• 0

    posted a message on new 'Complete My Deck' algorithm
    Quote from Banur >>
    Quote from SparkyFlame >>

    I wish it could choose the best cards to work with the archetype input you have giving it instead of just working out best cards based on power level and win rates.

    Like by choosing Bwonsamdi it shoul create a deck with spirit of the dead and the like with highest win rate instead of giving you a Gallery Priest with Bwonsamdi..

    But how would it do that? How should it work out a whole deck from thin air based on a single card?

    What even is a Bwonsamdi deck? Should it just give you the deck recipe for surrender to madness?

    The algorithm cannot invent new decks, only report the best performing combinations. If the algorithm can achieve a higher perfomance value  by adding Gallery cards, then it will.

     I suppose a possible idea would be for it to check for the highest rated deck that includes the selected card (if there is one) and run with that one (assuming it's already got access to finding the top decks for certain archetypes already)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on (GOODBYE MAMMOTH) ITT: Which class will be the most gutted by the Yearly Rotation?
    Quote from TardisGreen >>

    Priest loses just about everything.  Warlock is hit really hard.  Druid doesn't have too much to lose.

    Druid doesn't lose much....? 
    I don't think that's correct.... the OP listed quite a few huge losses for druid in the first post.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Experience climbing from Rank 5 to Legend
    Quote from fr33ze2 >>

    Hi guys, I've been playing Hearthstone for a few years now and today it's my first time hitting rank 3, and it's my highest rank so far. However, I find it extremely tough to climb the ladder now, going back and forth between rank 3 and 4. Had to grind a lot and took me about 2 weeks to climb from rank 5 to rank 3.

    Do you guys find it extremely tough to climb to legend or do you guys find it relatively ok/easy to climb to legend rank? What are your experiences climbing the ladder nowadays, would love to hear your opinions :D

     It certainly is a grind. The key is to find a deck that has a solid winrate of around 60%. (There's a few out there).
    Then it's literally all about perseverence and keeping going (dont switch decks even if you are tempted; if you get bored, take a break and come back refreshed).

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on new 'Complete My Deck' algorithm

    I have been using a deck that was auto-generated for me with Warlock.
    I put in two Kobold Librarians to get it started and it generated a rather cool Zoolock deck - different to any I've played before. (So it's not that heal-zoo version; it's kind of a weird hybrid).
    I gave it a try at rank 5 and after a dozen or so games, I'm pushing rank 3. Woot! It's pretty damn strong. :-)
    The only irritating loss was against an Odd Paladin. He was on 8 health. And my first Soulfire lost a 1/6 RnG and discarded my other Soulfire. Fuuuuuu----!!! 
    Lol!

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Swampqueen Hagatha

    Ok ta :-)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Where is DR BOOM :(
    Quote from Greenwitch >>

    Where is DR BOOM guys :( .......... He's awesome but still not revealed......... any news?

     He's here. And there.... and over there.... and a little bit up there too...

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Swampqueen Hagatha

    nope, it's always a 5-mana 5/5

     Ah thats a shame. Is that stated somewhere?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Swampqueen Hagatha

    Looking at Swampqueen Hagatha; so she creates a 5/5 horror that has 2 preloaded spells attached.
    Is it safe to assume that this works in the same way as the Rexxar DK hero power mechanic?
    You discover 2 spells, and then the minion costs the same as the two spells combined? I can't find anything that details this.
    Could you essentially choose two 0-cost spells and then get a 5/5 minion for 0-mana?

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Had to share this misplay.
    Quote from Trippicus >>

    You’re playing a Murloc deck, so this is obviously not a high ranking game.. these kind of mistakes happen

     I'm a just leave this here...
    https://www.hearthstonetopdecks.com/decks/murloc-warlock-rastakhan-2nd-nerf-93-legend-languagehacker/

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on How do you feel about Legend card back at low ranks ?
    Quote from Bee >>

    what do you think of the players wearing their Legend card back at ranks 20-10 ?

    It personally doesn't concern me but I remember when I started playing a few years ago I would always feel nervous when facing a Legend card back and now I think it's just dumb to use it if you're low rank and looks bad.

    What do you guys think ? Do you care or do you not care ?

    I personally think it's just a pretty back for a card and not sure what the problem is myself. 
    When I first made legend, I proudly displayed it - but that that wore off pretty quickly when I discovered how easy getting legend was after that. Then I forgot it was even there until it got forcibly replaced by the plague thingy. 
    I think it's fine for anyone to use it. I am rank 25 in Wild but still use it. I don't care what my opponent thinks of it. I like it. :-)

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Rock Paper Scissors

    I would disagree on that - take a deck like Rogue Mill (Wild).
    It has two valid ways of winning the game. Forcing the opponent to take fatigue damage, (Typical Control style of play); and burning the opponent's win-condition (Disruption and Interference) - this is very different to a Combo deck which relies on a combination of cards to achieve the win condition. By rights, Rogue Mill should never beat an OTK deck, however this is an exception and disproof of that "rule". Disruption decks do not use a "combo", but rather a selection of cards that synergise around a given mechanic - this is not the same as using a combination of cards. Otherwise you could argue that aggro decks are combo decks because they use a combination of cards that are aggressive and deal damage fast to the opponent. Or that Control decks are combo decks because they use a combination of cards that continually control the board and remove threats easily.
    To me the deck strategy for mill classifies it very differently to either Control or Combo in the pure sense.

    And the same applies to the difference between Tempo, Mid range and Aggro decks. Just because they all rely on dealing damage to the opponent to win does not mean they can be classified as the same archetype. They are each incredibly different.

    However, I don't know if much more can be said on this in fairness - we've both made our points. I assume we may choose to disagree and others can make their own minds up based on the logical arguments given.
    In my mind, the rock-paper-scissors methodology cannot accurately be applied to Hearthstone due to the diversity of the decks and how different each archetype is. I believe there are more than just 3 deck types and because of this, it causes the theory to fail.

     

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Rock Paper Scissors
    Quote from DiamondDM13>>
    Quote from scorpyon>>

     I see. Essentially, since you content that there are some Archtypes that don't fall exactly inside the ones I wrote, it is not as simple as I'm making it out to be. That not true and false.

    Well I think I disagree - but that's just my opinion in any case. :-)

    It is not as simple, correct, but it is still applicable. Any Strategy in the game will assume the roll of either Rock, Paper or Scissors. That strategy will always have a weakness and an advantage. In fact, many. We have a ton of options to play, strategies to use, but the one consistent thing that is maintained, is that any given Strategy you pick, you will always have a set of Strategies that it is advantaged against, and a set of Strategies that it is disadvantaged against.

    The problem with this logic is that it comes undone when you present a 4th option. 
    For example. let's make the assumption that :
    Aggro beats OTK which beats Control which beats Aggro.
    (Basic Rock-Paper-Scissors outcome, agreed?)
    But then we throw Mid-Range into the mix. Let's assume that Mid-range beats Aggro and OTK decks, but loses to Control. Suddenly the Rock Paper Scissors theory doesn't fit. There's a "4th element" to the equation. And then if we add another deck type in like Mill, for example. The equation becomes even more complex. And this is the crux of my point - the Rock Paper Scissors theory only really holds if there were 3 basic archetypes and no more.

    Still, we fit Tempo in Aggro, OTK is obviously Combo, Fatigue is Control. That is also another reason why I didn't make it more explicit. Aggro and Tempo in Hearthstone are almost too similar to tear them apart. Tempo takes the path of restricting the ability of the opponent to fight back on board, while Aggro mostly focuses on Face damage.
    One Turn Kill decks are Combo decks, they simply have a Combo that deals 30+ Damage or Instant Kill with it's Win Condition.
    Fatigue is Control, it simply opts for the Exhaustion win condition rather than overpowering and out-valuing the opponent in the late game.

    We can fit "some" archetypes into others, but it only works so far. There are always more than just 3 base styles of deck.
    I think this is where the core of the discussion might lie. I disagree that Mill is the same as Control. It uses similar tactics, but the goal is different. Control aims to keep the opponent "under control" until they run out of resources / options. 
    But Mill is not just about that - it also relies on disruption of the opponent's game plan. This is why a Mill deck can often beat an OTK deck (by burning it's combo cards) whereas a straight Control deck would almost always lose to a Combo deck. 
    In regards to Tempo and Mid-range. I believe this style of deck (utilising bigger and bigger minions keeping board presence and overwhelming the opponent) is very different to Aggro - flooding the board with small and repeated threats.
    A good example of this is comparing Dragon Priest to Deathrattle Hunter to Odd Paladin.
    These are 3 very different styles of decks. One tempo, one mid-range and one aggro. I wouldn't feel that they could easily be put into the same category as each other with any degree of accuracy personally.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Rock Paper Scissors
    Quote from DiamondDM13>>
    Quote from scorpyon>>

    In principle the logic may appear sound, but I believe it is misleading, since you are making these assertions based upon a biased set of assumptions.
    Mathematically speaking, then of course 3 is always greater than 2. But it's only when we apply modifications to those numbers does that statement become less likely or even factual. 

    Focusing on your question (in so far as I understand it), you are asking for an answer as to which archetypes naturally win against which other ones, yes?
    That would be fine within a straight-forward 3-archetype system, but Hearthstone doesn't fit that pattern. There are more than 3: Aggro, Mid-range, Control, OTK, Fatigue, Tempo, etc etc.
    For this reason, Hearthstone will never fit the Rock-Paper-Scissors trope without adding heavy bias to the equation in order to shoehorn it into the mould. Which I believe makes it too ambiguous to be determined successfully by the possible answers presented in the poll.

     What exactly are the biased set of assumptions? I didn't make any assumption, nor is it biased.

    Mathematically speaking, the number 3 is always greater than 2. It doesn't matter if that is inconvenient to you, it is frustrates you, that doesn't change because you don't like it.

    Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. I don't think I said anywhere that the idea of RPS frustrates me, nor does it cause me any real concern. What I was attempting to explain was that Hearthstone doesn't fit the rigid mould of a Rock Paper Scissors format, because it has more options than that. It is not limited to just 3 archetypes that work in a circular fashion (in the way RPS does). 
    The evidence for this that I presented was in putting forward some of the many varied archetypes that exist within the game. (as mentioned in my quote above)

    The "3 is always greater than 2" point was intended to reflect the argument you put forward about if two decks meet and both have perfect draw and turns, one deck will always win. And the point I was trying to make was that this is like saying 3 is greater than 2 - it's a non-failing argument, because logically one deck will always be stronger than another if given perfect outcomes; but this is a "biased" experiment - the data is "fixed" as it were, so it makes the test flawed. Does that make sense?

    What I wrote is fact, and if you think otherwise, you are free to explain why if you'd like. But I hope you do stay away from mentioning how frustrating it can be, how pointless if feels or how you wish it wasn't this way because you don't like it, I hope you stick to the factual reason you believe I am incorrect.

    As I said, there's no frustration or any kind of annoyance about the idea - mostly because I don't believe it exists in the game. I hope that my above explanation makes this a little clearer (as to my point).

    I am perfectly aware that entering a matchup where my chance of winning is lower than 10% can be extremely frustrating, most people don't enjoy that (I actually enjoy it sometimes), but that doesn't detract from the fact of how the model works for these kinds of games. Reality is, while you don't know what you are going to face when you queue up, it is still your decision what Strategy you decide to play, and whether you made a good decision going with that strategy.

    I don't disagree with any of that - there will always be favoured vs non-favoured match ups. But I don't believe this means that the game follows a strict RPS pattern. There is too much variance and choice available.
    If you'll pardon the comparison - it's a little like Pokemon. One type is always stronger than another, but there may be more than one that beats another thing and in the same way, one thing can sometimes beat many others.

    Does that make my comment any clearer?
    I don't think the choices in the multi-choice question cover all the available scenarios - to me, it seems too oversimplified.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on [Rise of Shadows] What to buy with this budget?
    Quote from I_Feel_Ur_Pain >>

    It clearly says a golden legendary card so yes we get golden one from 80. I know reading is hard for some people and maybe he blind. But come on. 

     I'll never understand why some people feel the need to be a dick and insult people just for asking a simple question or for info, or simply not seeing something somewhere. 
    It takes little effort to simply respond with polite civility in the least. Do better.

    Posted in: General Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Trouble Logging in on Mobile.

    Seems fine for me on iPhone as of 4pm GMT.
    (Assuming any maintenance has now finished)

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