• 0

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer
    Quote from MoonUnit >>
    Quote from Rainwulf >>

    It is a rng-card after all.

    No it isn't. It works to an algorithm and it is consistent - There is nothing random about it.

     Well, the player's ability to utilise it correctly is pretty random. /kappa :-P

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer

    I somehow managed to lose my last game where I played Zephrys, simply because I have fat thumbs, was playing on my mobile and misclicked and took the Big Game Hunter instead of the Twisting Nether and the other big minion ate my face....
    That was completely my fault of course. 
    Sigh... it's not always an auto-win... :-P

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer
    Quote from jazzfan27 >>

    Someone tell me if this was a misplay by me or Zep.

    Turn 1 opponent drops a Northshire.

    Turn 2 I drop Zep hoping for a silence since I had zero mana.  Didn't get one offered.

     AI doesn't see a 1/3 as much of a threat, and you're not in danger of lethal. And neither minion has damage, so no need to worry about healing.
    So, no, seems perfectly reasonable that the AI would give you something for the next turn. I would expect to see an Animal Companion or Wild Growth or something like that.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Zephrys not offered cards

    Edit: Ignore

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Shaman Quest is the next nerf

    "Popular".. not necessarily "better"... ;-)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer

    Ehh! I just played against a Priest who Seanced his Zephrys the Great twice and still didn't manage to do anything useful with it. Honestly, I think some players just play this card and think: It's going to give me something that will win me the game, for sure! (Even when it's turn 4 and both heroes are at full life! XD )

    With great power comes great requirement to know how to utilise it....

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Its time to remove the Jaraxxus + Sac Pact interaction

    Hmmm.

    Now I'm wondering: anybody know if E.M.P. Operative would work on Mecha-Jaraxxus? :-D
    I am assuming M-J is a mech. Maybe he's not? Is he still a demon?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer

    Let's cut the ad hominems and insults towards people's mental health, etc, please guys.
    Keep it civil, yo! 
    Ta!

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer
    Quote from baldwindoidao >>
    Quote from Scorpyon >>

    Once again, Zephrys is not designed to give you an out for every option on the board, nor is it designed to always give you lethal. 
    You have to actually do some of the work yourself rather than expecting the AI to play the game for you.
    Zephrys chooses from a large pool of cards to give you an answer to something / anything that is currently on the board.
    Since Ragnaros can't attack, it makes sense that Zephrys doesn't give you the option you specifically wanted there, because there were more immediate threats on the board to deal with (such as the 5/5 taunt).
    By being played, Zephrys has already given a means of soft-dealing with Ragnaros by being another target.

    If you wanted Shadow Word: Death, then yuo needed to force that from Zephrys by making sure you have 3 mana left open when he is played. There are plenty of streamer videos that go over how to play Zephrys properly on YouTube.

     u really believe in that? Most of time this shit card offer lethal and mass destruction against me. 
    Edit: Many other players are being crushed by this shit design, so I guess zephrys still broken even if the op didn't got any good card in his replay.

     "This card made me lose so it must be overpowered" is never usually a good place to start an argument from.
    There are also plenty of professional players who have spoken at length on Zephrys and when it is good, and how best to utilise it to your advantage. Kripparian being one of the most notable - he has done a whole series of videos on the subject.
    There is a wealth of evidence and examples of how to use it if you do a search on YouTube, etc. And also, plenty of evidence in videos like Trolden, Daily Moments and the like, of players who don't seem to know how to make the card work for them, or seem to think: If I play this card then it will obviously find me lethal and I will win....

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 17

    posted a message on Yet another trash zephrys offer

    Once again, Zephrys is not designed to give you an out for every option on the board, nor is it designed to always give you lethal. 
    You have to actually do some of the work yourself rather than expecting the AI to play the game for you.
    Zephrys chooses from a large pool of cards to give you an answer to something / anything that is currently on the board.
    Since Ragnaros can't attack, it makes sense that Zephrys doesn't give you the option you specifically wanted there, because there were more immediate threats on the board to deal with (such as the 5/5 taunt).
    By being played, Zephrys has already given a means of soft-dealing with Ragnaros by being another target.

    If you wanted Shadow Word: Death, then yuo needed to force that from Zephrys by making sure you have 3 mana left open when he is played. There are plenty of streamer videos that go over how to play Zephrys properly on YouTube.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Where is the dragons in "Year of Dragon "?

    We've been down this dead-end road enough times already.
    The name of the year has no bearing on what cards are created within that year.
    As others have stated, it is instead an indicator of the theme for the year and as such, thematic cards are produced that tie in with it.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on The power of concede
    Quote from Hematyt >>

    All this megelomanic talk about "earning" a rank. A lot of players wants this golden epic for dust. Just let them :)

     A lot of people want to get paid without having to go to work, too. But we don't call employers "megelomanics", though. ^_^

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Shaman Quest is the next nerf
    Quote from TardisGreen >>

    It has zero shot of being nerf'ed.  Big fat goose egg.  ZERO.

    The whole point of the recent changes were to make the Quest decks from this e-pac playable.  QS is one of the best.  Mission accomplished.  A nerf would undo all the work. 

     Now they just need to do somthing to improve the Mage, Hunter and Warrior quests. :-)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Quest Shaman. Should I play it?
    Quote from TardisGreen >>

    For the people who play the game well, and simply being Legend doesn't imply a player plays well, the matchup is fine for QS.  There is a severe skill cap to CW, which simply plays broken removal card after broken removal card.  Nothing to think about.  But for the thinking player, the QS end of the matchup is just what they are looking for.  The idea is to apply the right amount of constant pressure, without ever over extending.  And if done, QS usually wins.

     It's a dangerous stance to take, making the assumption that any deck requires little (or finite) thought / skill to pilot successfully. And more so, to infer that other decks that you opine to require more thought/skill would automatically be better. Especially when there is little to no evidence to substantiate such a claim, and in fact, the only reliable source of evidence (the statistics) points to the opposite outcome.
    For the very reasons you posit above, one could easily take the position that Warrior requires far more thought / skill than QS, simply because you have to consider every turn very carefully; when to play your board clears, how much damage you can afford to soak, whether you can play an offensive minion or need to keep turtling.

    I'm not about to state that either deck is particularly harder than the other myself (since they both are evidently on a pretty much similar par for skill, really). But certainly, the basis of this particular argument seems very much grounded in subjective opinion, rather than provable methodology.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Quest Shaman. Should I play it?
    Quote from MoonUnit >>

    Quest Shaman vs Control Warrior is extremely close. The matchup requires less thinking on the side of the Warrior because they can just play their standard game plan, while the Shaman often has to deviate from the norm and get a little creative to win. With that said if both players are adept at the matchup, the Shaman is slightly favoured. However - in most cases the Warriors are playing the matchup better because it is more straightforward, hence the higher win rate in the matchup.

     This is going to sound a little picky here, and I apologise for that in advance - from what you are saying, the Warrior has an easier job to do to beat Shaman, because they stick to their gameplan, yes? And that the Shaman can win but has to be creative and therefore it is a more difficult but possible outcome.
    And since the warrior has an easier job, then more people will succeed, because the easier task will naturally be completed more consistently by the average player (and players overall) than the harder one.
    So it makes sense that the Warrior is favored to win in terms of likelihood of a win (if you were betting on the outcome for instance). 
    However, I suppose what you are also saying is that in the hands of more skilled (but less likely) players, then the Shaman could be more likely to win - with the extra creativity and skill involved. So in that respect, the Shaman would be considered favoured.

    However, being favoured in a rare edge case (in my opinion) is outweighed by being favoured in the majority of outcomes. I believe that is the distinction that is being drawn in this discussion here?
    By all means, correct me if you think that's wrong, however.

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