The last post is straight up arrogant. So what you really say is : everybody who doesn’t share my opinion on tick is a stupid aggro player
Not a stupid aggro player but a stupidified aggro player. There is a difference if you just want to see it.
What people will do even compromising their own integrity just to rank up.
Well in strategy games if you there is a lot of stuff that defined a good player. None of those is just "go for the best and always win" Some games are more limited than others and yeah you are right in the sense of "well just stop playing tempo decks and control decks, just play what is good" but that not means that is right to support this kind of metas where you force 2 archtypes (and with that you kick 6 or more different types of decks) out the game almost literally. Which is my point. and the reason of this topic. People go and claim that i am wrong or lying but they just give the reason in the end: was the meta before the nerfs play aggro, paladin or mage? yes, is still the meta now? yeah, them yes the experience is the same.
As i said even if you can see some red numbers on mages now that everyone surrender to paladin and hunter in second place, the deck still retains one of the highes play rate of the game in this moment. And still has very green numbers on any tempo and control deck. Priest, Warrior, Druid, whatever that is not really aggro. So what change? nothing really even without the nerf its very probably that the meta in this moment would be the same. The options are the same. The oppresive experience is the same. Do you remember why they nerf Cube lock and that kind of decks in the past right? Other decks like Ques Rogue where also overnerfed. Why? because they lock too much decks out the ladder, they need very specifict stuff to get totally counter, and they are really unfun for a good amount of players to play against.
The last post is straight up arrogant. So what you really say is : everybody who doesn’t share my opinion on tick is a stupid aggro player
Not a stupid aggro player but a stupidified aggro player. There is a difference if you just want to see it.
What people will do even compromising their own integrity just to rank up.
Well in strategy games if you there is a lot of stuff that defined a good player. None of those is just "go for the best and always win" Some games are more limited than others and yeah you are right in the sense of "well just stop playing tempo decks and control decks, just play what is good" but that not means that is right to support this kind of metas where you force 2 archtypes (and with that you kick 6 or more different types of decks) out the game almost literally. Which is my point. and the reason of this topic. People go and claim that i am wrong or lying but they just give the reason in the end: was the meta before the nerfs play aggro, paladin or mage? yes, is still the meta now? yeah, them yes the experience is the same.
As i said even if you can see some red numbers on mages now that everyone surrender to paladin and hunter in second place, the deck still retains one of the highes play rate of the game in this moment. And still has very green numbers on any tempo and control deck. Priest, Warrior, Druid, whatever that is not really aggro. So what change? nothing really even without the nerf its very probably that the meta in this moment would be the same. The options are the same. The oppresive experience is the same. Do you remember why they nerf Cube lock and that kind of decks in the past right? Other decks like Ques Rogue where also overnerfed. Why? because they lock too much decks out the ladder, they need very specifict stuff to get totally counter, and they are really unfun for a good amount of players to play against.
Salute your respons.Nice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Yeah but that’s exactly the point. Tick lock doesn’t lock out control. I do climb to wild legend every month without playing meta decks. And yeah, there are unwinnable matchups like queuing big priest or raza with a value oriented deck. But that’s what you have to accept. i agree that lunacy was oppressive to some degree (my nerf suggestion would have been : 2 mana: transform your spells into ones FROM ALL TIME that cost 3 more. They keep their original cost (making the pool big and the card bad, would have recommended the same change for all random minion summoning like jandice)), but tick locks play and winrates are not high enough to justify not playing a certain deck. You can play control and accept one bad matchup (like all slow decks in wild vs big priest, which is common), if you can beat other decks consistently. Of you deck can’t beat warlock and also loses to other stuff, yeah then it’s unplayable and garbage. But eg control priest isn’t bad at all as you can beat Aggro and combo with illucia. Yeah tickatus is a horrible matchup but so are other matchups for other decks which still see play
Played it on and off from inception (and reached legend regularly) and in my humble opinion there is ZERO skill involved anymore. Either you get flamed by RNG (Deck of Lunacy) or flamed by cards like Tickatus. Where is the skill Blizzard!?
Deck of Lunacy is in 4.1% of decks from Diamond 4-1. It’s in 3% of Legend decks.
That’s since the balance patch, if we look over the last day then it drops to 3.4% Diamond 4-1 and 2.6% Legend.
It’s pretty clear that this card has an extremely marginal effect on the viability of control decks.
That tells me nothing when you can also know that Legend is not the same meta as the rest fo the ladder. Let me explain starting with Diamond: in diamond you will find...0 control decks (maybe warlock has still good presence) why? because to scale over the mages you need to play aggro or paladin. Case solve. Now Legend: A lot of people make the mistake of compare the rest of the game with Legend. Legend is a whole different world, most Legend decks dont work in the same way on the rest of the ladder. People always upload their 60% - 70% - whatever high winrate % list of rank 1 legend whenever they get good luck on Legend and when you test those decks you go into 45-50% winrate.
Why ? BECAUSE LEGEND PLAYERS PLAY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. Decision making is different, Ladder mentality is more straighfoward, people play more defensive on Legends and more offensive in Gold-Plat-Diamond. More thinking is not always good specially if the goal is get more wins. More risk = more wins if you matches are shorter. So yeah on legend you can play almost everything and get possitive winrates that are kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game. I can spam face hunter all the way to Legend them change to spell priest and upload a list with 55% winrate in 10 matches or something like that against mage if i play enough on legend.
That means something? no, because i am pretty that i will lose more than 5 matches if i play the same deck on Diamond. Same goes for Tempo decks. You see People playing Zoo this days on Gold, Plat or Diamond? nope, it dont make any sense cause tempo sucks against Mage and Paladin. So In the ladder Tempo and Slow decks are trash right now? yes, why? because they dont have any good matchup, Paladin is bad for them, mage is bad for them and some builds have problems dealing with hunter and demon hunter too. That is why Warrior, Shaman, Rogue and Priest have very low Play rate right now.
Fast example: someone upload a control warrior deck in high legend with a good winrate. If you take that deck right now to the ladder and you play 50 matches tomorrow with a control warrior list your winrate will be possitive? probably if you are really good (and really lucky) with the deck but if other 10 players do the experiment i am pretty sure like really sure that more than 5 of them will get destroyed. Literally destroyed.
Deck of Lunacy is in 4.1% of decks from Diamond 4-1. It’s in 3% of Legend decks.
That’s since the balance patch, if we look over the last day then it drops to 3.4% Diamond 4-1 and 2.6% Legend.
It’s pretty clear that this card has an extremely marginal effect on the viability of control decks.
Unless you're going for #1 legend, most legend players once they get there play fun or experimental decks or achievement decks. That's why it drops down once you hit legend.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
But it does though, of course it does. Your ability to understand, predict and react to the deck you're facing is important. If you think it isn't then I just assume you're lower rank and by that I mean platinum, gold, that sort of rank.
Lunacy hasn't troubled me in the slightest. If you think it's as good now as it was pre nerf then it's a you issue. It's no where near as common either (in my experience) which is also why I ask about rank, for example control tickatus sees a lot more play the lower rank you are.
If you agree that they actually want lunacy being a strong card, you're just demonstrably wrong. They have openly said they don't want it and it was nerfed very swiftly once it became important in a strong deck.
What 'target audience'? I've seen this a few times and it's just a throwaway dig, a nothing comment. You don't get to just say things and thus it is now true. Please explain how merging a card within 2 weeks and in fact deciding to nerf it even sooner than that, is anything to do with pandering to a 'target audience'?
Makes zero sense, the card is now slow as hell and I am personally bitch slapping mages now, I wasn't before. I had one throw down lunacy on 4 earlier, leading to a concede after my next turn because they had just passed their entire turn and I got ridiculously ahead on board, even if they could access a flame striker it wouldn't have wiped me.
You're either making bad plays, are being incredibly greedy or both, if lunacy is a problem for you.
Instead of this 'target audience' bullshit, explain and show how it is still a problem card. I've asked this multiple times and not one of you lot actually answer. I genuinely don't understand how people see this as a problem now, I'm more than open to hearing why I'm wrong though.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
Oh dear, what have we here? Let me try and help you understand. Let me educate you a bit, but I fear it will not help.
Commentators on fora like these can be grouped in two camps: the incrowders and the out-of-the-box thinkers. I take the liberty to render you in the former:
Devs are wise and know what there are doing. If they nerf, they do a good job.
There are no insane aggressive or busted cards: just play a counter deck, or play the deck yourself.
Ranking-up is more important than playing a deck that challenges you intellectually. If a deck is 'mindless' but helps you to high rank, that's the way to go.
you only complain when you lose. A winner don't see problem. A winner has always skill.
Skill is the ability to see good plays. You can't reach legend without skill. The are no 'mindless' decks helping you to legend.
Incrowders like to chitchat about this card and that. They stand ready to tell 'complainers' that they suck at the game. You assume that only those at lower rank complain. Of course BS since even high legend rank players think Lunacy and for my part Tickatus are still busted and not healthy for the game. Incrowders don't think about card design politics that keeps the game fast paced for an aggression loving, low skill and fast to legend audience. Eventhough devs themselves admit that cards are printed for a certain audience in mind.
Then you have the out-devs-box thinkers. They tend to reason in terms of balance, skill, diversity; they hate too much damage out of hand (face damage per turn-ratio of spell mage is extremely high and even the nerfed Lunacy caters into that). They kinda look down to aggressive low skill intensive decks. They wonder about too steep RPS and they indeed see card design in favor for certain types. Wonder i.e why Priest hasn't have a deck like mage, hunter, paladin Rogue that is regularly a tier 1? Yes we all know about dragon priest, that was years ago.Reason? The target audience hate priest. That's why priest will never be dominant in the meta: priest players are not part of the target audience: too much thinking, too much planning, not aggressive enough. Capisce?
So my fellow humanoid we will never understand each other. What I'm trying to tell you that we live in different worlds. Intellectually, morally, qua ethics regarding a silly game and that card design is not made for those who want to play a game of skill, or win based on outwit, outmaneuver, simply outclass the opponent. Only those who play aggressive reach legend fast.The idea reaching legend, therefore skill is ludicrous.
So talking about Lunacy, Tickatus is difficult if you don't see the bigger picture. In the case of Tickatus. If you take down virtually have a deck, strategy is denied. Therefore you go aggressive. The card was made to make people flee to a counter. Exactly was devs figured out. But hey, if you don't see politics behind card design.....I guess that explain a lot about the way you think.
I guess you are going to declare me a lunatic. Like a flatlander would respond to a third dimension.
Lot of ramble, completely misplaced attempts at condescension, you seem to think a lot of yourself. You make a whole ton of assumptions and assertions that don't go any way to convincing me that I am incorrect and that the lunacy experience is the same now as it was before the nerf.
It's cute you think you're such a clever beaver. You've gone a really weird way of disagreeing with me when I say that lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf. Instead you've bleated on about card design and seem to have spent more time on trying to sound clever than actually addressing my point.
Lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf - in my opinion. That is it, it's simple. If you want to address that, feel free to go ahead. Don't ramble on about tickatus for ten minutes. We can have a seperate discussion about card design, how important 'fun' is, all that good stuff but that's a different conversation.
Keep it on track, I'll say it one more time, nice and clear - my disagreement with this thread is the suggestion that the lunacy experience is the same as it was pre nerf. I disagree. I find mage is far less common and lunacy is far less menacing when it is played now. That is it, it isn't the 'same'. It is a different experience.
Now, if you want to maybe present data pre and post nerf to show that the play rate is the same, the win rate is the same etc then I may get on board and agree.
Really wouldn't waste your time rambling about me or your opinion of what I think. If you want to know what I think, ask me. We don't know each other so just leave the amateur psycho babble to one side, it's not impressive in the slightest.
If somebody's personal experience is that it is the same, my current belief for the reason for that is that they are a lower skilled player. I'm open to having my mind changed.
I don't assume only low skilled players complain. Stop straw manning me. I feel its relevant on this particular topic, don't start telling me what I think about why other complaints come about because I will be very clear and say that the best player in the world can still complain. Things aren't as black and white, people don't fit into one of box X or Y as you seem to think. Nuance, context, middle ground, grey areas, these things are all applicable.
Please address the lunacy issue or honestly, just don't bother. If you want my opinion on some of the other things you've brought up, feel free to ask me instead of thinking you're super clever and declaring where I stand or generalise.
Deck of Lunacy is in 4.1% of decks from Diamond 4-1. It’s in 3% of Legend decks.
That’s since the balance patch, if we look over the last day then it drops to 3.4% Diamond 4-1 and 2.6% Legend.
It’s pretty clear that this card has an extremely marginal effect on the viability of control decks.
Unless you're going for #1 legend, most legend players once they get there play fun or experimental decks or achievement decks. That's why it drops down once you hit legend.
But it’s still very low from Diamond 1-4 so the point still remains. It’s similar with top 1000 Legend too.
The game as a whole is anti-control but DoL is a very small part of that.
You could not expect blizzard to thoroughly nerf the lunacy deck. It fits their design philosophy too well. Lunacy mage is the type of gameplay that blizzard thinks is fun.
What rank are you at?
They've blatantly said they do not want the card being competitive so why you feel the need to just lie and say otherwise is really weird. It was nerfed within 2 weeks of actually becoming good, having spent months as a trashy meme. The card has been relevant for 2 weeks since it was released, what about that suggests its a card they want to push?
Why won't anyone say what rank they are? It may be that which is the reason you're struggling. No issue with that at all, just be honest instead of snide and you might get some help on how to play against the deck.
Rank has nothing to do with someones take of a card. A card should be well received if it promotes skill and creativity. If it just supports high face damage per turn it is eligible for a nerf. If a card makes the gameplay of a opponent virtually impossible ( e.g. Tickatus) it is ellible for a nerf.
But since the target audience is to be served, Lunacy isn't really nerfed as with the case of Tic.
But it does though, of course it does. Your ability to understand, predict and react to the deck you're facing is important. If you think it isn't then I just assume you're lower rank and by that I mean platinum, gold, that sort of rank.
Lunacy hasn't troubled me in the slightest. If you think it's as good now as it was pre nerf then it's a you issue. It's no where near as common either (in my experience) which is also why I ask about rank, for example control tickatus sees a lot more play the lower rank you are.
If you agree that they actually want lunacy being a strong card, you're just demonstrably wrong. They have openly said they don't want it and it was nerfed very swiftly once it became important in a strong deck.
What 'target audience'? I've seen this a few times and it's just a throwaway dig, a nothing comment. You don't get to just say things and thus it is now true. Please explain how merging a card within 2 weeks and in fact deciding to nerf it even sooner than that, is anything to do with pandering to a 'target audience'?
Makes zero sense, the card is now slow as hell and I am personally bitch slapping mages now, I wasn't before. I had one throw down lunacy on 4 earlier, leading to a concede after my next turn because they had just passed their entire turn and I got ridiculously ahead on board, even if they could access a flame striker it wouldn't have wiped me.
You're either making bad plays, are being incredibly greedy or both, if lunacy is a problem for you.
Instead of this 'target audience' bullshit, explain and show how it is still a problem card. I've asked this multiple times and not one of you lot actually answer. I genuinely don't understand how people see this as a problem now, I'm more than open to hearing why I'm wrong though.
I have a feeling I'm going to be waiting a looooong time for an answer. I hate to assume but i can't help but guess you're one of those people who say the game is rigged because you can't get past gold 5.
Oh dear, what have we here? Let me try and help you understand. Let me educate you a bit, but I fear it will not help.
Commentators on fora like these can be grouped in two camps: the incrowders and the out-of-the-box thinkers. I take the liberty to render you in the former:
Devs are wise and know what there are doing. If they nerf, they do a good job.
There are no insane aggressive or busted cards: just play a counter deck, or play the deck yourself.
Ranking-up is more important than playing a deck that challenges you intellectually. If a deck is 'mindless' but helps you to high rank, that's the way to go.
you only complain when you lose. A winner don't see problem. A winner has always skill.
Skill is the ability to see good plays. You can't reach legend without skill. The are no 'mindless' decks helping you to legend.
Incrowders like to chitchat about this card and that. They stand ready to tell 'complainers' that they suck at the game. You assume that only those at lower rank complain. Of course BS since even high legend rank players think Lunacy and for my part Tickatus are still busted and not healthy for the game. Incrowders don't think about card design politics that keeps the game fast paced for an aggression loving, low skill and fast to legend audience. Eventhough devs themselves admit that cards are printed for a certain audience in mind.
Then you have the out-devs-box thinkers. They tend to reason in terms of balance, skill, diversity; they hate too much damage out of hand (face damage per turn-ratio of spell mage is extremely high and even the nerfed Lunacy caters into that). They kinda look down to aggressive low skill intensive decks. They wonder about too steep RPS and they indeed see card design in favor for certain types. Wonder i.e why Priest hasn't have a deck like mage, hunter, paladin Rogue that is regularly a tier 1? Yes we all know about dragon priest, that was years ago.Reason? The target audience hate priest. That's why priest will never be dominant in the meta: priest players are not part of the target audience: too much thinking, too much planning, not aggressive enough. Capisce?
So my fellow humanoid we will never understand each other. What I'm trying to tell you that we live in different worlds. Intellectually, morally, qua ethics regarding a silly game and that card design is not made for those who want to play a game of skill, or win based on outwit, outmaneuver, simply outclass the opponent. Only those who play aggressive reach legend fast.The idea reaching legend, therefore skill is ludicrous.
So talking about Lunacy, Tickatus is difficult if you don't see the bigger picture. In the case of Tickatus. If you take down virtually have a deck, strategy is denied. Therefore you go aggressive. The card was made to make people flee to a counter. Exactly was devs figured out. But hey, if you don't see politics behind card design.....I guess that explain a lot about the way you think.
I guess you are going to declare me a lunatic. Like a flatlander would respond to a third dimension.
Lot of ramble, completely misplaced attempts at condescension, you seem to think a lot of yourself. You make a whole ton of assumptions and assertions that don't go any way to convincing me that I am incorrect and that the lunacy experience is the same now as it was before the nerf.
It's cute you think you're such a clever beaver. You've gone a really weird way of disagreeing with me when I say that lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf. Instead you've bleated on about card design and seem to have spent more time on trying to sound clever than actually addressing my point.
Lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf - in my opinion. That is it, it's simple. If you want to address that, feel free to go ahead. Don't ramble on about tickatus for ten minutes. We can have a seperate discussion about card design, how important 'fun' is, all that good stuff but that's a different conversation.
Keep it on track, I'll say it one more time, nice and clear - my disagreement with this thread is the suggestion that the lunacy experience is the same as it was pre nerf. I disagree. I find mage is far less common and lunacy is far less menacing when it is played now. That is it, it isn't the 'same'. It is a different experience.
Now, if you want to maybe present data pre and post nerf to show that the play rate is the same, the win rate is the same etc then I may get on board and agree.
Really wouldn't waste your time rambling about me or your opinion of what I think. If you want to know what I think, ask me. We don't know each other so just leave the amateur psycho babble to one side, it's not impressive in the slightest.
If somebody's personal experience is that it is the same, my current belief for the reason for that is that they are a lower skilled player. I'm open to having my mind changed.
I don't assume only low skilled players complain. Stop straw manning me. I feel its relevant on this particular topic, don't start telling me what I think about why other complaints come about because I will be very clear and say that the best player in the world can still complain. Things aren't as black and white, people don't fit into one of box X or Y as you seem to think. Nuance, context, middle ground, grey areas, these things are all applicable.
Please address the lunacy issue or honestly, just don't bother. If you want my opinion on some of the other things you've brought up, feel free to ask me instead of thinking you're super clever and declaring where I stand or generalise.
Cheers, ears.
@HeilKise.
Could you fill in for me? You seem to be better in descending to the level. Maybe you can grasp the flatlander to image some depth.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
Thinking within devs frame of mind the answer might seem straightforward for a flatlander. Taking a step back, the answer becomes relative to the crowd who aren't devs preferred players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Deck of Lunacy is in 4.1% of decks from Diamond 4-1. It’s in 3% of Legend decks.
That’s since the balance patch, if we look over the last day then it drops to 3.4% Diamond 4-1 and 2.6% Legend.
It’s pretty clear that this card has an extremely marginal effect on the viability of control decks.
That tells me nothing when you can also know that Legend is not the same meta as the rest fo the ladder. Let me explain starting with Diamond: in diamond you will find...0 control decks (maybe warlock has still good presence) why? because to scale over the mages you need to play aggro or paladin. Case solve. Now Legend: A lot of people make the mistake of compare the rest of the game with Legend. Legend is a whole different world, most Legend decks dont work in the same way on the rest of the ladder. People always upload their 60% - 70% - whatever high winrate % list of rank 1 legend whenever they get good luck on Legend and when you test those decks you go into 45-50% winrate.
Why ? BECAUSE LEGEND PLAYERS PLAY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. Decision making is different, Ladder mentality is more straighfoward, people play more defensive on Legends and more offensive in Gold-Plat-Diamond. More thinking is not always good specially if the goal is get more wins. More risk = more wins if you matches are shorter. So yeah on legend you can play almost everything and get possitive winrates that are kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game. I can spam face hunter all the way to Legend them change to spell priest and upload a list with 55% winrate in 10 matches or something like that against mage if i play enough on legend.
That means something? no, because i am pretty that i will lose more than 5 matches if i play the same deck on Diamond. Same goes for Tempo decks. You see People playing Zoo this days on Gold, Plat or Diamond? nope, it dont make any sense cause tempo sucks against Mage and Paladin. So In the ladder Tempo and Slow decks are trash right now? yes, why? because they dont have any good matchup, Paladin is bad for them, mage is bad for them and some builds have problems dealing with hunter and demon hunter too. That is why Warrior, Shaman, Rogue and Priest have very low Play rate right now.
Fast example: someone upload a control warrior deck in high legend with a good winrate. If you take that deck right now to the ladder and you play 50 matches tomorrow with a control warrior list your winrate will be possitive? probably if you are really good (and really lucky) with the deck but if other 10 players do the experiment i am pretty sure like really sure that more than 5 of them will get destroyed. Literally destroyed.
I agree that control is in a bad place, I’ve said it many times on this forum. I disagree a lot of recent design choices from Blizzard.
This thread is about DoL and how the experience of the card apparently remains the same. This is demonstrably false
If you have issues with the game and want to express them it makes more sense to do so in the correct threads and within the right conversations.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
Thinking within devs frame of mind the answer might seem straightforward for a flatlander. Taking a step back, the answer becomes relative to the crowd who aren't devs preferred players.
I’m not the devs ‘preferred players’ by your definition. I exclusively play homebrew meme decks.
Maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are at this?
Feel free to answer the original question though, use layman terms so a ‘flatlander’ like me can understand if you wish.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
Thinking within devs frame of mind the answer might seem straightforward for a flatlander. Taking a step back, the answer becomes relative to the crowd who aren't devs preferred players.
I’m not the devs ‘preferred players’ by your definition. I exclusively play homebrew meme decks.
Maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are at this?
Feel free to answer the original question though, use layman terms so a ‘flatlander’ like me can understand if you wish.
What is good?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
Thinking within devs frame of mind the answer might seem straightforward for a flatlander. Taking a step back, the answer becomes relative to the crowd who aren't devs preferred players.
I’m not the devs ‘preferred players’ by your definition. I exclusively play homebrew meme decks.
Maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are at this?
Feel free to answer the original question though, use layman terms so a ‘flatlander’ like me can understand if you wish.
What is good?
Your ability to assume the character of the person you are debating with is not as good as what you think.
The offer to answer the original question, “how the DoL experience is the same?”, still stands.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The last post is straight up arrogant. So what you really say is : everybody who doesn’t share my opinion on tick is a stupid aggro player
Not a stupid aggro player but a stupidified aggro player. There is a difference if you just want to see it.
What people will do even compromising their own integrity just to rank up.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
.
Well in strategy games if you there is a lot of stuff that defined a good player. None of those is just "go for the best and always win" Some games are more limited than others and yeah you are right in the sense of "well just stop playing tempo decks and control decks, just play what is good" but that not means that is right to support this kind of metas where you force 2 archtypes (and with that you kick 6 or more different types of decks) out the game almost literally. Which is my point. and the reason of this topic. People go and claim that i am wrong or lying but they just give the reason in the end: was the meta before the nerfs play aggro, paladin or mage? yes, is still the meta now? yeah, them yes the experience is the same.
As i said even if you can see some red numbers on mages now that everyone surrender to paladin and hunter in second place, the deck still retains one of the highes play rate of the game in this moment. And still has very green numbers on any tempo and control deck. Priest, Warrior, Druid, whatever that is not really aggro. So what change? nothing really even without the nerf its very probably that the meta in this moment would be the same. The options are the same. The oppresive experience is the same. Do you remember why they nerf Cube lock and that kind of decks in the past right? Other decks like Ques Rogue where also overnerfed. Why? because they lock too much decks out the ladder, they need very specifict stuff to get totally counter, and they are really unfun for a good amount of players to play against.
Salute your respons.Nice.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Yeah but that’s exactly the point. Tick lock doesn’t lock out control. I do climb to wild legend every month without playing meta decks. And yeah, there are unwinnable matchups like queuing big priest or raza with a value oriented deck. But that’s what you have to accept.
i agree that lunacy was oppressive to some degree (my nerf suggestion would have been : 2 mana: transform your spells into ones FROM ALL TIME that cost 3 more. They keep their original cost (making the pool big and the card bad, would have recommended the same change for all random minion summoning like jandice)), but tick locks play and winrates are not high enough to justify not playing a certain deck. You can play control and accept one bad matchup (like all slow decks in wild vs big priest, which is common), if you can beat other decks consistently. Of you deck can’t beat warlock and also loses to other stuff, yeah then it’s unplayable and garbage. But eg control priest isn’t bad at all as you can beat Aggro and combo with illucia. Yeah tickatus is a horrible matchup but so are other matchups for other decks which still see play
This game is laughable now. Big joke.
Played it on and off from inception (and reached legend regularly) and in my humble opinion there is ZERO skill involved anymore. Either you get flamed by RNG (Deck of Lunacy) or flamed by cards like Tickatus. Where is the skill Blizzard!?
#uninstall
#Legends of Runeterra
Deck of Lunacy is in 4.1% of decks from Diamond 4-1. It’s in 3% of Legend decks.
That’s since the balance patch, if we look over the last day then it drops to 3.4% Diamond 4-1 and 2.6% Legend.
It’s pretty clear that this card has an extremely marginal effect on the viability of control decks.
That tells me nothing when you can also know that Legend is not the same meta as the rest fo the ladder. Let me explain starting with Diamond: in diamond you will find...0 control decks (maybe warlock has still good presence) why? because to scale over the mages you need to play aggro or paladin. Case solve. Now Legend: A lot of people make the mistake of compare the rest of the game with Legend. Legend is a whole different world, most Legend decks dont work in the same way on the rest of the ladder. People always upload their 60% - 70% - whatever high winrate % list of rank 1 legend whenever they get good luck on Legend and when you test those decks you go into 45-50% winrate.
Why ? BECAUSE LEGEND PLAYERS PLAY IN A DIFFERENT WAY. Decision making is different, Ladder mentality is more straighfoward, people play more defensive on Legends and more offensive in Gold-Plat-Diamond. More thinking is not always good specially if the goal is get more wins. More risk = more wins if you matches are shorter. So yeah on legend you can play almost everything and get possitive winrates that are kind of inconsistent with the rest of the game. I can spam face hunter all the way to Legend them change to spell priest and upload a list with 55% winrate in 10 matches or something like that against mage if i play enough on legend.
That means something? no, because i am pretty that i will lose more than 5 matches if i play the same deck on Diamond. Same goes for Tempo decks. You see People playing Zoo this days on Gold, Plat or Diamond? nope, it dont make any sense cause tempo sucks against Mage and Paladin. So In the ladder Tempo and Slow decks are trash right now? yes, why? because they dont have any good matchup, Paladin is bad for them, mage is bad for them and some builds have problems dealing with hunter and demon hunter too. That is why Warrior, Shaman, Rogue and Priest have very low Play rate right now.
Fast example: someone upload a control warrior deck in high legend with a good winrate. If you take that deck right now to the ladder and you play 50 matches tomorrow with a control warrior list your winrate will be possitive? probably if you are really good (and really lucky) with the deck but if other 10 players do the experiment i am pretty sure like really sure that more than 5 of them will get destroyed. Literally destroyed.
Unless you're going for #1 legend, most legend players once they get there play fun or experimental decks or achievement decks. That's why it drops down once you hit legend.
Lot of ramble, completely misplaced attempts at condescension, you seem to think a lot of yourself. You make a whole ton of assumptions and assertions that don't go any way to convincing me that I am incorrect and that the lunacy experience is the same now as it was before the nerf.
It's cute you think you're such a clever beaver. You've gone a really weird way of disagreeing with me when I say that lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf. Instead you've bleated on about card design and seem to have spent more time on trying to sound clever than actually addressing my point.
Lunacy is not as good as it was pre nerf - in my opinion. That is it, it's simple. If you want to address that, feel free to go ahead. Don't ramble on about tickatus for ten minutes. We can have a seperate discussion about card design, how important 'fun' is, all that good stuff but that's a different conversation.
Keep it on track, I'll say it one more time, nice and clear - my disagreement with this thread is the suggestion that the lunacy experience is the same as it was pre nerf. I disagree. I find mage is far less common and lunacy is far less menacing when it is played now. That is it, it isn't the 'same'. It is a different experience.
Now, if you want to maybe present data pre and post nerf to show that the play rate is the same, the win rate is the same etc then I may get on board and agree.
Really wouldn't waste your time rambling about me or your opinion of what I think. If you want to know what I think, ask me. We don't know each other so just leave the amateur psycho babble to one side, it's not impressive in the slightest.
If somebody's personal experience is that it is the same, my current belief for the reason for that is that they are a lower skilled player. I'm open to having my mind changed.
I don't assume only low skilled players complain. Stop straw manning me. I feel its relevant on this particular topic, don't start telling me what I think about why other complaints come about because I will be very clear and say that the best player in the world can still complain. Things aren't as black and white, people don't fit into one of box X or Y as you seem to think. Nuance, context, middle ground, grey areas, these things are all applicable.
Please address the lunacy issue or honestly, just don't bother. If you want my opinion on some of the other things you've brought up, feel free to ask me instead of thinking you're super clever and declaring where I stand or generalise.
Cheers, ears.
Card is completely unplayable now. Face Hunter’s, Warlock’s, Paladins, Token druid’s and Warriors completely destroy Lunacy Mage now. Dusted this card.
But it’s still very low from Diamond 1-4 so the point still remains. It’s similar with top 1000 Legend too.
The game as a whole is anti-control but DoL is a very small part of that.
@HeilKise.
Could you fill in for me? You seem to be better in descending to the level. Maybe you can grasp the flatlander to image some depth.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Just answer his question for gods sake lol.
it’s a very simple question, “How is the DoL experience the same?”, and any answer you give can be easily supported by data from sites such as HSReplay.
Thinking within devs frame of mind the answer might seem straightforward for a flatlander. Taking a step back, the answer becomes relative to the crowd who aren't devs preferred players.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I agree that control is in a bad place, I’ve said it many times on this forum. I disagree a lot of recent design choices from Blizzard.
This thread is about DoL and how the experience of the card apparently remains the same. This is demonstrably false
If you have issues with the game and want to express them it makes more sense to do so in the correct threads and within the right conversations.
I’m not the devs ‘preferred players’ by your definition. I exclusively play homebrew meme decks.
Maybe you aren’t as good as you think you are at this?
Feel free to answer the original question though, use layman terms so a ‘flatlander’ like me can understand if you wish.
What is good?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
Your ability to assume the character of the person you are debating with is not as good as what you think.
The offer to answer the original question, “how the DoL experience is the same?”, still stands.