Hearthstone

[Newfag-er]

Yes, completely random decks that are not even drawn from the same pool of cards as other players is certainly the very definition of "competitive".

Well, it's better then facing 4 legendary while I only have a single epic imo

Competitive isn't the right word though, I agree

@DakeSha If your deck isn't well built or have top meta cards (though I've seen plenty of people get far enough with more crappoer setup), you don't really get that far into arena. So in a sense, yes? Because from what I seen from streams, usually at 8-9 wins you start seeing really top notch combos

Personally I rather face tougher adversary with a randomed deck rather than in a condition base on which side dumps the most amount of time and money into their cards. (In other words, I find that gambling to be more fair)

That begin said though, I do wish they give us a easier time into the arena though. (Then again, they'll make no money if they did that)

 

[DakaSha]

Top tier constructed decks arent decks with a random assortment of rares, epics and legendaries (lol epics). You could have a top tier deck up and running with no money investment fairly quickly.

If you think you are losing because of your cards then you likely just suck ass at constructed. Cards are important on a deck by deck basis (ignoring a couple must haves that anybody can get quickly. Argent commander being one of them)

 

[Newfag-er]

Top tier constructed decks arent decks with a random assortment of rares, epics and legendaries (lol epics). You could have a top tier deck up and running with no money investment fairly quickly.

If you think you are losing because of your cards then you likely just suck ass at constructed.

personally I just suck ass at the game

The same could be apply to Arena then? While it's true that it's harder to set up specific strat within your deck, you still have to know which cards/class are meta and which cards are bad?

And while I do believe your statement (hex is imba), the top decks I've searched up still require a few epics and legendary

 

[Zeriel]

Newfag-er

When I think of competition, I think of normalized teams/decks/units/what-have-you, depending on the type of game. As you alluded to, arena is basically the opposite of competitive. Sure, top players will have better win records overall, but the determining factor in whether or not you can go 12-0 is your cards, or in other words: luck.

I think we agree on what arena is, you just happen to like it where I think it's just not very fun.

 

[Gragt]

Not that any of you bastards care but it looks like this is normal:

Several of you are playing in Europe and due to that, you'll want to wait until the scheduled maintenance taking place there is completed. It began about 2 1/2 hours ago and was expected to last 8 hours.

 

[Newfag-er]

Newfag-er

When I think of competition, I think of normalized teams/decks/units/what-have-you, depending on the type of game. As you alluded to, arena is basically the opposite of competitive. Sure, top players will have better win records overall, but the determining factor in whether or not you can go 12-0 is your cards, or in other words: luck.

I think we agree on what arena is, you just happen to like it where I think it's just not very fun.

I see your point, let's agree to disagree then...

That begin said though, I just went 2-3 in arena last time

 

[Cyberarmy]

Not that any of you bastards care but it looks like this is normal:

Several of you are playing in Europe and due to that, you'll want to wait until the scheduled maintenance taking place there is completed. It began about 2 1/2 hours ago and was expected to last 8 hours.

Standard Blizz wednesday maintenance.

 

[Gragt]

Since I stopped playing WoW, I didn't care for their maintenance.

 

[Grunker]

Yes, completely random decks that are not even drawn from the same pool of cards as other players

eh? isn't arena a draft format?

Edit: Zeriel, your definition of "competitive" is quite odd. Limited is one of the cornerstones in competitive Magic, because it tests deckbuilding skills in a vacuum. Construction tests technical playing skills much more since most people play very limited versions of the same handful of decks.

 

[Zeriel]

Arena isn't remotely similar to draft in MTG, because you aren't picking from the same card pool.

 

[DakaSha]

Getting to ranked 20 was easy as shit (which should be expected seeing that its only 1/5th the way).
Wonder when it will start getting difficult. My guess is that it (slowly) starts now since you can actually lose rank at this stage

 

[Zeriel]

It starts wherever you start running into Alexstrasza mages. (Unless you're playing a mage yourself, in which case smooth sailing!)

 

[DakaSha]

ugh that sounds horrible

 

[Grunker]

Arena isn't remotely similar to draft in MTG, because you aren't picking from the same card pool.

Sealed, then? (which is also a big part of competitive magic)

 

[Hoaxmetal]

So, just started playing, seems ok. Nothing to ejaculate over yet.

 

[Grunker]

My thoughts so far are: DoC is better due to more complexity (as if DoC wasn't simple enough already), Hearthstone only wins in terms of animation and general polish, but a Limited-mode might be Hearthstone's saving grace since it really, really, REALLY sucks that DoC doesn't have one.

 

[DakaSha]

Again.. Ranked system has been changed.

And i dont play fucking mage

 

[Grunker]

Just played my first coupled of arenas. Shit is fun

 

[1451]

State of the game is disgusting at the moment. Casual and ranked mode are full of opponents with legendary and/or epic cards. Only way to play is to use my strongest decks(paladin and priest).
Could not complete rogue quest so I cancelled it and got a paladin/priest quest. Of course already dusted all the rogue cards I could. Got me a Sunwalker to replace Lord of the Arena.

 

[Grunker]

Is there any reason not to play Arena until you've lost three times/played ten games?

 

[Zed]

I'm completely fine with the fact that certain decks will just outright smash other decks. Aggressive decks can be squashed by control decks or defensive decks, or some other way around.
The problem is that the standard mage deck (1-2 poly, 1-2 flamestrike, 1-2 blizzard, 1-2 arcane, spell buff minions, fire/pyro finishers) is good versus too many other decks.
Perhaps they should introduce some sort of anti-spellcasting minion. 3/3 for 3 with "Increases spell cost by 1 mana for both players", 4/4 for 4 with "decreases spellpower by 1 for both players" or something. Or "silence enemy hero for one turn"

 

[Brother None]

Is there any reason not to play Arena until you've lost three times/played ten games?

I think if you retire at 8 wins you usually get more gold than at 9 (because at 9 one of the rewards is guaranteed golden card), so if you're in it more for gold than for the dust/card you could retire at 8. Otherwise, no good reason, not like you have to finish a run all in one go.

 

[Grunker]

Is there any reason not to play Arena until you've lost three times/played ten games?

I think if you retire at 8 wins you usually get more gold than at 9 (because at 9 one of the rewards is guaranteed golden card), so if you're in it more for gold than for the dust/card you could retire at 8. Otherwise, no good reason, not like you have to finish a run all in one go.

Was wondering whether a loss detracted from wins or something

 

[Brother None]

Was wondering whether a loss detracted from wins or something

Nope, this is Blizzard, only wins count, the losses stat doesn't count for anything other than at 3 you're out.

Here's some stat discussion and charting showing 8 wins averages the most gold. Just a question of what you're in arena for, if you do want dust/gold cards then no reason to retire really.

5 wins or more will on average give you over 50 gold, meaning your arena ticket is "paid for" (with the card pack always being a part of rewards and worth 100 gold)

 

[Grunker]

2 Arena so far - first one was 2-3, next one was 8-2

Thanks for the info.