynad's been saying for a while now that a partial solution to some of the Discover issues is just showing your opponent what card you got.

This sounds like a great idea.

FWIW I have no problem with the amount of RNG in the game currently. It's better than it used to be. And besides, Discover bolsters strategy just as much as it detracts, in my opinion. Seeing your options, assessing the game state (and where it's likely to go) and then making a selection is a strategic decision. What it removes from the depth for the opposite player, it adds to that of the discovering player.

It helps keep the game fresh, lets you make more meaningful decisions during play and acts as a sort of alternative sideboard, a feature that would be a huge boost for the game but for which there's no straightforward implementation. Also, variance in the RNG pales into insignificance compared to the biggest and most critical RNG in the game which has been there from the start: card draw. Doesn't matter what cards you've got in your deck if they're not in your hand when you need them, and that's lost me more games than any number of hidden Discover choices or awkward random minions.

As an aside, I'm not feeling the love for the mid-range Paladin deck that's currently supposed to be top of the meta. It's a variant on the original mid-rage Pally deck that was a favourite of mine (because Tirion was my 2nd ever legendary) prior to there being any expansions. So I've got form with this, but I just can't seem to make it work. Where I play - generally between ranks 20-10 - it still gets eaten alive by aggro decks. Either that or I'm just very unlucky with card draw. Shows the dangers of making meta rankings based solely on legendary play.

Play against two Control decks, swap out Volcanic Potion for Elise. Immediately play against two Aggro decks. YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

This game is out to get me sometimes.

Space Ghost wrote: I'm really beginning to question the RNG implementation. It could be just some bad runs, but I notice some true statistical abnormalities:

1) I guarantee that the mulligan redraw is not correct -- you draw the cards you mulligan way too soon (usually within 1 or 2 draws). I might start keeping stats on this

I've been saying this for a long time. Some serious bullshit on the mulligan draw. I swear I get one back in my hand on the first draw like 75% of the time.

I am barely hanging on. I missed a few days of dailies recently, because I just couldn't be bothered. I only have a couple of standard decks, and just can't be bothered to build the rest. I also don't want to go deal with Wild, because I just don't feel like watching out for Reno anymore.

I think my days are numbered. Just not having fun with it anymore.

Let's have a mini-tournament. I supply the prize: $20 in Blizzard bucks. (US Only, sorry, that's how it works). We need some wonky rules though--send me some ideas.

• First to die?
• Blind builds (maybe "pick five," then blind build?)
• Standard, but each player gets to ban a card?

Sounds like a great idea, Jeb. I don't think there needs to be any prize though. Either way, I'm in.

I agree with this idea Jeb and have recently been thinking the same thing. We should have a F:AT tourney. I don't think you should supply a prize though. Either we just play for the prestige of being the reigning champ of this site. Or maybe we each pony up an entrance and winner takes all so there is skin in the game. I am not convinced the riules need to be super wacky. Why not do something like 3 of 5 and you can ban a class. Like if people are hating on Rogue they can skip that. But whatever you decide. I am in

Wackier can be more inclusive, as not every one is rocking the same collections; that was my thinking there. I would like newer players to have a shot and not just lose to a barreled barrage of Standard.dec.

Might be interested. It'd be really cool if we could find some way to put together an Arena-style tourney, since that would solve the collection disparity issue.

I wouldn't worry about collection disparity too much. Newbs like me are used to getting regular beatdowns from randoms anyway. To be able to play against actual gentlemen instead of Skankhunt42 pirate warrior all the time is a reward in itself.

jeb wrote: (US Only, sorry, that's how it works)

I, too, would enjoy playing with gentlemen and ladies rather than asshats.

Mantidman#1912

if you aren't already on the friends list.

I'd be up for a tourney as well.