• 0

    posted a message on How is that every expansion...

    Literally the best game in the game right now in standard. How? They cheap mana and they get rewarded for playing tempo with 0 cost spells that dealt 9 damage to all the enemy board and face and minions that dealt 10 damage to face. Yeah "no one coul predict that mage would go back to the exact same play pattern with a different deck"

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Rainbow Shaman stopped working
    Quote from Ghostwaker >>

    I don't know if it's just a temporary thing with bad rng or if the meta has changed on higher rank(I recently got into platinum). I used to have high win rate with Rainbow Shaman(and it also has high win rates on deckbuilding sites like HSReplay or Meta Stats), but now I'm suddenly facing a lot of 40 health control decks that always manages to clear the board, and in the end game I can't compete.

    It's either that or a pain warlock who gets a big board before me. Big Spell Mage is still effective though. What is your experience with this lately?

     Rainbow Shaman is a deck that predates of the fact that healing is very limited and there is not really good board control in most classes the first 4 turns. You can even said that if they manage to keep your board clear for 5 turns in a row your op Highroll very hard. But. With 10 extra HP your plan of smack down the enemy is really useless. Most of the time you will be 5 HP short, 7 HP short, 1 HP short from lethal and you will lose because of it. Is normal.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from Zizka >>

    So started playing the game again. BSM is about as bad to play against as I imagined. I don't know if it's broken but it's not a positive for the game for sure, I don't even think BSM players enjoy playing BSM. It's just there to grind out ladder but it doesn't lead to any fun interactions. My frustration comes from people to support that deck. The choice they're making is tarnishing the whole experience for everyone. I know that's on me, that I should just accept it but it's tough. I have a hard time not giving in being aggravating to them since they cheapen the whole experience. Need to meditate more!

     At this point the meta just prove my point and people will still said is fine. But them against when CUBELOCK was nerf baaaaaack-back in the times were HS was at the hands of Ben Brode (probably with all his mistakes still the best lead for the game) the reason of the nerf was not exactly that the deck was the TOP DOG but that has the potential of become the best deck in the format every few games in a row and the experience againts the deck was...well if anyone here played against that deck as i did you will remember why it was nerf.

    I belive the people that still talk about "oh but is not as good" "oh is not as broken" "oh you just dont play the right decks" forgets that...this deck still can play 4 Tsunamis IN A ROW and still hav the ability to cast more. The deck still has the ability of generate as much of a high roll as Druid with the 10 cost minion included one or two turns early.

    In general you are right in your mind-set as well as me. The deck is VERY powerfull and Mages even after the nerf is still one of the strongest classes on the meta. Shaman is literally dealing with all the mage counters and all the aggro decks are suffering because Renathal is back until the new expansion. Yogg in a Box, Tsunami, Galactic Projection, Sunset. Now they run all the 4 big spells because as anyone could guess Aggro is ALWAYS too weak to being relevant more than a month or two.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from Zizka >>

    Bob wants to buy a new spoon. He goes to a kitchen appliance store with his friend. The salesman says, I've got these two spoons, spoon A and spoon B. He says, spoon A is 500$. The Bob's friend says: ''Wow! What a rip off!'' The salesman says: ''Ok but Spoon B is 5000$''. Bob says: ''Well turns out spoon A wasn't a rip off after all!''

     (a spoon normally costs 10$).

    Moral of the story: if A is bad and B is worse, it doesn't mean that A isn't bad. It just means they're both bad and one is even worse than the other. The more you know!

     Pretty on point. If i post several screens of Games against mage that goes that way (not really uncommon) one can guess what answer of "sure that just happen the 0,0...............% of the time" but hey, its a cool screen.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Nerf Crystallizer?
    Quote from SpazzMaticus >>

    Then play control decks to beat aggro decks? :D

    rock, paper, scissors system lol

     

     There are too little control decks that even work on HearthStone anymore. OTK Decks beat control, Aggro decks are too fast, they also beat control, midrange decks have access to almost "infinite" value engines so they beat control, combo decks beat control. The devs always punish decks that try to win by pure value (even if you include a "I win" card) rewarding decks that just play cards on curve every turn with tons of mana cheap and over value cards. I have not seem not even 1 great AoE for some of the old fashion control classes in YEARS.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments

    I am going to ignore most of what you said because honestly the data itself was not my point.

    My point is that i can take data from a web, look stats and make diff conclusions about what is happening. And if you look to the numbers to said page it will make sense. You can look to every deck data, you can look to classes data (which still saids that Mage is the second most succesful class) you can go to other page and see data that still suggest that mage is the best deck for X or Y sample size. As i said in the same post this Data proves nothing. And What i mean with that is that we dont have a clear picture that what is happening in the game right now outside that BSM is still being played a lot because their sample sizes are usually bigger than other classes.

    We are not in a crusade to proof anything that is not already clear.  The deck is not fun to play against and it still remains strong. For starters the problem never was "oh is the tier 0 deck of this meta" the problem was the play patterns of the deck, how it performs vs most decks that you find in ladder. Also there is this problem of this particular patter being a common dealth with mage this last year, whenever mage has a heavy focus spell deck on ladder is always a deck that has a very problematic play pattern for other players. If you belive we have not reason to complain well that is your opinion i respect it but i dont belive there is any reason to call people something just because they dont like a deck,

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from TheMage >>

    It's strange that you're still arguing this point. The deck made you so angry you can't stop thinking about it?

    Big Spell Mage is good in Bronze-Gold and not outside of that since nerfs. 

    There are stats you can look at, this isn't a matter of opinion. 

    If anything some buffs might be in order. 

     Stats?  From a tiny sample off a garage operation website.  Besides, the deck warps the meta so a ton of people are playing its counter.  Thats a fact.  Buffs?  Like what?  Tsunami reduced to 1 mana?  Might as well.... why wait for turn 4?  Some of you are hilarious, LOL.  Learn how the game works then we can talk. 

     What is funny about stats is how the change from website to website. Everything about the meta is just people trying to make sense about "if what i am looking in this page is truth or not" If you go to HSReplay you will notice that BSM still show as one of the most popular classes (people argue that not) and still retain positive winrate againts over 90% of the decks in standard format. The deck is doing worse againts the same decks that it was losing befor (Pirate DH, Ramp Druid but not the highlander version, "flood" paladin, Pain lock); And pretty much every Shaman deck because shamas has (for some reason) more healing than Priest and can make wider board with random stats more often.

    How many decks are in what the call the ladder meta? Well lets make a "guess" if there are 11 classes in the game, Mage include and every class has atleast 3 decks. Those are 33 deck (some clases have six or more variations of their build an others have 2 at max). Of all those decks Mage is weak to 4 + 3 (all the shamans because "data saids" shaman has not weak deck against mage), so 7 decks of 33 means that is still decent or strong to 26 decks and is just really butcher by 1 class (shaman) and one particular deck (pain lock, the super aggro version).

    Those are almost the same stats than Warlock and Paladin, classes that people said "by data" are superior than Mage like 3 tiers. You know what is the funny part? Pain warlock has below 45% winrate against atleast 1 deck on half the classes. Means that unless you are in legend you are probably still mor likely to match better with Mage than Warlock. 

    This is the problem with data, it proves nothing. The deck is still very strong thats the only thing people can conclude. Is bad against a class that people dont play that much anyways (in all ranks not just legend) which is Shaman. You only real doom match is Warlock. People will answer saying "will but in legend you will only find..." Yeah, what about the other ranks? And more important: If people is forcing themself to play Warlock and Shaman in high ranks to be "Mage proof" This still means that BSM warped the format. But people will said "the deck is not strong stop complaining" until eventually becomes truth (and will happen but just because decks rotate as in any card game).

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from emkarab >>
    Quote from HeilKise >>
    Quote from emkarab >>
    Quote from TheMage >>
    Quote from emkarab >>
    Quote from Zizka >>

    Do you play BSM by any chance? 

    No, I just play at legend. I play mainly Shaman. There are many other decks that are worth complaining much more than BSM, especially when nerfs already reduced them to bottom tier 2 deck.

    Yes, BSM is still tier 1 deck at bronze and silver, sorry that I don't care about these ranks.

     Of course - always the same reply from the actual bronze players that are milking BSM or whatever busted deck.  Uh huh, they are all #1 legend and have been since Day 1 using their home brew decks.  Its just a git gud thing. 

    What? Your wild assumptions are not a good substitute for a reasonable discussion, you know? But you are right about one thing - Hearthstone is a game of one busted deck against other busted deck. It's not a matter of nerfing busted decks to the ground, but to make them more or less equal. BSM after nerfs is no more busted than other meta decks.

     I mean excuse me to enter in this but you are the one that asume that people calling the deck tier 1 is bronze or silver and you dont care about that. Now let me talk for real: BSM is right now just varely beaten in winrate by the aggro decks that we talk and know that were their "main counters" i will said that Pala, Warlock, Hunter and DH usually raise in aggro variants when heavy high roll decks are on top.

    But again this is just varely. a week ago the diff between BSM and this deck was very large. And people still call it a "tier 2 deck" data on all the ranks is not enough to make a point valid? So the nerf technically did nothing people still was playing those decks to have a chance against Mage, the ladder is in fact the same. What change is that instead of being "worse than the target deck" now this aggro decks are "stricly better than the target deck" For any other deck this is not even a nerf.

    If any the only valid reason to not call it a tier 1 deck anymore is because in HS standards there is place for only 2 or 3 spots in the "tier 1 list" and anything else is tier 2. So, yeah that is still one of the best decks in the format and is for sure still the best high roll deck in the format.

    People that forget how different Legend rank (and less competitive) than rank ladder dont get this but: you cant just used the "Skill of the players" as a metric to evalue decks in any case. In legend rank high roll decks are never seem as a problem because people is not pushing for rank 1 Legend in the same way people is pushing to get Legend. In the end is not how fast you win but how many times in a row you win. High Roll decks temp to win a lot more than people belive but you can get unlucky 1 or 2 times in a row and that would ruin your legend rank, but it wont affect that much your ladder climb.

    If you "dont care about bronze and silver players opinions" what a interesting way to said that you dont care neither about Daimond or nothing below legend, them you actually dont care about how strong is this deck in reality because every time you lose you will said "oh the mage was lucky they high roll too fast, next time i will beat them" 95% of the decks cant prevent that high roll not even solve the board when it happen.

    You neither understood what I said, nor you know how tiers work. I said BSM is tier 1 in low ranks, I was not assuming these are ranks that people who argue it's very good play them. And decks are tier 1 not just because there is some mythical "2 or 3 spots" in the tier 1 list, it's because its winrate is just too low, more than 1 standard deviation, from the best deck. You cannot be 1 of the best if your results are so much worse than the best, even though you still can be quite good.

    And also I'm really disappointed that you are so blinded in your anti-BSM crusade that it's enough to make any dumb point that is against BSM that you support it. As statistics show very clearly, BSM was hurt by the nerfs, it's significantly worse, although still tier 2 but some people for some reason refuse to acknowledge this. And if you want my wild assumption, if/when they play at high ranks they are for sure more often highrolled by Pirate DH, Painlock or even Odin Warrior than by Mage.

    There are so many things that you are wrong about. What you are wrong from the beginning is your claim BSM warped meta so that aggro decks are so good just because they beat BSM. And surprise, even though BSM got weakened and is really a very rare sight at legend, aggro decks are still powerful. Because it doesn't matter they beat BSM, they are just good overall. Another thing you are wrong about is that BSM got weaker only against its counters, which is not true, for example after nerfs BSM match-up against Rainbow Shaman, Highlander Shaman and Highlander Druid got significantly worse and all these match-ups are now below 50% for BSM. It is funny you are not even right about it being the best highroll deck of the format, because, surprise, Ramp Druid is now better than BSM.

    So for any BSM complainer - try to climb with it after nerfs. Tell me how broken it is, how often you win, what is your winrate, how efficiently you climb... or maybe how often you seem to be mysteriously wrecked by a myriad of better decks and you can't climb at all.

    I tried to play BSM and I gave it up even before nerfs - it was not good enough and it was quite boring. Have I been highrolled by BSM? Absolutely. And I understand that people can be frustrated by highrolls, but their highrolls are just one of many frustrating game states that can happen in Standard today and not the most frustrating ones.

     Oh i gave up...in trying to get you into a interesting chat. Because for all you said to me the only think you repeat is "oh you dont know" when the only one that is talking nonsense is other person that only claims and claims that everyone else is on a mistake. But whatever makes you feel more "right" than the others. I have nothing to prove to you.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 1

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from emkarab >>
    Quote from TheMage >>
    Quote from emkarab >>
    Quote from Zizka >>

    Do you play BSM by any chance? 

    No, I just play at legend. I play mainly Shaman. There are many other decks that are worth complaining much more than BSM, especially when nerfs already reduced them to bottom tier 2 deck.

    Yes, BSM is still tier 1 deck at bronze and silver, sorry that I don't care about these ranks.

     Of course - always the same reply from the actual bronze players that are milking BSM or whatever busted deck.  Uh huh, they are all #1 legend and have been since Day 1 using their home brew decks.  Its just a git gud thing. 

    What? Your wild assumptions are not a good substitute for a reasonable discussion, you know? But you are right about one thing - Hearthstone is a game of one busted deck against other busted deck. It's not a matter of nerfing busted decks to the ground, but to make them more or less equal. BSM after nerfs is no more busted than other meta decks.

     I mean excuse me to enter in this but you are the one that asume that people calling the deck tier 1 is bronze or silver and you dont care about that. Now let me talk for real: BSM is right now just varely beaten in winrate by the aggro decks that we talk and know that were their "main counters" i will said that Pala, Warlock, Hunter and DH usually raise in aggro variants when heavy high roll decks are on top.

    But again this is just varely. a week ago the diff between BSM and this deck was very large. And people still call it a "tier 2 deck" data on all the ranks is not enough to make a point valid? So the nerf technically did nothing people still was playing those decks to have a chance against Mage, the ladder is in fact the same. What change is that instead of being "worse than the target deck" now this aggro decks are "stricly better than the target deck" For any other deck this is not even a nerf.

    If any the only valid reason to not call it a tier 1 deck anymore is because in HS standards there is place for only 2 or 3 spots in the "tier 1 list" and anything else is tier 2. So, yeah that is still one of the best decks in the format and is for sure still the best high roll deck in the format.

    People that forget how different Legend rank (and less competitive) than rank ladder dont get this but: you cant just used the "Skill of the players" as a metric to evalue decks in any case. In legend rank high roll decks are never seem as a problem because people is not pushing for rank 1 Legend in the same way people is pushing to get Legend. In the end is not how fast you win but how many times in a row you win. High Roll decks temp to win a lot more than people belive but you can get unlucky 1 or 2 times in a row and that would ruin your legend rank, but it wont affect that much your ladder climb.

    If you "dont care about bronze and silver players opinions" what a interesting way to said that you dont care neither about Daimond or nothing below legend, them you actually dont care about how strong is this deck in reality because every time you lose you will said "oh the mage was lucky they high roll too fast, next time i will beat them" 95% of the decks cant prevent that high roll not even solve the board when it happen.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Impact of nerfs, buffs and adjustments
    Quote from Qwert >>

    So what do you think about changes to cards and their impact on enjoyment of game?

     They do exactly nothing. Mage, Paladin, Hunter and Warlock still being the best decks (Mage the best deck, the other the counters, and close enough demon hunter as another Mage counter). To be fair is a rough call for the devs in what to do. The main focus of most decks is cheating big plays. So if they nerf the best cheating mana deck in the format they also have to...eventually nerf all other mana cheating deck. Which is totally fine...for me that plays full control. For the people that plays Warlock, Pala, Shaman, DH and Hunter, sounds probably like ruining their viable decks. They dont want to make changes fast and surely enough not want to "shake" the meta with this patch. This was only "well now mage can lose by an inch more often"

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Patch 30.4.3 Teaser - Mage Nerfs - Shaman Buff - Battlegrounds Changes

    People really belive that because the second best deck is Aggro that beats Mage "mage is not nearly tier 1, is just people being bad at the game" Mage is still the best deck on the meta and this changes probably just make aggro a little better. I dont belive this pust Mage of the best winrate * playrate. They literally buff nothing, except 1 Shaman card that is not even a must play in the best shaman decks.

    Posted in: News
  • 1

    posted a message on How is that every expansion...
    Quote from emkarab >>

    Well, if can't see how deck that can't play other spells than big 3 is more of a build-around than Dungar Druid, there is not much to talk about.

    But I need to correct where you are very obviously wrong - there are better decks than Mage that are not Aggro like Rainbow Shaman, Big Shaman, Handbuff Paladin, Weapon Rogue and not far behind (with less than 1% difference in winrate) Tourist Paladin, Razzle DK, Insanity Warlock and Odyn Warrior (HS Replay, top 1k legend)

     Let me stop you right there. We are talking "winrate wise" or we are talking "If you pilot X or Y particular deck like this you will be one of the 40% of the people that have a positive winrate against that deck" because those are 2 different topics. Whenever i said "this is the best deck in the meta" i never EVER talk about the most skill rewarding  nor the top players choice. I talk about simple numbers "this is play twice as much than the other decks and the metric in most webs reflects that it also has a bigger or similar winrate so its literally the best deck alongside the aggro choices to counter it" - Last time i check Mage is the most played and the winrate is, sometimes 57% (over the top by 3% than the other options) to 53% (1% worse than the other options).

    So the what deck is argue the better is a matter of opinions. Depends on who you ask. But what is not as hard to see is that is the most profit deck on the format by a large inch.

    About the other half of the post. Lets just agree to disagree. I have obvius reasons to call it a highroll deck because as i said the cheat mana is just "half" of the value of the combos and the other part of the value can literally win the game by itself. And personally never consider the counters of the deck to beat as better decks than the deck itself unless they shared a similar playrate and winrate which right now is not the case unless you seek only on Legends rank probably.

    Before you answer i will clarify something important for me: The only Meta that matters in the game outside tournaments is the ladder meta, in my honest opinion. Because it is there were playing any kind of deck has a real impact on the players. Everyone plays mage because as you said is a mix of a Highroll deck with a very consisten tools to enable the combos on turns 4, 5 and 6. Brick is almost impossible. It can beat its counters, i would said the deck is almost impossible to beat if gets the turn 4 explosive turn for reasons i already stated. That dont really is something unique of this particular deck and is almost the case for mage to have decks with this similar play patter. AND THAT las part is what i find really annoying. While other classes rarely get the luxury of have 1 type of deck supported over multiples metas this is not uncommon for mage.

    In the past it was a very different story. Mage jump from Combo to Mech to OTK to no spell to full spells to casino. Never 2 of those archtypes were equally supported, now days the spell matter theme deck seems to become an evergreen part of the class while others suffer still for the "over support a random archtype that seems not play for more than 1 expansion"

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on How is that every expansion...
    Quote from emkarab >>

    I just played against Druid who played Dorian into draw into Dungar turn 4.

    Still want to discuss Mage as the best highroller in the game? Amuse me.

     As i said, yes, is still Mage; Dungar pulls 3 minions of diff expansions means that is a build around deck that can brick more often than mage (and mage has a legendary card specifically to UNBRICK the deck). Meta stats speaks better than my words. The best deck in the format are literally all the hyper aggro with anti-mage tech decks AND Mage. Them, Rainbow Chaman, Them Druid and some combos with Zarimi Priest. Highlander Druid could win more often than lose against Mage, still is a way worse high roll deck because the impact of Druid plays are not that strong against other top decks.

    There is not AoE in the game right now that solves four 6 Defense minions on turn 4 without mana cheat. Not just that, your board and your face will be fronzen and take damage before you even have the chance to clear. And all this is just Tsunami as a card, still most of the cards that cheat the spells come with an EXTRA 10 mana minion attached.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on How is that every expansion...
    Quote from lv426a11 >>

    I think this thread should really try define what people class as a "high-roll" deck. 

    For me its a deck which relies on randomness to achieve outcomes which should otherwise not be possible (either through access to non-class cards or due to mana reductions - or both).

    In that vein, I don't really consider BSM to be a high-roll deck.  It's a bullshit deck, but the outcomes are consistent and well definied.  You know that Watercolor Artist will draw Tsunami and that other fixed mechanisms will allow it to be cast well before turn 10.  You can predict (and potentially stop) some of the mana-cheating.   The only high-roll potential is Sunset Volley summoning the worst minion for the current game-state, and given there's only 8 possible 10 mana minions that can be summoned, it's not that unlikely.

    I would agree with Nigri and say that excavate (or espionage) Rogue is more in line with what I would call a high-roll deck.  It generates many random cards, they typically have reduced cost, and the combinations of those cards can be completely broken - often functionally ending the game.  You can't predict or play around this type of deck.

    Examples of a high-roll from a recent game of mine (not a high-roll deck from my definition though!) :

    I faced a warrior who used Marin the Manager to draw Bran and Reno for 0 mana and then discovered another Marin the Manager from Zarog's Crown. The second Marin the Manager now had the double battlecry for another 6 treasures in deck.  He then discovered Drilly the Kid through one of the other crowns which gave him enough excavates to get the 4 mana reward which summoned a board of minions including 2 Grommash Hellscream

    That's what I call a high-roll...

     

     

     The high roll of the deck is also on all the effects that summon a minion of the cost of the spell (if any it should summon a minion of the cost in that moment. Because right now there is a interesting amount of 10 cost and 9 cost minions that can win for free if they are summon bfore turn 5.  Like the 6/7 robot that generates another robot that strikes any enemy. The Coin into octopus on 4 into coin the 6 mana spells that draw and summons, drawing Tsunami, summons the robot is literally imposible to beat. And while is not something that happens every game, facing a full board fo 3/6 and one 10 cost minion on 5 is something that happens in atleast 4 of 10 games against mages (and for most classes is not possible to beat that board state) which is far many times that it should happen if you ask me.

    Sure Rogue later have crazy rolls with the 0/7 and can get 3 or 4 busted lego for 1 mana, win the game instanly. That usually not happen. Is like 1 of 10 games, also most rogues are playing the "I get a 10/10 weapon and play solitarie with your face" deck instead of the value.

    Quote from b1ak1ce >>

    BSM isnt even good. its a high roll deck that is fortunate to have 4 pay offs right now.

     I agree, kind of, If the 2 main targets of th deck dont generate minions by themself the deck would be terrible. But all comes to spell density with this kind of decks. The main problem with HS and Mage (and other decks from other classes that benefit from Spells) is that they can become busted or useless just because what spells are on the ladder. If you ask me this deck will either get more support in the later expansions and get a critical mass or it will stay as it is (and without a nerf is a deck that can get you to legend for free) and how good or bad it becomes will depend on: we will get more efficient 9 and 10 minions? we will get even a better target for the deck than Tsunami? (plz no). Thats my problem with mage as the class sinse some time is always focus on mana cheating stuff in different ways (get a bunch of efficient low cost burn to set-up OTKs or efficients 10 cost to cast too early) is just very very very hard to pilot the game against it. Most mage games are win by classes that can survive 40+ Damage and the winrate of the class is over 54% for sure so its probably the "best class" just because, as you said, it just happens to have the right cards.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on How is that every expansion...
    Quote from Zizka >>

    Can you guess who the BSM are in this thread?

     I can take a guess based on the sole idea of Rogue being more High Roll than Mage while mage is literally 17% of the class popularity and i am sure that is lik 30% of the ladder along side with druid.

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