In the Arena, the mana curve is much more important than individual card picks. And more important than the best card in your deck is the WORST card in your deck = your weakest link. If your weakest link is better than your opponent's and your mana curve is correct, you have a strong Arena deck. New players don't seem to realize these two basic principles, they are really the biggest key things for Arena success IMO.
Firstly if this is just an arena question is probably another aspect of this that should be discussed.
I appreciate that on average your good cards will trade for each other as you play and you're left with only your worst cards, but the overall power level of your deck is a different measure. You can have a lot of cards that are good for 2-for-1ing, and it simply doesn't matter that you've got an enraged chicken stuck in hand at the end of it all. Maybe your options will be a bit more limited than they would have been otherwise when you draw it, but your good cards can carry you. Furthermore, without the two card limit, the upper bound for the number of good cards is extremely high. Is any deck going to beat 30 fireballs for example?
Your worst card is a small liability and a terrible top-deck, but at worst you can ignore it, and sometimes you can combo it or use it as a body for something else, so ultimately your average power level is going to be the decider, not this "weakest link."
Anyway, think this is an interesting topic for discussion, so are your thoughts?
Actually, I disagree with the mana curve statement, I think what's really important is to have a solid game plan for every part of the game. For example, I once had this insane shaman deck that had maybe four or five 2-drop and 3-drop minions combined and fairly weak ones at that. But I had a bunch of rockbitters and lightning bolts, two lightning storms and insane late game (2 earth elementals, 4 fire elementals, stuff like that). So my game plan was basically to kill any small minions my opponent plays early with cheap removal and let my late game cards carry me to victory. and it easily went to 12 wins.
I think it's really important for new players to understand the importance of a mana curve, but there are a lot of different game plans that can work. As long as you have some ways to deal with your opponents early game and a plan of what you want to be doing in the late-game (my opponent is already dead is an acceptable plan) you can do fine even if you have an extremely weird mana curve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
I think the problem with the weakest link theory is that a lot of people who do poorly in arena believe that it's all RNG based draft luck. If you tell them that their weakest card determines the strength of their deck then all they're going to do is point out how they had a pick where they were offered Wisp, Murloc Raider, and Goldshire Footman. Then it's all "omg I had no chance my deck was going to be strictly worse than everyone else I faced". There's almost always at least one pick in a draft where it's just garbage. Can't let that ruin your whole run.
After reading Pilleri's answers and guide, I think the disagreements stem mostly because the quote is taken out of context. It's true that having a solid mana curve is definitely a good way to get a guaranteed 3+ wins which is one of the first obstacles most beginners will face.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
My personal record was averaging between 2-4 wins, until someone told me this on IRC and I took it to heart: "The key to doing well in arena is making the most efficient trades."
While it is a bit oversimplified, when looked at intensely, it's right. Constantly making trades where your opponent spends 2 card for 1 of yours generates CA. Angry Chicken will practically never make a good trade, and so if you're smart and solely drafted cards by their ability to trade for >1 of your opponents cards, you'll tend to end up with a better deck.
Not an all-encompassing statement by any means, but nonetheless I view it as excellent beginner advice.
Whenever I lose in arena it's usually to aggro or sometimes a deck with infinite late game drops. Because of that it's usually safe to draft a deck curving somewhere around 3-4. I feel like most of the time if you have a good curve deck going against an average draft deck, you'll do fine. It's where you go against those freak combos or super aggro that can steal games from you. Last arena run I lost to a priest on turn 5 from a combo. You can't plan your draft around facing those, so it's better to plan for what the average is going to be. Now I feel like curve doesn't matter as much with some classes. Whenever I face warlock they tend to have very low curves, because they can keep drawing more threats every turn. When I play shaman decks I feel like my curve looks a little wonky, because of the overload cards. Sometimes just having a lot of quality cards around the 4 drop range is good enough for a decent deck even if the curve isn't smooth. It seems that even with a good curve, after 3 wins you start to see more crazy decks. Then you need more then just a good curve.
Not too related but one thing I've noticed is that 6 drops are substantially less flexible than 5 drops. From turn 6-9 they basically represent the entire of your turn, and even on turn 10 you can only play a 4 drop.
A decent amount of 4 and 5 drops means you have good plays on turns 4 and 5, as well as 8 and 9. Turns 6 and 7 you have to rely on having a good 2 and 3 drops if you don't have something bigger.
One strategy for a generally weak minion draft is picking up a cult master. You can cycle your minions for minimal cost at damage. Bad minions take buffs excellently too, if you have a breather when you can land both. You can turn the buff into a removal spell and then force them to use an actual card to kill the minion.
First time seeing this for me. I strongly agree here.
I think players overestimate the value of certain cards when they show up in Arena. Maybe they snag a Ragnaros and expect it to take over the game, then it hits some 2/1 Dragonling Mechanic token, then the parent 2/4 runs into it enabling Execute. Unless it's Cairne or Ysera, the majority of the scenarios with the best cards are 2:1, very few 3:1 or better, and a lot of 1:1's are possible also. At that rate, you've only offset the fact that maybe your Cleave couldn't find a 2 health target. Not to mention that lots of the trades are worse for that player on mana.
In practicality though, nobody is actually passing up a playable Legendary. And how much to expect out of what should be more or less moot if all your decisions are the same, regardless of how you feel about it in the abstract. So, I think the main practical application is just that players need to do a lot more study when it comes to those average and below average picks, and not just the high value picks. Nobody wants to take a Murloc Tidehunter, but it's important to understand when you should take it over something more conditionally terrible like Raid Leader or Ice Lance. There are cards that will straight up lose you an Arena.
While I'm not saying weakest link theory is incorrect I do think it's a matter perspective rather than any sort of rule. Ultimately it's not highly beneficial in the sense that no-one is advocating taking weak cards in the first place. When you're drafting you don't pick something thinking 'that may be the weakest link but I'll pick it anyway'. As such weakest link theory only really tells you the likelihood of you losing once you already have your Arena deck, which is to say that it does nothing to help you win, unless you play better under that sort of pressure.
I think it's more helpful to put things in terms of risk/benefit when drafting. Ice Lance, for example, is high-risk, low benefit if you have only one other Freeze card. If you have 4 or more other decent freeze cards it becomes much lower risk whilst giving significant benefit in the form of efficeint damage. By itself Ice Lance is a rubbish card, which is why you shouldn't pick it early, but by the last 10 picks you should know enough about your decks Freeze capacity to determine it's approximate value, which may vary greatly from the beginning of your draw. Not sure there's a resource that properly explains this. If in reading the rest of Pilleri's guide I don't find one I'll write it up somewhere in more detail.
I know what it is; I wasn't talking about a summary, but something that actually goes into detail about the way this plays out in real terms in relation to arena drafts. There are various factors for assessing synergy within an arena pick; I'm thinkng of writing a short guide to how this works in arena and how it varies from constructed.
I feel that it's the 'missing piece' that can make a good arena run into a great arena run; overall card quality and mana curve are important, but a well-balanced deck with synergy will win more often than not.
Okay, sorry about that. I'm just surprised that this hasn't been covered in the guides I've read. Hinted at, sure, but there are definite principles involved which I think need some explanation.
I was hoping there was an article somewhere already, as I'm not actually that experienced with arena and I feel like someone who is might have worked out a few things that I haven't. I've done a ton of simulator runs just to get the hang of the draft in general terms, but the result of that isn't the same as actually playing a deck in the arena. Going to look around some more today before I attempt writing down the theory I've developed so far.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Firstly if this is just an arena question is probably another aspect of this that should be discussed.
I appreciate that on average your good cards will trade for each other as you play and you're left with only your worst cards, but the overall power level of your deck is a different measure. You can have a lot of cards that are good for 2-for-1ing, and it simply doesn't matter that you've got an enraged chicken stuck in hand at the end of it all. Maybe your options will be a bit more limited than they would have been otherwise when you draw it, but your good cards can carry you. Furthermore, without the two card limit, the upper bound for the number of good cards is extremely high. Is any deck going to beat 30 fireballs for example?
Your worst card is a small liability and a terrible top-deck, but at worst you can ignore it, and sometimes you can combo it or use it as a body for something else, so ultimately your average power level is going to be the decider, not this "weakest link."
Anyway, think this is an interesting topic for discussion, so are your thoughts?
Actually, I disagree with the mana curve statement, I think what's really important is to have a solid game plan for every part of the game. For example, I once had this insane shaman deck that had maybe four or five 2-drop and 3-drop minions combined and fairly weak ones at that. But I had a bunch of rockbitters and lightning bolts, two lightning storms and insane late game (2 earth elementals, 4 fire elementals, stuff like that). So my game plan was basically to kill any small minions my opponent plays early with cheap removal and let my late game cards carry me to victory. and it easily went to 12 wins.
I think it's really important for new players to understand the importance of a mana curve, but there are a lot of different game plans that can work. As long as you have some ways to deal with your opponents early game and a plan of what you want to be doing in the late-game (my opponent is already dead is an acceptable plan) you can do fine even if you have an extremely weird mana curve.
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
I think the problem with the weakest link theory is that a lot of people who do poorly in arena believe that it's all RNG based draft luck. If you tell them that their weakest card determines the strength of their deck then all they're going to do is point out how they had a pick where they were offered Wisp, Murloc Raider, and Goldshire Footman. Then it's all "omg I had no chance my deck was going to be strictly worse than everyone else I faced". There's almost always at least one pick in a draft where it's just garbage. Can't let that ruin your whole run.
After reading Pilleri's answers and guide, I think the disagreements stem mostly because the quote is taken out of context. It's true that having a solid mana curve is definitely a good way to get a guaranteed 3+ wins which is one of the first obstacles most beginners will face.
I'm so glad there is prejudice against playing hunter/zoo/[insert FotM deck here]. People like that make the life so much easier for those of us who play to win.
My personal take on Arena strats for novices:
My personal record was averaging between 2-4 wins, until someone told me this on IRC and I took it to heart: "The key to doing well in arena is making the most efficient trades."
While it is a bit oversimplified, when looked at intensely, it's right. Constantly making trades where your opponent spends 2 card for 1 of yours generates CA. Angry Chicken will practically never make a good trade, and so if you're smart and solely drafted cards by their ability to trade for >1 of your opponents cards, you'll tend to end up with a better deck.
Not an all-encompassing statement by any means, but nonetheless I view it as excellent beginner advice.
My 2 cents.
Unless explicitly stated, my posts are my opinion and mine only.
Whenever I lose in arena it's usually to aggro or sometimes a deck with infinite late game drops. Because of that it's usually safe to draft a deck curving somewhere around 3-4. I feel like most of the time if you have a good curve deck going against an average draft deck, you'll do fine. It's where you go against those freak combos or super aggro that can steal games from you. Last arena run I lost to a priest on turn 5 from a combo. You can't plan your draft around facing those, so it's better to plan for what the average is going to be. Now I feel like curve doesn't matter as much with some classes. Whenever I face warlock they tend to have very low curves, because they can keep drawing more threats every turn. When I play shaman decks I feel like my curve looks a little wonky, because of the overload cards. Sometimes just having a lot of quality cards around the 4 drop range is good enough for a decent deck even if the curve isn't smooth. It seems that even with a good curve, after 3 wins you start to see more crazy decks. Then you need more then just a good curve.
Not too related but one thing I've noticed is that 6 drops are substantially less flexible than 5 drops. From turn 6-9 they basically represent the entire of your turn, and even on turn 10 you can only play a 4 drop.
A decent amount of 4 and 5 drops means you have good plays on turns 4 and 5, as well as 8 and 9. Turns 6 and 7 you have to rely on having a good 2 and 3 drops if you don't have something bigger.
One strategy for a generally weak minion draft is picking up a cult master. You can cycle your minions for minimal cost at damage. Bad minions take buffs excellently too, if you have a breather when you can land both. You can turn the buff into a removal spell and then force them to use an actual card to kill the minion.
First time seeing this for me. I strongly agree here.
I think players overestimate the value of certain cards when they show up in Arena. Maybe they snag a Ragnaros and expect it to take over the game, then it hits some 2/1 Dragonling Mechanic token, then the parent 2/4 runs into it enabling Execute. Unless it's Cairne or Ysera, the majority of the scenarios with the best cards are 2:1, very few 3:1 or better, and a lot of 1:1's are possible also. At that rate, you've only offset the fact that maybe your Cleave couldn't find a 2 health target. Not to mention that lots of the trades are worse for that player on mana.
In practicality though, nobody is actually passing up a playable Legendary. And how much to expect out of what should be more or less moot if all your decisions are the same, regardless of how you feel about it in the abstract. So, I think the main practical application is just that players need to do a lot more study when it comes to those average and below average picks, and not just the high value picks. Nobody wants to take a Murloc Tidehunter, but it's important to understand when you should take it over something more conditionally terrible like Raid Leader or Ice Lance. There are cards that will straight up lose you an Arena.
While I'm not saying weakest link theory is incorrect I do think it's a matter perspective rather than any sort of rule. Ultimately it's not highly beneficial in the sense that no-one is advocating taking weak cards in the first place. When you're drafting you don't pick something thinking 'that may be the weakest link but I'll pick it anyway'. As such weakest link theory only really tells you the likelihood of you losing once you already have your Arena deck, which is to say that it does nothing to help you win, unless you play better under that sort of pressure.
I think it's more helpful to put things in terms of risk/benefit when drafting. Ice Lance, for example, is high-risk, low benefit if you have only one other Freeze card. If you have 4 or more other decent freeze cards it becomes much lower risk whilst giving significant benefit in the form of efficeint damage. By itself Ice Lance is a rubbish card, which is why you shouldn't pick it early, but by the last 10 picks you should know enough about your decks Freeze capacity to determine it's approximate value, which may vary greatly from the beginning of your draw. Not sure there's a resource that properly explains this. If in reading the rest of Pilleri's guide I don't find one I'll write it up somewhere in more detail.
I know what it is; I wasn't talking about a summary, but something that actually goes into detail about the way this plays out in real terms in relation to arena drafts. There are various factors for assessing synergy within an arena pick; I'm thinkng of writing a short guide to how this works in arena and how it varies from constructed.
I feel that it's the 'missing piece' that can make a good arena run into a great arena run; overall card quality and mana curve are important, but a well-balanced deck with synergy will win more often than not.
30 Soulfires
Okay, sorry about that. I'm just surprised that this hasn't been covered in the guides I've read. Hinted at, sure, but there are definite principles involved which I think need some explanation.
I was hoping there was an article somewhere already, as I'm not actually that experienced with arena and I feel like someone who is might have worked out a few things that I haven't. I've done a ton of simulator runs just to get the hang of the draft in general terms, but the result of that isn't the same as actually playing a deck in the arena. Going to look around some more today before I attempt writing down the theory I've developed so far.