Casino mage p4wnyhof
Febr. P4wnyhof's profile · Mats P4wnyhof · @ P4wnyhof. Tweets. Mats P4wnyhof. We ran for some awesome casino mage today went in the. Animated armor is. Jun 9, [Hearthstone] Casino Tempo Mage back in Action! [Constructed Gameplay]. The P4wnyhof ▻Facebook. Given how it took you 55 seconds to. Casino mage p4wnyhof. Hello Friends! My name is Mats " P4wnyhof " and iam bringing you high legend Hearthstone gameplay almost every day of the week!. Something else i noticed about the free slots games with bonus rounds crusader - in addition to being a sports live streams of spells and minions, she's also likely to give you a weapon. I mean, I don't think Hearthstone ever intended to be a complex card game that showcases a huge skill ceiling for the competitive scene. My name sofortüberweisung erfahrungen Mats " P4wnyhof " and iam bringing you high legend Hearthstone gameplay almost every day of the week! Shit Beste Spielothek in Dobitschen finden that is why patron was nerfed. Slowly out valuing your opponent is the fun. Midrange, if he rolls a non-basic totem from tuskarr it is hard to recover, and if he gets the totem spam going and you can't stop it he can Beste Spielothek in Unterwasser finden insane value from them with flametounge and TBV, not to mention taunts gamestar casino online his priority targets and spellpower for his removal and spirit claws, and free TfB on top. Thaurissan is what made everything possible. Tinkmaster, Bombers, spellslingers, Rag, portals, effigy, recombobulator It's not actually unfun, it just forces there to be some kind of decision making from both sides - how much to extend, how long to hold it. You can read spanien liga 1 whole interview here: Did Beste Spielothek in Juliusburg finden account for every 3 attack cherry casino usa less minion that warrior Beste Spielothek in Neumühlen finden use? Nerfing warsong was right move because design space.
Casino Mage P4wnyhof VideoIron Juggernaut is damn good... IN A MAGE DECK! Let's Play Hearthstone
HCT Atlanta 8d 1h 59m Day 2. HCT Atlanta 9d 2h 59m Day 3. Casino Mage or Tempo Mage? Spellingers sometimes finish the match with the spell that u give to the opponent and i hate it sometimes, what you can recommended me?
Would help if you posted both decklists and we could then compare. So many variations of both it's hard to know which ones you're talking about.
I've tried the top casino mage deck on hearthpwn and honestly it's pretty bad - fun deck but bad for laddering.
Tempo mage is pretty much just a polished casino mage deck imo. If it's the real casino mage with all the bombers and blingtron i'd advise against it, it's fun tho.
I played a lot of Tempo Mage last season and did really well with it, so I'd recommend that. But honestly just try both and play whatever makes you smile.
That being said, Casino Mage is waaaay more fun! If you've got the cards, lean into the gimmick. Tinkmaster, Bombers, spellslingers, Rag, portals, effigy, recombobulator Leads to some wild games, and more wins than it has any right to get at the higher ranks.
Tempo mage is accually a hard deck to play in different to other decks like secret pally and face hunter. Even if you are a relatively casual player 2 of them never got above about rank 10 you still want to feel like your skill and decisions matter.
The reasons they quit are quite interesting though. They quit because they got fed up with games feeling too snowbally.
They felt that games were too decided by who got the better curve and whether or not you drew an answer such as AOE and didn't feel that the games played out enough for them to be decided by the better player.
They felt frustrated because they could never play any lategame cards due to games ending too early and felt forced into playing these faster decks even though they didn't particularly enjoy playing them.
When I talked to one of my friends relatively hardcore - got as high as rank 1 one season on why he swapped to Elder Srolls: Legends he basically said that he didn't really see the point in playing Hearthstone because it no longer felt like a 2 player game.
He said that you don't really play with your opponent anymore. For example, you shouldn't play around AOE most of the time and you should just ignore all your opponent's minions and hit face.
I'm guessing a little bit here, but I think the reason he left is that aggro decks no longer run out of steam so they don't really have to worry about conserving cards or trying to get value out of them.
One of his most hated cards was Call of the Wild even though he mained hunter. He felt that the card was just giving you a board from nothing without requiring any skill and this card was one of the main reason that playing hunter felt like it required less skill.
He said that Call of the Wild is so powerful that it is making it so that it doesn't matter if you conserve resources or waste burst and stuff earlier in the game.
In other words, that the card removed too much strategic depth from his favorite class. It's "not above rank 20".
Actual casual for comparison: Why would i put myself through that grind? If it would reward me for playing well, sure, but it doesn't.
Realized probably even then i would not do it, mostly because it's not fun to play the same matchups over and over again.
This is what MtG does much better - usually matches are best 2 out of 3 and you get to sideboard, so the matchups become much more dynamic. It can still get boring to play against the same decks but at least there's more thought to it.
I rarely see this mentioned but I think you are hitting the nail on the head. In previous metas, if you got to the point where aggro was top-decking and you were still alive you were generally okay against them.
CotW was a sales move. Hunter needed a power boost, and giving them a new epic you NEED to get a good win rate ges people buying packs, while buffing other cards wouldn't get that effect to the same degree.
Shaman is the most snowbally class we've. Midrange, if he rolls a non-basic totem from tuskarr it is hard to recover, and if he gets the totem spam going and you can't stop it he can get insane value from them with flametounge and TBV, not to mention taunts protecting his priority targets and spellpower for his removal and spirit claws, and free TfB on top.
It's very poor design. The poor design is only in there not being answers to those shaman cards. I believe that if every class had as strong and interesting cards as shaman HS would be in a better place.
Yes they have cards that are simply overstatted like everyone's favorite 4 mana meme, but more cards like TBV and spirit claws would be amazing if distributed around.
Flamewreathed Faceless is somewhat punishable by most classes since most decks can find some sort of hard removal or similar answer. And you can't fight those back on the board because the Shaman will simply have removal for whatever you play.
Doomsayer is in the meta purely because of the existence of Shaman being so hard to deal with on turns In spite of a few interesting Karazan cards, I've also stopped playing almost completely, only catching the brawls to clear my quest log.
I definitely feel most of my enjoyment from the game is no longer there. There is nothing wrong with taking a break from the game or moving on.
Don't get trapped by the sunk cost fallacy which I think is the real cause of so much salt around here. If people aren't enjoying the game any more, then maybe they're just played out.
You got your money's worth, and now it's time to move on. That's definitely one way of looking at it. But it's a pity since I've dedicated a lot of time and effort into the game - seeing almost a full card collection go to waste feels like that.
I remember having lots, lots of fun with HS even at other times when the community had lots of very particular complaints.
Ironically, I was thinking today that one of the moves that was definitely good for the game - the introduction of Standard and Wild - might have started the decline in my interest.
Well, yes and no, not really. A player wants to feel a part of something meaningful and significant when he invests his time in an online game, and that's not what Wild feels like.
It feels forgotten by the company and the community. I'd agree with that. Some of the most fun I had was when Secret Paladin was completely oppressive.
Hard to say to be honest, Activision Blizzard's statements don't break out beyond reportable segments. No way to know what each franchise is making from public docs.
In regards to the interview. I really like hearing Lifecoach talk about stuff, that's why I watched it. But your interviews have much to improve in my opinion, it doesn't look like a discussion to me, it's like you don't even listen to what the person says and just throw a random question at them when they're finished.
Also, you need to fix that noise, Lifecoach's sound has some echo but nothing compared to your mic, it's really annoying.
Couldn't agree more, a good interviewer will get inside the person's head and know what question to ask to really get them talking and get a lot out of them.
It seemed more like a robot asking the questions if i'm honest but that's ok i'm sure it was probably one of his first interviews.
I edited my first post explaining some points. It's definitely my first steps into interviewing and I definitely can improve a lot.
And I want to. So thanks a lot for the feedback, it's most appreciated! I think this is the way Blizzard wants the game to be.
If better players dominate the game, the not so good players, which mean, the great majority will feel frustrated and not spend money on the game. The matchmaking system is still supposed to work right and match people of roughly equal skill I don't see the problem.
The "problem" is that Blizzard doesn't aim the game for competitive players, but to big mass of casual RNG lovers. It's our competitive fairness byassed vision of the game that make us feel bad.
Around the release of Standard, Blizzard mentioned that they were hyper sensitive about "major breakpoints" that would cause users to give up on the game.
I think they have glaringly overlooked "minor breakpoints" One can play against only so much Yogg, Zoo, and Aggro Shaman before throwing in the towel and seeking greener pastures.
As a veteran player, rank 20 at the beginning-middle of each month is the best. I am enjoying Faeria so far but it is much more complex than Hearthstone, which is why it will never catch on with the masses.
I agree, I have been very into Faeria and finding it extremely skill based without sacrificing fun and variety.
Every problem that people complain about with Hearthstone is solved by the unique game mechanics. For example, the "curvestone" problem is solved by having mana carry over from one turn to the next and a board that makes sure that you can't just choose to hit face or hit any creature you want.
I do want to say, Faeria is a great game, but it appears this subreddit doesn't want to hear about it I've never been met with downvotes when talking about Faeria on here.
I think it just depends on how you frame it and the context of when you talk about it. Faeria is a great game but it isn't all sunshine and butterflies.
One of its biggest issues is the current size of the player base which limits their ability to have a legitimate robust match making system.
Another big issue I have with the game itself is how they've decided to do their arena equivilant match making. Currently, there's mmr attached to players in their arena mode that isn't reset when you make new decks.
Arguably this is necessary since they provide players with a free mini arena token every day but it also means that you aren't rewarded proportionately as you get better at playing the mode with more rewards as it will match you against better players.
I have been having a wonderfully fun time playing Mage, but for bad reasons. Virtually every Mage card does something "random".
The cute Babbling Book gives you a random, potentially game-winning spell. Cabalist's Tome generates random spells to punish control decks.
Flamewanker pelts the opposition with random Arcane Missiles. And when I'm in a bind, I slam down Yogg and roll the dice.
Mage is actually very good right now due to all the Druids being played, but I personally don't feel like I "deserved" any of the games I win with Mage.
It's just all about rolling the dice. I enjoy Burgle Rogue for a similar reason, and have a similar frustration.
Every game is different because of the cards you generate, and the adaptations make it fun to play.
It's impractical for someone to play around a bunch of random class cards. It's rewarding if you "earn" a win due to an odd card choice you chose to include, but much less so when the odd card is a random drop into your lap.
I ended up getting the same "gambling" vibe from Burgle Rogue as Discolock. Personally, I end up very frustrated because winning and losing just became ever closer to just luck mattering.
I can find that compelling the same as anyone else, but I can't say I truly enjoy it. I really think they just got caught up in doing stuff you can't effectively in a tcg.
In a vacuum, there's nothing wrong with any of the RNG cards well, except yogg , but when you have everything together it's just too much.
Yeah, I made a Casino Mage deck for wild. Just put in every card with "random" on it. Added 2 arcane giants and 2 fireballs and I was more surprised than anything.
I'm gonna work on more randomness with Malchezzar and Elise and go to town. Sure, two of each of these: I swap cards in and out, but obviously take out the garbage and put in Frostbolt and Fireball to make it more consistent.
I don't have Yogg, but I might feel too dirty using him anyway;. Planning to get golden Mage but wanting to focus on something less competitive.
Thank you for giving me a good place o start with. Mage really has no cards anymore that arent random, or snowbally really aside from a few like fireball, frostbolt.
I could probably name about 20 that currently see competitive play if I were feeling particularly snarky. I saw people saying "fuck mage doesn't even have to put secrets and poly in their decks, they get it from cabalist" and that's partly true, you can't play around shit against mage and that's very frustrating.
Couldn't agree more with this point. When I see the winners of tournaments today I rarely think "Wow, he played incredible" or that he had an amazing read on the meta, or anything like that.
I just think it was his day, and if they played the tournament over from the start somebody else would probably win. At that point you may as well abolish the idea of competing in the game.
We need a LOT more cards per set and less prebuilt templates - more sandbox , so that the deckbuilders can create new interesting decks. Nowadays 1 drops that see play need a 3 damage aoe to die, first that's not available to all classes and it costs much more as a result.
A 3 drop with an upside for just 1 mana. The fact of the matter is that it would be fine since they're class cards but only if the classes needed early board presence that badly, but they don't, both class can play reactively very well with the early cheap removal they have at their disposal.
Well Shaman was absolute garbage just last year though before they got the early game overload synergy of Trog into Golem into another golem or coin into Tuskar.
Agree with 2 and 3, but the problem with 1 is that you're responding to power creep with even more power to the opposite side of the equation. The result is like a rubber band that's stretched more and more from both sides, ultimately snapping one way or the other.
So you either win the game by turn 5 going aggro, or lose by turn 5 because the opponent happened to draw an OP control card.
The solution IMHO is instead to not promote decks that can consistently win by turn 5 in the first place. For me, I think blizzard under estimated the lifespan of hearthstone and it's original explosive popularity.
It seems they only had plans to get their foot through the door, but no idea where to walk to next. They should also split the current gameplay types further - into "competitive" and "entertainment" modes.
This would mean rotating out classic the original set the same way magic has done. Wow tried to cater too much to casuals without leaving anything for the hardcore except raiding and the sub base plummeted.
HS should learn from that. This is such a classic business mistake, common far beyond gaming. Sacrificing your core audience in a desperate attempt to reach "the masses" is a strategy that very, very rarely works if ever.
Rather its a strategy which works very well, and earns you huge money, but leaves in its wake a disenfranchised core community. Then after a few years they masses leave and you run into problems.
Its a medium term choice rather than a long term one. Significantly more casual because Vanilla was quite hardcore. It still took casual players a long while to get a flying mount, and casual guilds a while to get Black Temple keyed.
TBC was still very much geared for the hardcore base. WoWs most successful and arguably best expo catered heavily to casuals, WotLK.
WoW just got old. Only thing hs shares with wow is knee jerk over nerfs based on community complaining. Hearthstone is a phone game similar to candy crush.
I think the marketing for it originally and the fact that it was only on PC for a bit gave people the illusion that Blizzard wanted solid card game.
I don't think you can compare the two. HS has a much higher level of commitment and ensuing penalty for failure. Also Candy Crush players can be extremely dedicated, I don't know how many levels their are, but I players who were in the high s as of last Winter.
Also the lack of focused competition I'd say. There are about levels now!! I got to the s. The levels get so hard you need to reset them constantly before making a move to even have a chance.
That's what I'm talking about! XD Maybe it can be fair to write off people who stick to the lower level puzzles though I wouldn't agree with that , but not the people who stick around, losing constantly , trying to beat those really hard ones.
And the ones your talking about aren't even halfway through the total amount available lol! The RNG involved in getting a good enough starting board to beat the level is unreasonable enough that I stopped playing.
It just wasn't fun anymore. I was trying to finish the whole game but they add about 15 levels a week and I can't catch up.
You can certainly compare the two. Blizzard has got to be much more concerned with getting more mobile players then PC players. It's just a numbers game.
You can compare the two by mobile game success measures, sure. But they really are going for two different markets. People who want to play a self-involved puzzle game without out worrying about other people are going to pass up Hearthstone quickly if not outright.
Which as a terrible growth strategy. You are totally correct that mobile has the highest amount of players at the moment.
But just showing up at the largest market and plopping down your product doesn't mean that others will flock to it; More potential buyers means more competition for attention.
Two Dots isn't at the top of the charts because people are saying to themselves "It's so blandly inoffensive that I can't put it down! It's like I don't have to play it at all!
The original comment I was responding to talked about how Blizzard had created an illusion of a solid card game, and the one before it talked about how this always happens when Blizzard is just catering too much to casual players.
But I feel like both of these misunderstand what casual players look for. Spectacle is only one way to entreat casual play.
But the strongest form is giving flexibility , allowing the players to play the ways they want. I casually play Skyrim , usually when I'm sick, because I want something that doesn't require a ton of thought, just enough to distract me from life.
Just like Two Dots let's players have help sometimes when a puzzle's "got them". Minecraft ticks all of these boxes and more in spades ; It's no wonder that it's is the most successful casual game of all time!
And honestly, I just cannot believe that Yogg-Saron is a gambit to grab casual players. It's legendary status means that most players new players have no idea it exists.
It's design is going to most tickle the brains of experienced players because they can understand the consequences of what is happening, and build to optimize so the turn happens.
Similar to Tuskar Totemic, that card screams of competitive design, not casual design. That recent front page post, of a new player thinking that their opponent "hacked" the game because they had played Yogg-Saron, totally underscores what I'm getting at.
Which I just don't buy. It is nothing like Candy Crush. Just because it's on a phone or tablet doesn't mean it is vapid and brainless by default.
FTL and Don't Starve are on tablets and they are as complex as games can get. HS is complex and imo at this point not even nearly pick up and play so they need to decide fast what audience they want because with the size of the app and the amount of battery it eats when playing if they are losing to bullshit shaman endlessly they will just uninstall.
I would dare say there are limitless differences in opinion among players when it comes to RNG. No matter what Blizzard does, a segment of their player base will complain bitterly, over and over and over.
I wish he would get a new headset with a microphone. I hate that echo. Turns me off his stream, every time. Wouldn't a small room be worse for echo?
In any case I think it has more to do with carpets and furniture, or lack thereof. I don't have any problem with opponent's Yogg destroying my full board with next turn lethal, shadow stepping his own Yogg, plays Thistle Tea into 3 Feral which gave him 24 armor and an additional ice shield for 5 more armor.
He also got to play 3 I can't remember why Arcane Giants for free next turn: Then I played a game just for fun as evolve Shaman against a Yogg druid where he misplayed several times, had very little board presence all game long, I had lethal on board for my next turn, then he dropped Yogg and got Sinister Strike, 3 Heroic strikes in a row, a Headcrack, a Mindblast, and Charge on his Yogg for an OTK from no board.
I'm generally ok with OTK's since they at least require you to gather up the different pieces of the combo, usually with a cost reduction on several of them, and then play the combo correctly all while surviving.
Playing badly then dropping a die-roll and just "accidentally" winning in a single turn is not ok. It completely removes the player and any decision making from the game and just says, if you survive until turn 10 or 8 on innervate then sometimes you win for free.
I'm on the other side. It's silly and 'fun'. But not satisfying in the way I want it. I play control decks so I can make the greedy not tempo plays to get those 2 for 1s.
Slowly out valuing your opponent is the fun. Then yoga comes in and tips the table. The thing is you pretty much have to include yogg anyway.
Yogg was the first legend I crafted right away when the set came out and I've played it I don't know how many times with effects ranging from impactful and impressive to pathetic and hilarious.
Praising Yogg in hopes of a stray fireball going where you want it or to draw into an answer is one thing, but a 1-card OTK based completely on RNG takes it too far and should not exist outside of something like a brawl or an adventure.
I don't think too many jimmies would be rustled by a one time OTK in such a multitude of games played. There's no other 10 drop in the game that has such a huge impact.
I personally think it would be better if it was a guaranteed board clear that drew some cards since at least that's something you can plan around.
Yes it would be ludicrously OP, but if you knew to expect that on turn 10 you could decide what minions to hold, how much to clear his stuff versus going face, etc.
As it is, there's no way to plan around the chance of an instant win. Got an Ice Block? Flare and then 3 pyroblasts.
The person playing Yogg has no board, has been making bad trades, using their removal badly, and just generally seems incompetent?
Even with the most complained about decks of the past there were always things you could do to plan for the eventuality of it. With Yogg the only thing you can do is hope to kill them before they play it or hope it's turns out to be a dud when they do.
It may be perfectly thematic with the card, but you shouldn't have to just hope you don't get handed a loss. It defeats the purpose of a competitive game.
I would guess because Poker winnings are typically financed by the buy-ins of losers, rather than advertising dollars. Gambling addictions leave some people homeless, Hearthstone addictions just leave people with high blood pressure.
I dont think hearthstone was ever designed to be complicated. More the opposite, I think hearthstone was designed to use the virtual space to simplify cards games for the masses.
What your describing is depth. I agree that depth can lend a hand to the quality of a game where appropriate. I wounder if the developers think it is appropriate.
A very deep game can be intimidating to start playing if it's too difficult to learn the basics. The comparison can and should be made forever with Magic: The games are fundamentally similar, but importantly different.
Magic is a more complex, deeper game because there's more stuff in it. There's just more to do, you have more options. I don't think this makes it better or worse than Hearthstone, it just appeals to a different audience.
Looking at the HS side, it's very easy to approach, convenient and portable. Because of these inherent differences HS grew very quickly. I think that's the problem -- some people just can't bring themselves to walk away from the game when it's no longer fun for them -- they've fallen for the sunk cost fallacy.
There is nothing wrong with the random Yogg and Portal effects. The problem is it belongs IN a separate game mode like Tavern Brawl.
Who would like to play Ladder using this week's Tavern Brawl? Too random and just frustrating when your opponent gets that high cost minion on turn 1 or 2.
I really don't understand why complex decks like Handlock and Patron warrior were nerfed. We didn't need the most skill-intensive decks in the game to just be nerfed into the ground.
Also, I'd like to give a shoutout to VampAurora for making all of these great videos highlighting what pro players are thinking. Fantastic job and I think that this last one really hammers the problems with the current state of Hearthstone home.
Keep up the great work! Their reason for nerfing Flurry actually made sense. The fact that such a strong card was there and it was damn strong meant that they couldn't have particularly powerful weapons for Rogue.
The thing is, since that nerf, you'd expect some better weapons for Rogue, which Blizzard haven't provided at all. The fact that the nerf came as they also lost Oil from rotation completely butchered the class.
Those were two of its most important cards, thrown out completely.