Those are some good tips in the video. I've sadly become a "Hearthstone Sith." I got disappointed with it because I was hoping for more of a single player game than competing against others. When I earned enough gold, I unlocked one of the single player modes, but it didn't last long enough for me.

I was always surprised by people who played Warlock decks as I thought those were suicidal. I thought all of the decks have good abilities, except for the Warlock. Thus, that is my least favorite. I'm not sure which is my favorite, though. So, kuddos for playing a Warlock deck. Your description helped me realize that the Warlock can obviously be a good deck.

I haven't played Hearthstone since I gave up on it when I last played over a month ago, maybe more. I'm glad it made it to phones and tablets as I thought it would work well on them (at least tablets). I also got the Collector's Edition of Reaper of Souls. I noticed, after playing and reading about Hearthstone, that there were some cards that came along with that. I haven't redeemed them, I never saw a prompt about it, but maybe that's because I started playing the game after RoS.

I got the digital edition of the game and CE, not a hard copy.

I'm glad you pointed out the expansions, JaBo, I was thinking of mentioning that to Jon, since he seems to have earned plenty of gold. I earned enough and unlocked the Naxxaramus. I did beat it and I got some cards from it. That was one of the things that majorly disappointed me, though. I was expecting a lot more single-player play with that expansion. Still, I'd say, if you have the gold, they're worth getting. Maybe some day I'll get over my lack of single player disappointment and play some more. Hearthstone really is a great game, in all honesty, and I'm not surprised that it's very popular. As I keep saying, I just wish there was a lot more to the single player aspect of the game.

Have you tried the arena yet?

I actually played today for the first time in a long time. I decided to resist the Sith mindset and just tried to play for fun. I may have lost about half or more of the games I played, but I managed to complete my daily quests. So, that was cool. I may jump back in the game from time to time trying to just have fun with it instead of worrying about winning or losing. I would like to collect more gold so I can unlock the other single player parts of the game.

Yeah, I really think this video is really helpful. I became a "Hearthstone Sith" as described in the video and stopped playing. I started playing again recently, though I'm not sure exactly why. I haven't quite figured out the bonus from Diablo III: Reaper of Souls. I got the Digital Deluxe edition, which seems to include three packs of cards. That may be something I opened when I started playing Hearthstone and just didn't pay attention. I don't believe I have any RoS cards, though.

Back to the video, I'm actively working on the recommended mindset, staying calm and not worrying too much about winning or losing. Sure, I try to win, which is great when it happens, but I often lose, but that's ok. Luck is also definitely a factor. I had three dailies when I started playing again, which is great. I wish they'd give you three every day, but apparently it's only one. They can stack up to three, though.

I think my favorite kind of daily is something like I had recently, "cast 40 spells," others are like "deal 40 damage to enemy." Those are dailies I like because I can complete them even by losing.

Today my daily was to win 2 games with the Shaman or Mage. I completed it with the Shaman. I beat a Warlock and then my next opponent quit right after we drew our cards, so I got an instant win, which completed my daily.

I know I have some of the Naxxramas cards. I've created custom decks for every class and I play with those decks. They're not specialized and the game was the only guide I used to create them.

I haven't seen any Diablo cards. I've seen some that are similar to spells and creatures, but nothing that seems specifically from that game. I know they exist, though. Here are the specific details about the bonus cards: http://us.battle.net/d3/en/blog/13393435/unlock-expert-card-packs-with-reaper-of-souls%E2%84%A2-3-20-2014 So, for getting the Digital Deluxe edition of RoS, my Hearthstone bonus is three Hearthstone Expert Card Packs, which as I said, I may have overlooked. I remember opening multiple decks and it's been a while, maybe I already opened those packs.

I like how my Battle.net friends list has expanded. I often see at least one of you on while I'm playing RoS or Hearthstone. it's cool to see notifications of what you're doing. Jon was a spectator for one of my matches and I was one for one of his. It's pretty cool to watch your friends play! Jon and I also had an in-game chat, which was great. Cheerful Ghost has definitely expanded my games and parts of games that I probably would not use or play if it weren't for CG. CG helps make gaming more awesome!

I recently had a daily of winning 7 games "in any mode" (it's worth more than usual, I think). So, I decided to see if that included Solo Adventures, which it did and made completing that daily much easier. I decided to re-challenge the Naxxramas bosses. I also noticed that you get a gold card for leveling a class up to 20, so I decided that was a new goal to work on. I also realized that I could get exp in Solo mode, even if I lose. So, I worked on a few classes.

Today I had to summon 40 creatures that cost 2 or less. As I said, that's my favorite kind of daily because I didn't have to worry about winning. Since I was last working on getting my Warlock to 20, I decided to go with that and play. I ended up accomplishing both goals and it was fun. Since I didn't care about winning as much, I didn't worry too much about the cost of using his Hero Ability and put it to good use. So yeah, I like that Blizzard created a fun game that can be fun even if you lose.

I knew you could respin your daily quests. I think I read some where that doing that when you get 40's to get something better is a good strategy. I should put that into practice. I'm familiar with the Faceless Manipulator.

Yeah, I've looked at that page before.

I may have over looked it, but I didn't see anything about rewards you get for leveling your classes. I found out that you get gold cards by reaching level 20. Then, you get another reward by reaching level 23, which is much sooner than I expected.

I remember seeing that you could buy the extra Solo Adventures stuff and they're really not expensive. I used 700 gold to buy the Naxxramus one and I'm saving up for the next one. I read a strategy of saving gold for the Arena, but my self-confidence in the game isn't too high, so I don't think I'm really ready to gamble my gold with the Arena. I did go in once for free (your first time is free) and won either a couple of cards or packs. I think I had two wins.

Re-rolling quests makes me a little nervous because I don't want to get a "win 5 games" one. If I always had the "win 7 games in any mode" quest, I'd be quite happy!

Yesterday I was sick, so I barely played, so I didn't complete my daily which was "win 3 with any class." Today's daily was "win 5 with Druid or Hunter." I didn't re-roll, but I noticed that every win I got went towards both dailies, since I was using my Hunter. Completing those, I was just 10 gold away from 700, so I went and got another win, since I was one away from 10 more gold. So now, I've unlocked the 2nd quarter of Naxxramus.

I've been enjoying the game and having fun with it again. I'm surprised by how many wins I got today (at least 6), which makes me feel pretty good.

This is a game where luck seems to be clearly visible, at least I see it that way. I still think of the things mentioned in this video and all of that has helped me enjoy the game again. Sometimes networking issues happen. I've had quite a few games where my opponent wasn't really there, left, or got disconnected. I've been disconnected during a match at least once. Opponents don't seem to like to let you win, either. If they are losing and they can see an end for them in sight, they will often concede. This is something I do not do.

Initially, my problem with the game was that I wasn't doing very well and I didn't like competing with others. That vision has disappeared, finally. I'm not always so focused on winning, it just depends on what daily quest I've been given. Additionally, I pretty much don't go into "Play Mode" unless I'm working on a daily that requires it. Having ones that don't require me to win most certainly relieves me of the pressure of winning. If I don't have to win, I don't try so very hard to do so, I pretty much try to accomplish my daily. I wonder if others play this way or if pretty much everyone plays to win.

I was also very glad to find out that I could get golden cards just by leveling up my heroes and that I could do so in the single player mode. This has certainly lead me to play and enjoy the game more.

I also think opponents are usually pretty nice and I wonder if that's just how they are or if it's because the game doesn't necessarily allow you to be "mean." Sure you could emote a threat/taunt or whatever, but generally the emotes are limited . People often use the "well played" one. I pretty much always use that one at the end of a match, especially if my opponent did play very well.

What is your experience like? Do you notice any of the things I've mentioned? Do you play similarly (not always focused on winning)?

Lately, I'm seeing more disconnections or opponents leaving or quitting before the match really begins or before I get a chance to defeat them. I'm feeling so much better about this game after watching that video and playing with those tips in mind. Sometimes I feel like I'm a good player and sometimes I feel terrible. Sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes it seems my opponents do, too, as they'll squelch a "sorry." Sometimes they'll even do that after doing something like defeating a whole row of my minions.

I think quite a bit of success in this game depends on what cards you draw first and what cards you continue to draw. I think (here's a tip) that at the beginning of a match, it's really important to make sure you have in your hand at least a couple of cards you can play relatively soon. Otherwise, you're going to be stuck for the first part of the game not being able to play what's in your hand. This has happened to me in all game modes.

I agree, I think the limited communication makes people seem nicer and less mean. In my experience, people have usually been quite nice. It's cool seeing a "well played." People seem to be like me and they'll say that at the end of a match. I almost always do. I haven't run into any of the a-holes you mention. I've been taunted before, but that's just the hero's words.

I've been re-rolling my dailies when I get them, hoping for the big one. It doesn't always work and sometimes I feel like saving my daily for the next day so that I can re-roll, but I tend to just play what I get after that re-roll. Today I re-rolled a 60 and got a 40, but that's the gamble you take with that feature.

I'm also curious if any of you have faced an opponent more than once. I'm sure I have, which I find fascinating because I know there are very many players world wide. Yet there have been a few times where I recognized my opponent from a previous match.

Still, once I complete my daily quest, I jump into single player mode. That might not earn me much gold, but it allows me to continue to level up my heroes and not feel the pressure of playing against someone else. Some of the AI opponents are tough, many of them are unique and require strategy, but some of them can be fun.

I think the first time I was able to afford a pack of cards (with gold), I bought at least one. Then, I found out about the extra single player unlockables, so I've been saving my gold to purchase those. I'm still working on Naxxramas. Most recently, I unlocked the Military Quarter.

Have any of you unlocked other parts of the game? If so, which?

I've been wondering why I haven't seen you in these conversations, Travis. Do you play? Why does it seem like you've been missing out on the action?

I agree that "sorry" after a badass move isn't taunting, but one it is one example of how seemingly nice people seem to be.

Adam, I can definitely see your perspective on that. I think it shows how even limited communication can be open to interpretation. As for what's been bugging you lately, you gain experience from doing different things like killing a minion, killing an opponent, and playing a card. So, in a way it may be worth it to take a few extra moves to gain some extra experience instead of moving in for the straight kill. Here is my resource: http://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/284t1a/how_leveling_works/

That's great, Jon! Since you mentioned incorporating new cards into decks, I'm still left with wondering how and when you guys decide to re-customize a deck. It's been a while since I've done it and I've earned a bit of cards since then. I should probably just go ahead and do it. What do you suggest?

Well, I do understand and can certainly agree with you. Thanks for the tips. Today I'm getting slaughtered with my Shaman, so I might try to customize that deck again. I think I last customized my decks after facing some of the Naxxramas bosses, but it's been a while since then and I've played more of them multiple times. I like unlocking the Class Challenges because they give me a chance to play with what I call "not-my-cards." =)

Today was the first time I conceded and I did it twice. Both times, I was near my end and my opponent would have had me if they had gotten another turn. I did this precisely for the reason some of you stated and that was to save time. I know the last time I did it, I didn't concede on my last turn until I played a few cards, to get some extra experience points.

I also got lucky and won my Tavern Brawl match because my opponent "left." This was one of those occurrences I come across every now and then. My best guess as to why this happens is networking issues, a player may have idled or been disconnected some how. Although, it's also possible that (in these instances) the opponent left after not being happy with the cards they were starting out with. I actually think that's happened to me once.

Wow! I still haven't played any ranked matches, so I'm still at 25.

I've played against Medivh once. Yeah I think the Shad of Naxx is pretty good.

I decided to try ranked matches. I have one star! That means I got one win, doesn't tell you how many I lost. Hahahaha

Cool! I was impressed with myself because I decided to give Ranked matches a try. I ended up getting to 19 in just a day or two. So, I won a card back, which is a nice change. I've seen some nice ones out there.

Clash of Heroes is fun, but I don't know that I'd compare it too closely with Puzzle Quest. Clash is built on a match-three system, but the combat is much more active, and the strategy deeper than that of PQ. I love both of those games, but they play very differently.

Have you played the Legend of Grimmrock games? I was interested in Might & Magic X, too, but the reviews turned me away. Most people are saying the Grimmrock games are a more polished set of that turn-based, first person RPG.

Same here. I don't meet the minimum. Looks like a Ps4 purchase. Say what you will about consoles; you never have to deal with that stuff.

The PS4 is the bees knees! I've had one since the system launched, and I've only grown to like it more and more. I was a huge fan of the XBox 360, mostly because of the then superior XBox Live service, but Microsoft started making decisions with the UI and the whole spirit of the system started to change. What once was a raw gaming rig, was slowly turning into a playground for advertisers. I hated it, and began to migrate my library over to the PS3. Because of that transition, I never really gave the XBox One any serious thought (although, now that Halo 5 is on the horizon...), especially because of how poorly Microsoft handled the presentation of that machine prior to release. What a nightmare.

Spec-wise, the PS4 is technically more powerful than the XBox One, but I've heard that it's not really noticeable during gameplay, unless you have the systems running side-by-side. Resolution and frame-rate on the XBox One seem to take a hit, whereas the PS4 gets closer to PC quality performance. But then you have to take into consideration the exclusive games. The PS4 may be a beast, but it ain't gettin' the Halos. I feel like they make up for it with Uncharted and games like Bloodborne, Last of Us, etc. The PSN (Sony's counterpart to XBox Live) has grown tremendously, and is much more stable and feature-rich than it used to be on the PS3.

I've only played on the XBox One very briefly. If you are a current fan of the XBox environment, you probably won't be disappointed there. However, I prefer the simplicity of the PS4 interface, the Dualshock 4 controller (an amazing improvement over the DS3, and, in my opinion, the best console controller out there), and the library of games out now, and lined up to release in the future.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask!

Regarding PS Now, I'd say don't let that factor into your decision. Unless you have very fast bandwidth, you can't even use it. I have no idea what the quality is like, since my internet speeds are much too slow, but the rates (prices for the service) alone make it a turn off, for me. If you want to play PS3 games, keep your PS3 and go find used games for significantly cheaper.

This move is basically an overnight regime change, so revolt and unrest isn't at all surprising. If this system had been implemented with a new game, it would likely be largely received in a positive light. The biggest problem today, is that current game states, for people using mods which now require payment, is broken. To fix it, and continue the game you've already been playing, you have to pay more money. Keeping in mind that we've been playing a modified game, without any license or guarantee, and we aren't owed anything (that's the risk of using mods), this abrupt change in economy still seems really irresponsible on the part of Valve and Bethesda, and reeks a bit of opportunistic greed.

I can't tell if most people upset by this are simply users or actual modders, but the arguments seem to swing from "Why should I pay for something I've used for years without paying?" to "This will ruin the existing modding scene?" Both seem unconcerned with the fact that modding a game is a privilege, not a right, set forward by the games original creator. It's a wildly amazing part of geek culture, and I'm grateful for it. If anyone is going to profit off of mods, though, the original content creator should recieve the bulk of the revenue. People are contrasting this current revenue split with that of the Apple App Store, and they are two completely different models. The 75% split going to the devs on the App Store is for content they are creating from scratch (theoretically), not modified content of someone elses creation. Not to mention that the discretion is on the modder to charge for the mod (a little publicized fact). They can still offer mods for free, but if they want to start charging for derivative content, then the curators and IP creators should get a proportional cut. Bethesda could have forced every modder to charge for mods, but they didn't.

Reminds me of this enlightening scene in Tombstone: https://youtu.be/JJ79nNquQ0c

(from http://garry.tv/2015/04/24/paying-for-mods/) ...but it’s the modder’s work that is making the money

Is it the modders mod that's making the money, or is it the original IP that drives that market? People aren't commissioning artists to paint Spider-man, simply because they are great artists. They are also, and more prominantly, paying for a composition of the character, one of which the artist likely had absolutely no hand in creating. If I'm laying the groundwork, and someone else is making more money than me because of my work, is that fair?

Now, I would totally think it logical that Valve should get less of a cut, since they really don't do much but offer convenience of execution. As of now, reportedly, the modder gets more than half of what Bethesda gets. That's totally fair. Maybe Valve should only get 15%, leaving the modder with 35% and Bethesda with 50%. Would that be better?

Skyrim is more than a framework, it's a finished house. Unreal Engine is nothing without the games that come from it. Skryim will always be Skyrim (I hope), mods are superfluous to the Skyrim experience. Fun, and some even genius, but in the end, superfluous.

"If I'm laying the groundwork, and someone else is making more money than me because of my work, is that fair?"

I heard this the other day and it seemed good. Not really what you mean, but it's about fairness and thinking about others having enough. For me, I am not as worried about Bethesda and want to see mod creators get a nicer slice.

Would you think it more fair that there was a sliding scale of profit distribution the more successful a product is, essentially taking responsibility away from the creator to be fair, and placing a restriction on excess profits? Isn't that basically capitalism vs. socialism? Is that what this is all about?

But, as you said, Travis, it's new content within the context of Skyrim. Without the context of Skyrim, that mod would be irrelevant. A new bathroom added to a house may increase the overall value of a house, but, without the house, that bathroom is fairly useless. Unless you're camping :).

Basically what I'm saying is that Bethesda or whoever could just release an unfinished game (which while I loved Skyrim, it kinda was unfinished), and rake in profits while others finish it for them.

That's a funny position, because that's what some feel the industry suffering from at the moment, only It's being done without mods (most Early Access, Destiny, Sim City, Battlefield 4, etc.). "Unfinished" also seems highly subjective these days. Most of my friends have put hundreds of hours into Skyrim. Unfinished or not, it's playable, and quite enjoyable. If Destiny supported mods, I would be ecstatic, and yet I've put hundreds of hours into it. Destiny is a proof of concept, and not much more than that. Should someone else be able to make a living helping to finish the game, without the consent from, or payment going to Bungie? Some would say "Hell, yes!", but I would argue, no. Make your own game. Look at Star Wars. In my opinion, Lucas did horrible things to his creation, but ultimately it's his creation and he can do whatever he wants with it. Yes, I think there may be cultural responsibilities, but in the end it's his art. Money has changed hands, licenses transferred, and now we are getting a Star Wars that we really want (hopefully) ;).

The house building analogy isn't perfect. Obviously, contractors are hired to build specific additions, not given tools to do what they want and then compensated retroactively based on an arbitrary scale. However, when the house eventually goes to market and sells, that bathroom contractor won't see a dime of the sale profits.

A game creator does not have to support the modding community. As I said before, this is a privilege subject to the terms of the original IP holder. Mods created outside of consent of the original creator is a breach of copyright law. Jon's comment about anyone being able to cover another artists song and not having to get permission, is only partly true. Performance of someone else's work in public is technically an infringement on copyright law, and the license holder could definitely take action. It's done so often and so widely that it's near impossible to police, but that doesn't necessarily make it okay.

We're not really arguing what's best for Bethesda, or their fans, but rather the viability of this new system, and the timing of it. To think that this will substantially change the modding community is silly, I think, and people that are taking reactionary actions are essentially protecting their own interests (and that's fine). Funny, though, that Modder A is understood, even lauded, in their actions to take down mod content because they don't want anyone else profiting off of their work, and yet Bethesda is being chastised for wanting a share in a completely optional system, if anyone cares to participate, but basically following the same principle. I don't understand that. Money isn't evil, nor is wanting compensation for work. Saying that Bethesda hasn't done any work, in regards to these mods, is missing the point. These mods would not exist without Bethesda's blessing, and Bethesda holds the rights.

What if this system was implemented with Camera Obscura (which, as of now, has a total of 2 Steam Workshop files) instead of Skyrim?

Also, @jdodson but I am not sure what I think when someone wants to lock what they do down and not allow any outside contributions to it. That's an interesting statement. Feelings aside, do you think they should have the right to do this?

I still don't know what you're arguing with "Bethesda holds the rights." Nobody has disputed that.

I thought one of the primary arguments was compensation, and how it should be divided, not whether this was good for the fans. My arguments concerning Bethesda as a copyright holder point toward the rationale of them getting a bigger cut than someone building a modification to their game (finished, or otherwise).

That was essentially my argument, that, I feel, it is fair, contrary to what's being said. Specifically as it concerns the contrast to what App Store vendors make. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/dayz-creator-weighs-in-on-paid-skyrim-mods-your-turn-rockstar/

Ugh. As a human I don't know how to seperate feelings from myself because they are part of my experience. Some say they can do it and I think they are not being accurate.

I hope you stay away from serving on a jury! :D

This might be getting off topic, but your pull quote explains exactly how the copyright laws protect creativity; by giving "exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This isn't like programming, where open-source is a cool thing. "Open source" art isn't generally considered cool, especially among struggling artists. Working from inspiration and getting better at your craft by learning from someone else's work is an entirely different conversation.

For the record, Defense Council Travis, did you read this article before making that last comment? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/04/24/dayz-creator-weighs-in-on-paid-skyrim-mods-your-turn-rockstar/

I don't want to argue semantics, either. That sounds exhausting! ;)

I think it will work itself out to a good spot eventually (hopefully, maybe) but damn did they ever pick a bad game to start this experiment.

100% Agreed.

I'm betting, and this could be me being totally naive, that once Galaxy drops from GoG, you might see Valve a little more active on maintenance front. That level of a competing product, I hope, would be taken seriously by Valve. I'd like to see Riot form a relationship with GoG. I doubt it will happen, but that would be a fun, big deal ;). Now I'm getting way off topic!

I've never gone directly to Valve for support issues. I usually surf for answers on the web. Maybe I've never had a serious enough issue, but then I rarely, if ever, go to software companies for tech support. I don't know why. It might be more helpful if I did (or not, as the case may be).

I believe I signed up for the Galaxy beta, but never heard anything from GoG. I'm really anxious to try it out, as that's the only reason a lot of my GoG games have gone uninstalled. It's a sad excuse, I know, but there it is.

Wouldn't you just have to chalk that up to the risk of using mods? I don't think that QA could have helped. The fact that the game states haven't been transferable between modded and natural games is evident of that. Who would you hold responsible for that?

I'm sure they understood that save games could break, but what could they have done to prevent that from happening (aside from, of course, not implementing this system)?

I don't know how I feel about so-called "remix culture." Frankly, I think it's weird that everything has an index these days; an ism, or a culture, or genre, or whatever the next thing is. I don't really buy his whole talk either, for some reason. Good art and creativity tend to come out of adversity. The poignancy of message is lost when the struggle for art is watered down to the point where no message can even take hold. Personally, I'm not a fan of sampling, even though I like some songs that use it. I remember watching the Grammys one year ( I think it was the Grammys), and Sean Combs was on stage with Sting, and they did some weird mash-up of Every Breath You Take, with Combs rapping during what would be the verses... It was a sad moment for me. I suppose you could argue that it was creative, but to me it just looked like bad art, and a poor representation of each of those artists abilities. Remixing the works of existing art can sometimes bring about cool things, I guess, but often it just comes off as uninspired. As a creator, why would I want to literally base my work on someone else's? Then there is the misrepresentation of the original artist; how often is credit given to the original work in these remixes?

I'll have to watch Lessig's talk a couple more times. I didn't see anything in there about laws choking creativity, which I'm not sure is even possible.

After watching through a couple more times, I think I'm even more confused. I feel like Lessig is insinuating the stifling of creativity, but what he's really talking about is the stifling of innovation, which makes a lot more sense to me. Opening user generated content up for business should be the title of the talk (it's his opening statement). His examples don't seem to hold water, either. Did ASCAP suffer because BMI offered free music, or due to boycott because of an attempt at outrageous increases in licensing fees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCAP_boycott), which would be a much different story.

An argument could also be made that such uses of remixing or free access have actually hindered creativity, at least in some respects. Pieces become rehashes of rehashes to the point where we're just living in a loop of regurgitated art (this is basically why 'hipsters' are a thing). It's innovative, but not really creative. When everyone has access to everything all the time, the landscape tends to look uniform, the past and the present blur, and then how are you left to express yourself?

Why does the date on that article say April 26, 2011? What is the criteria for posting on PC Gamer? It reads more like a blog post. He doesn't really make any points as to why he should get paid as a modder, only that he deserves it because he works hard, while mocking the companies that allow modding in the first place. In fact, at one point he basically is just telling the reader to abandon opinion, and agree that modders deserve to get paid. That's not a good article.

Looks like they're pulling it: http://steamcommunity.com/games/SteamWorkshop/announcements/detail/208632365253244218

That was kind of an intense two-day roller coaster! Now, we're right back where we started, except there is this thing that happened, which will hopefully come back in a better way. It feels like it was all a dream...