Hearthpwn

Quote from SlydE >>

Quote from Marega >>

Its all over the place. Last month in wild got to 2800 rank and got 11 stars. My win rate was way worse cause i needed like 40 games from rank 5 to legend. This month having more experience with the deck i only needed around the same 40 games from bronze to legend finishing up at 1800.

Got 10 stars because logic.

I believe the explaination is that the 11 stars is for the MMR equivalent to the top 10% of legend players. Getting 11 stars from getting rank 2800 seems off to me, as I really doubt there are 28k Wild legend players. Do you have a screenshot of this? Did you have a peak which was higher than that?

If less people reach legend, which would make sense as you do not get that free legendary anymore, less people get 11 stars.

I am not aware if they changed the way this is calculated. Simply giving 11 stars to the top 1000 players and NOT awarding them unless you actually grind to legend would be a lot less confusing.

 MMR isn't directly related to rank, Someone who doesn't play alot but consistently wins 70% of the time has an extremely high MMR.

Yeah it was actually a hug buff for warglaives. 

Quote from 3nnu1 >>

Quote from DickDraggin >>

I had a Highlander Mage deck variant that got me to rank 6.  The very first day of the first season of this new format, the same deck that was holding it's own at that level around 50% up to the final night of that season, started the new season 0 for 10.  I had never lost 10 matches in a row before.  Not the best first impression.  I switched to a new deck from a new class and began to climb again.  But that was total BS.  Even this new season I started 1 for 7 with Mage (I play 90%+ of my matches as Mage).  It eventually goes back to normal but something isn't right.

Imho people who play <=50 matches over a season and don't care about hitting legend should never play vs those in legend rank.   Maybe the MMR opponent adjustment should be limited in range to decks in your rank or perhaps your rank +/- 1.

I am a new paying player (since August) that has decided to switch to f2p mostly because of this.  I have largely disengaged and mostly just play casual to kill time now.  The gains they see from this new tactic will likely offset my loss and I am fine with that.  I will find another hobby.

 

 The people who are disagreeing with you are the shills trying to keep you from the truth. Every new player goes through discovering the game is rigged if they play enough. 

 I did go through thinking that, then I kept playing, got into arena, and eventually got higher and higher and higher because my play quality increased. When you hit a plateau it always feels like "there's nothing more I can do to get better" until you make a fundamental breakthrough in the way you think about the game, then you get better and start climbing again. 

Quote from RendInFriend >>

Most matchups in BG now are decided by who goes first too, so gambling in a coin toss followed by lights and sounds is BG.

 What does going first have to do with anything? Minions still damage each other.... going first is better on certain builds... but if it were that good the DH hero would be top tier. 

Quote from Nimehte >>

we

Quote from Nicodemus >>

I dont' see how we're jerks for giving him solutions. The idea that it's "unlucky" is actually blinding to people because they aren't looking for the outs. They feel powerless because they think it's based on "luck" you can't effect luck. What you can effect is probability and approach.  Focusing on luck is a dead end and pretty useless.

 

 well you cannot effect coin toss today I went second for 7 times in a row and lost many games because of this. 

 Sure, it had nothing to do with your set up. 

Looks cool. I'm definitely only an Android player. Any plans to add it to phone? I'm a tester so would love to test something like this.

Honestly this meta has been harder for me to adapt too. I dipped, started climbing again, but skipped a few days, dipped upon playing again then started climbing again. I think that the meta is a bit more dynamic with one excluded tribe, a bit harder to adapt to. now that I'm getting a game or 2 in each day I keep climbing .

I dont' see how we're jerks for giving him solutions. The idea that it's "unlucky" is actually blinding to people because they aren't looking for the outs. They feel powerless because they think it's based on "luck" you can't effect luck. What you can effect is probability and approach.  Focusing on luck is a dead end and pretty useless.

I think poison should absolutely be there for counterplay, however They could reduce Divine shield poisonous and add other things to murlocs. a targeted poisonous minion like zap might be interesting. 

I think someone else said this, but I often switch off my app to do something else on my phone if It's been a longer game and I need to get going, sometihng else I need to do, need to leave etc.

Yeah, Part of playing well is having enough health to withstand an unlucky battle you plan for that thorough how you buy, how you level, when you save minions that are better for gold the next round, looking at your next match and rearranging your minions based on that. Looking at your last match for their minion type and record to see if you can force level etc, or if you need to play that minion in hand a sell a board minion in order to create a strong position... same with triples etc. 

I don't see that. A couple different gal rogues, Quest vs zoo warlock, at least 2 different DH archetypes. fast pirate warrior vs, highlander vs. slower pirate warrior 2-3 hunter types. I guess it might depend on your MMR. at my MMR (9*'s? ) I see quite a variety. simliar with when I bother to legend (10 *'s)

Meta, Mulligan, reading their game play if they go first. Fast or slow pass, 1 drop.

NOpe

Quote from Dunscot >>

I think it's fair to criticize that Divine Shield + Poison from Megasaur, and the additional bonus of Tokens or Windfury, is too much of a power spike potential in one card. But without it, the tribe becomes even less viable than it already is. In other words, it would need some sort of alternative. Maybe replace Megasaur with Scalelord, so that the poison part requires you to buy multiple Toxfins. or something like that. It feels bad to lose to an invincible board, but Murlocs are still a very risky strategy that oftentimes won't work out, and managing to pull it off should come with something special.

I personally think it's more important to buff beasts than to change murlocs. Winning with a beast build is almost as difficult and unlikely as winning with murlocs, but even the best possible beast builds can get outstatted, without poison or divine shield at their disposal (aside from Maexxna). And buffing another tribe would hurt murlocs as well, because they usually need quite a few turns to grow.

Quote from Geoff >>

I wonder if I am the only one thinking murlocs suck. Probably because they never work for me (even if I finally get to Megasaur, it doesn't give me bubbles or poison) and because I much more often lose to Dragons or Mechs than to Murlocs.

Murlocs do suck in most cases. For every time, that a player manages to get a strong murloc build going, you have a dozen players dropping out somewhere between 8th and 5th place, who tried to get there. For murlocs, you need to get to level 5 fast (and ideally level with a triple), you need very good rolls, and matchups that don't kill you as you get there. It's just unlikely to happen, but when it happens, it's glorious.

 True, but I actually like beasts as an alternative that allows top 2. they can be quite a quick pivot with the new macaw builds without being so overpowered that there's no counter play.