Well Mr. Fog, I don't consider going out of my way to withhold rewards from openly antagonistic actors stubbornness, but I suppose a corollary of that rule is to attempt to reward the opposite type of behavior, particularly when it comes at no cost to myself. And as much as I enjoy the whining from certain other posters, faced with another seemingly-rational human being who is making an overt request, I suppose it's not worthy behavior to ignore said request.
The "enemy of critical thinking" comment almost had me going the other way, as something tells me most folks wouldn't voice that objection to any number of other pics of people far more antagonistic to fact and reason, but since I don't know that for sure, I won't act on a guess.
As for you OOzu, all I can say is the victim is still not at fault, even if she wears the same outfit twice more after something awful happens the first time. Is that a facile analogy? Only in the degree of the offense.
The difference between this thread and the Tickatus thread is I chose to make my point with sarcasm here. I was well-behaved and completely on-topic in both Tickatus threads until trolls came my way. That isn't my fault no matter how predictable it is. I worded my first post here precisely because I'm jaded that nothing is ever done when shit comes my way, but if I use a term like "mouth breather" in response to those posts, it's warning time every time. If that comes from a perception that I share in the fault because of a picture choice, all I can say is . . . it wasn't the outfit's fault.
But now that the avatar issue is put to bed (until someone brings it up again regardless of me removing it, at which point I'm sure all of you will be the first to my defense) my opinion of the threads in question is frankly somewhere between frustration and contempt. Discussing any card or mana cost of card in a vacuum is a waste of time. Tickatus the card is a meaningless subject, and Control Warlock (across the two winningest versions) has single handedly removed me from the top #500 in legend with a whopping 12-29 record. The deck is not worthy of a nerf discussion, by any objective standard.
And finally, returning to this thread once and for all (I swear), the concept of a "quality problem" in mana-expensive cards is as meaningless as discussing a card like Tickatus out of the context of a meta. Which is why I attempted to come at the Tick Lock problem by pointing out how few decks currently carried a losing record against it. Likewise, it obviously has definitive relevance to the topic to point out the 20 or so cards in high-level decks that fly in the face of the "4 mana or less" rule put forward by the OP. If you extend the scope to encompass all of the meta snapshot, you add 40-50 more cards in the >4 and not discounted category.
One could go down several different avenues to extend the more general topic. Not every card is meant to be tournament or high-legend competitive, some cards clearly exist simply to interact with existing mechanics, etc. The biggest cringe moment of the whole Darkmoon set reveal was when people actually tried to argue that the 10mana 1/1 rabbit was a good card to include in a deck when in reality, anyone can clearly see it was printed to interact with the evolve mechanic and dilute the pool of 10-costs without being completely useless to the evolving player. The earliest examples of Ramp Paladin actually tried to use the rabbit until that player base collectively hit themselves in the head with something heavy and remembered ten cost 1/1s don't go in decks unless they have "battlecry: win the game" somewhere in their text.
As for the idea that I'm too literal with the OP, I don't give much credence to the "OP might be full of it, but he spawned a good convo". If any of the other participants wanted the general convo, they could write a thread not based on such a facially absurd premise. I tend to respond to the OP specifically unless something down the thread is particularly of interest, and in this case, the OP deserved . . . and continues to deserve . . . a response reflective of the absurdity of the beginning point.
Thanks Mr Shadowrisen, respect for making the change.
Everytime the meta is aggro-oriented we get a dozen articles like this, until a balance patch happens and you look for new things to blame for your inability to climb. Git Gud.
There is a garbage dump also but you don’t see me telling you to live there.
Aggro balance patches rarely address the issues with high cost cards. Its either aggro or mana cheat. High cost cards with no mana cheat are basically dead cards unless the meta is slow as f***
Haha! Good response.
It is an issue as the game has moved to support more mobile players who prefer quick games. Hence aggro has been so OP and they introduced a class which basically just smorcs face.
I agree that there need to be better early defensive tools so that interesting but expensive cards can be played later. The other point is that aggressive decks now have card draw and value so you can't just 3un them out of stuff, you have to put them under pressure and there aren't many good control based decks that can do that.
Good luck out there and don't let the haters like Bengalass get you down!
Interesting that so many people claim that the game has become more aggro, when I see it as more mid range than.... ever i think
I see OTK decks run multiple win cons. I see aggro decks play 5 mana swing plays, libram decks win with turn five buffs and I see face decks mixed with highlander. I see a meta with a ton of decks focusing on their turn 5 power play. The aggro rouges don't even play very typical aggro any more. It's not like they flood the board by turn 3. Instead they build up pressure to hit hard in the mid game. Druids and paladins have started running insane tempo swings with glow fly, Nozdormu, Duel or Abbes Alura. Lately I've run into a ton of enrage warriors, running no rattlegore or brawl. The new demon hunters barely even play board before turn 4 now, at least around 2000 legend...
When I started playing this game, aggro was a board loaded with murlocs on turn 3 or a yeti on turn 2. Later it was 2 pirates + a weapon on turn 1. Maybe the definitions have changed, but I don't see any more aggro dominance now than back in 2014. I see a lot of distinct archetypes that have moved towards the middle. I see greedy decks adding tempo and aggro decks adding steam to overcome all the tools that are now available.
Just my personal experience after playing this game for 7 years...
Everytime the meta is aggro-oriented we get a dozen articles like this, until a balance patch happens and you look for new things to blame for your inability to climb. Git Gud.
There is a garbage dump also but you don’t see me telling you to live there.
Aggro balance patches rarely address the issues with high cost cards. Its either aggro or mana cheat. High cost cards with no mana cheat are basically dead cards unless the meta is slow as f***
Haha! Good response.
It is an issue as the game has moved to support more mobile players who prefer quick games. Hence aggro has been so OP and they introduced a class which basically just smorcs face.
I agree that there need to be better early defensive tools so that interesting but expensive cards can be played later. The other point is that aggressive decks now have card draw and value so you can't just 3un them out of stuff, you have to put them under pressure and there aren't many good control based decks that can do that.
Good luck out there and don't let the haters like Bengalass get you down!
True, stalling aggro until they ran out of resources used to be a valid strategy, not anymore. Its a complete 180 from HS early years in design filosophy, they even HoFed Divine Favor EXACTLY cuz aggro with shit tons of draw was considered bad, but now its common place.
So you think its all to satisfy the mobile gaming community? Interesting. High cost cards do obviously take longer to be played, and these players dont rly want to spend more than 3 min in a match.
Impact and stat distribution need to be scaled way up in order for expensive cards to get played. A simple 1 mana 1/3 has 4 stat points per mana. A typical 5 cost cards is usually around a 5/5 in stats. So only 2 stat points per mana. To be of equal power level it would need to be a 5/15 or a 10/10 for 5 mana. And if that sounds strong well that's exactly why cheap minions tend to drive the meta when they have much higher stat distribution and ease of play.
Impact and stat distribution need to be scaled way up in order for expensive cards to get played. A simple 1 mana 1/3 has 4 stat points per mana. A typical 5 cost cards is usually around a 5/5 in stats. So only 2 stat points per mana. To be of equal power level it would need to be a 5/15 or a 10/10 for 5 mana. And if that sounds strong well that's exactly why cheap minions tend to drive the meta when they have much higher stat distribution and ease of play.
I addressed this in a previous post, cheap cards dont need to have game ending potential to be playable, but expensive ones do, which is why they are much harder to balance. If all you had to do to win a game was to stall until you draw and play a single card on turns 8-10 with no strings attached, no one would play aggro. That is why all powerful high cost cards (not counting the ones that can be cheated out, as they usually have a lower power level to compensate) demand extra steps or a high deckbuilding cost to be effective. Its not such a simple matter, I think.
Dude, if you don’t want to be in this thread then don’t come and use comments like “salt” and “Git Gud”. Just don’t comment at all. Paladins can discount their librams. I mentioned this already. I already argued that the only reason you’d make your deck mana curve higher is for the fact that you can cheat mana. If your class/deck can’t cheat mana then you can’t compete against aggro and even have to play aggro yourself.
It's interesting how you casually stroll past the fact that four of the most important cards in this midrange deck cost 5 or more and cannot be discounted. It's obvious to me that you're not looking for a discussion. You want to vent your frustration and only read supportive comments. Hence, salt thread.
If you are rude from the beginning then why should I continue talking to you? You already convinced me that you are a person not worth talking to. Bye
Its much much harder to make great high cost cards. Its way easier to make great cheap ones cuz their impact doesnt have to be game-ending for them to be playable. If I spend 7+ mana on a single card its impact needs to at least have the potential of winning me the game when played, thats VERY hard to balance. The only ways Team 5 have tried to answer this problem is by:
-Make high cost stuff less powerful but allowing you to cheat it out for less mana;
-Force you to build your deck around that card to bring out its game-ending power (making the whole deck less efficient);
-Force you to play specific cards first before you can end the game with that high cost card (making your draws less efficient);
Aggro doesnt have to care about any of that shit, its efficiency at its best, you draw it you play it, you get great benefit for its cost, its all peachy.
I don't completely agree. First of all, Why is it acceptable that bunch of low cost cards to be game ending by turn 4 or 5 but a 7+ single card shouldn't be a game ending (for aggro specifically)? Second, the effect of 7+ mana cost cards doesn't have to be game ending but at least worth the mana you are spending. It is often taunt or AoE clear what you are looking for but rarely if any a card exist that give both. Meanwhile aggro still have access to direct damage, destroy/sap and card draw.
Its much much harder to make great high cost cards. Its way easier to make great cheap ones cuz their impact doesnt have to be game-ending for them to be playable. If I spend 7+ mana on a single card its impact needs to at least have the potential of winning me the game when played, thats VERY hard to balance. The only ways Team 5 have tried to answer this problem is by:
-Make high cost stuff less powerful but allowing you to cheat it out for less mana;
-Force you to build your deck around that card to bring out its game-ending power (making the whole deck less efficient);
-Force you to play specific cards first before you can end the game with that high cost card (making your draws less efficient);
Aggro doesnt have to care about any of that shit, its efficiency at its best, you draw it you play it, you get great benefit for its cost, its all peachy.
I don't completely agree. First of all, Why is it acceptable that bunch of low cost cards to be game ending by turn 4 or 5 but a 7+ single card shouldn't be a game ending (for aggro specifically)? Second, the effect of 7+ mana cost cards doesn't have to be game ending but at least worth the mana you are spending. It is often taunt or AoE clear what you are looking for but rarely if any a card exist that give both. Meanwhile aggro still have access to direct damage, destroy/sap and card draw.
The keypoint is individual power level. Cheap cards in aggro decks can end games when they combine their might, but dont need to be powerful enough to end games by themselves. High cost cards need the potential to end games by themselves cuz you can usually only play one of them per turn. If they dont, you'd be better off playing cheaper ones that can sinergize with each other. This only gets worse the more card draw aggro gets, cuz then outlasting them ceases to be an option, you have to kill them b4 they kill you.
TL;DR: High cost cards have way more requirements they need to meet to be considered playable than cheap ones.
Yes, you have a reason when you want to play value game or a control deck. And you can play it right away now, nobody will stops you. And yes, you can win too unless you are very bad at the game or afk in first two turns when handling aggro.. Because that decks exist, having lower than 50% winrate doesnt means the deck can't win at all, it just means it's bad for laddering.
Yes, there are few reasons, for example: I know either she or me maybe will not survive the next turn, but she is just cool.
Or this guy - don't you like a little sneak peek?
I am in because of the fun, not because I want to get to the legend 4th day of the season and that is why I refuse to use the aggro or garbage like Secret Mage.
Garbage smells and garbage decks smell twice, but that is the life - just do hope (same as me) - that more and more people will play for fun, legendary rank is not as cool as it was 2-3 years before.
Yes, you have a reason when you want to play value game or a control deck. And you can play it right away now, nobody will stops you. And yes, you can win too unless you are very bad at the game or afk in first two turns when handling aggro.. Because that decks exist, having lower than 50% winrate doesnt means the deck can't win at all, it just means it's bad for laddering.
The title is too much hyperbolic and exaggerated.
Okay, can I ask is winning more important than having fun for you?
I cave in and played aggro myself this past day and honestly I just feel like a bully. Sure I win but there is not much enjoyment or fun for me.
I don’t know how my question title is exaggerated but you didn’t really give me any answers.
Okay since the topic of winning and “skills” brought up a lot. Do you feel like you are making calculated decisions when to hold or play cards? Or do you just play cards as you draw them? Shouldn’t aggro decks have that level of decision making too?
Looking at the HSReplays numbers, 83 cards above 4-mana currently possess play-rates above 2%. Of those cards, 64 are meant to be hard-casted, while the rest either enter play at a reduced cost, or allow other cards to enter play at a reduced cost. I didn't count expensive value-generators, like Queen Alex, or Y'sharrj, which generate cheap stuff, but have to be hard-casted themselves (hard-casting those expensive cards is essentially the opportunity cost that has to be paid, in order to get the cheap stuff.)
To answer the OP's question - yes.
The 64 hard-casted cards above 4-mana serve a wide variety of roles in the game. Some of them (9) are big Taunts, while others (13) are either AoE or targeted removal. Some of them (typically more expensive) are single-card win-cons, like the Galakronds, Old Gods and Alex, while others (18) simply generate lots of cards in hand, in deck, or directly onto the board. Since the OP's bar was set so low, many (11) of the cheaper cards, like Faceless Corruptor or Krastinov, simply see play because 5-mana isn't too much to pay. A few tech-cards (3), like Stickyfinger, also make the cut.
If the power level of high-cost cards were increased, ramp and tutor options would need to be tuned down. Ramp Paladin is running 5 10-mana cards plus 2 Carnival Clowns. I was playing a reasonable Spell Druid last week with Ysera, Unleashed, Mountsellers and Overflows. Paladin and Warrior can both easily play and cheat out high-cost, high-stat cards.
Yes, you have a reason when you want to play value game or a control deck. And you can play it right away now, nobody will stops you. And yes, you can win too unless you are very bad at the game or afk in first two turns when handling aggro.. Because that decks exist, having lower than 50% winrate doesnt means the deck can't win at all, it just means it's bad for laddering.
The title is too much hyperbolic and exaggerated.
Okay, can I ask is winning more important than having fun for you?
I cave in and played aggro myself this past day and honestly I just feel like a bully. Sure I win but there is not much enjoyment or fun for me.
I don’t know how my question title is exaggerated but you didn’t really give me any answers.
Okay since the topic of winning and “skills” brought up a lot. Do you feel like you are making calculated decisions when to hold or play cards? Or do you just play cards as you draw them? Shouldn’t aggro decks have that level of decision making too?
Fair enough, but it still different topics than what you said 'any reason to play 4+ cost cards?'. It's too hyperbolic, and not just my tastes. Like everyone who answer before me, the answer for that question is a simple Yes. The only way you didn't accept the 'yes' as the answer is because you actually want to discuss other things than the 4+ cost cards.
So makes this clear for us.. what is the thing that you actually want to discussed here? It's not about the 4+ cards, right?
Yes, you have a reason when you want to play value game or a control deck. And you can play it right away now, nobody will stops you. And yes, you can win too unless you are very bad at the game or afk in first two turns when handling aggro.. Because that decks exist, having lower than 50% winrate doesnt means the deck can't win at all, it just means it's bad for laddering.
The title is too much hyperbolic and exaggerated.
Okay, can I ask is winning more important than having fun for you?
I cave in and played aggro myself this past day and honestly I just feel like a bully. Sure I win but there is not much enjoyment or fun for me.
I don’t know how my question title is exaggerated but you didn’t really give me any answers.
Okay since the topic of winning and “skills” brought up a lot. Do you feel like you are making calculated decisions when to hold or play cards? Or do you just play cards as you draw them? Shouldn’t aggro decks have that level of decision making too?
Fair enough, but it still different topics than what you said 'any reason to play 4+ cost cards?'. It's too hyperbolic, and not just my tastes. Like everyone who answer before me, the answer for that question is a simple Yes. The only way you didn't accept the 'yes' as the answer is because you actually want to discuss other things than the 4+ cost cards.
So makes this clear for us.. what is the thing that you actually want to discussed here? It's not about the 4+ cards, right?
No, I still want to discuss the power level of 4+ mana cost cards over playing aggro deck with cards mostly 4 mana or less.
I just gave you bunch of other questions because you didn’t answer my initial question. But, I see you didn’t answer those either so now am wondering if I should just ignore you all together because you are not discussing any of the topics I want to discuss and might even trying to shut me up for some unknown reason.
Thanks Mr Shadowrisen, respect for making the change.
Haha! Good response.
It is an issue as the game has moved to support more mobile players who prefer quick games. Hence aggro has been so OP and they introduced a class which basically just smorcs face.
I agree that there need to be better early defensive tools so that interesting but expensive cards can be played later. The other point is that aggressive decks now have card draw and value so you can't just 3un them out of stuff, you have to put them under pressure and there aren't many good control based decks that can do that.
Good luck out there and don't let the haters like Bengalass get you down!
Interesting that so many people claim that the game has become more aggro, when I see it as more mid range than.... ever i think
I see OTK decks run multiple win cons. I see aggro decks play 5 mana swing plays, libram decks win with turn five buffs and I see face decks mixed with highlander. I see a meta with a ton of decks focusing on their turn 5 power play. The aggro rouges don't even play very typical aggro any more. It's not like they flood the board by turn 3. Instead they build up pressure to hit hard in the mid game. Druids and paladins have started running insane tempo swings with glow fly, Nozdormu, Duel or Abbes Alura. Lately I've run into a ton of enrage warriors, running no rattlegore or brawl. The new demon hunters barely even play board before turn 4 now, at least around 2000 legend...
When I started playing this game, aggro was a board loaded with murlocs on turn 3 or a yeti on turn 2. Later it was 2 pirates + a weapon on turn 1. Maybe the definitions have changed, but I don't see any more aggro dominance now than back in 2014. I see a lot of distinct archetypes that have moved towards the middle. I see greedy decks adding tempo and aggro decks adding steam to overcome all the tools that are now available.
Just my personal experience after playing this game for 7 years...
True, stalling aggro until they ran out of resources used to be a valid strategy, not anymore. Its a complete 180 from HS early years in design filosophy, they even HoFed Divine Favor EXACTLY cuz aggro with shit tons of draw was considered bad, but now its common place.
So you think its all to satisfy the mobile gaming community? Interesting. High cost cards do obviously take longer to be played, and these players dont rly want to spend more than 3 min in a match.
Impact and stat distribution need to be scaled way up in order for expensive cards to get played. A simple 1 mana 1/3 has 4 stat points per mana. A typical 5 cost cards is usually around a 5/5 in stats. So only 2 stat points per mana. To be of equal power level it would need to be a 5/15 or a 10/10 for 5 mana. And if that sounds strong well that's exactly why cheap minions tend to drive the meta when they have much higher stat distribution and ease of play.
I addressed this in a previous post, cheap cards dont need to have game ending potential to be playable, but expensive ones do, which is why they are much harder to balance. If all you had to do to win a game was to stall until you draw and play a single card on turns 8-10 with no strings attached, no one would play aggro. That is why all powerful high cost cards (not counting the ones that can be cheated out, as they usually have a lower power level to compensate) demand extra steps or a high deckbuilding cost to be effective. Its not such a simple matter, I think.
If you are rude from the beginning then why should I continue talking to you? You already convinced me that you are a person not worth talking to. Bye
Sign Here
I don't completely agree. First of all, Why is it acceptable that bunch of low cost cards to be game ending by turn 4 or 5 but a 7+ single card shouldn't be a game ending (for aggro specifically)? Second, the effect of 7+ mana cost cards doesn't have to be game ending but at least worth the mana you are spending. It is often taunt or AoE clear what you are looking for but rarely if any a card exist that give both. Meanwhile aggro still have access to direct damage, destroy/sap and card draw.
Sign Here
The keypoint is individual power level. Cheap cards in aggro decks can end games when they combine their might, but dont need to be powerful enough to end games by themselves. High cost cards need the potential to end games by themselves cuz you can usually only play one of them per turn. If they dont, you'd be better off playing cheaper ones that can sinergize with each other. This only gets worse the more card draw aggro gets, cuz then outlasting them ceases to be an option, you have to kill them b4 they kill you.
TL;DR: High cost cards have way more requirements they need to meet to be considered playable than cheap ones.
What kind of question is this?
Yes, you have a reason when you want to play value game or a control deck. And you can play it right away now, nobody will stops you. And yes, you can win too unless you are very bad at the game or afk in first two turns when handling aggro.. Because that decks exist, having lower than 50% winrate doesnt means the deck can't win at all, it just means it's bad for laddering.
The title is too much hyperbolic and exaggerated.
I like your three point plan.
-Start a ridiculous thread with baseless arguments.
-Give ridiculous responses to people being critical of your argument.
-Offer ridiculous reasoning for your ridiculous replies.
At least you are consistent.
Yes, there are few reasons, for example: I know either she or me maybe will not survive the next turn, but she is just cool.
Or this guy - don't you like a little sneak peek?
I am in because of the fun, not because I want to get to the legend 4th day of the season and that is why I refuse to use the aggro or garbage like Secret Mage.
Garbage smells and garbage decks smell twice, but that is the life - just do hope (same as me) - that more and more people will play for fun, legendary rank is not as cool as it was 2-3 years before.
EU 11/2015+ , f2p 03/2021+: DK 63 / DH 205 /Dr 277 / Hu 733 / Ma 6666 / Pa 1072 / Pr 1165 / Ro 1791 / Sh 1303 / Wl 707 / Wr 664
Okay, can I ask is winning more important than having fun for you?
I cave in and played aggro myself this past day and honestly I just feel like a bully. Sure I win but there is not much enjoyment or fun for me.
I don’t know how my question title is exaggerated but you didn’t really give me any answers.
Okay since the topic of winning and “skills” brought up a lot. Do you feel like you are making calculated decisions when to hold or play cards? Or do you just play cards as you draw them? Shouldn’t aggro decks have that level of decision making too?
Sign Here
Looking at the HSReplays numbers, 83 cards above 4-mana currently possess play-rates above 2%. Of those cards, 64 are meant to be hard-casted, while the rest either enter play at a reduced cost, or allow other cards to enter play at a reduced cost. I didn't count expensive value-generators, like Queen Alex, or Y'sharrj, which generate cheap stuff, but have to be hard-casted themselves (hard-casting those expensive cards is essentially the opportunity cost that has to be paid, in order to get the cheap stuff.)
To answer the OP's question - yes.
The 64 hard-casted cards above 4-mana serve a wide variety of roles in the game. Some of them (9) are big Taunts, while others (13) are either AoE or targeted removal. Some of them (typically more expensive) are single-card win-cons, like the Galakronds, Old Gods and Alex, while others (18) simply generate lots of cards in hand, in deck, or directly onto the board. Since the OP's bar was set so low, many (11) of the cheaper cards, like Faceless Corruptor or Krastinov, simply see play because 5-mana isn't too much to pay. A few tech-cards (3), like Stickyfinger, also make the cut.
If the power level of high-cost cards were increased, ramp and tutor options would need to be tuned down. Ramp Paladin is running 5 10-mana cards plus 2 Carnival Clowns. I was playing a reasonable Spell Druid last week with Ysera, Unleashed, Mountsellers and Overflows. Paladin and Warrior can both easily play and cheat out high-cost, high-stat cards.
Fair enough, but it still different topics than what you said 'any reason to play 4+ cost cards?'. It's too hyperbolic, and not just my tastes. Like everyone who answer before me, the answer for that question is a simple Yes. The only way you didn't accept the 'yes' as the answer is because you actually want to discuss other things than the 4+ cost cards.
So makes this clear for us.. what is the thing that you actually want to discussed here? It's not about the 4+ cards, right?
No, I still want to discuss the power level of 4+ mana cost cards over playing aggro deck with cards mostly 4 mana or less.
I just gave you bunch of other questions because you didn’t answer my initial question. But, I see you didn’t answer those either so now am wondering if I should just ignore you all together because you are not discussing any of the topics I want to discuss and might even trying to shut me up for some unknown reason.
Sign Here
Community : "is there a reason to play 4+ mana cards hurrr durrr aggro op"
Game : Ramp paladin is a tier 1 deck
You could have easily brought the deck to my attention but not only you ignored to read my post you had to be rude about your writing your reply.
Sign Here
unless you can cheat mana, prolly not