Upcoming Hearthstone Features: Quest With Friends And Deck Importing

Upcoming Hearthstone Features: Quest With Friends And Deck Importing

hearthstone image

New features coming to Hearthstone include the ability to complete daily quests against friends, as well as easily import and export deck lists.

Hearthstone updates don't just add new cards, sometimes they add new features as well. Today, Blizzard has outlined two such new features that will be coming in an update in the next few weeks: friendly quests and deck importing/exporting.

Friendly quests is a simple quality-of-life change for those of you who like to play against your buddies, rather than endlessly climbing the ranked ladder. Essentially, you'll be able to complete your daily quests (Win 5 games as rogue, cast 30 spells ect) in friendly challenges.

The second new feature, deck importing/exporting, is something that is sure to make netdeckers happy, as well as those who feel like 18 deckslots just isn't enough.

Here's how it works:

If your deck is already full, when you select the Hero portrait at the top of a deck in your collection, you'll see a copy button. Press that button and your decklist will be copied to your clipboard, which can be pasted into a text document. At the bottom of the text document, you'll see a "code", which can be shared with anyone. When you go to create the new deck, Hearthstone will "know" when you've got a valid decklist on your clipboard, so you'll be asked if you'd like to create a new deck with the one you've got copied.

Just like deck recipes, if you lack some of the cards, the game will offer suggestions for replacements.

Source: Blizzard

Permalink

Yay, now take out all the cheap "generate random X" cards, make Quest cards cost way less, and release more meaningful cards more frequently (I've always like Reynad's suggestion of adding a new card or two every week so that things stay somewhat fresh) and I might actually consider reinstalling the game again for the first time in over a year.

No...seriously...people still play this game? I mean, coming out and saying "Yeah, we intentionally give new players shit cards for a while so they can feel a sense of progression" is one thing...but the game being stuck in a mode where literally only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Every "competitive" Hearthstone Game ever goes like this:

Player 1:"I got the winning combo."
Player 2:"I don't..."
Player 1:"I auto-win at turn 4, fuck you for having shitty RNG. :^)"

I mean, Hearth Stone being taken seriously would be akin to League of Legends having professional ARAM tournaments.

RJ 17:
but the game being stuck in a mode where literally only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Meanwhile outside your personal hate bubble Hearthstone meta is the most balanced it has ever been. Last month Vicious Syndicate (site tracking HS deck win rates) had 0 decks in Tier 1 (Win rate above 52%) and 12 decks in Tier 2 (winrate between 50% and 52%) at Legend rank (top 0.25% of all players). Twelve deck archetypes with every one having at least 2 variations at high legend means there are dozens of legit ways to reach legend.

Source: http://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-46/

The second new feature, deck importing/exporting, is something that is sure to make netdeckers happy,

Oh joy, Blizzard further enabling and encouraging the cancer that is netdecking in Hearthstone. Can't wait until the quality and variety of matches starts rising because of this. *rollseyes*

I have absolutely no problem with people discussing different card combos and how mechanics can interact with each other in HS but that's not what happens. You get streamers during the first week of a new expansion release throwing together a bunch of op new "meta decks" which they then hype up and share about leading to all the net deckers immediately shifting to these new meta builds, copying them and flooding the ranked and constructed queues with cookie cutter, unimaginative decks which have their small checklist of goals to achieve in order to win. Then it tends to stay that way for the next four to five months till the next expansion release unless Blizzard messes up a few of those decks by slightly adjusting the stats on one card or if a streamer identifies another cheap, op build midway through.

A'tuin:

RJ 17:
but the game being stuck in a mode where literally only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Meanwhile outside your personal hate bubble Hearthstone meta is the most balanced it has ever been. Last month Vicious Syndicate (site tracking HS deck win rates) had 0 decks in Tier 1 (Win rate above 52%) and 12 decks in Tier 2 (winrate between 50% and 52%) at Legend rank (top 0.25% of all players). Twelve deck archetypes with every one having at least 2 variations at high legend means there are dozens of legit ways to reach legend.

Source: http://www.vicioussyndicate.com/vs-data-reaper-report-46/

You say that like I'm supposed to care. I'm stuck in my own personal hate bubble, remember? :^)

RJ 17:
only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Every "competitive" Hearthstone Game ever goes like this:

Player 1:"I got the winning combo."
Player 2:"I don't..."
Player 1:"I auto-win at turn 4, fuck you for having shitty RNG. :^)"

I mean, Hearth Stone being taken seriously would be akin to League of Legends having professional ARAM tournaments.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, as soon as you stop actually taking the ranked ladder quite so seriously things kinda lighten up a bit. The most frustrating things to me right now aren't even necessarily the "top" decks, anyway; things like Quest Rogue and Exodia Mage are objectively mediocre because they rely entirely upon being able to draw through your entire deck to effectively pull off, the problem is just that playing against them feels awful because my other problem with the game is that I hate aggro decks and refuse to play them, which means that my slower decks can't keep up with non-interactive decks. Pirates are still as obnoxious as ever, of course, but that ties into my hatred for aggro decks, and honestly I've had a lot of games lately that go on well past turn 6, thankfully. But then, I also don't play at a high rank. I don't netdeck, so I tend to only ever get up to rank 15 or 14 with my weird gimmick decks that I put together.

Besides, Hearthstone has always had a problem of the "top decks" being the things which dominate the ladder. That's hardly something to continue getting mad about in the face of things like an entire class being practically unplayable in the Standard mode right now.

shrekfan246:

RJ 17:
only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Every "competitive" Hearthstone Game ever goes like this:

Player 1:"I got the winning combo."
Player 2:"I don't..."
Player 1:"I auto-win at turn 4, fuck you for having shitty RNG. :^)"

I mean, Hearth Stone being taken seriously would be akin to League of Legends having professional ARAM tournaments.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, as soon as you stop actually taking the ranked ladder quite so seriously things kinda lighten up a bit. The most frustrating things to me right now aren't even necessarily the "top" decks, anyway; things like Quest Rogue and Exodia Mage are objectively mediocre because they rely entirely upon being able to draw through your entire deck to effectively pull off, the problem is just that playing against them feels awful because my other problem with the game is that I hate aggro decks and refuse to play them, which means that my slower decks can't keep up with non-interactive decks. Pirates are still as obnoxious as ever, of course, but that ties into my hatred for aggro decks, and honestly I've had a lot of games lately that go on well past turn 6, thankfully. But then, I also don't play at a high rank. I don't netdeck, so I tend to only ever get up to rank 15 or 14 with my weird gimmick decks that I put together.

Besides, Hearthstone has always had a problem of the "top decks" being the things which dominate the ladder. That's hardly something to continue getting mad about in the face of things like an entire class being practically unplayable in the Standard mode right now.

There has always been at least 1 unplayable class. It's just warlock drew the short straw this time (after being viable since the beginning). Priest, Paladin and Shaman have all had their time in the dumpster

squid5580:

shrekfan246:

RJ 17:
only the top 3 meta decks as per Reddit have a chance in winning competitively - and those three decks are ALL you'll be seeing if you try to climb the ladder - would (I'd argue) make it incompatible with truly competitive play since there's no possibility for innovation or nuance. Either you're running one of the top 3 decks or you're losing by turn 4.

Every "competitive" Hearthstone Game ever goes like this:

Player 1:"I got the winning combo."
Player 2:"I don't..."
Player 1:"I auto-win at turn 4, fuck you for having shitty RNG. :^)"

I mean, Hearth Stone being taken seriously would be akin to League of Legends having professional ARAM tournaments.

While I don't entirely disagree with you, as soon as you stop actually taking the ranked ladder quite so seriously things kinda lighten up a bit. The most frustrating things to me right now aren't even necessarily the "top" decks, anyway; things like Quest Rogue and Exodia Mage are objectively mediocre because they rely entirely upon being able to draw through your entire deck to effectively pull off, the problem is just that playing against them feels awful because my other problem with the game is that I hate aggro decks and refuse to play them, which means that my slower decks can't keep up with non-interactive decks. Pirates are still as obnoxious as ever, of course, but that ties into my hatred for aggro decks, and honestly I've had a lot of games lately that go on well past turn 6, thankfully. But then, I also don't play at a high rank. I don't netdeck, so I tend to only ever get up to rank 15 or 14 with my weird gimmick decks that I put together.

Besides, Hearthstone has always had a problem of the "top decks" being the things which dominate the ladder. That's hardly something to continue getting mad about in the face of things like an entire class being practically unplayable in the Standard mode right now.

There has always been at least 1 unplayable class. It's just warlock drew the short straw this time (after being viable since the beginning). Priest, Paladin and Shaman have all had their time in the dumpster

Okay, then to clarify, I think that classes being basically unplayable in general is far worse than a few netdecks dominating the ladder. In this case, it just hits a bit closer to home because despite having always been "viable" (assuming you like playing Zoolock and Handlock, at least), Warlocks have always gotten the shaft in every single expansion when it comes to the relative power level of their cards (and I know what you're going to say, it's because the hero power is just so gosh darn powerful).

Oh look. Another news article about Blizzard. I was worried you wouldn't meet your weekly quota.

shrekfan246:

squid5580:

shrekfan246:

While I don't entirely disagree with you, as soon as you stop actually taking the ranked ladder quite so seriously things kinda lighten up a bit. The most frustrating things to me right now aren't even necessarily the "top" decks, anyway; things like Quest Rogue and Exodia Mage are objectively mediocre because they rely entirely upon being able to draw through your entire deck to effectively pull off, the problem is just that playing against them feels awful because my other problem with the game is that I hate aggro decks and refuse to play them, which means that my slower decks can't keep up with non-interactive decks. Pirates are still as obnoxious as ever, of course, but that ties into my hatred for aggro decks, and honestly I've had a lot of games lately that go on well past turn 6, thankfully. But then, I also don't play at a high rank. I don't netdeck, so I tend to only ever get up to rank 15 or 14 with my weird gimmick decks that I put together.

Besides, Hearthstone has always had a problem of the "top decks" being the things which dominate the ladder. That's hardly something to continue getting mad about in the face of things like an entire class being practically unplayable in the Standard mode right now.

There has always been at least 1 unplayable class. It's just warlock drew the short straw this time (after being viable since the beginning). Priest, Paladin and Shaman have all had their time in the dumpster

Okay, then to clarify, I think that classes being basically unplayable in general is far worse than a few netdecks dominating the ladder. In this case, it just hits a bit closer to home because despite having always been "viable" (assuming you like playing Zoolock and Handlock, at least), Warlocks have always gotten the shaft in every single expansion when it comes to the relative power level of their cards (and I know what you're going to say, it's because the hero power is just so gosh darn powerful).

Naw what I would say is that it is because of the netdecks that Warlock is in the dumpster this time round. They do have good cards in their arsenal but just not good enough to thrive against pirate warriors and murloc paladins (and those effin quest rogues that I truly despise)

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here