Hearthpwn

Quote from Rabidwhale »

Quote from KillThePaladin »

After I spent some real money on a few packs I now believe that you have better chances of getting epics and legendaries if you spend real money

This is not true at all, you have the same chance a gold bought packs.

This is correct.  When rolling dies, rolling them a bunch of times causes the positive results to stand out, opening packs is exactly the same, it's a form of confirmation bias.  I've gotten some wicked luck with 'free' packs.

Quote from cemeth»

Yes. There is no reason to *believe* that Onyxia will get buffed at some point. No indications at all.Do you want to be at a disadvantage for an *uncertain* amount of time (maybe forever)? If no, then disenchant her and craft something better instead.

Exactly, in economical terms, this is Opportunity Cost.  If Onyxia is costing you more time/money/dust remaining undusted than she'd gain you if you dusted her, dust that bitch.

Quote from Codyksp »

Quote from Wargasmbrandon »

Quote from Codyksp »

How can there be 6 pages of discussion over a warrior OTK deck? Leave the warrior at 21 or more health and one shot him once you fill up the field, how hard can that possibly be? It's really not difficult to avoid it.

He has brawls to clear your board and weapons to smash your minions to lower his own health. He doesn't need you to attack him.

There are only 6 weapons at most and 2 Brawls, although I have yet to see anyone even play 1. I realize he has ways around the issue but as long as you keep him healthy you can still rebuild your minions after aBrawl and his weapons will run out. 

I don't know why but I haven't lost to any Warrior playing this deck, the only one who beat me was using Grommash Hellscream + Inner Rage and saving all his removal for that moment which was quite smart.

There's a reason people took OTK warrior variants to Legend 1.  If it were that stupidly easy to beat then the deck simply wouldn't have seen those types of results.  I actually doubt anyone would've been able to take OTK Hunter to legend 1 even when it was new.

Quote from Mythadryl »

I do think increasing the molten giants to 25 mana to start might be a nice tweak to them.  Still can get to 0 cost but way riskier than now. 

I agree that that would be a good move.  It can still be free and clutch, but it's harder to abuse because you have to hang around on the razor's edge to make it happen and that would put you in Eye for an Eye range and get you killed.

Problem is, golden rares dust for 100 dust, which is just another rare.  IMO the only reason to dust it is if you know you aren't going to use it period.

Just for perspective, people in general, especially in Arena, think 4/5 yetis for 4 are good creatures, definitely above average.  Yetis can't even begin to compare against an 8/8 for 5 or less, all the way down to 0.

The biggest problem I feel with the mechanic behind Molten Giants is that losing health is literally the easiest thing to do in the game, a lot of decks that can hurt themselves on purpose, like the Warrior OTK or Suicide Jaraxxus decks, create a strong context for Molten Giants  that gives them an outstanding platform to do work, offensively and defensively, and because they're situationally so cheap to cast, a player can still play 10 mana worth of shit on the same turn as bringing out two of them.  This to me is the problematic part of the Molten Giants.  No other card is as mana efficient in the entire game, not even Soul Fire.

If it was based on a different mechanic it wouldn't be so bad, but health is by far the easiest resource to manipulate in the entire game.

As for this pointless argument, man, THAT is what needs to end.  This is getting stupid.

Reckful's running something similar to this with taunt-watcher combo.

I was only pointing out the potential fallacy of 'put up or shut up' when dealing with a deck as nuanced as the Razor OTK deck, is all.  You'd need to play against people who have a generally positive win/loss ratio with the deck.

I actually have the deck, I just don't want to play it. :3

Quote from Ihmo »

Indeed, netdecking can be a nice tool to learn. But netdecking is different from shameless netdecking, where you just copy and paste 100% and when you lose, you come here on the forums to complain about it instead of trying something different.

Aha, got it now, thanks. :p

Quote from soysauceonrice »

And P.S.  -- if you are so sure I'm beating bad players, then feel free to make the OTK deck and prove to me how powerful it is.  I'm more than willing to play you.

So instead of a bad player then play against a player of potentially roughly equal skill who's never played the deck before and therefore will most likely play it badly.  Got it.

Quote from soysauceonrice »

I think how people feel about this deck depends on how they feel about OTK in general.  I don't think an OTK is necessarily bad, as long as it is 1) difficult to pull off or requires a bunch of cards, and 2) has multiple ways of being countered -- high risk, high reward.  Other people think that ANY form of one turn kill from 30 to zero is bad, regardless of potential counter-plays or card combinations required.  And considering how one of the many legitimate complaints about this game revolves around its simplicity and lack of depth, I don't think removing a different and novel way of playing the game is the right move.  We'll see how Blizzard feels about this in a few weeks.  Until then, I still want people to learn how to beat it :)

That's pretty much where I'm at.  I took a minor bragging-rights tourney back in I think 2000 with the Saber Bargain deck.  The problem with any combo deck is that nobody will ever play against you voluntarily, just with Hearthstone, you have an algorithmic match making script that makes it so that if you're playing the FotM combo deck, people have to eat a loss to tell you to fuck off, and that's sort of where I draw the line. 

And so kingbabar's crusade against Legendary cards continues.  I'm cool with segregating the queue system, but nerfing the Legendaries is a bad idea.  Higher ranks should definitely become an arms race of who has better cards.

As an aside to Ihmo, shameless net-decking actually helps people learn to build decks of their own, because they play the deck, and if it starts winning a lot, a lot of the basic concepts that caused the deck to be built as written start to rub off on them through osmosis and when they start building decks of their own, they get this gut feeling reaction of 'Ehh, that card doesn't seem to fit.' because of their previous experience piloting a professional deck.  Then again, they may be completely oblivious to emerging trends, and always in the trough of the wave of innovation because they don't see Arcane Golem in many top tier decks but then someone from Doge Haus makes a deck with it and their mind is fucking blown.  You get what I'm getting at. :p

Ihmo: You're awesome, thanks for providing this for people. STICKAHH

Quote from soysauceonrice»

I'm not really trying to pick a fight with you.  And the "YOU" that I used in that post was a general "you" targeted at the OP and anyone else having problems with this deck.  I know you disagree with me and I'm fine with that.  But what I am trying to do is inform other people who might be reading how to play against this deck.  I see the complaints often here and on the main b.net forums -- at least 2 threads a day complaining about the OTK warrior.  My goal is to spread the word.  The deck is only powerful if you don't know how to play against it.  If you do, you will beat it 80+% of the time.  

It's cool man, I totally get what you're doing in spirit, I just kinda disagree that every piece of the OTK puzzle is fine and dandy and deserves to go unnerfed.  Casuals will one day be the lifeblood of this game, to a certain extent Blizzard absolutely must unambiguously pander to them to see the game succeed.  Decks like this one aren't furthering that goal.

And because it is so easy to beat once the information gets out, my suspicion is that within a week or 2, the game will self-regulate and the warriors playing this deck will stop playing it once everyone knows how to counter it.  That will make the whole discussion about nerfing the molten/warsong/brew or whatever, moot.

It'll never be moot, because the set of cards we play with is only the beginning.  If something's wrong now, adding future pieces to the combo will only exacerbate the problem if it isn't nipped in the bud now before the game goes live.  Surely you see that?

Quote from soysauceonrice»

What you call counter-intuitive, I call thinking outside the box.  I've buffed a ysera in arena with blessing of might before just so I could kill it with big game hunter.  Is buffing the enemy minion counter-intuitive ?  Yes.  But if it works in my favor, who cares?

 

The warrior's play-style is to purposefully hurt himself to get himself low on health so he can pull off his combo.  He's playing a counter-intuitive play-style, so if you play a traditional playstyle, you lose.  So adapt.  If you insist on playing the game the "traditional" way instead of adapting to your opponent's playstyle, you deserve to lose.  I don't see playing the game a different way as raising any red flags.  I see it as adding more variety and flavor to the game. 

 

And healing the warrior is just one way he can be beat.  The point is that it is an additional tool available to priest that's not available to others, and it makes the priest even more powerful against warriors.  I haven't needed to heal the warrior with my paladin yet, and I can still beat them quite consistently.

You're cramming words in my mouth.  Counter-intuitive to play, counter-intuitive to beat, makes the deck imbalanced.  You've put together all the pieces of the puzzle but you're not seeing the painting on the surface.  Every other deck that cropped up like this in the past got nerfed into the ground.  Write a letter to Blizzard, don't argue this with me (Again...).

Quote from Snow_King»

Actually, no, I don't think so. When a deck can be easily defeated by almost any class by simpy playing a little differently, then I don't think that there's anything overpowered with the deck.

Have you ever played competitive yugioh? There, you actually have to decide what you do, depending on what kind of deck your opponent is using. In hearthstone, when you draw your starting hand, you know what your turn-1-drop, turn-2-drop, and turn-3-drop, are going to be before you even see your opponent's first card.

I have only ever lost to the giant OTK deck once, the first time I played against it. After that, if my opponent Warrior is letting me hit them in the face with little to no retaliation, I know to adjust my playstyle to keep them at 15 or above while I build up a large field to take them out in one turn.

Hearthstone finally begins to get some real deck diversity like everybody has been wanting, and when it does, people start complaining and whining and crying to the devs that they can't beat it the same way that they beat all other decks.

There really is no way to please you people. (People plural, I'm not saying this specifically to you Infares.)

For the last time, I actually know how to beat the OTK warrior deck.  That doesn't in my mind mean that the deck isn't exploitative and abusive, and counter-intuitive to both play and beat.  These things take away from the game.  They're toxic to the metagame and (as we've seen with these stupid fucking threads) toxic to the community, as well.

And I know you didn't mean to single me out, no offense taken.