• 2

    posted a message on Noble Sacrifice Secret failing

    If your board is full there is no space for the defender to be summoned and the secret will not trigger.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Can't beat murloc paladin

    To help you with questions like these in the future, you can always check out the "meta" page on HSReplay here. You can click on any of the listed meta decks and go to the "Matchups" tab to find decks which beat them. Murloc Paladin is certainly hard to counter, with a pretty high winrate across the field. As mentioned above, your best bet seems to be a Control Warlock list like this one which features lots of healing and AoE. Sadly, this list loses hard to the Secret Mages you're seeing.

    The matchups screen is another valuable tool. You can "pin" decks to the top of the list by setting them as favourites, which makes it easy to hunt for decks which counter multiple archetypes at once. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any popular meta lists which counter both decks at once, but Aggro Druid is slightly favoured against both so you could give that a go.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Make the Keyword

    This is my first time creating custom cards, so these cards are probably horrendously unbalanced, but here goes nothing!

    Dance: When you control two or more minions with this keyword, all of their Dance effects activate at the end of your turn.

    Next: Hellforged

    Posted in: Fan Creations
  • 0

    posted a message on Pity-shitty timer
    Quote from scorpyon >>
    Quote from Djagga >

    And lets say for 150 packs I've got 5 legendaries

     

     Maybe I';m missing something - if you've had 5 legs in 150 packs, that's 1 every 30. Which is better than the pity timer average?
     The "pity timer average" is the absolute worst you can do. I don't think OP is complaining that the pity timer is broken (at least not now that he realises it's tracked separately for different packs), he just seems to be complaining because he's had worse luck over the last 5 legendaries than the 1-in-20-packs average on legendary drops.
    To OP: Sorry you've had an unlucky run, but you are only tracking 4 legendary openings excluding the one in your first 10 packs. That's not a substantial enough sample size for your luck to be terribly bad. On average you'd expect 5 legendaries per 100 packs, but anything between 3 and 7 is completely normal, unfortunately.
     
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Glacial Shard in Zoo Warlock

    I'm fairly convinced that the "optimal" Zoo list would cut the Glacial Shards. That said, having played a lot of the variant that contains them, the card does suit the playstyle of Zoo quite well. As you've said, you can use it to stop a lethal push to try to race your opponent, but I find the more prevalent use is when your opponent plays an annoying minion that threatens to trade favourably with the ones you currently have on the board. Being able to lock that minion down and develop a more efficient counter really helps Zoo because the deck is all about making high-value trades to keep the board.

    Posted in: Warlock
  • 0

    posted a message on Adjusting the advantage The Coin gives
    Quote from RavenSunHP >>

    Why there should be seconds considerably less crippled than others?

    Anyway, i am either not explaining myself, or you are deaf to my points.

    Nevermind.

     You're explaining yourself perfectly well, but you seem to want an unachievable goal. Even if the second player was given no compensation at all, some decks will be considerably better off going second than others are (for example, aggressive decks would have a nightmare going second because they need to be asking the "questions", whereas to control decks it won't matter quite as much because they want to answer the "questions" asked by the opponent). No matter what type of compensation you give, if it is to be given to all players going second regardless of their deck choice, it will always be more beneficial to some decks than to others. Depending on the properties you give the compensation, the decks that benefit most from it may change, but it's just the nature of the game and the many varied archetypes that no such mechanic can affect every deck equally.
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Adjusting the advantage The Coin gives
    Quote from RavenSunHP >>

    But if your argument for the coin to stay a spell is that 2p is at disadvantage (arguable)

     I'm sorry but this simply isn't arguable. The statistics have been confirmed by members of the Hearthstone team periodically throughout the history of Hearthstone (e.g. see the tweets referenced on this page) - the player who goes second is at a disadvantage on average, because Hearthstone is a tempo-based game. The player "asking the questions" is usually the player that wins. There are certain archetypes that prefer to go second, but their preference is generally far smaller than the preference other archetypes have for going first.
    Your argument is almost spot on. The majority of the decks which cannot abuse the coin (and even some which can!) are unfavoured when going second. A fallacy creeps into your reasoning when you say "this would be a severely flawed way to balance turns by designers". Balancing first-turn advantage is a large problem in turn-based games and is almost never done perfectly. One of the games which has come closest is probably Go, but this took many many years to arrive at, with the analysis of many games. If you stick by your statement, then my challenge to you would be to provide a method which yields a better balance of winrate than the Coin + bonus card, such that your method doesn't leave any deck "systematically unfavoured" i.e. every single deck has to have some amount of indifference to the coin flip on average across all matchups. Two extra cards is almost certainly too strong, and as the current data shows an extra card plus the coin with no spell tag is too weak. So how do you do it?
     
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Adjusting the advantage The Coin gives
    Quote from elporsche1990 >>
    Quote from KingSevault >>

    People who go second already have a disadvantage, you want to make it bigger?

    I think the disadvantage gets compensated by the extra mana; making it a free spell may be unfair since it benefits only particular decks: it has synergy with Gadgetzan Auctioneer, Auctionmaster Beardo, Mana Wyrm, Shadowreaper Anduin.
    I am not saying "do not give them a coin" nor "do not give them mana" only "do not give them a free spell" which is in my opinion fair.
     No, this doesn't compensate the disadvantage entirely, that is KingSevault's point. Even with the coin and the extra card in the mulligan, the average winrate of most decks is slightly higher when they get to go first. Here is an article from a year or so ago with some data from Vicious syndicate. At the time, the average deck with the coin won 51.65% of the time, quite a significant advantage! The most favoured decks going first was midrange hunter, with a winrate that is 7 percentage points(!) higher when it has the coin. Even Tempo mage won slightly more often when going first. The most surprising benefactor of the coin was Pirate Warrior, which saw a jump of around 4 percentage points in winrate when going second. Note that this deck has absolutely no synergy with the Coin's spell tag.
    Your objection to the Coin counting as a spell appears to be predicated on the belief that having a one-time-use additional mana crystal, as well as an extra card evens out the winrate to 50/50 even in the absence of the additional spell synergy. These stats show that just isn't true, and in fact the decks which make use of the Coin's spell synergy seem to come closest to hitting that 50/50 winrate whether going first or second. The change you are advocating for would lead to even more bias in the flip of the coin at the start of the match, skewing the winrate even further towards the player going first, rather than eliminating an "unfair advantage" for certain decks going second.
    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on The five best and worst treasures in my opinion

    I actually think Vorpal Dagger is much stronger than you give it credit for, and I think you're misunderstanding its ideal use. You don't want to play the dagger late game and use it as a board clear - as you point out the wand of disintegration is far superior for this purpose. Instead, you equip the dagger and it guarantees that your opponent simply cannot play curvestone for the next 4 minions they play. You build a commanding board, trading with any small minions and using your dagger to clear the more troublesome ones, and win off the fact you practically forced your opponent to skip 3-4 turns. Of course it's also fairly situational, mostly being useful on bosses that try to curve out (I'm thinking Xol the Unscathed, for example), but it has turned some matches into an absolute stomp in my runs.

    I'd suggest replacing it in your list with the Aleatoric Cube. This is the one treasure that I have literally never found a compelling reason to pick over the others if we're talking about gaining an edge rather than having fun. It's situationally good against Azari I suppose, and certainly leads to some hilarious games, but as far as competitive advantage goes it's near the bottom of my list.

    Posted in: Dungeon Run
  • 1

    posted a message on Is Aluneth really worth it?

    Looking at the stats for the most popular secret mage build including Aluneth on hsreplay, Aluneth is an interesting card. I thought it would be awful if it ended up in your opening hand, but the stats suggest that this has almost no effect on win rate. Drawing it later than this, however, has a pronounced negative effect on win rate, and playing it bumps the win rate up a fair bit. From this, I'd conclude a few things.

    1. Aluneth is good, but not incredibly so, when you can plan around it in advance (e.g. dumping your hand and trading efficiently so you can spend 6 mana to do nothing to affect the board). If you survive after playing Aluneth your win rate increases but not dramatically.
    2. Aluneth is bad as a surprise topdeck in most situations. Presumably, this is because when in "topdeck mode" you often cannot afford to do absolutely nothing but refuel for a turn. Contrast this to Arcane Intellect. This makes a good topdeck because it immediately gives you more options to do on the turn you play it, but if you survive after playing it you'd have been better off drawing Aluneth for the repeatable draw.

    I'd definitely say that Aluneth falls into the "nice option" category. It will single-handedly win you slower matchups with less pressure, but if you can play it in an aggressive or tempo matchup without sacrificing the board and losing the game, then you were probably going to win without it. It certainly isn't as impactful as Keleseth, which increases your win rate by something like 15 percentage points if he ends up in your opening hand.

    EDIT: In this version of Secret Mage, which runs a lower curve, Aluneth has a more positive effect. This list really relies on finding its burn and its synergies to close out the game compared to the one above, which can rely on Firelands Portal and Medivh to create strong threats in the late game. In this list, the card is quite a bit more impactful. Still not on the level of Keleseth, but it can certainly be the difference between winning and losing a lot of games.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • To post a comment, please login or register a new account.