• 3

    posted a message on Having trouble climbing the ladder.

    Really guys? Someone asking for honest help and this is how you act?

    To the OP, stick with it and results will start to come.

    One thing that can really help is taking a season or two to play the popular but not meta-defining decks. You can only truly understand how to counter some decks by playing some games with them. You start to realize what is really annoying to certain decks that isn't terribly intuitive.

    For example, at the higher ranks I still have people double trade into my Tomb Pillager all the time when playing rogue. When you play a bunch of games with rogue, you realize that a) you often want the pillager to die and b) 4+ damage going to anything but your face is great. There are dozens of interactions that are the exception to the "rule", and to get above rank 3 or so you have to take advantage of them to win.

    Hope that helps, and that these losers take their pissing match somewhere else.

    Posted in: Standard Format
  • 1

    posted a message on New Rogue Card - Shadowcaster

    You guys are heavily overestimating the value of this card. If it cost 4 mana fine, but at 5 you can't copy any of the cool stuff rogues want to play.

    I predict people will mess around with it for at least a few months, and there will be some reasonable tier 2 or 3 builds that use it, but in the end this will not bring rogue to tier 1. 

    Posted in: Card Discussion
  • -3

    posted a message on MkRR3's FTP 9-days Legend from Zero

    No, this deck is just terrible in the current meta. Just played five games, lost all five. Two renos, three healbots.

    Posted in: MkRR3's FTP 9-days Legend from Zero
  • 4

    posted a message on Randomonium - Random Cards, Random Costs - TB #18

    How did the designers possibly think this was going to be fun? So unacceptably bad. 

    Posted in: Tavern Brawl
  • -1

    posted a message on Aviana Ramp Druid

    Distinct lack of Deathwing

    Posted in: Aviana Ramp Druid
  • 1

    posted a message on More deck slots?
    Quote from GeekyGhost »

    Ok Im going to get a lot of hate on this one and I mean no offence to people who want this.. but  I am having Deja-vu in world of war craft it was more bag space. In hearthstone its the same only in deck space.  Do we really need more deck slots there are many apps and websites like hearthpwn where you can write your decks down or even take a screenshot of it . Is it that hard to delete a slot and go through your cards again and click or are people just being that lazy? I can only see more deck slots when there is more heroes and thats the only reason I can think of.



    Honestly it is a huge pain to rebuild a deck on your phone. It's not that people are lazy -- I think it's fair that people don't want to have to redo work they have already done.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on [Legend] Skulker Rogue - Full Guide

    After hundreds of games with Oil Rogue I am absolutely convinced Violet Teacher is wrong. It just messes with your combo too often to be correct. Trying Shredder now, will update how that works out.

    Posted in: [Legend] Skulker Rogue - Full Guide
  • 1

    posted a message on Is Grim Patron the new cancer deck?
    Quote from Mazestunn »


    Quote from Mister_Smith »

    This is not salty, this is just discussion if it should be adjusted, like facehunters were.

    We know that this is your opinion. So far however you have failed to bring up any real argument to why this should be the case. 

    You seem to dislike the way this and judging from your first post every combo deck in this game is played but that alone is no reason for a deck or specific cards to be "adjusted". Facehunters did receive nerfs in the past because that archetype has proven to be problematic and in some of it's early itterations clearly overpowered. 

    That is not the case with Grim Patron Warrior so unless you are aware of an astonishing new factor we have to consider in this discussion - which i highly doubt - you simply have no reason to demand any kind of changes other than "i don't like the deck" and as i have said before that is no reason for changes.

    I think I we should define a cancer deck, Grim Patron is just another. Right now if I go and que up 9/10 decks I will play against from rank 20 to 15 will be a variation of Grim Patron. If thats not bad (cancer) I don't know what. Even hunter have more variation nowadays. I just wish warriors had more deck styles viable.

    Get adjusted to the though that Grim Patron should be adjusted though.

    Yes combo wombo decks get nerfed, see miracle rogue etc...

    9/10 decks you play against are exactly the same and you can't find a way to beat them? That's ladder heaven for a good player.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Is Grim Patron the new cancer deck?
    Quote from Raiga3197 »
    Quote from Semioteric »

    Can someone explain to me how the deck generates a kill without you feeding it minions? I have yet to lose against it, and it seems like all I have to do is not play minions with less than 3 attack


    Death's Bite

    Inner Rage

    Cruel Taskmaster

    Unstable Ghoul

    ...Basically anything that deals 1 damage to your own stuff.

    Right but if they don't spend the mana on Warsong you have a chance to respond. Almost every class has a great response:

    Warlock: Hellfire or Shadowflame

    Rogue: Blade Flurry

    Mage: Flamestrike

    Paladin: Equality

    Priest: Velen's Chosen/Nova or Auch/Circle

    Warrior: Brawl

    Druid: Combo

    Hunter: Who cares?

    Shaman: Sad face

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 5

    posted a message on A Nerf to Critical Thinking: The Community Reacts to Balance

    You are missing a lot of the nuance that's important in this discussion.

    For instance, what is Blizzard trying to balance? The win rates for average players, the win rates for good players, or the win rates for competitive players? If you fall into one of the categories they aren't focused on, then the change could have a negative impact on your experience.

    How much does "fun" factor into their decision compared to true balance?

    How much random luck are they willing to have in their game? The typical argument is that drawing an undertaker to start the game could win you the game, and not drawing it might lose you the game. Is that the biggest issue? If so, why did GvG add so many cards that depend on luck?

    There is a range of issues that are legitimate to investigate, and the assumption that "they are game designers so they know better than the community" is a faulty one. They may be making decisions based on profit maximization, whereas the priorities for the community will likely be different.

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