[url=#user_comment_353074]@Fenbrae[/url]: zoo will always be viable unless there's major change to the game, for now zoo is still countarable but the counter deck lose to majority of other meta decks.

[url=#user_comment_353074]@Fenbrae[/url]: p much. The main problem in Hearthstone is that there's no real counterplay. You don't interrupt or counter or punish your opponent's actions, you just react to them after the fact.

More cards won't help either. It doesn't matter how much cards there are, people will always revert to the meta that wins them the most games. Even after the 100+ card release that is planned, people might still play zoolock.

People who bot don't give a sh*t about their rank or how much games they win. Even if their bot only wins 50% of the mathes, they will still earn some gold out of it "for free". They just keep botting until they have every card in the game and then play legit.

In short: people showing that they fail to grasp the concepts of depth and complexity and how they relate to each other. Thanks for sharing.

Also, comments tend to vanish when you reply to someone and go up to char limit, you override the char limit and invalid reply doesn't get posted.

[url=#user_comment_352992]@Anonymous[/url]: To compare, one could say that Shadow Era is a carbon copy of WoW TCG mechanics-wise, but without quest cards (meaning you have to sacrifice non-quest cards to turn them into resources), being able to have only one armor card on field at any moment and equippment cards having durability.

[url=#user_comment_353034]@Geary[/url]: Last time I checked, Warcraft 3 was released in early 2000s.

[url=#user_comment_353033]@Floirt[/url]: Orbwalking.

ROFL, Dota complex game without depth.
Complex game without depth is something like Robocraft, where there's like ten billion different ways to build and drive your shitty bot but ultimately the strategy is just rush capture point and kill any dudes in the way.

Aaaaand my first reply got nom'd.

...multitude of 'features' (which tend to be bugs and exploits held over from a game from the '90s) dilutes what depth there is.

[url=#user_comment_353029]@Censuur[/url]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU Essentially, features are only good so much as they add depth to the gameplay, rather than simply making it more complex to perform at the same level. Hearthstone is a shallow game because it lacks depth, DotA is shallow because its incessant

[url=#user_comment_353027]@Geary[/url]: You can claim that all you like, but such claims are worthless without something to back them up. I call bullshit and cognitive cop-out.

[url=#user_comment_353024]@SteventheSlayer[/url]: 'Simple' and 'Shallow' aren't the same thing. You can have simple games with depth, and you can have complex games without depth (like, for instance, DotA).

well apparently they are not losing their rewards, so when they come back they will get to keep their goods that they got from botting.

http://us.battle.net/hearthstone/en/forum/topic/15010701423#4

Am I the only one who likes the randomness and easy mechanics of the game? I play Dota, I can only handle so many complicated games.

What I would be interested in seeing is how these bots did/do against Deathrattle or Overdraw/Mill draw decks.

Increasing card options won't help. Its combination of interface and limited interference of the other player. There aren't that many reactive abilities that cause complexity during your opponents turn. Most of the time you don't have to react to what your opponent does.

@Mister Jay: get away filthy casual

This is why MTG 2015 is better.

Can you imagine the girls playing Trouble in Terrorist Town. Garrys mod Murder. Prop Hunt. or The Hidden?

Ran into one of those just last night.

You could as well just throw a coin at the beginning of every game, and it would take the same amount of "skill" to get a winner...

It's not the number of cards, but the fact that you're basically not doing anything interesting with them. There are no lanes, no different ways of placing a card, nothing.

[url=#user_comment_352997]@Camojan[/url]: Easy != win often. Hearthstone suffers under its own rules. Since you can only put 30 cards in your deck, you have to leave 150 other cards behind. Due to this limit the players can only pick strong cards or gamechanger. Additionally DrawPower is very rare and powerful.

Now the way you can tell the game is too simple is when an AI that took some kid a few hours to write can play it and not be hilariously awful. Remember that the chess program on your laptop is probably based on one that was written by professionals decades ago and has since become open-source.

... wow my previous comment is missing. Let's see if I can remember everything. ... Even the 2nd message got deleted. [url=#user_comment_352997] @Camojan[/url]: Easy != wins often.

... And due to the rarity of drawpower your number of choices decreases drastically. This goes especially for the late game when you have no cards in your hand. At that point Hearthstone is no longer a card game, but a point and click adventure.

[url=#user_comment_352997]@Camojan[/url]: Easy != win often. The problem Hearthstone has are the general rules. You can only put 30 cards in your deck. Not only leaves that over 150 other cards unused, but additionally the rarity of DrawPower forces the players to put only strong and gamechanger cards into their decks. And due...

[url=#user_comment_352996]@dtech[/url]: Purpose-built Go AI are actually getting much better these days since they started using Monte Carlo algorithms instead of trying to bruteforce through a lookahead tree like a traditional chess AI. They still aren't good enough to reliably beat a moderately skilled human, of course.

[url=#user_comment_352997]@Camojan[/url]: Just watch any tournament, see that there's only a handful of viable decks that EVERYONE uses and try to stifle the laughter when you see how those mirror match-ups play out (hint: it's *totally* skill-based, really *snicker*)

Right now, besides Zoo and *some* control decks, Hearthstone is pretty balanced. IMO they should increase health to 40, in order to make rush decks more balanced.

I like how people whine how "easy" the game is, they lose "just" to the randomness and legendaries.

That it is possible for a game to have good AI does not neccesarily mean the game is too simple. Take chess. I wouldn't call it too simple, yet your average laptop can beat a grandmaster nowadays. Go is a game with very simple rules, yet AI's are still terrible.

They had their first ban wave yesterday, and it seems very effective.

That Hearthstone, especially the Arena, relies too much on RNG is a common complaint, yet
- the same top players consistently win tournaments, even with open brackets
- Good arena players have a 7-8 wins average

Blah. Hearthstone is still way too randomsauce. When two out of three of all my losses happen after I get someone below five health. Usually it's some everything canceling legendary or something from the Naxx wings that can't be countered x_x

[url=#user_comment_352989]@anothga[/url]: I never heard of Shadow Era, I'll have to look into that. I also quit Hearthstone pretty quick over the simplicity. Good comic, by the way.

[url=#user_comment_352987]@Zanryu[/url]: "...and Hearthstone is plainly stupid due to its easiness." I have to agree with that. I quit playing it *very* fast, due to just how simple it felt. If you want something like physical WoW TCG, Shadow Era is where to go.

... easiness, RNGs, overpowered legendaries and so many no brainer cards that you don't actually have any kind of deck building.

Blizzard always had the unique ability to fail at everything on their first attempt. Warcraft 3 became mostly popular after TFT release. Starcraft 2 was a horrible online experience, Diablo 3 had so many flaws that it would be too much to list and Hearthstone is plainly stupid due to its easiness...

Everyone knows Hearthstone is fucking easy and for autistic people anyway. The fact that it is considered an e-sport while relying %99 on RNG to win games is also beyond me.