• 1

    posted a message on How to be luckier in Arena?

    I should never have come here.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Emperor Thaurissan IS BACK!!!
    Quote from CorNetto >>

    Hey guys! Sorry to bother you with this question. But I've updated the game and I can't find any of the returned wild cards in my collection, has anyone got any clue where I can find them?

    Looks like the update isn't out on some mobile platforms yet. Shouldn't be long.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on My thoughts about this meta
    Quote from honkydonky >>

    This meta sucks like every other one, netdecking kills the game , gives people the illusion they are good at the game by playing a deck someone else thought up, hearthstone is a lot of rng and copying others always will be and will never change, just enjoy it as a game and dont stress about the 'meta'

    This would only be true if higher tier decks were inherently easier to pilot than lower tier decks, which is simply not the case. A deck being good doesn't make it easy to use, similarly a deck being bad doesn't make it hard to use (Combo Priest is a good example of a powerful deck that is difficult to play optimally, evidenced by its high play rate and win rate in Legend, and low play rate and win rate below rank 5). So called "net-decking" is simply a refinement process by which a collective of players gradually weed out the sub-optimal card choices in their decks and replace them with more logical options. Refining and optimising decks is a playfield leveler that creates a competitive atmosphere, it is not some kind of evil that must be stopped. We have a finite pool of cards and have to select the 30 that work best, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there aren't enough combinations for everyone to have original ideas that work well, so refinement and emulation of successful strategies is inevitable. Using simple logic, playing 30 cards that have some degree of synergy and can win games of Hearthstone makes more sense than gimping your progress by running sub-optimal cards for the sake of being "original."

    I find this concept bizarre that a community refining card choices within decks and making their findings available to a wider base of players is somehow toxic to the game. What I find even more bizarre is this attitude some people have that what other people choose to play is any of their business. If someone wants to copy and paste a list off of Vicious Syndicate because it is backed by data, that's completely their call and no one else's business. Same if they want to make a minor adjustment to a proven deck to better fit meta the meta trends they are experiencing, or if they want to completely scratch build a relatively untested concept.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on Is it just me or did Zephrys become dumber?
    Quote from Shadowstorm1403 >>

    Also best option in game 2 is black knight no? Why did it not offer that one strange

    I'm assuming by "I drop Zephrys at 7 mana" he means that literally, and therefore had 5 mana to play with (also sort of explains why Lay on Hands was offered if it was turn 7), so it should not offer TBK as a reactive option. With that said, Kabal Shadow Priest was a very strange offer for this reason. Brawl is an absolute given here though so I'm not convinced we have all the correct information.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Is it just me or did Zephrys become dumber?
    Quote from Sillyraptor >>

    I know that they've been updating him to pick up on some more scenarios such as buffing 0 attack minions or weapon removal and all but of the few games that I've gotten to play recently Zephrys has given some strange suggestions.

    Game 1) Druid (me) vs Hunter health is equal at about 22 to 21. Hunter has a full board of a 1/1's plus a Hyena with one health and a Masked Contender with 3; I have an empty board and 10 full mana. I was specifically looking for Holy Nova + Hero power to clear the board and was offered a Cabal Shadow Priest, Tirion, and Dread Infernal.

    Game 2) Hunter (me) vs Paladin. I was extremely behind this game I had about 10 health Paladin was up at about 26; Paladin is murloc paladin and is dominating the board with a lot of murlocs about 4 of them 3+ Health. I drop Zephrys at 7 mana looking for the brawl to stay alive but instead am offered Holy Nova, Cabal Shadow Priest and Lay on Hands.

    Game 3) Warrior (Me) vs Rogue. Pretty even i'm at 29 they're at 23. They have a board of a 4/5 with Taunt, a 1/3 with taunt and a 1/1. I have an 8/7 Siamat on board and 8 mana. I was looking for Fireball so I could clear the 4/5 and keep a pretty big minion alive then armor up but was instead offered Cabal Shadow Priest, Ysera and Sea Giant.

    It may just be me but I just feel like these are less than ideal cards for scenarios that I was very clearly looking for a different card.

    Game 1 Zephrys is correct. The best AoE in a vacuum is Dread Infernal as it is attached to a 6/6 body, which contests the 2/3 (and then some). Remember zephrys doesn’t know what your macro game plan is, he will just look for the best card according to the numbers. He almost always offer Tirion at 8 mana because it’s the best proactive card in a vacuum. Cabal is iffy but a reasonable high impact reactive play that isn’t another AoE. He’s definitely more likely to offer Holy Nova here if you hero power the 2/3 first, as it removes Tirion from the pool (you only have 6 mana) and makes Cabal weaker.

    Game 2 doesn’t make a lot of sense, he seems to always offer brawl against a full board. Especially weird for him to offer 2 cards that are not playable this turn. Do you have a replay of this?

    Game 3 seems normal. It won’t offer removal spells unless it unlocks lethal, or their board is stronger than yours. It expects you to play the Cabal or Sea Giant and clear with Siamat for a very strong tempo swing. Ysera is rarely offered (going into turn 9 when you are ahead only).

    All in all game 2 seems like an anomaly/bug but games 1 and 3 are consistent. Remember Zephrys doesn’t know what you want, you have to learn how he works and manipulate his offerings accordingly (through sequencing your plays correctly).

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on N'Zoth and Rag back to standard
    Quote from Tzon_e >>
    Quote from thebitterfig >>
    Quote from hillandder >>

    There is not much N'Zoth can do with Standard pool unless Belcher and Sylvanas come back too.

    Khartut Defender will be really sweet with N'Zoth.  Each half which dies gets resummoned as a Reborn-intact version.  That'll lead to a lot of sticky taunts which also heal you.

     Maybe Anka Rogue becomes viable , imagine Anka , then N'Zoth for 1 mana and scheme the N'Zoth. I will definitely try it

    How are you getting a 1 mana N’Zoth? It is a battlecry minion. 

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 0

    posted a message on What deck is the best counter to Quest Shaman?

    The standard list gets murdered by Priest. The techy list is a little harder depending on how much tech they put in. Quest Druid is also favoured but I think its closer than the statistics suggest if the Shaman player is decent.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Can Someone Tell me Why I play Quest Rogue???

    Idk, I didn't play for the whole of September and did 4-Legend with Quest Rogue on the final night with 2 losses (a Murloc Paladin and a Highlander Hunter). Granted the competition at 4-L in the last day of the season isn't exactly hard but the deck really isn't bad at all. Maybe you are making some incorrect plays (for example loading your Tess with an AoE spell in the Control Warrior matchup, prioritising quest completion over board in Aggro matchups etc). Its important to know when to shift gears as the Quest Rogue - in some matchups you need to switch up and use the weapon to pressure the face for 3 a turn rather than concentrate on clearing minions, while in others you need to really consider what cards to hold so as not to load detrimental effects onto your Tess. There are a lot of intricacies to Quest Rogue, which makes it very fun to play, and making use of sub-optimal generated cards is a big part of the challenge.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 4

    posted a message on Zephrys the no so Great (sometimes)

    Zephrys can read spell damage but he generally won't prioritise burst if it isn't lethal.

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Just get back in the game since the Frozen throne patch, any aggro deck recommendation?

    Aggressive options that are good at the moment off the top of my head -

    Combo Priest (now functions as an aggro deck, builds tall boards with cheap minons and buffs, techs combo so it can randomly OTK you if you leave a minion up).

    Aggro Warrior (minion/weapon based face deck - the new 3/3 that copies a damaged minon is really powerful. Wins most aggro vs aggro matchups).

    Aggro Rogue (never changes much, usual deal).

    Zoo Warlock (never changes much, usual deal).

    Murloc Paladin (not very interesting, has an aggressive curve but aims to play Prismatic Lens on 4 into a cheap Tip the Scales on 5 (summon 7 murlocs from your deck). Has a few back up plans in Chef Nomi and Zephrys as it decks itself so fast).

    Murloc/Overload/Token Shaman (Token looks most promising at the moment but all 3 are viable, with token focusing on a Bloodlust finish, Murloc focusing on snowballing board with bloodlust as an alternative win condition and overload relying on Thunderhead to make boards and finishing with burst from spells and Doomhammer).

    There are a few others available but these seem to be the best ones.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on MAKES MORE SENSE TO CONCEDE TO CONTROL WARRIOR
    Quote from Tzon_e >>

    Well you give me the pass I needed to ask something to Control Warriors. Yesterday I faced one and I was playing an old school Tess with Spectral Cutlass. The only different part in my side except from not using quest as Rogue is that I am using Lab recruiter and Barista instead of Tog's scheme. 

    So In turn 9 I went Lab recruiter to a minion-> Barista -> lab recruiter to lab recruiter.

    turn 10 I used Heistbaron and drew 3 cards for 0 mana, one of which was Lab. So I did Lab on Heistbarron. 3 Heist, 2 lab, 3 Khartut defenders on deck. 

    turn 11. from then I go infinite. Way more infinite than Tog's scheme and I don't care to lab my Tess, just lab the lab, and lab some lackeys and lab your Heist. 

    He decided that he want to play the value game until Elysiana , and do all his removals first. What on earth was he hoping? I have played with this meme rogue so many times that I know that I can go infinite, and draw 3 cards for 0 mana almost each single turn .So question on Control Warrior. Don't you feel hopeless on this matchup? Your opponent can fill the board with 3/2, 5/5 minions each turn. and shuffle infinite. Why you keep playing?

    He didn't play the matchup correctly. You have to at least expect Tess/Scheme against Quest Rogue and aim to win with a double Omega Devastator swing turn or similar to generate more tempo than the Rogue can deal with. The Warrior is probably unfavoured but they can win if they play a tempo game once they have Boom online.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Nerf Hunter before it's too late

    Hunter always has inflated win rates on the main page of HSR because it measures games across all ranks hunter secrets are super strong against inexperienced players.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Mana cheating is the worst thing that has happened to the game
    Quote from B4timer >>
    Quote from Battenberg >>

    -9 mana 8/8 deal 15 damage (your opponent must have taken no hp damage before playing this)
    -2 mana a minion deathrattle: summon a random 8, 9, or 10 drop (have a 7, 8, or 9 drop alive on board)

    -0 mana 3/3 taunt (have a weapon with 3+ attack equipped)

     I got all the references except those 2 what are they?

    on the 0 mana 3/3 taunt i think it should be 4+ since unless if im reading it wrong 3+ include 3 so its would cost 1 mana.

    Alexstrasza and Big Bad Voodoo.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on MAKES MORE SENSE TO CONCEDE TO CONTROL WARRIOR

    If you want to cram as many games in as possible then sure, concede. If you're playing aggro and it is evident that you're out of resources and not close to killing them then sure, concede. But if you're playing because you're trying to have a good win rate and using a deck that doesn't auto lose to control, then obviously grind through it and try to beat them over a long game.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Its time to remove the Jaraxxus + Sac Pact interaction
    Quote from FortyDust >>
    Quote from MoonUnit >>

    Re: "Jaraxxus is fine against non-Zephrys decks" - He should also be at the very least playable against Zephrys decks, given that Zephrys isn't a tech, but a staple in over 30% of ladder decks. A counter is fine, even a hard counter (see Flare vs all Secrets, Ooze vs all Weapons or Hex/Polymorph vs Tirion Fordring). A counter should not, however, deliver instant victory. If Jaraxxus needs more counterplay than Oozing his weapon or "just hit him in the face," then the card needs to be completely redesigned so that it doesn't replace your hero, because a staple card that punishes Jaraxxus by instantly winning is quite clearly not acceptable. As I said before, if there was a card in the classic set that Zephrys could generate, which instantly killed Dr Boom, Hagatha or Zul'Jin, there would be a fucking uproar, and rightly so. Jaraxxus may not be a hero card but he functions as one.

     I would actually love to see a singleton-deck build-around legendary that could insta-kill hero cards. I dislike hero cards as much as you hate this interaction. So here we are, back to a matter of opinion about two cards that have zero impact on the meta either way.

    By the way, there are plenty of individual cards that sit dead in your hand forever against certain decks, so that's not much of an argument. If Jaraxxus is literally your one and only win condition, your deck is terrible anyway and you deserve to lose. Jaraxxus the card may never be able to stand up against Zephrys the card, but it's nobody's fault but yours if your Jaraxxus deck can't stand up against the singleton deck.

    I don't know where you even get the idea that Jaraxxus "should" be playable against Zephrys decks. There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable.

    Its not about liking or disliking the interaction. From a design philosophy and game balance standpoint "Draw card x, if card y has been played, win the game." Is atrocious design, especially in the instance that card x is not a tech card specifically played for matchups with decks containing card y, but a staple that appears in a third of decks in the standard metagame and has incredible utility beyond this use. With that said I do think a card that is completely fucking useless in almost all other cases, and only playable in one class is borderline acceptable (Sac Pact prior to the introduction of Zephrys). When card x completely locks a player out of playing card y, while also fulfilling every other role in the game, card x is too powerful. As stated before I think the power level of Zephrys otherwise is reasonable considering the cost of activation, but generating Sac Pact against Jaraxxus is a step too far.

    High cost cards or cards that aren't particularly useful in a specific matchup can sit dead in your hand for a long time, this is true. But that's either because the game ended before you accrued enough mana to use the card, a situation where the card would be useful didn't arise during the game, or you failed to see a way to use the card creatively in a mathup where it is not normally very useful. This is far removed from not being allowed to play a card because you will automatically lose the game every single time if your opponent is holding the single-card answer, or happens to draw it before you win.

    "There have always been plenty of deck archetypes that stand absolutely no chance against, say, a Jaraxxus Control deck. That's why he used to be so popular. He may not have insta-killed them, but the outcome was just as inevitable." This is false. The worst polarisation we have ever seen was Boomsday meta's Odd Warrior vs Quest Rogue, which was over 80% in favour of the Quest Rogue at a high level of play, but at no point has it ever been impossible to win any given matchup. Additionally, steep polarisation of this sort has been a source of numerous complaints in the past and was very much seen as a problem that needed to be fixed. In any case, no one has suggested Warlock is incapable of beating Zephrys with Jaraxxus in their deck, simply that it is detrimental to game balance and entertainment value that a card has been (quite unnecessarily) rendered unplayable. More to the point than meta polarisation, however - there has never before existed a card that you can't play for fear of immediately losing the game to a single card that is run in a large percentage of decks, neither should there be. Players should be free to use their classic class legendary (no matter how bad it is) without being forced into not playing it because of a tired relic meme from vanilla days has now become a significant force in the meta.

    Bottom line here is I'm not trying to express my opinion about whether hero cards or instagibbing Jaraxxus is "fun" or not, I'm trying to explain from a design perspective that making a card completely unplayable only serves to take something away from the game and does not add anything to it. If effectively removing Jaraxxus from the card pool would lead to a blossoming of several new strategies that he was holding back (which could well have actually happened with Dr. Boom - Mad Genius), then I'd be all for it, but it does not. It just gives the player base one less card to play with.

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