Hearthstone

[DakaSha]

^ lol

It's like when people in MOBAs whine that they got ganked or something, or were killed by the usage of multiple ultis. Yeah, so what? We won.

Lol exactly 'Loser cant even kill me alone need 3. come mid 1v1'
In any case I REALLY am thinking about buying street fighter or king of fighters now :-/

Meh, I hate fighting games. Doesn't make the article less brilliant, though.

Article really is great.

 

[Grunker]

There's even a passage indirectly dedicated to the concept of netdecking:

Many scrubs have strong ties to "innovation." They say "that guy didn't do anything new, so he is no good." Or "person x invented that technique and person y just stole it." Well, person y might be 100 times better than person x, but that doesn't seem to matter. When person y wins the tournament and person x is a forgotten footnote, what will the scrub say? That person y has "no skill" of course.

Anyway, headin' home to eat duck and get fat with the family. Merry christmas to all y'all.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

People are adverse to netdecking? Seriously? The point of a constructed format is to test playing skills, the point of limited is to test deckbuilding skills. That's like, a universally accepted truth in TCGs.

Before the internets, constructed tested deckbuilding as well. It's a half of TCGs that's now lost, like tears in the rain.

Also I'm not surprised to see you on the "complete faggotry" side of an argument again

 

[Grunker]

So what's the right way to play the game according to you herostratus? What restrictions should everybody be imposing on themselves?

Before the internets, constructed tested deckbuilding as well. It's a half of TCGs that's now lost, like tears in the rain.

Not really. Back then, "netdecks" were constructed on the basis of copying the local champion decks. Read Patrick Chapin's "Next Level Magic" and you'll see how that went down. All the web did was democratize and speed up the process, as well as make room for faster development of alternative decks.

Magic: the Gathering has a wider selection of competitive decks in both Modern and Standard right now than it did in Extended and Standard at the spawning of MtG web portals.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

So what's the right way to play the game according to you herostratus? What restrictions should everybody be imposing on themselves?

Before the internets, constructed tested deckbuilding as well. It's a half of TCGs that's now lost, like tears in the rain.

Not really. Back then, "netdecks" were constructed on the basis of copying the local champion decks. Read Patrick Chapin's "Next Level Magic" and you'll see how that went down. All the web did was democratize and speed up the process, as well as make room for faster development of alternative decks.

Magic: the Gathering has a wider selection of competitive decks in both Modern and Standard right now than it did at the spawning of MtG web portals.

I don't think you should necessarily put restrictions on yourself, but I think it is worth to recognize that netdecking is essentially degenerate gameplay. Like, imagine if the Q skill of some game or other invalidated all other strategies. Sure, if you play to win you mash dat sweet Q button and eventually just roll faces. But the game would have been much better if the W E R T T Y U etcetc buttons also were worth pressing.

With netdecking you have the choice to copy a deck that's probably better than yours and think nothing about your own strategies, instead of using all your skillz and creativity to make your own. So we get that sweet netdecking button invalidating all those other strategies and replacing it with a cheap copy paste. It's a pity.

As for that next level magic article I suspect it is written by someone who was always very much into magic and formats and all that, most casual players didn't buy magic magazines I'd wager.

 

[Grunker]

I don't think you should necessarily put restrictions on yourself, but I think it is worth to recognize that netdecking is essentially degenerate gameplay. Like, imagine if the Q skill of some game or other invalidated all other strategies. Sure, if you play to win you mash dat sweet Q button and eventually just roll faces. But the game would have been much better if the W E R T T Y U etcetc buttons also were worth pressing.

My point is, hero, that this is a problem with the game and not with the player. You can't make a shitty, unbalanced game better by self-imposed rules. You can't make it better by calling people who play to win cunts or whatever.

You calling me a complete faggot is pretty rich from the point of view that all I'm arguing for is that we don't fucking larp in competitive modes, i.e. blame people for trying to win.

With netdecking you have the choice to copy a deck that's probably better than yours and think nothing about your own strategies, instead of using all your skillz and creativity to make your own. So we get that sweet netdecking button invalidating all those other strategies and replacing it with a cheap copy paste. It's a pity.

I completely agree. A huge pity. Which is fixed by making a better game. Again, see MtG in its current state. Before the unfortunately misguided buff to Modern Jund, Modern had - what - 10 top tier decks or something? I top 8'ed recently with monoblack fucking discard, and that was after the Jund-craze had begun.

You don't "fix" netdecking by asking people to stop being competitive, you "fix" it by making a diverse meta so that people can't really find the most efficient decks that easily. Look at Standard right now. Pros bring completely different decks because the meta is more about anticipating which strategies to play against than it is about just copying the quote-unquote "best deck" and hoping you can outplay your opponent.

What playing to win is about for me, is placing the "blame" for overpowered bullshit on the game instead of the player. So if you really think the ranked-meta in Hearthstone is so shitty and degenerate, don't fucking blame people trying to win, blame the shitty design.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

I can blame both Q.Q

 

[Grunker]

I've talked about how the expert player is not bound by rules of "honor" or "cheapness" and simply plays to maximize his chances of winning. When he plays against other such players, "game theory" emerges. If the game is a good one, it will become deeper and deeper and more strategic. Poorly designed games will become shallower and shallower. This is the difference between a game that lasts years (StarCraft, Street Fighter) versus one that quickly becomes boring (I won't name any names). The point is that if a game becomes "no fun" at high levels of play, then it's the game's fault, not the player's. Unfortunately, a game becoming less fun because it's poorly designed and you just losing because you're a scrub kind of look alike. You'll have to play some top players and do some soul searching to decide which is which. But if it really is the game's fault, there are plenty of other games that are excellent at a high level of play. For games that truly aren't good at a high level, the only winning move is not to play.

 

[Berekän]

Gotta say I don't understand all the complaints about trying to be competitive in a competitive game. Same with calling easy builds that work "lamer", "cheesy" or whatever you want to call them.

 

[abija]

Grunker, I wasn't complaining about netdecking if you were talking about me. I understand people playing to win and it's 100% the fault of the game if playing to win leads to shit gameplay.
I just got annoyed at seeing 2 very straightforward rogue decks on the same page on a supposedly monocled site, double annoyed by the second one being called pompously "mid game murder deck". That's what you go browse blizzard forums for or you google "retard proof cheap legend deck".

Since you made an analogy with mobas, it's not about someone using Phantom Lancer couple of patches ago but about fags discussing their score when someone told them about PL and the merits of building boots 1 vs boots 2 on it.

 

[DakaSha]

Grunker, I wasn't complaining about netdecking if you were talking about me. I understand people playing to win and it's 100% the fault of the game if playing to win leads to shit gameplay.
I just got annoyed at seeing 2 very straightforward rogue decks on the same page on a supposedly monocled site, double annoyed by the second one being called pompously "mid game murder deck". That's what you go browse blizzard forums for or you google "retard proof cheap legend deck".

Since you made an analogy with mobas, it's not about someone using Phantom Lancer couple of patches ago but about fags discussing their score when someone told them about PL and the merits of building boots 1 vs boots 2 on it.

Is this your round about way of trying to continue the argument without having to actually confront the person you were arguing with? By acting as if you don't know what the other poster is referring to, then going on to explain he things you've thought of in the past 2 hours? Fuck off. If my 'mid game murder deck' vernacular offends you so fucking much then adress me directly, faggot

 

[Grunker]

I have no opinion on that, I guess, abija. My points were directed at Zed and people who agree with him on the points he made concerning netdecking.

 

[abija]

Is this your round about way of trying to continue the argument without having to actually confront the person you were arguing with? By acting as if you don't know what the other poster is referring to, then going on to explain he things you've thought of in the past 2 hours? Fuck off. If my 'mid game murder deck' vernacular offends you so fucking much then adress me directly, faggot

I quoted you like 3 times already? Pretty sure it was obvious enough. Not to mention your first answer where you try to appear elite after posting one of the dumbest shit decks that plague the game and later saying you learned from it.

 

[Aldebaran]

So is the general consensus that you are supposed to immediately concede when they do a turn one/two double northshire cleric play? I run a deck that is primarily removal/secrets and every time that has happened they managed to buff the clerics beyond AoE range, and get amazing card advantage before I could do anything about them. Three health seems ridiculous considering that Hunter's draw engine was nerfed to one health so that every damaging hero ability can kill it.

 

[Gragt]

So is the general consensus that you are supposed to immediately concede […]

To admit defeat is to blaspheme against the Emperor.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hey, they're the priests here, and they're the ones with two Northshire clerics. It is not my fault the Emperor picked sides.

I understand that it is a tempo loss to heal their minions, but when they are drawing two cards each time they heal, they are almost certainly going to find a response to any board control you manage to build up.

 

[Zeriel]

I've beaten priests who had Northshire clerics for huge scads of time and drew half their deck in short order. It really depends on their overall strategy. If their deck is long game (which most priest decks are), early massive card advantage doesn't actually give them much of an edge unless you are panicking and throwing all your cards away to try to combat it.

It would be scary if they were running a quick rush deck with the usual battlecry suspects, but priests don't tend to do that.

 

[1451]

Clerics are not that strong, true terror begins with shadow form and shadow madness. Most classes can eliminate clerics on the second turn with the exception of paladin I think.

 

[DakaSha]

Clerics bothered the shit out of me too but they are just noob traps. After awhile they arent a problem. Balanced card imo

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree that in general they aren't over powered in any way, but some combos with a ridiculous draw can screw you by turn one or two. Not to mention, priests in general aren't very good so they really do deserve the card. I would never advocate balancing a card around the small percentage of games that open like this, but that doesn't change the fact that I have no idea how to respond.

And trust me, I know the power of shadow form. My last arena run was ended by a double shadow forming priest. He used his taunt every time he struck down my subjects with a three damage, two mana, recurring, judgement from the dark masters he served. It also made me really want to build a shadowform deck.

 

[Zeriel]

If you really want to see a turn 1 combo that utterly and completely fucks you, go look at 2X Dust Devil.

 

[Aldebaran]

As a hunter, I could likely deal with that. Arcane shot, explosive trap, luck and a misdirection, even a coin into kill command or deadly shot if worst comes to worst. Mages can arcane missile them, use arcane explosion, use their hero power, or coin into a number of responses. Rogues can coin into a fan of knives, use backstab, their hero power, etc. Many classes have a response to that opening, even coining into something like a silverback patriarch (do people actually run this?) shuts them down provided they don't have earthshock or some other removal. In which case you failed to make the proper sacrifices to the card gods. A number of responses to that opening not only demolish it, but actually put the shaman at a card disadvantage. Sure, chances are that you are taking at least six damage on their turn, but card advantage matters way more than health, and if you survive such a gimmicky opener you have likely outright won the game.

But with a gimmicky northshire cleric opener, very few classes have any response. What can someone do against a 1/5 or 1/4 cleric with a 2/1 friend on turn two? You need to have put a minion down turn one, or there are no responses that don't put you at card disadvantage, realistically.

At least, I have never been able to profitably deal with this combo with my hunter control deck. Perhaps that is just a failing of my deck, but both times it has happened it gave them too much of a card advantage for me to be able to accomplish anything in the late game. Essentially I seem to have to bunker down and hope they don't draw anythingg good. So far that hasn't been a winning strategy.

Although I did get the last priest down to about six health before he pulled some gems out of his ninety five card arsenal and dashed all hopes of victory.

 

[Zeriel]

I think the biggest error people make against clerics is the assumption that they have to deal with it. In a lot of cases priests don't run tons of low level creatures. As a paladin (which, as mentioned, has one of the worst decks to kill the cleric) I've had games where they put out a 1/5, 1/7 cleric and I just waited around for several turns. Clerics are only as good as the special ability, so if they aren't threatening you with anything else, you can just give them no avenue to damage the cleric (play no creatures until you have direct removal, in which case you are making a profitable trade, at least a 1 for 2).

Freaking out over it is exactly what the priest wants you to do.

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps, and normally I would agree. I think the problem is my deck specifically. Too much of my removal hits multiple targets, which is normally a great thing, but against one buff northshire cleric or two of the fiends, it quickly becomes Card Disadvantage: The Video Game. And if I do wait, then the priest has too much removal/mind control by the end of the game for me to succeed. I need to draw out as much as possible through azure drakes and pridemane lions. I don't know if it is worth retooling my deck at all for the few times this happens, but I have yet to see a more abysmally unfortunate opening against my deck.

I guess I shouldn't really complain: by the sounds of things other people at my rank become very frustrated when facing a control deck. I figure I will have to change it once I get into higher ranks since I imagine it becomes too difficult to control the board.

 

[Zeriel]

With a priest, you basically have to choose whether you're going to rush them down or not. I honestly wouldn't reccomend running Control against priests, it's just asking to suffer. Even if you run a perfect mirror of all their best cards (Ragnaros, Ysera, etc), Mind Control means they will always clobber you in a late-game exhaust-all-cards situation, and Thoughtsteal means they will always have more cards in their deck than you anyway. I have beaten a ton of priests in late-game scenarios as a paladin, but it generally shouldn't happen, it's just a case of them using MC poorly.

TLDR: decide what's more important to you, playing Control or beating priests consistently. These days, you can sort of go for a middling ground--pressuring them by mana 8 is fine, since MC is now a very late mana 10 card--but excessive control decks are not gonna work very well against current priest meta.